The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent fired Petitioner due to sex discrimination.
Findings Of Fact In mid-October 1993, Petitioner saw a want ad in the newspaper and called the toll free number contained in the ad. She spoke with Raymond Baker of Respondent. He told her that Respondent performed cleaning services at Gayfers Department Store in Tallahassee. He told her to report to work at 6:30 am the following day. When Petitioner reported to work the following morning, Mr. Baker told her to fill out an application and tax withholding form. After she had done so, he said that she should clean up the beauty salon. At the end of her shift, Mr. Baker inspected the beauty salon and said that she had done a good job. Mr. Baker served as Petitioner's supervisor. This was the only feedback--positive or negative--that Petitioner ever received concerning her work. The next day, Petitioner reported to work at the proper time. Mr. Baker assigned her to clean the lounge and offices. When she started toward these areas, Mr. Baker followed her and said, "I'd sure like to have some." When Petitioner asked him, "Some what?" he responded, "Sex with you." Petitioner ignored Mr. Baker's remark. In the following days, he continued to make sexually derogatory comments toward her. He said he wanted to have sex with her due to her "boobs." Mr. Baker called Petitioner's house nightly, despite the fact that her husband would often answer the telephone. At work, Mr. Baker assigned Petitioner to the dressing rooms, which were dark and isolated. He warned her, "If I ever catch you in a dark area, I will take some." Referring to the length of his penis, he stated, "I have eight and a half inches. If you don't believe it, you can take a ruler and measure it." Mr. Baker constantly brushed against Petitioner's body and often touched her shoulder and buttocks. On November 16, 1993, Mr. Baker called Petitioner at home and said that Respondent was "overbudgeted" and did not need Petitioner anymore. She accepted this explanation until she later learned that Respondent hired two men after she and another female were fired. Mr. Baker was Petitioner's sole supervisor. Although his supervisor occasionally came to the work site, Petitioner did not complain to her because she thought it would have been futile and would have only aggravated Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker sexually harassed other female employees during the same time period in the same manner. Petitioner was earning $4.35 per hour for a 20 hour work week. She remained out of work for two months until she obtained a job paying 40 cents per hour more. Thus, her gross lost wages total $696.00.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order granting the Petition for Relief and ordering Respondent to pay $696 in back wages. ENTERED on November 29, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on November 29, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Mary Bolds P.O. Box 5742 Tallahassee, FL 32314 Dwight Hicks, President H&F Environmental Services, Inc. 2401 South Highway Lynn Haven, FL 32444
The Issue Did Respondent, Jennifer Abadie, R.R.T., violate sections 468.365(1)(q), 468.365(1)(x), 456.072(1)(v), or 456.063(1), Florida Statutes (2018),1/ by committing sexual misconduct?
Findings Of Fact Section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 468, Florida Statutes, charge the Board with regulating the practice of respiratory care in Florida. Ms. Abadie is a licensed registered respiratory therapist in Florida. Ms. Abadie worked for Comprehensive Healthcare of Clearwater (Comprehensive) from October 24, 2017, through February 4, 2018, at its Pinellas County, Florida, location. Comprehensive is a residential rehabilitation and nursing facility. Ms. Abadies’s 89-year-old father was a patient at Comprehensive from before she started working there until his death. He suffered from dementia. Ms. Abadie visited her father frequently, before and after her shifts and when she was not working. G.B. was a severely ill patient at Comprehensive trying to recover from multiple strokes. G.B. was only 56 years old. However, he had extensive medical conditions. They included hypertension, congestive heart failure, fibromyalgia, diabetes, blindness and end-stage renal (kidney) disease. G.B. received dialysis three times a week for his kidney disorder. He took dozens of medications daily. G.B. also had a tracheostomy. A tracheostomy is a tube that goes into the trachea to help people with impaired breathing breathe. The heavy treatment load weighed on G.B. psychologically and caused him anxiety and depression. Ms. Abadie provided respiratory therapy services to G.B. G.B. recognized Ms. Abadie from an earlier time when she worked at Florida Hospital where he had been a patient. He reminded her of that time and established a friendship with her. Over time, the friendship grew closer. As a result of their friendship and Ms. Abadie's compassion for G.B., Ms. Abadie and G.B. spoke regularly. When Ms. Abadie visited her father, she usually checked on G.B. He and Ms. Abadie talked about the range of subjects that acquaintances talk about including families, children, marital status, holiday plans, and day-to-day lives. They spoke regularly by telephone as well as in person. Although they spoke regularly, Ms. Abadie and G.B. did not always speak at length. Sometimes she just waved and poked her head in to say hello. At G.B.'s request, Ms. Abadie brought him items from outside the facility, such as toiletries and a blanket. G.B. grew very fond of Ms. Abadie and wanted her as his girlfriend and eventually his wife. Ms. Abadie did not encourage or reciprocate these feelings or intentions. Lisa Isabelle was G.B.'s only other visitor. G.B. was a friend of her husband. She had known G.B. for most of their lives. Ms. Isabelle rented G.B. a residence on her property. Ms. Isabelle described her relationship with G.B. as "love-hate." Ms. Isabelle held a durable power of attorney for G.B. His family lived out of town and decided it would be good for somebody local to hold the power of attorney. On Sunday, February 4, 2018, Ms. Abadie came to Comprehensive to visit her father. She wanted to watch the Eagles play in the Super Bowl with him. Their family is from Philadelphia. Ms. Abadie stopped at G.B.'s room first. Charity Forest, L.P.N., was on-duty that day. G.B. was one of her patients. Towards the end of the first of her two shifts, Ms. Forest noticed that the curtain by G.B.’s bed was pulled halfway around his bed, which was unusual. The door was open. Ms. Forest entered G.B.’s room and looked around the curtain. She saw G.B. and Ms. Abadie sitting on the bed, on top of the covers. The head of the bed was raised about 45 degrees to provide a backrest. G.B. was wearing long pajama pants but not wearing a shirt. Ms. Abadie was wearing jean shorts, a T-shirt, and Keds®. Ms. Abadie was resting her feet on her iPad® so she would not dirty the covers. G.B. and Ms. Abadie were not touching each other. They were talking, watching television, and looking at pictures on Ms. Abadie's telephone. The room was a two-bed room. There was a patient in the other bed. Ms. Forest thought that the two sitting on the bed was inappropriate and left in search of her supervisor. Ms. Forest could not locate her supervisor. But she met another L.P.N., Ruth Schneck. Ms. Forest told Ms. Schneck what she had observed. Ms. Schneck went to G.B.'s room. The door was open. Ms. Schneck briefly entered the room. G.B. and Ms. Abadie were still sitting on the bed. Ms. Schneck left immediately, closing the door behind her. She joined the search for the supervisor. Neither Ms. Schneck nor Ms. Forest could locate the supervisor. While looking for the supervisor, Ms. Forest and Ms. Schneck encountered Sean Flynn, L.P.N. They told him what they had seen. Mr. Flynn was a licensed practical nurse and a case manager at Comprehensive. He had come to the facility briefly that day in order to take care of some paperwork. After talking to Ms. Forest and Ms. Schneck, Mr. Flynn went to G.B.’s room and opened the door. Ms. Abadie and G.B. were sitting on the edge of the bed facing the door. Mr. Flynn asked them if anything was going on. They said no. Mr. Flynn left the room and called Nicole Lawlor, Comprehensive's Chief Executive Officer. Ms. Lawlor told Mr. Flynn to return to G.B.'s room, instruct Ms. Abadie to leave, and tell her that she would be suspended pending an investigation. He returned to G.B.'s room with Ms. Forest and Ms. Schneck. G.B. and Ms. Abadie were still sitting on the bed. Mr. Flynn asked Ms. Abadie to step outside. She did. G.B. soon followed in his wheelchair. Mr. Flynn told Ms. Abadie that she was suspended and had to leave. G.B. overheard this and became very upset and aggressive. He insisted that Ms. Abadie was his girlfriend and that he wanted her to stay. Ms. Abadie asked to visit her father before she left. Mr. Flynn agreed. Ms. Abadie visited her father for a couple of hours. Ms. Abadie also called Ms. Isabelle to tell her that Mr. Flynn asked her to leave and that G.B. was very upset. After Ms. Abadie's departure, G.B. became increasingly upset and loud. His behavior escalated to slamming doors and throwing objects. Comprehensive employees decided G.B. was a danger to himself and others and had him involuntarily committed under Florida's Baker Act at Mease Dunedin Hospital. On her way home, Ms. Abadie received a telephone call offering her full-time employment at Lakeland Regional Hospital. February 4, 2018, at 6:08 p.m., Ms. Abadie submitted her resignation from Comprehensive in an e-mail to Ms. Lawlor. Ms. Abadie's only patient/caregiver relationship with G.B. was through her employment with Comprehensive. As of 6:08 p.m. on February 4, 2018, G.B. was not a patient of Ms. Abadie. She no longer had a professional relationship with him. Ms. Lawlor suspended Ms. Abadie on February 4, 2018. She based her decision on the information that Ms. Forest, Ms. Schneck, and Mr. Flynn told her, not all of which is persuasively established or found as fact in this proceeding. Still, Ms. Lawlor's memorandum suspending Ms. Abadie reveals that the nature of G.B.'s relationship with Ms. Abadie and the events of February 4, 2018, were not sexual. Ms. Lawlor's Employee Memorandum suspending Ms. Abadie does not identify a state or institution rule violated in the part of the form calling for one. She wrote "Flagrant violation of code of conduct." The description in the "Nature of Infraction" section of the form reads, "Employee was found cuddling in bed with a resident during her time off." There is no mention of sex, breasts, genitalia, or sexual language. None of the varying and sometimes inconsistent accounts of the day mention touching or exposure of breasts, buttocks, or genitalia. None of the accounts describes or even alludes to sex acts or statements about sex. The only kiss reported is a kiss on the cheek that G.B. reportedly forced upon Ms. Abadie as she was leaving. The deposition testimony of the Board's "expert," offers many statements showing that what the Board complains of might be called "inappropriate" or a "boundary violation" but does not amount to sexual misconduct. He testified about the strain a patient expressing romantic feelings toward a therapist puts on the professional relationship. He says the professional should tell the patient that the statements are inappropriate. The witness says that if the patient starts expressing the romantic feelings by touching the therapist, the therapist must tell the patient that his behavior is inappropriate and begin recording the events for the therapist's protection so that "no inappropriate allegations are made later." (Jt. Ex. 3, p. 3). Asked his opinion about allegations that Ms. Abadie was laying on G.B.'s bed, the witness says the behavior "crossed a professional boundary" and that he was not aware of the "behavior being appropriate in any situation." (Jt. Ex. 3, p. 16). The witness acknowledged that a hug is not inherently sexual. (Jt. Ex. 3, pp. 24 & 30). In addition, the training and experience of the witness do not qualify him as someone whose opinion should be entitled to significant weight. Among other things, he has never written about, lectured about, or testified to an opinion about sexual misconduct. Had the deposition not been offered without objection, whether the testimony would have been admissible is a fair question. § 90.702, Fla. Stat. After February 4, 2018, Ms. Abadie attempted to continue her friendship with G.B. by telephone calls and visits. However, Comprehensive refused for several weeks, against G.B.'s wishes, to allow Ms. Abadie to visit G.B. and would only permit Ms. Abadie brief, supervised visits with her father. G.B. was very upset by Comprehensive's prohibition of visits from Ms. Abadie. He began refusing food and treatment, including medications and dialysis. G.B.'s condition deteriorated to the point that he was admitted to hospice care. At that point, on February 24, 2018, Comprehensive contacted Ms. Abadie and gave her permission to visit G.B and lifted restrictions on visiting her father. A February 27, 2018, e-mail from Shelly Wise, Director of Nursing, confirmed this and admitted that the Agency for Health Care Administration had advised that G.B.'s right as a resident to visitors trumped Comprehensive's concerns. Ms. Abadie resumed visiting her friend, G.B. On May 21, 2018, G.B. passed away. G.B. was a lonely, mortally ill man. He initiated a friendship with Ms. Abadie that she reciprocated. Ultimately, he developed unfounded feelings about her being his girlfriend and them having a future together. The clear and convincing evidence does not prove that the relationship was more than a friendship or that it was sexual in any way.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Mary A. Iglehart, Esquire Christina Arzillo Shideler, Esquire Florida Department of Health Prosecution Services Unit 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 For Respondent: Kennan George Dandar, Esquire Dandar & Dandar, P.A. Post Office Box 24597 Tampa, Florida 33623
Recommendation Based on the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Respiratory Care, dismiss the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of July, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of July, 2019.
The Issue At issue is whether Jeffrey Alshin is subject to discipline for violation of Section 490.009(2)(k), Florida Statutes (1983), by committing an act upon a client which would constitute sexual battery or sexual misconduct as defined in Section 490.0111, Florida Statutes (1983). Sexual misconduct in the practice of mental health counseling is prohibited by Section 490.0111, Florida Statutes (1983); that statute states that sexual misconduct shall be defined by rule. According to the Administrative Complaint, Rule 21U-15.04, Florida Administrative Code, defines sexual misconduct. The Administrative Complaint also alleges a violation of Section 490.009(2)(s), Florida Statutes (1983), for failing to meet minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. The factual basis for these various grounds for discipline is alleged to have been engaging in sexual activity with a client during the period March, 1984, through July 1984, when a counselor-client relationship existed with the client.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jeffrey R. Alshin, is a mental health counselor who has been licensed by the State of Florida during the times material to the allegations made in the Administrative Complaint. The client with whom Alshin is accused of sexual involvement, J.S., was referred to him by a Dr. Lemberg, who saw J.S. on March 1, 1984 (Tr. 24). J.S. telephoned Alshin's office and made an appointment to see him on Monday, March 5, 1984 (Tr. 24). On March 5, 1984, J.S. went to Alshin's office for a therapy session and met Alshin for the first time. She had another session with him on March 9, 1984 (Tr. 24-25). From March 5, 1984 a counselor-client relationship existed between Alshin and J.S. (Tr. 82). On the morning of Sunday, March 11, 1986, Alshin invited J.S. to his home for a barbecue (Tr. 26). After the barbecue, Alshin and J.S. went to Respondent's apartment and that evening they engaged in sexual intercourse (Tr. 27-28). Alshin engaged in sexual intercourse with his client on five other occasions between March and June, 1984 (Tr. 29). During the period in which Alshin and J.S. were sexually involved, Alshin was counseling J.S. (Tr. 28-29). Alshin was never married to J.S. Expert testimony submitted at the hearing establishes that for a mental health counselor to have a sexual relationship with a client is conduct which falls below the minimum standards of performance in professional activities for a mental health counselor when measured against prevailing peer performance (Tr. 80).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Secretary of the Department of Professional Regulation finding the Respondent guilty of a violation of Sections 490.009(2)(q) and (s), Florida Statutes (1983), and that his license as a mental health counselor be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of November, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1986.
The Issue Whether Respondent Employer has committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner by discrimination against her on the basis of race, sex, handicap, or retaliation, in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Negro female. As of March 12, 2003, she was rated by the Veterans’ Administration (VA) as having a 30 percent disability, due to a knee injury which occurred while she was on active military duty. (Petitioner’s unrefuted testimony and Exhibit P-37.) Petitioner specifically has alleged “sexual harassment,” “hostile work environment,” racial discrimination, retaliation, disparate treatment, and that she was denied a reasonable accommodation for her alleged knee “handicap.” Her “disparate treatment” allegation was presented in two respects: (1) that employees outside Petitioner’s protected racial class were not disciplined as harshly as Petitioner; and (2) that because Petitioner had worked for Respondent Employer for more than twelve months’ total, the State of Florida career service rules do not support her being terminated as a “probationary employee” from the position to which she was promoted and in which she had worked for less than twelve months at the time of her termination. Petitioner was first employed by Respondent Employer on November 15, 2002, at St. Lucie Regional Juvenile Detention Center in the position of Juvenile Detention Officer (JDO). After completing her twelve months’ probation in that position, Petitioner attained permanent State of Florida career service status. This meant that Petitioner was considered a permanent State of Florida employee, but it did not mean, as she has asserted, that she did not have to undergo a twelve months’ probationary period in each career service promotional position, if and when she attained one, or that she could never be terminated for cause. (See Conclusions of Law.) On September 10, 2003, at Petitioner's request, she was transferred from St. Lucie Regional Juvenile Detention Center to a vacant JDO position at Alachua Regional Juvenile Detention Center (ARJDC or “the facility”). This transfer permitted her to pursue a higher education at Santa Fe Community College (SFCC) in Gainesville, via her VA benefits, while being employed fulltime. When she transferred, Petitioner prepared a memo to all her supervisors at ARJDC stating that she needed to work the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift so she could attend college classes in the mornings. However, at no time did the Employer guarantee that Petitioner would always be assigned to that shift. (P-35) At all times material, Petitioner was a single parent, working full time, and taking college classes. As a single parent, she was the sole support of her child. Because she was going to college pursuant to VA guidelines, she had to attend her classes and successfully complete them in order to continue to receive VA tuition and assistance. At all times material, Jill Bessette (Caucasian female) was employed in the position of ARJDC’s superintendent. As such, she was responsible for the overall functioning and operations at ARJDC, and for ensuring the safety and security of that facility’s juveniles and staff. Bessette relied on the facility's two assistant superintendents, Patricia Newman (Caucasian female) and Charles Parkins (Caucasian male), to assist her. Newman and Parkins oversaw daily operations, attended to personnel matters, and provided direct supervision of staff. In so doing, they regularly made written and oral reports to Bessette. On February 13, 2004, as a result of good reports about Petitioner's performance as a JDO at the facility, Bessette promoted Petitioner to the position of Senior Juvenile Detention Officer (SJDO). (P-17). On or about February 23, 2004, Petitioner complained to her superiors about Douglas Singleton (male) evaluating her, because she felt he had not observed her often enough. She was also rated by a female officer, Cohen, and wanted Cohen’s rating retained. This may have been a departmental career service or a union grievance, but it appears to have had no discrimination overtones. (See Findings of Fact 31 and 34.) Assistant Superintendent Parkins, who was Petitioner’s direct line senior supervisor, denied Petitioner’s grievance about her rating as untimely, but Petitioner did not demonstrate any specific negative personnel action resulting directly from Singleton’s evaluation. There is no evidence that this rating reflected that Petitioner was ever tardy or had unexcused absences. (P- 24, 25). After her termination in September 2004, Petitioner wrote the Governor stating that she had complained to Parkins in March 2004, about his attempt to switch her to a shift which would have interfered with her college classes and that Parkins was hostile about her going to college (P-36), but at hearing she presented no credible evidence that such an attempt by Parkins had ever occurred or that she had ever complained to anyone about such an attempt prior to her termination. Additionally, Petitioner was consistently assigned to the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift she had requested until September 2004. (See Findings of Fact 31-35, 55, and 75, and Conclusion of Law 81.) In late February 2004, Petitioner complained because Newman, the assistant superintendent most concerned with timesheets, had inquired of a middle-level supervisor why Petitioner had been absent on a specific day. The testimony about this incident is so sparse, disjointed, and inconclusive that the undersigned cannot determine whether Petitioner also filed any type of grievance about Newman’s inquiry, but again, Petitioner’s complaint does not seem to have had anything to do with discrimination. (See Findings of Fact 31, 34.) In any case, Newman was apparently satisfied when informed by Cohen that Petitioner had been on pre-approved leave, and Petitioner did not suffer any detrimental personnel action specifically as a result of Newman’s inquiry. (Cf. Findings of Fact 74-75.) During the first week of April 2004, Petitioner tendered a letter of resignation to Bessette, which Bessette reluctantly accepted. Bessette testified that the only reasons Petitioner gave for this resignation were personal ones unrelated to discrimination. Petitioner did not testify otherwise. A short time later, Petitioner reconsidered her decision, and Bessette accepted Petitioner’s rescission of her resignation in such a way that Petitioner suffered no lapse in her career service. (R-5). From April 13, through July 25, 2004, Bessette took extended medical leave. During Bessette's absence, Assistant Superintendent Charles Parkins assumed the role of “Acting Superintendent.” At all times material, Shirley Edmond (Negro female) and Bruce Perry (Negro male) were employed by ARJDC as middle level supervisors. They supervised the JDOs and SJDOs assigned to their shift(s). At ARJDC, there are three shifts around the clock. SJDOs and JDOs at the facility are assigned to work shifts. In order to maintain an appropriate minimum correctional officer- to-juvenile detainee ratio, and in order to ensure the safety and security of staff, juveniles, and the community, SJDOs and JDOs are subject to having their shift assignment rotated or changed. Also in order to prevent the facility from operating below minimum staffing levels, JDOs and SJDOs may be required to “holdover” or continue working into the next shift when asked to do so as a result of on-coming staff members’ tardiness or absence. As a result of minimum staffing level requirements, ARJDC's operating procedures address the issue of tardiness and identify three instances of tardiness in any rolling 90-day period as “excessive.” (R-17). ARJDC’s operating procedures also address absenteeism. The required procedure for “calling in sick” requires employees seeking approved leave to contact the on-duty officer or acting supervisor at least two hours in advance of the employee’s report time, and further requires that thereafter, the employee also speak to the shift supervisor and discuss the employee's return-to-work date. Medical verification may be required by the Employer for absences in excess of three consecutive days. (R-17). Upon her hire, and again in June 2004, Petitioner was made aware of, and was provided with, a copy of the Employer’s policies and procedures with regard to absenteeism and tardiness. (R-3, 19). From May through June or early July 2004, Petitioner, Perry, and Edmond all worked the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. During these months, both Perry and Edmond observed that Petitioner frequently arrived late for her shift, that is: more than one minute after 11:00 p.m., which is the grace period allowed by the facility’s policies and procedures. (R-17). On one occasion, Perry spoke to Petitioner about her tardiness. Petitioner attributed her tardiness to problems with her babysitter. At all times material, Petitioner was aware of the Employer’s policy against, and procedures for reporting, discrimination or sexual harassment. These procedures are given in numbered paragraphs, but are not referred to as “steps.” They permit Petitioner to involve the internal EEOC officer and the Employer’s hierarchy outside the facility. (R-4). On June 25, 2004, while he was her shift supervisor, Bruce Perry wrote Petitioner a counseling memo concerning her tardiness on June 1 and 25. She received the memo on July 13, 2004. (P-15). Shirley Edmond testified that July 22, 2004, Petitioner threatened her as set out in greater detail in Findings of Fact 68-72 infra, concerning Bruce Perry’s counseling memo. On or about July 16, 2004, Petitioner filed what was described as a “departmental grievance” against Perry’s counseling memo(s).2/ This grievance could have been brought pursuant to a union collective bargaining agreement or pursuant to Section 110.227(4), Florida Statutes. However, that statute provides a "two-step" grievance procedure only for career service employees who are no longer on probation in their current position, and it excludes consideration of both "discrimination" and "sexual harassment" issues, which are supposed to proceed through superiors and the EEOC officer. Due to her probationary status as SJDO, Petitioner would have been ineligible to pursue the statutory grievance. In any case, her grievance did not raise issues of sexual discrimination or sexual harassment (P-38), nor was it directed to an internal EEOC officer. On or about July 17, 2004, Petitioner sent an e-mail letter outside the facility to the Assistant Superintendent for Detention Services, Perry Turner. Respondent's discrimination and sexual harassment procedures permitted this. However, in the e-mail Petitioner complained in general terms that she was experiencing problems getting facility personnel, particularly Charles Parkins, to follow all the "steps," in appropriate sequence, of established grievance procedures. (P-39). Turner, who oversees all detention facilities and services statewide, and whose office is in Tallahassee, delegated responsibility for investigating Petitioner's complaint to Operations Manager Richard Bedson, who supervises all of the detention branches’ support services. Mr. Bedson had recommended Petitioner for her promotion to SJDO and for a raise in connection therewith, but they did not know each other. (P-17). He was not housed in her facility. He was entirely independent from ARJDC staff. On July 19, 2004, Perry rescinded his counseling memo to Petitioner (P-12), because it had been shown to Parkins that Perry was not on the same shift with Petitioner on June 25, 2004 (P-13), and/or that on June 25, 2004, or the other date cited in Perry’s memo (June 1, 2004), Petitioner had prior permission from a different supervisor to “back down” her hours so as to legitimately arrive late for her shift (P-39). Perry’s testimony herein confirmed that for one of the days cited in his counseling memo, he had relied on someone else’s observation of Petitioner’s tardiness, and that he, himself, had not seen that particular tardy arrival. In any case, a counseling memo is not considered a disciplinary memo, and Perry’s memo stated that fact. (P-15). A counseling memo does not begin the three-tier progressive discipline that could lead to termination of a permanent employee for cause, and Perry’s counseling memo was rescinded, anyway. Petitioner acknowledged that the offending memo was rescinded after she complained about it. Despite the happy outcome for Petitioner of her grievance about Perry’s counseling memo, Petitioner claimed at hearing that everything that happened to her after February 2004, was the result of Parkins’ retaliation against her for filing the first evaluation grievance which Parkins had ruled was untimely (see P-12, 14, and Finding of Fact 10) and/or because Parkins and Perry were retaliating against her for grieving Perry’s alleged sexual harassment of her. At hearing, Petitioner testified that from late May 2004 to June or July 2004, Bruce Perry made suggestive remarks to her about her lips and buttocks; made comments designed to make others infer that Petitioner and Perry were sexually involved; put his hands on her shoulders; and rubbed his privates in her presence. She claimed that she rejected Perry and reported these unsavory and harassing activities to superiors Parkins (male), Singleton (male), Smith (female), and Cohen (female), and that thereafter, Perry created a hostile and retaliatory workplace for her. She also related that Freda Smith, a middle level supervisor, had promised to report Petitioner’s complaint of sexual harassment by Perry to Parkins. None of the foregoing supervisors Petitioner named corroborated that Petitioner had reported any sexual incident with Perry to them. Of the supervisors Petitioner named, only Parkins actually testified, and he denied that either Petitioner or Freda Smith, on Petitioner’s behalf, had made any such report to him. (R-20). Bruce Perry denied in writing, when the issue was first raised after Petitioner’s termination, and in his testimony herein that he had committed any of the acts of which Petitioner accused him. (R-7). Interestingly enough, although Parkins and Perry both denied any knowledge of Petitioner reporting Perry to Parkins, Petitioner personally testified that when she had reported Perry to Parkins, Parkins removed her from the area physically near Perry and later removed Perry from her shift altogether, so as to separate them. Perry confirmed that he only worked with Petitioner "a couple months" until he was removed from her 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. When, precisely, Perry was removed from that shift is not clear on this record. Petitioner testified that she needed larger pants for her correctional officer’s uniform, to accommodate the knee brace she sometimes needed to wear for her prior military injury, and that Perry had remarked that her pants were all right, in connection with his comments about her buttocks. Perry denied making any suggestive remarks. No other witness noticed a problem with Petitioner’s uniform pants or that Petitioner was in any manner unable to do her job, due to her knee or for any other reason, until she had a shoulder injury on August 4, 2004, as described infra. However, Petitioner testified that Parkins told her to get a doctor’s note stating that she needed the knee brace. Petitioner had admitted in evidence such a note from her doctor dated July 21, 2004, on which she had printed a note to Parkins requesting larger uniform pants and stating she had spoken to Parkins about the larger pants a month before July 21, 2004. This note said nothing about Perry or his alleged sexual comments. (P-11). Petitioner's testimony is not entirely clear as to whether she believed that Parkins refused her request for larger uniform pants, or just ignored it, but since she admitted that she slipped the note under Parkins’ office door when she was told by another supervisor that Parkins would not be in, her delivery system may have failed to get her doctor’s note to Parkins. Parkins testified that he recalled no requests, either oral or written, for bigger uniform pants, but if he had received such a request he would merely have passed it on to the person who was in charge of ordering/issuing property on a regular basis. It is probable the property officer only worked a standard day shift, while Petitioner worked the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. On July 25, 2004, Bessette returned and resumed her duties as superintendent of ARJDC. Bessette testified that she knew nothing of any sexual harassment allegations until after Petitioner was terminated in September 2004, and the evidence as a whole shows that Petitioner first approached internal and external EEOC officers about sexual harassment only after she was terminated. (R-7, P-26,36) Moreover, in late July, Petitioner had every opportunity to speak to the Employer’s non-facility personnel to resolve any alleged “sexual harassment,” “hostile work environment,” racial discrimination, retaliation, disparate treatment, or problems concerning being denied a reasonable accommodation for her alleged knee “handicap,” but she did not do so. In late July, Operations Manager Richard Bedson telephoned Petitioner at the facility and asked if he could speak to her about the concerns she had expressed in her letter to Assistant Superintendent for Detention Services, Perry Turner. (See Finding of Fact 26.) Petitioner refused to speak to Bedson over the phone about her e-mail to Turner or her concerns, stating she did not know who Bedson was and she was not going to speak to him unless someone else on the phone vouched for him. Bedson then arranged to meet with Petitioner, personally. (P-39). Discrimination investigations, particularly those involving sexual matters, are best begun by a discreet meeting between the investigator and the complainant alone, but Petitioner had not told Mr. Bedson what her problems were, and her memos had referred to “step” grievance procedures which are a union device. The use of the word "step" could also have referenced the Section 110.227(4) procedure which, by its nature, could not deal with "discrimination" or "sexual harassment." (See Finding of Fact 25.) Petitioner also had declined, via e-mail, to come to Bedson's office in another city unless she received per diem travel pay, and had stated that she preferred to meet at ARJDC. (P-39). Therefore, Bedson held a meeting on July 30, 2004, with Petitioner, Bessett, Parkins, and Petitioner's union representative, Mr. Reeves, who is a teacher from outside the facility. Bedson chaired the meeting and asked Petitioner to relate her concerns regarding her treatment at ARJDC. At no time during the July 30, 2004, meeting did Petitioner indicate she was being, or had been, sexually harassed; that she or anyone else was the subject of any type of disparate or preferential treatment; or that she had a knee injury that was not being accommodated. She did not state that she was entitled to preferential treatment by virtue of being a veteran. She did orally accuse Parkins of practicing undefined retaliation against her. However, she refused to discuss anything more and stated she would put her concerns in writing. Bedson informed Petitioner that he would request that an investigator meet with her as quickly as possible so that an investigation could occur. He then concluded the meeting. After this meeting, Bedson telephoned Operations Management Consultant II James Darbin Graham, who is assigned to Respondent Department’s North Region Office. He directed Graham to meet with ARJDC staff and Petitioner to determine what Petitioner’s concerns were and to conduct an investigation as necessary. Bedson recounted to Graham his earlier meeting with Petitioner, her prior e-mail, her general allegation of "retaliation" by Parkins, and her refusal to provide any further explanation. On August 4, 2004, while working the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift, Petitioner injured her shoulder opening a door. She left the facility for the hospital. After treatment at the hospital, she returned to the facility at approximately 5:00 a.m. with hospital paperwork for facility administrators so that she could obtain workers' compensation benefits, including medical care, disability pay, and leave. On this same morning, Graham arrived, unannounced, at the facility at approximately 6:00 a.m. to meet with Petitioner. He was advised that she had left for the hospital, but then he spotted her in the ARJDC lobby. Petitioner was wearing a hospital gown, and her arm was in a sling. Graham introduced himself to Petitioner and advised that he needed to speak to her. Petitioner refused to speak to him, stating she was on medication and that he would have to make an appointment so that she could have her union representative at the meeting when she was not feeling the effects of the medication. In order to be able to arrange such a meeting, Graham advised Parkins that he needed to speak with Petitioner upon her return to work from medical leave. From August 4, 2004 onward, Parkins did not arrange such a meeting or notify Graham when such a meeting could occur. Graham concluded this was because of Petitioner’s extended absence and subsequent termination, effective September 8, 2004. As a result of her on-the-job shoulder injury, Petitioner was immediately placed on workers’ compensation leave. The parties agree that Petitioner was entitled to all workers’ compensation benefits, including medical care, leave, and pay, from August 4, through August 10, 2004. It is the two periods of August 10, to August 19, 2004, and August 20, to September 8, 2004, that drive this case. Assistant Superintendent Newman maintains and processes paperwork related to workers' compensation for the facility. On August 10, 2004, Petitioner’s medical physician released Petitioner to return to work with the following restrictions and medications: Employee is to avoid all use of affected arm. . . . Avoid lifting, reaching, grasping with right arm only. Physical therapy ordered. Stop percocet and discontinue sling. The following medication(s) has (have) been prescribed: Naproxen . . . Effects include . . . dizziness Metaxalone . . . May cause drowsiness Cyclobenzaprine . . . common side effects include drowsiness, decreased judgment, . . . blurred vision . . . caution should be exercised when driving or operating dangerous equipment Tramadol . . . May cause sedation . . . Use caution when driving or operating dangerous machinery. (Emphasis supplied) (R-2). Petitioner received a copy of the foregoing document, as quoted supra. It is probable that the Employer’s independent workers’ compensation contract carrier, “Covel”, also received a copy, but there is no evidence this detailed document was presented to anyone at ARJDC. However, ARJDC was made aware of its medical restrictions on use of Petitioner’s arm. “Master Control” is the only light duty available at ARJDC. It has always been used for situations such as Petitioner’s, and is the only “accommodation” Respondent has available. Master Control is a desk assignment away from juvenile detainees, which requires only monitoring cameras, answering telephones, and pushing buttons, but which has no potential for strenuous restraint of, or harm from, detainees. Petitioner was advised on August 10, 2004, that the facility could accommodate her doctor's restrictions of modified duty by assigning her to Master Control. However, Petitioner did not report to work for nine more days, or until August 19, 2004.3/ Petitioner also did not obtain authorization for her absence August 10-19, 2004, using the methods required by the Employer’s policies and procedures. (See Findings of Fact 16- 18.) Instead, Petitioner reached Parkins by telephone on August 10, 2005, and told him that her medications were making her too drowsy and dizzy to drive. Parkins took what Petitioner told him at face value. He was concerned about Petitioner’s safety and the Employer’s liability. He told her not to come to work until she could drive or could see her doctor. Petitioner followed up on their conversation by faxing Parkins, that same day, a written explanation that she was on four medications and that three out of the four medications, which she did not name, were causing her symptoms. (P-34). Petitioner’s next doctor’s appointment was not until August 19, 2004, so she did not report to work until after that appointment. Although her physical restrictions diminished over time, from August 4, 2004, until October 20, 2004, Petitioner’s workers’ compensation physician continued to prescribe one or more medications for Petitioner which could have rendered her dizzy or drowsy. (P-10, 32). However, there is no evidence this information was sent to ARJDC, even though it probably was sent to the independent workers’ compensation contract carrier, Covel. Petitioner did not work the full 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift in Master Control on August 20, 2004. Upon her placement in Master Control early, at about 10:30 p.m., on August 19, Petitioner immediately complained of pain in her shoulder and drowsiness from her medications. After she was observed with her head on the table, she was sent home by her supervisor. She had been present on the jobsite about an hour. Petitioner called in on August 21, 2004, at midnight (an hour after she was due to report for her shift), to say she had just awakened, was in a lot of pain, and would not be reporting to work. Petitioner did not follow proper procedures in reporting this absence. (See Findings of Fact 16-18.) Petitioner's regular days off work fell on August 22, and 23, 2004. On August 24, 2004, Petitioner still did not report to work and did not call the facility, as required by Respondent’s policies and procedures. On August 24, 2004, Assistant Superintendent Newman received a call from Julie Bumgardner of Covel, who wanted to be sure that the facility was accommodating Petitioner’s workers’ compensation shoulder injury with an appropriately restricted work assignment. When Newman indicated that Petitioner continued to be absent due to drowsiness associated with her medication, Bumgardner advised Newman that the medications Petitioner was currently prescribed for her workers' compensation injury did not contain narcotics to make her drowsy and Petitioner should have returned to work on August 10, 2004, with the accommodation for her arm as previously stated. Bumgardner faxed Newman either an incomplete copy of the August 10, 2004, physician's order, which did not mention the four drugs which could have been making Petitioner dizzy or drowsy between August 10-19, 2004, but which did say to discontinue percoset, and/or a separate document showing that the narcotic percocet had been discontinued by the physician on August 10, 2004, and which listed the other four drugs, but not their side effects. (R-8). As a result of this incomplete and therefore misleading information, Newman and Bumgardner concurred that any of Petitioner’s absences after August 10, 2004, should be charged against Petitioner’s accrued sick and annual leave and should not be categorized as workers’ compensation leave. Petitioner was credited with working eight hours on August 25 and eight hours on August 26, 2004. On August 26, 2004, Newman wrote a memo to Petitioner advising her that effective Friday, September 10, 2004, Petitioner was being temporarily reassigned to the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift in Master Control. The memo explained to Petitioner that Newman's purpose in this reassignment was to further accommodate Petitioner by assigning her to Master Control during the day shift when another employee, also assigned to this same station, could assist Petitioner if Petitioner needed assistance. By writing the memo on August 26, and not making the assignment change effective until September 10, Newman intended to give the customary two weeks’ notice so that Petitioner could arrange her personal life to fit the change of shift. When she wrote this memo, Newman should have, but did not, realize that Petitioner was taking morning classes. When she received this memo on August 26, 2004, Petitioner believed that she was entitled to never be reassigned to a shift that did not accommodate her college classes. She refused to sign, acknowledging receipt of the memo. Petitioner wrote the following on the bottom of Newman’s memo: I am confused about this letter because of the last letter I received from D.S. Bessette. I cannot sign this at this time. You must have me confused with SJDO L. Green. She’s the one with the shift ch[ange].(R-10) In her routine review of employee timesheets, Newman had noted that Petitioner had not signed her timesheet covering August 13, 2004, through August 26, 2004, and that Petitioner had claimed “leave without pay: code 60”, signifying that she expected to receive workers’ compensation disability pay and not be docked any sick or annual leave for that period of time. On August 27, 2004, Newman issued a memo to Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Wilcox, requesting that Wilcox address with Petitioner the incorrect coding Petitioner had written into her timesheet covering the dates of August 13, through August 26, 2004. (P-33). Ms. Newman also wrote across Petitioner’s first timesheet (see Finding of Fact 57), in red ink, advising Petitioner: Ms. Francis you need to recode your leave to 52-sick and resubmit w/ signature. According to your doctor’s note you should have assumed work duties on the 10th of August. (R-12) Workers’ compensation pay does not begin until a specified time after the compensable accident. Many employers, including this one, have an elaborate system in place to pay an employee full salary and adjust leave categories of accrued sick and annual leave to make up the difference between the workers’ compensation rate and the regular pay rate, instead of paying the employee just the lesser amount permitted by the workers’ compensation statute. However, neither of those considerations was afoot here. Here, despite Newman’s testimony as to “the first 40 hours of workers’ compensation coverage,” the exhibits clearly reveal that Newman was attempting to get Petitioner to use her accrued sick leave to cover any time she had been absent from work after August 10, 2004. Because of her conversation with, and the incomplete materials supplied by, Bumgardner, Newman believed this was the correct way to code Petitioner’s timesheet. (See Findings of Fact 49-53.) When she received Newman’s August 27, 2004, memo to Wilcox, that same day, Petitioner responded to it by writing a note on the bottom in which she stated that she was not going to use sick leave; that she had permission from Parkins for her August 10-19, absence; that she was on four different “meds”; that her arm became swollen when she did come in on August 19; and again that she would not use sick time for an on-the-job injury that Newman refused to accommodate. Petitioner then finished with I am so sick and tired of the inconsistency and lack of communication among the management team. . . . You all need to stop this please. (P-33) Petitioner’s adamant and belligerent attitude did not sit well with Newman who, based on the information provided by Bumgardner, believed she was just doing her duty. On September 2, 2004, Newman came in at 6:00 a.m. to talk to Petitioner before Petitioner went off her shift at 7:00 a.m. Petitioner insisted on being confrontational with Newman in front of staff, instead of coming to Newman’s office as Newman requested. Petitioner adamantly refused to change the first timesheet or to sign it. (R-14). She stated to Newman that she had relied on Parkins’ oral authorization to be on workers’ compensation leave from August 10, to August 19, 2004. She later submitted a new, typed timesheet, still claiming “Code 60-workers’ comp. disability” for each of her scheduled work days between August 13, and 24. This version she signed. (R- 13). Newman caught up to Petitioner as Petitioner was checking out at the time clock on September 2, 2004; handed her a copy of the August 26, 2004, memo (see Finding of Fact 55); and inquired if Petitioner would be reporting as previously ordered to the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift on September 10, 2004. Petitioner stated she could not make the change due to her babysitter and previous registration for college classes. She continued to rely on Parkins’ oral authorization for August 10-19, and apparently expected workers’ compensation considerations for her absences after August 19, 2004, as well. (R-14). Newman never received corrected timesheets from Petitioner, despite explaining the situation to someone from Petitioner’s union who telephoned Newman and offered to act as an informal intermediary. Finally, in order to get Petitioner paid on time, either Newman or Parkins filled out a timesheet covering August 13 through August 26, 2004, and signed for her. Petitioner ultimately was charged sick leave from August 10-20, 2004, and was declared absent without authorization for August 21 and 24, when she had not followed the prescribed procedures for an authorized absence. (See Findings of Fact 49 and 51.) This meant that Parkins had retroactively withdrawn his oral authorization for Petitioner to take workers’ compensation leave for August 10 through August 19/20, and that Respondent viewed Petitioner’s absences on August 21 and 24 as unexcused. From the way this case was presented, it is difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint when Petitioner did, and did not, report for duty after August 26, 2004. For instance, Petitioner insisted that she was not scheduled for duty on September 3, 2004, because that was the date of Hurricane Frances. She also claimed she could not work on September 3, 2004, because that was a day on which lack of accommodation the night before had caused her arm to swell. (See Finding of Fact 68.) Parkins confirmed that he did not schedule any “light duty” officers, of which Petitioner was one, for duty during Hurricane Frances, but he did not know the date of Hurricane Frances. Another witness thought Hurricane Frances had occurred in August 2004. If Hurricane Frances occurred on August 3, 2004, instead of September 3, 2004, then all such testimony is irrelevant because Petitioner's arm was not injured until August 4, 2004. There is documentation and testimony from Newman and Petitioner that Petitioner worked September 2, rolling into September 3, 2004. (See Finding of Fact 68.) Other dates Petitioner worked are equally confused or obscure, but Petitioner claims she worked August 25-28; was off on August 29-30; and contradicts herself that she was, or was not, scheduled to work on August 31, 2004; and was, or was not, scheduled to work on September 3, 2004. (See, infra.) However, both Petitioner and Edmond agree that on September 2, 2004, Edmond assigned Petitioner to a regular duty post. Edmond claims the assignment was a pure mistake on her part. Petitioner complained, via a 6:05 a.m. September 3, 2004, e-mail to Bessette, Newman, and Parkins, that her arm was swollen because of Edmond’s mis-assignment. (R-18). Petitioner’s e-mail also asserted that the Employer was not accommodating her work restrictions from her workers’ compensation doctor and that she was unable to come in to work that night due to her swollen arm. On September 3, 2004, at 11:35 a.m., about five-and-a- half hours after Petitioner’s complaint about Edmond’s assignment of her to regular duty on the 11:00 p.m September 2, to 7:00 a.m., September 3, 2004, shift, Edmond provided Bessette with a written statement, via e-mail, relating that on July 22, 2004, Petitioner threatened to "take her [Edmond] down." Edmond testified that shortly after receiving Perry’s June 25, 2004, counseling memo, Petitioner had called Edmond into a courtyard area at the facility to discuss her tardiness and her belief that management was tracking her tardiness. Respondent had always tracked its employees’ tardiness but had recently added a new method of keeping track. Petitioner referred to management’s tracking of her tardiness as "foolishness." Petitioner told Edmond not to engage in such behavior or Petitioner would “take her down" with the rest of management. Edmond claims to have acknowledged the incident to her immediate supervisor, Wilcox, on the same night it occurred. Wilcox was not called to corroborate Edmond’s testimony, and Edmond did not memorialize the event in writing until September 3, 2004, when she felt her job was being threatened by Petitioner’s September 2, 2004, memo of complaint. (See Finding of Fact 68.) Edmond testified that she also notified Bessette on September 3, 2004, about the July 22, incident because she believed that Petitioner was using codeine on the job. There is insufficient credible evidence to substantiate Edmond's testimony about codeine. It is more likely that Edmond related the story about July 22, 2004, to Bessette in retaliation for Petitioner's complaining that her workers’ compensation injury was not being accommodated by Edmond. The fact that Edmond also kept the July 22, 2004, incident to herself for six weeks renders the truth of her whole testimony suspect. However, that does not mean that Edmond's superiors had reason to disbelieve her September 3, 2004, accusation. Since August 24, 2004, Parkins and Newman, in reliance on Bumgardner, believed that Petitioner was using a narcotic drug (percocet) which her doctor had told her to discontinue on August 10, 2004. They were unaware that some of the other drugs legitimately prescribed by Petitioner’s authorized workers’ compensation physician might have caused the drowsiness and dizziness that had kept Petitioner from reporting for work between August 10 and August 19, 2004, and sporadically thereafter. (See Finding of Fact 53.) After Julie Bumgardner’s mis-information had been received on August 24, 2004, and continuing onward, Superintendent Bessette received reports from Newman, Parkins, and Edmond about Petitioner’s tardiness problems. It is not clear what instances of tardiness besides those occurring after August 10, 2004, were actually reported to Bessette. It is probable that both Newman and Parkins had an overall impression that Petitioner had frequently been tardy over the whole period of her employment at ARJDC, and it is possible, but not proven, that the rescinded Perry counseling memo (see Findings of Fact 23-27) was remembered or utilized. However, tardiness was only part of Bessette’s considerations. Bessette was also apprised of Petitioner's incorrectly coded timesheets and adamant attitude that she would not use sick leave to cover time off. Petitioner’s belligerency toward Newman and her attitude that everyone was “out to get her” aggravated the situation. Bessette considered Petitioner's refusal of Newman’s direct order to correct her timesheets to be insubordination. Parkins and Newman believed, however erroneously, that Petitioner was taking the narcotic percocet, contrary to her doctor’s instructions. Parkins may also have believed and resented that his oral authorization to Petitioner for leave August 10-19, had been obtained by fraud. The report to Bessette of a threat against Edmond was the last straw. Upon the mounting objections to Petitioner’s job performance, and based on a consensus of Newman, Parkins, and herself, Bessette determined that discipline was appropriate and requested authorization from her superiors to terminate Petitioner, which they granted. Petitioner was terminated by a September 8, 2004, letter, effective that date, stating that her termination was because of . . . your failure to satisfactorily complete your probationary period . . . . (P-9) Petitioner proved that ARJDC SJDO Genevieve Hazelip (Caucasian female), Respondent’s employee since 2000, was disciplined in the position of SJDO on one occasion in January 2005, after Petitioner was terminated. This was an oral reprimand for “a conversation with racial undertones, regardless of intention". (R-15). The oral reprimand of Hazelip was only stage one of the Employer’s three-stage progressive disciplinary system, which could lead to termination of a permanent employee at the third step. If Hazelip was on probation in her SJDO position, the Employer did not have to go through the three steps to terminate her, but it was not proven that Hazelip was on probation when she received the oral reprimand. Petitioner also proved that Hazelip was disciplined on two other occasions but was unable to establish whether these disciplinary actions occurred while Hazelip was a JDO or an SJDO or what level of discipline was imposed either time. At hearing, Petitioner claimed that Caucasian officers at ARJDC regularly got weekends and other coveted days off and Negro officers did not. She submitted nothing to substantiate this allegation, but admitted that there were more Negro officers than Caucasian officers and that she had never complained about the shift assignments because she was not dissatisfied with her own days off. It also may be reasonably inferred that Petitioner was not privy to any requests by other officers, Caucasian or Negro, for what shifts or days they wanted to work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. 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 1st day of September, 2006.
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 issue in this case is whether there is just cause, within the meaning of Section 231.36(1), Florida Statutes (1999), to terminate Respondent's employment as a non-instructional employee for alleged sexual harassment of a co-worker. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (1999) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has employed Respondent as a maintenance worker at Yulee Primary School in Yulee, Florida (the "school") for approximately 18 years. Petitioner has employed Ms. Joyce Sullivan as a food service worker for approximately three years. Respondent and Ms. Sullivan are co-workers. Respondent has no supervisory authority over Ms. Sullivan, has no authority to discipline Ms. Sullivan, and has no authority to affect the conditions of employment for Ms. Sullivan. The material facts in this case transpired over approximately ten minutes during work hours on April 6, 2000. Respondent approached Ms. Sullivan in the back kitchen of the school cafeteria shortly after breakfast and asked to speak to her privately. Ms. Sullivan agreed, and the two moved to the adjacent serving area near the checkout counter in the cafeteria. Respondent asked Ms. Sullivan to pose for pictures that would be nude, semi-nude, or partially clothed and that Respondent would enter into a contest on the internet. Respondent explained that the pictures would not identify Ms. Sullivan because the pictures would be taken from the neck down and that Ms. Sullivan could wear a bikini, a thong, or a bra. Ms. Sullivan asked Respondent what he was talking about. Respondent assured Ms. Sullivan that she would not be identified because the pictures would not identify Ms. Sullivan's face. Ms. Sullivan told Respondent that he was crazy. The entire conversation lasted approximately three minutes. Ms. Sullivan left Respondent and walked to the cash register to "ring up" the school principal who purchased some food. Ms. Sullivan went to an office in the back of the cafeteria with Ms. Sullivan's assistant manager. Respondent went to the back room and told Ms. Sullivan that he would show her some pictures on his computer. Respondent exited the room through the back door of the room to retrieve a laptop computer. Ms. Sullivan and her assistant manager went outside the back room and discussed the situation. Ms. Sullivan was embarrassed. After four or five minutes, Respondent returned to the back room and placed the laptop on the desk in front of Ms. Sullivan. The assistant manager was in the same room at another desk engaged in a telephone conversation. It took about 1.5 minutes for Respondent to turn on the laptop and display some pictures. The pictures included pictures of partially clad women and topless women. The situation terminated after 1.5 minutes when the assistant manager ended her telephone conversation, a child asked Ms. Sullivan to "ring up" some papers, and Ms. Sullivan's manager approached the room. Respondent changed the computer screen to a picture of his daughter and began talking to Ms. Sullivan's manager. Respondent left the school with the computer. Ms. Sullivan reported the incident to her manager, but Ms. Sullivan did not file a complaint for sexual harassment or state to her manager that she had been sexually harassed. Ms. Sullivan's manager relayed the information to Respondent's supervisor who discussed the matter with Respondent. Respondent admitted to the facts and expressed regret. Respondent's manager relayed the information to the Superintendent. The Superintendent investigated the matter and determined that Respondent had engaged in sexual harassment. The Superintendent based his determination on the definition of sexual harassment in the Board's Official Rule 3.54I.C. Rule 3.54I.C., in relevant part, states that sexual harassment consists of: . . . unwelcomed sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other inappropriate oral, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: . . . such conduct substantially interferes with an employee's work performance . . . or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work . . . environment. Respondent's request for Ms. Sullivan to pose for sexually revealing pictures was either an unwelcomed sexual advance, request for sexual favor, or other inappropriate oral or written conduct of a sexual nature within the meaning of Rule 3.54I.C. Respondent's conduct substantially interfered with Ms. Sullivan's work performance or created an offensive work environment. The Superintendent testified during cross-examination that he would not have determined that Respondent engaged in sexual harassment if Ms. Sullivan had not said no to Respondent's request. A preponderance of the evidence fails to show that Ms. Sullivan expressly said "no" when asked pose or view pictures. However, a preponderance of the evidence shows that Ms. Sullivan was embarrassed and that the entire episode was unwelcomed and offensive within the meaning of Rule 3.54I.C. Respondent has no previous discipline history. Article VII of the collective bargaining agreement between the Board and its employees prescribes progressive discipline procedures for this case. Except in unusual circumstances, employment can be terminated only after an oral warning for a first offense, a reprimand for a second offense, a written warning for a third offense, and suspension for a fourth offense.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of sexual harassment and suspending Respondent from employment for the time of the current suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of November 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry W. Whitmore, Chief Bureau of Educator Standards Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Suite 224E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Michael H. Olenick General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. John L. Ruiz, Superintendent Nassau County School Board 1201 Atlantic Avenue Fernandina Beach, Florida 32304 Brent P. Abner, Esquire Suite F 4741 Atlantic Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Brian T. Hayes, Esquire 245 East Washington Street Monticello, Florida 32344 Martha F. Dekle, Esquire 806 G Street Post Office Box 1644 Jacksonville, Florida 32207
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an act of discrimination or sexual harassment against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed as a payroll, accounts-payable clerk for Respondent's furniture store from May 23, 2001 until May 20, 2002. Respondent operates a furniture store located at 6886 North 9th Avenue, Pensacola, Florida 32504-7358. Five months after commencing her employment with Respondent, Petitioner began to look for a new job. Petitioner believes that Mr. Alan Reese, Respondent's office manager and Petitioner's direct supervisor, began to follow her home in August 2001. Petitioner believes that, after ceasing to follow her when she confronted him about it, Mr. Reese began to follow her home again two months later. Petitioner accused Mr. Reese of following her home on numerous occasions, peeking into her windows, and sitting in his car and watching her while she tended to her garden. Petitioner was permitted to come to work late during October 2001, on occasion, when she was looking for a new place to live. Petitioner did not get along with Serita Coefield, her fellow accounting clerk at the furniture store. They often had disputes over the handling of invoices. In May of 2002, Petitioner met with Barbara Hoard, the Escambia County/Pensacola Human Resource Coordinator, to discuss the alleged harassment by Mr. Reese. Ms. Hoard told her to inform her employer in writing of her concerns and explained the availability of filing a complaint with the FCHR or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. On May 15, 2002, Petitioner delivered a memo to Mr. Reese in which she accused him of following her home, touching her improperly in the workplace, and asking her questions about her personal life. She also sent, by certified mail, a copy of the memo to Elmer Githens, Respondent's president. After receiving the memo, Mr. Githens conferred with Mr. Reese, then issued a memo to Petitioner on May 17, 2002, in which he set forth her work schedule for the dates of April 29 through May 16, 2002. Petitioner's regular work hours were supposed to be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with an hour for lunch. The May 17 memo, which was based upon Petitioner's actual time cards, showed that her start time at work ranged from 8:18 a.m. to 11:38 a.m. and her end time ranged from 4:01 p.m. to 6:12 p.m. Petitioner clocked in for a full eight- hour workday on only four of fourteen days during the time period reflected in the memo. Later in the day on May 17, 2002, Mr. Githens issued a second memo to Petitioner in which he noted that Petitioner had yelled at him when he gave her the first memo, and accused Serita Coefield of "being out to get her." The memo further stated that Petitioner "has alienated every one [she] works with due to [her] attitude." The memo continued with a discussion of Petitioner's work hours which were to be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with at least a 30-minute lunch break every day. Petitioner was informed that this was her final warning about her tardiness and her inability to get along with her co-workers. The memo concluded with the words "[t]he next time you will be dismissed." On Monday, May 20, 2002, Petitioner's next workday, Petitioner clocked in at 10:37 a.m. She was given a memo that day dismissing her for "willful misconduct after receiving ample warnings that termination of your employment was imminent if you continued present behavior of coming to work late, not putting lunch on your time card, clocking out after 5pm without permission and causing disturbances with fellow employees for no reason." Petitioner claims that, on the day she was fired, she arrived at Respondent's parking lot at 8:00 a.m., but sat in her car because she was having a "panic attack" due to her belief that Mr. Reese was continuing to stalk her. Both Petitioner and Mr. Reese live east of Respondent and travel, at least part of the way, in the same direction and on the same roads to go home after work. Mr. Reese denies knowing the location of Petitioner's home. Mr. Reese has never been to Petitioner's home. Mr. Reese admits he drove home in the same direction as Petitioner on numerous occasions since she drove along one of the routes he routinely took home. No one witnessed the alleged stalking of Petitioner by Mr. Reese. Petitioner claims to have contacted the police by telephone, but never filed a police report concerning the alleged stalking by Mr. Reese.
Recommendation is, Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's claim for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 12th day of January, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on her sex and/or in retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's business provides consulting and technical-services management on a contract basis. Specifically, the business involves performing environmental consulting, engineering, remediation/construction, and information technology services to both private and public entities throughout the country. Petitioner began working for Respondent in February 1998 as a receptionist and administrative assistant in Respondent's Jacksonville, Florida, office. Her duties included answering the phones, processing mail, filing, creating, and revising reports. Petitioner's job description also included providing administrative support to the engineers, scientists, project managers, and geologists in the office. Initially, Petitioner worked under the direction of Sam Patterson, Respondent's division director. After Mr. Patterson resigned, Sam Pratt became Respondent's manager and Petitioner's supervisor in the Jacksonville office. On or about March 24, 1998, Respondent evaluated Petitioner's work performance. The evaluation indicates that Petitioner was outstanding in the following expected behavior and performance areas: (a) knowledge; (b) initiative/problem solving; and (c) relations with others. Petitioner received an excellent rating in all other performance areas, including the following: (a) communication/marketing ability; (b) quality of work; (c) dependability; and (d) adaptability/professional development. Respondent paid for Petitioner to attend computer courses. Petitioner completed the following courses on the following dates: (a) April 29, 1998, Beginning Power Point; (b) September 19, 1998, Beginning Excel; (c) January 7, 1999, Beginning Word; (d) March 25, 1999, Intermediate Excel; (e) April 9, 1999, Intermediate Word 97; and (f) April 27, 1999, Advanced Excel. Mr. Pratt evaluated Petitioner's job performance on March 11, 1999. He found that Petitioner met the expected behavior and performance requirements in all areas. Mr. Pratt listed her strengths as follows: (a) has good relationship with clients; (b) works long hours to meet deadlines; (c) has excellent knowledge of company resources and corporate information; and (d) has detailed filing system that allows for tracking data. Mr. Pratt listed her weaknesses as follows: (a) has failed to contact office when unavailable to work due to family illness; (b) lacks computer skills necessary for a project assistant; (c) fails to perform a complete review of her own work; and (d) takes constructive criticism too personally. There were no areas in which Petitioner failed or exceeded her job requirements. In July 1999, Gregg Roof became Respondent's manager and Petitioner's supervisor in the Jacksonville office. Mr. Roof experienced problems with Petitioner's job performance, finding that she had difficulty completing simple tasks, such as copying, without making errors. Merve Dale was a geologist who worked for Respondent. Mr. Dale worked part-time in the field and part-time in Respondent's Jacksonville office. Petitioner found Mr. Dale's behavior offensive on several occasions. In June 1999, Mr. Dale told Petitioner that he could not smell the toxic odor in the warehouse but he could smell her perfume, which made him want to jump her. Petitioner ignored Mr. Dale and did not immediately report this statement to Mr. Roof. Mr. Dale sent Petitioner an e-mail from his home on August 19, 1999. The message stated, "I have sent myself a test message and I thought of you, so here is another test to see if my e-mail works from home. Have a wonderful day." Petitioner responded electronically that she had received the message. Petitioner then called Richard May, Respondent's senior regional manager in the Tallahassee, Florida, office. Petitioner told Mr. May that she was not happy about the content of the e-mail message or the fact that it was sent from Mr. Dale's home at 6:00 a.m. She also informed Mr. May about Mr. Dale's prior comment about smelling her perfume. However, Petitioner did not want Mr. May to take any action against Mr. Dale. She specifically stated that she did not want to file a formal complaint pursuant to Respondent's anti-discrimination or anti-harassment policy. She wanted to deal with the situation herself. Later that same day, Mr. Dale called the office from the field to ask Petitioner to have lunch with him. Petitioner declined the offer, stating that she usually worked through the lunch hour. Petitioner did not report this incident to Mr. Roof or Mr. May immediately. In the afternoon, Mr. Dale asked Petitioner what he was going to get in return for giving her charge numbers for her timecard. Petitioner responded that the question was what he would not get, which was a hard time. When Mr. Dale indicated that it was not a fair exchange, Petitioner replied, "That's the way it is." Mr. Dale then gave Petitioner the information she needed for her timecard. Petitioner did not immediately report this incident to Mr. Roof or Mr. May. On August 20, 1999, Mr. Dale was with Petitioner when another geologist asked her if she was wearing a new outfit because she really looked sharp. Petitioner laughed and responded negatively, stating that she was finally losing weight and able to wear some old clothes. At that point, Mr. Dale stated, "I told her she was really looking hot and she better watch out." Mr. Dale then reached out with a roll of drawings, five feet in length, and slapped Petitioner on her backside. Petitioner immediately told Mr. Dale to behave himself. In a letter to Mr. Dale dated August 24, 1999, Petitioner recounted the above-referenced incidents and demanded an apology. The letter specifically informed Mr. Dale that his actions were unwanted and offensive. Petitioner furnished Mr. Roof with a copy of the letter. Mr. Roof and Petitioner also shared her concerns with Mr. May. Mr. Roof subsequently counseled with Mr. Dale and Petitioner. During the meeting with Mr. Roof on August 25, 2000, Petitioner rejected Mr. Dale's apology. Mr. Roof then proceeded to admonish Mr. Dale, warning him that his behavior towards Petitioner was inappropriate. Petitioner did not request Mr. Roof or Mr. May to take any further action against Mr. Dale even though she knew she could have filed a formal complaint pursuant to Respondent's policies and procedures. On February 18, 2000, Petitioner happened to be alone in the office with Mr. Dale. She was helping him label samples for shipment to a laboratory when Mr. Dale handed Petitioner a doctor's business card. Mr. Dale stated that he found the card on the sidewalk in front of the office entrance and wondered if it might belong to Petitioner. Other than giving Petitioner the business card, Mr. Dale did not say or do anything to Petitioner. Petitioner concedes that it was customary for staff to give found items to her as the office receptionist. However, the business card made Petitioner feel uncomfortable because it listed the name of a gynecologist who specialized in reproductive endocrinology, infertility, pelvic reconstructive surgery, and gynecology. Petitioner kept the business card and faxed a copy of it to Mr. May in Tallahassee. When she called Mr. May, he said he would talk to Mr. Dale. Mr. May was extremely supportive of Petitioner and took her complaints regarding the card seriously. Petitioner requested Mr. May to report the incident to Faye Thompson, Respondent's director of Human Resources. This was the first time that Petitioner had made such a request. During the telephone conversation, Mr. May asked Petitioner if she wanted to transfer to the Tallahassee office so that he could protect her. Mr. May and Petitioner had previously discussed such a transfer because some of her duties were regional in nature. Petitioner responded that she would think about it. In an e-mail dated February 22, 2000, Mr. May asked Petitioner to plan a luncheon for Ms. Thompson and other employees who would attend a project manager's seminar at the Jacksonville office. Petitioner responded that she would be happy to prepare the meal and other refreshments for the seminar. On February 23, 2000, in anticipation of the seminar, Petitioner asked Mr. Roof if he was going to have the warehouse cleaned over the weekend. He responded negatively because the staff had already worked long hours. Petitioner then stated that she would work on the weekend to organize the files and certain areas of the warehouse. Mr. Roof again responded negatively, explaining that he did not want to pay overtime. When Petitioner continued to insist on cleaning the office for the dignitaries, she and Mr. Roof had a verbal exchange in front of other staff. Petitioner followed Mr. Roof into his office. She then asked him what she should do with the extra electronic equipment stored in the cubicles. When Mr. Roof told her to throw it in the dumpster, Petitioner refused and began to question him about the company's policy for disposing of excess equipment. Next, Mr. Roof closed his office door and began to explain that he was tired of having to tell Petitioner things multiple times and that he did not want her to clean the office. Although Mr. Roof inappropriately raised his voice in talking to Petitioner, there is no persuasive evidence that he blocked her exit from the office after Petitioner requested him to move. Mr. Roof lost his temper with Petitioner, but he was not retaliating against her because she accused Mr. Dale of sexual harassment. Instead, Mr. Roof was frustrated because Petitioner would not follow his directions. Before the day was over, Mr. Roof and Petitioner had a civil discussion about the incident. Petitioner was upset about Mr. Roof's behavior. She subsequently expressed her feelings to Mr. May in a telephone call. On February 29, 2000, Ms. Thompson was in the Jacksonville office for the project manager's meeting. After the meeting, Ms. Thompson spoke to Petitioner about her sexual discrimination claim. During the conversation, Petitioner gave Ms. Thompson a copy of the August 24, 1999, letter to Mr. Dale and a copy of the business card. On or about March 1, 2000, Mr. May met with Mr. Roof and Petitioner to complete Petitioner's work evaluation. During the meeting, Mr. May counseled Petitioner and Mr. Roof. Mr. Roof again apologized to Petitioner for his losing his temper on February 23, 2000. The written evaluation indicates that Petitioner did not meet her job requirements in the following areas: (a) decision making; (b) reliability; and (c) quality and quantity of work. According to the evaluation, Petitioner met her job requirements in the following areas: (a) knowledge of job; (b) interpersonal and communication skills; and (c) professional development. The only area that Petitioner exceeded job requirements was in safety. The performance evaluation correctly reflected several areas in which Petitioner had a positive influence in the office. Some examples of her contributions include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Petitioner successfully coordinated health and safety training for Respondent's offices in Florida; (b) Petitioner was an excellent person to represent Respondent when performing telephone reception duties; (c) Petitioner performed successfully as the regional human resources representative; and (d) Petitioner successfully coordinated partner meetings, including making hotel reservations and arranging for meeting rooms. The evaluation also correctly reflected Petitioner's job performance skills that required improvement. These skills included the following: (a) Petitioner had a poor attitude toward her supervisor as indicated by her failure to follow directions and her failure to understand office hierarchy; Petitioner had difficulty prioritizing her work; Petitioner often seemed overwhelmed by a minimal amount of work resulting in a disorganized desk and poorly maintained files; (d) Petitioner spent too much time in personal telephone conversations; (e) Petitioner rarely made an effort to determine when assigned work was due so that it could be completed in a timely fashion; and (f) Petitioner's word processing and spreadsheet manipulation skills were below standards required for a person in her position. Mr. May wanted all administrative personnel to work more as "project assistants," helping the professionals with the administrative tasks of particular projects. Petitioner assured Mr. Roof and Mr. May that she would make an effort to improve her performance. Soon thereafter, Ms. Thompson called to thank Petitioner for the luncheon and snacks during the project manager's meeting. Ms. Thompson also inquired whether Petitioner had thought more about transferring to the Tallahassee office. Petitioner said she would make the move if the company paid her expenses. Some time after the March 2000 evaluation, Petitioner informed Mr. May that she did not believe she could sufficiently demonstrate her skills to receive the promotion and pay raise she wanted while she worked in the Jacksonville office. Mr. May again offered Petitioner an opportunity for a fresh start in the Tallahassee office working directly for him. However, Mr. May cautioned Petitioner that her work performance had to improve if she were going to accept the offer. Mr. May agreed that Respondent would reimburse Petitioner for her relocation expenses. Petitioner moved to Tallahassee, Florida, and began working in the Tallahassee on or about May 1, 2000. In her new position, Petitioner worked as receptionist and administrative assistant. Once again her duties included providing administrative support to the professionals in the office. At all times material here, Petitioner enjoyed working for Mr. May. She does not attribute any discriminatory or harassing behavior to him. However, immediately after her transfer, Petitioner again demonstrated deficiencies in her job performance. Mr. May had hoped that Petitioner would become a "resource" for him. Instead, the opposite was true despite the additional training provided to Petitioner. Petitioner often went to Mr. May with questions regarding simple tasks that were part of her regular job duties. It did not take Mr. May long to confirm Mr. Pratt's and Mr. Roof's earlier complaints regarding deficiencies in Petitioner's performance. Mr. May began to document his observations about Petitioner's job performance. On May 8, 2000, Petitioner did not get to work until 9:00 a.m. Additionally, another employee had to take the regular FedEx to the kiosk because Petitioner did not get it out on time. On May 9, 2000, Petitioner again failed to get the regular FedEx out on time. This failure was more serious because the package contained checks in the amount of $32,000. On May 10, 2000, Petitioner did not get to work until after 9:00 a.m. Other staff members had to interrupt their work to sign for deliveries. Later that day, Mr. May told Petitioner that she did not have to put cover sheets on all her work. Petitioner then complained that she had to do "regional stuff" all the time. On May 19, 2000, Petitioner did not get the FedEx delivery out on time. The package had several checks in it, as well as an important communication regarding an offer of employment for a new employee. On May 22, 2000, Petitioner was not in the office by 9:15 a.m. In the meantime, Petitioner began to experience interpersonal relationship problems with members of the staff. For example, problems with Karen Harnett, Respondent's systems administrator, began soon after Petitioner made the move. The evidence indicates that Ms. Harnett was a bully who routinely picked on people. Ms. Harnett's attitude caused one employee to quit her job and caused another employee to seek help from Respondent's employee assistance program. However, there is no persuasive evidence that Respondent ever condoned Ms. Harnett's behavior in retaliation for Petitioner's filing of the sexual harassment complaint. In June 2000, Ms. Harnett and two other staff members found it amusing to harass an employee who worked for VALIC, an investment firm located in Respondent's office building. The harassment resulted in a feud over parking spaces in the building's parking lot. Petitioner was aware of Ms. Harnett's inappropriate actions but did not participate in the harassment. Petitioner did not know that it was customary for Respondent's receptionist to accept deliveries for VALIC when its office was closed. One day, Petitioner refused to accept a delivery of a UPS or FedEx package for VALIC. Later, the VALIC employee stormed into Respondent's office demanding to know why Petitioner had refused the delivery. Howard Engle, one of Respondent's project managers, heard the encounter between the VALIC employee and Petitioner. He went to the front of the office to see what was going on. Jimmy Hatcher, the building's owner, later complained to Mr. May about Petitioner's refusal to accept the package. Mr. May was not in the office with the VALIC incident took place. When he returned to the office, he heard several versions about the dispute. He concluded that Petitioner's poor decision-making and reaction to the angry VALIC employee had contributed, at least in part, to undermine Respondent's positive working relationship with Respondent's neighbor. On or about June 14, 2000, Mr. May discussed the VALIC incident with Petitioner. During that conversation, Mr. May also counseled Petitioner regarding her working relationship with other employees. He advised her to pay more attention to details and to improve her technical skills. Mr. May explained to Petitioner that several of the professionals in the office avoided giving her work because they lacked confidence in her work. He encouraged her to work more cooperatively with the professionals in the office. During the conversation on June 14, 2000, Petitioner admitted that she needed to improve her computer skills. She felt that everyone was against her and that Mr. May's only option was to go ahead and fire her. Mr. May later sent Ms. Thompson a summary of his conversation with Petitioner. On June 16, 2000, Mr. Engle sent Mr. May an e-mail complaining about Petitioner's substandard performance. The message stated that Mr. Engle had resorted to doing his own copying because he could not depend on Petitioner. Additionally, she had misplaced an important laboratory report, which would not have been delivered in a timely manner if another employee had not discovered Petitioner's error. Mr. Engle also complained that Petitioner had misfiled and never shown him a time-sensitive letter from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection regarding Respondent's re-certification to perform work in the state. This error could have had a calamitous impact on Respondent's business interests. In a written correspondence dated June 29, 2000, Mr. May gave Petitioner a written warning that she would be terminated if her job performance did not improve. The communication outlined specific job performance areas that required immediate and sustained improvement. As of June 29, 2000, Petitioner had misdirected incoming facsimile transmissions, failed to ensure that outgoing FedEx deliveries met the regular schedule, and sent at least one FedEx delivery to the wrong location. Competent evidence indicates that Petitioner needed to pay more attention to detail. Petitioner failed to proofread final drafts of monthly reports that she prepared. As of June 29, 2000, every such report had errors in them. Petitioner failed to focus on directions for work assignments. She often failed to return the work in the order that it was assigned. Petitioner failed to prioritize her work. She did not give project-related activities priority over day-to-day overhead issues. When Petitioner felt overwhelmed by an assignment, she was unwilling to shift gears to handle a higher priority activity. Petitioner had difficulty working the office schedule. She needed to understand that she could not work a later schedule. She also had to understand that overtime pay would not be authorized except for work directly related to client projects or for important overhead objectives. Petitioner failed to be accountable to the professional staff that depended on her administrative assistance. At times, she was unwilling to accept work assignments from staff members other than Mr. May. At times Petitioner was argumentative with her co-workers and inflexible regarding office procedures and protocols. She needed to moderate her behavior towards her co-workers. Petitioner was paid at Respondent's top pay rate for the second highest administrative support grade. She should have been serving as a resource for staff members that were not expected to have expertise in word processing. However, Petitioner's computer proficiency was at a beginners level at best. At times, Mr. May had to assist Petitioner with computer skills that she should have mastered. After receiving the written warning, Petitioner showed no improvement in her job performance or ability to work with the people in Respondent's Tallahassee office. Therefore, Mr. May terminated Petitioner's employment on July 25, 2000, for substandard work performance. Respondent's decision to fire Petitioner was based solely upon her poor performance record. It was not a result of any complaints she made against Mr. Dale the preceding year when she worked in the Jacksonville office. In making his decision to terminate Petitioner, Mr. May did not receive input from anyone in the Jacksonville office or from any other of Respondent's employees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sharon Jensen 2692 Spring Lake Road Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Michael Mattimore, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner was subjected to race and gender discrimination, sexual harassment/hostile work environment, and retaliation, as alleged in her Petition for Relief.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner, a 36-year-old Caucasian female, was employed by Respondent as a sales associate. She first worked for Respondent at its Sebastian, Florida, store where she started in June 2006. She voluntarily resigned from the Sebastian store in October 2006 and was hired by Respondent's Merritt Island, Florida, store one week later. Respondent owns and operates an appliance retail store in Central Florida. Respondent employs more than 15 people. At some time during Petitioner's employment, John Barnaba, an operations manager who rotated among several stores, said things to her that she found "unacceptable." For example, "You would look good on my Harley," "You look like a biker chick," and "You must be anorexic." He also clapped his hands behind her and said, "hurry, hurry, hurry." She reported Mr. Barnaba's conduct to Phil Roundy, her manager and manager of the Merritt Island store, who said "That's just the way he is," or words to that effect. She was unaware of any other action undertaken by Mr. Roundy regarding her complaint. In January 2007, Petitioner began a voluntary sexual relationship with Mr. Roundy, which involved at some point, Petitioner and Mr. Roundy living together. This relationship lasted until April 29, 2007, when the parties separated. She and Mr. Roundy "got back together in May, about a week after her termination." Mr. Roundy did not sexually harass Petitioner based on the voluntary nature of their relationship, nor did he sexually harass Petitioner between April 29 and May 18, 2007. After Petitioner and Mr. Roundy separated, he started treating her "differently." She reports that he became critical of her and would not assist her. Respondent has published an "information resource for common questions and concerns" titled, "Associate Handbook" that addresses sexual harassment and presents a grievance procedure for employees who believe they have been subjected to unfair treatment. It contemplates reporting the unfair treatment to (1) "your immediate manager"; (2) the store manager; or (3) "[s]hould the problem, however, be of a nature which you do not feel free to discuss with your manager, you are encouraged to discuss the problem in confidence directly with Human Resources." Petitioner requested a transfer to another store on May 1, 2007. She requested the transfer before Mr. Roundy started treating her "differently." She called Human Resources on May 9 and 15, 2007; it is unclear as to whether she called to check on the requested transfer or to report the alleged sexual harassment. She did not timely pursue any recourse suggested in the Associate Handbook. On May 9, 2007, Mr. Barnaba, the operations manager mentioned above, authored an email that characterized several of Petitioner's activities of that work day as "completely unprofessional and insubordinate." The following day, Mr. Roundy emailed his supervisor that Petitioner had gone through his private, business-related emails and discovered Mr. Barnaba's May 9, 2007, email. He also related several incidents that he thought unprofessional and that reflected bad customer service. He advised that Petitioner accused Barnaba and himself of conspiring to try to terminate her. Petitioner was scheduled to work on May 16 and 17, 2007, but did not report to work. She was scheduled to work on May 18, 2007; as a result, Kevin Draco, a risk manager for Respondent, went to the Merritt Island store to interview her. When Petitioner did not appear, management made the decision to terminate Petitioner for "absenteeism."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 4th day of April, 2008. 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 Maurice Arcadier, Esquire 2815 West New Haven Avenue, Suite 303 Melbourne, Florida 32904 Christopher J. Coleman, Esquire Schillinger & Coleman, P.A. 1311 Bedford Drive, Suite 1 Melbourne, Florida 32940
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Petitioner, Kenneth Davis, made sexually harassing statements and made body contact with a female counselor so as to constitute sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, in violation of Pinellas County Sheriff Office Civil Service Act and the rules and regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying in person and the documentary materials received in evidence, stipulations by the parties, evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant and material facts are found: Respondent, Sheriff Everett S. Rice (Sheriff), is a constitutional officer of the State of Florida, responsible for providing law enforcement and correctional services within the geographic boundaries of Pinellas County, Florida. Petitioner, Detention Deputy Kenneth Davis (Deputy Davis), is a 23-year employee with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, having spent his entire career as a detention officer. As a result of years of training and experience, Deputy Davis is intimately familiar with the Sheriff's policy regarding sexual harassment, detention policies, operations, procedures, and the priority of security applicable to detention deputies. The evidence demonstrates that in the collective opinions of those detention deputies who worked longest with Deputy Davis, all agreed that his personality was that of one who "[was] loud and obnoxious--to pretty much everybody," "play[ed] around a lot," "never insulted anybody," and "[didn't] mean any harm." At all times pertinent to this cause, Deputy Davis held the rank of detention corporal until the Sheriff reduced his rank to Deputy and removed him from his position of detention corporal on March 10, 2003. Deputy Davis' chain-of-command consisted of Major Kirk Brunner, Detention and Correction Bureau commander; Captain Nesbitt; Lieutenant Keith George; and Sergeant Buckingham. Deputy Davis did not have authority over Lori Atwater (Ms. Atwater), the complainant in this cause. He was not in her chain-of-command nor was he one of her bosses in the sense that he could assign her tasks. At all times pertinent to this cause, Deputy Davis worked in detention barrack C, North Division. Barrack C is a two-storied structure divided into B block and C block, with each cellblock divided into an upper level and lower level. Deputy Davis had four deputies under his supervision in cellblock C. At all times pertinent to this cause, Control Deputy Salazar worked the control center at barrack C. The control deputy is stationed in a glassed enclosure with clear view of individuals desiring entrance into the waiting room of barrack C and with clear view of inmates desiring to leave the cellblock and enter the waiting room. On or about March 4, 2002, Ms. Atwater, an African- American and a long-time resident of St. Petersburg, Florida, commenced employment with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office as an inmate-counselor. Ms. Atwater has an Associate of Science degree in Computer Technology Engineering and a Bachelor of Science degree in Management Information Systems. Her inmate- counselor duties consisted of identifying inmates who had family, legal, and personal issues requiring her intervention. The Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) employed Ms. Atwater for ten years before she began employment with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. While employed with DCFS, she worked in food stamps, Medicaid, protective services, adoptions, and several community recruitment programs. DCFS also has a policy against sexual harassment. The Sheriff has adopted Pinellas County Sheriff's Office General Order 3-4, which defines and prohibits sexual harassment. Pursuant to General Order 3-4, sexual harassment is defined as: All unwelcome or unwanted advances; including sexual advances or unwanted sexual attention, whether between person(s) of the opposite or same sex. This includes, but is not limited to, leering, touching, patting, brushing against, hugging, kissing, fondling, any other similar physical contact, or quid pro quo arrangements (i.e., a situation in which an employee is forced to engage in unwelcomed sexual conduct in order to protect or advance his/her job.) Unwelcome requests or demands for favors, including sexual favors. This consists of subtle or blatant expectations, pressures, or request for any type of favor, including sexual favor, including unwelcome requests for dates, whether or not the request is accompanied by an implied or stated promise of preferential treatment or negative consequences. Inappropriate third party comments or one time comments made which do not constitute a hostile work environment, language not directed at the offended member, jokes (spoken, printed or drawn) that are not directed at the offended member or joint banter of a sexual or offensive nature in which the offended member may or may not be a party. All employees of the Sheriff, including Deputy Davis and Ms. Atwater, received instructions regarding the Sheriff's Sexual Harassment Policy. The evidence demonstrates that beginning in March of 2002 and continuing through the months of April and May 2002, Ms. Atwater noticed, without telling him to stop and without reporting her resulting complaint to her supervisor, that Lieutenant George would call her "Ms. Ashwood." At some unspecified time prior to March of 2002, Ms. Atwater concluded that the name "Ms. Ashwood" was offensive. Ms. Atwater based her conclusion on her interpretation and knowledge of the general reputation of a Ms. Ashwood (no first name given) within the African-American community of St. Petersburg. According to Ms. Atwater, Ms. Ashwood was known throughout the African- American community for engaging in sexual encounters with multiple partners. As a direct result of her superior, Lieutenant George, continuously calling her Ms. Ashwood, a name she considered to be sexually offensive, Ms. Atwater chose not to report her sexual harassment complaint against Lieutenant George through the proper protocol. The record contains no evidence that Ms. Atwater asked Lieutenant George what was his intended meaning by calling her Ms. Ashwood. The evidence demonstrates that Lieutenant George, having been involved in both the hiring of Ms. Atwater as well as involved in her performance evaluation, knew her name to be Ms. Atwater. Alleged statements made by Deputy Davis to Ms. Atwater in the cafeteria during a lunch period. The evidence demonstrated that Ms. Atwater and Deputy Davis initially enjoyed a rather cordial relationship at work during the period of March through May 2002, at least by outward appearances. Deputy Davis and Ms. Atwater both attended read- off sessions; on occasions, they walked together from the read- off sessions back to barrack A; and on two separate occasions, they were seated at the same table in the compound's buffet- styled cafeteria. They did not have contact with each other beyond what was necessary in the performance of their respective duties. They did not have contact with each other outside the workplace. On some unspecified date during lunch in the compound cafeteria, Ms. Atwater chose to ask Deputy Davis why Lieutenant George kept calling her Ms. Ashwood. According to Ms. Atwater, Deputy Davis came over to the table where she sat and she allegedly initiated the following conversation: Atwater: I really don't appreciate that, him [Lieutenant George] calling me Ms. Ashwood. Davis: He's probably P-U-S-S-Y whipped and you probably remind him of her. Atwater: He just alluded to--and used the term inside whore. Atwater: What's an inside whore? Davis: That's when you sleep with someone that makes Decisions for your career. Atwater: If I ever get promoted around here it will not be because I've slept with anybody, but based on my own merits. At the final hearing, Deputy Davis denied the allegations regarding the above statements attributed to him by Ms. Atwater. Thus, the evidence is irreconcilably in conflict as to whether Deputy Davis made those statements attributed to him with the intent of sexually harassing Ms. Atwater, and if the statements were, in fact, made, whether his answers were truthful responses to her question. The compound cafeteria has several long tables seating six to eight persons and several shorter tables seating four to six persons. It is significant that not a single witness, from among others who were seated at the same table with Ms. Atwater and Deputy Davis in the cafeteria on that unspecified day, was called to corroborate the statements allegedly made by Deputy Davis to Ms. Atwater. With knowledge of the Sheriff's sexual harassment policy coupled with her prior knowledge of DCFS's similar sexual harassment policy, and having been highly offended by Deputy Davis' conversation, it is significant that Ms. Atwater, whose counseling job included accurate record keeping, made no attempt to record this first incident with Deputy Davis resulting from repeated incidents with Lieutenant George. Additionally, Ms. Atwater chose not to follow protocol and report to her immediate supervisor her complaint of sexual harassment by a relatively new co-worker. Having carefully weighed and evaluated all the relevant, persuasive, and credible evidence, the undersigned is unable to find that Ms. Atwater's testimony is superior in weight and quantity, thus proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Deputy Davis made unwelcome or unwanted sexual comments or advances and/or unwelcome unwanted sexual demands, nor created a hostile work environment as Ms. Atwater has accused him. This determination reflects the fact finder's judgment concerning the weight of the evidence and nothing more; it is not a finding regarding what was said or not said by Ms. Atwater or by Deputy Davis during the alleged conversation that took place on some unspecified date in the compound cafeteria. Alleged intentional body contact by Deputy Davis with Ms. Atwater in the cafeteria buffet serving line. Ms. Atwater further testified that on another unspecified day while she was in the cafeteria buffet serving line fixing her salad, she felt "a brazen--it felt maybe like his [Deputy Davis] radio or something-it was hard--and then he went in my ear 'boo.' It made me jumpy and I made a squealing noise-because I didn't expect anything to braze in the back on my----." Continuing, Ms. Atwater testified that Lieutenant George came in the cafeteria at that time, and she asked him "why don't you tell your friend to just cut it out?" The Sheriff did not call Lieutenant George to testify. No other witness testified to corroborate Ms. Atwater's statements. Deputy Davis denied this second allegation of intentionally making body contact with Ms. Atwater and speaking in her ear. Having carefully weighed and evaluated all the relevant, persuasive, and credible evidence, the undersigned is unable to find that Ms. Atwater's testimony is superior in weight and quantity and that Deputy Davis engaged in the conduct of which Ms. Atwater has accused him. This determination reflects the fact finder's judgment concerning the weight of the evidence and nothing more; it is not a finding regarding what occurred or did not occur on that unspecified date between Deputy Davis and Ms. Atwater in the buffet serving line in the compound cafeteria. It is significant that Ms. Atwater, whose counseling job required accurate and detailed daily record keeping, made no record of Deputy Davis' second alleged sexual harassment of her person. With firsthand knowledge of the Sheriff's sexual harassment policy plus her ten-year experience with a similar sexual harassment policy during her employment with DCFS, Ms. Atwater chose again not to follow proper protocol. She chose not to properly report this second incident to her immediate supervisor. Her second decided refusal to report what she considered sexual harassment by the same co-worker is not a defense, if Deputy Davis was guilty of such conduct, and does not absolve him from liability. Having chosen for the second consecutive occasion not to report the alleged sexual harassment by Deputy Davis does present a significant impediment regarding Ms. Atwater's memory, recall, and credibility. Alleged repeated harassing comments by Deputy Davis resulting from Ms. Atwater's frightened squealing. Concluding, Ms. Atwater testified that "for months" after the undated cafeteria serving line incident, "every time" she would see Deputy Davis (minimum twice a week in barrack C) he would repeatedly come behind her and say--"Ewwww, counselor," and "Counselor, I want to see you." According to her, these statements allegedly resulted from the cafeteria serving line incident and from a subsequent work related discussion and disagreement between Deputy Davis and Ms. Atwater regarding the form "62" (a form used by inmates requesting to see the counselor). Ms. Atwater, when confronted with what she considered a third but continuing sexual harassment by Deputy Davis, again chose not to follow protocol and report this third incident to her supervisor. It is significant that according to Ms. Atwater, she was initially and had been continuously sexually offended by Lieutenant George calling her Ms. Ashwood. When she inquired of Deputy Davis why Lieutenant George called her Ms. Ashwood, she was again sexually offended by his alleged answer to her question. She turns then to Lieutenant George, who was continually sexual harassing her and (did not ask him to stop calling her Ms. Ashwood) asks his assistance (not to file a proper complaint) but to have Deputy Davis (whose answer to her question about Lieutenant George she considered sexual harassment) to "just knock it off." Regarding her third alleged sexual harassment complaint against Deputy Davis (Ms. Atwater with knowledge that Lieutenant George and Deputy Davis were friends and she admittedly intended to take advantage of their friendship), she went to Lieutenant George, who (1) had continuously called her Ms. Ashwood; (2) was in her chain-of-command; and (3) was also in Deputy Davis' chain-of-command (but not file a complaint against Deputy Davis) and asked if he would "talk to his friend [Deputy Davis]--I don't want to make waves over this-I don't want to make a big to do-if you could talk to him--just have him knock it off." At the final hearing, Deputy Davis denied her third allegation that he would repeatedly come behind her and say--"Ewwww, counselor," and "Counselor, I want to see you." It is significant that after months and three separate allegations of sexual harassment by Deputy Davis, Ms. Atwater chose not to follow protocol and make a sexual harassment complaint against Deputy Davis to Lieutenant George, who would have been obligated to initiate a formal investigation. She chose instead to ask a favor from one who had continuously called her the sexually harassing name of Ms. Ashwood. The evidence is irreconcilably in conflict as to whether Deputy Davis continually made the alleged sexual and harassing comments to Ms. Atwater during an unspecified number of months. The Sheriff presented no witness to corroborate Ms. Atwater's allegations on this issue. Lieutenant George was not called to testify, leaving Ms. Atwater's hearsay testimony regarding this particular issue without corroboration. For the third time, Ms. Atwater chose to not follow protocol and report her third sexual harassment incident. The fact finder acknowledges that her third decided refusal to report sexual harassment by the same co-worker is not a defense, if he were guilty of such conduct, and does not absolve Deputy Davis from liability. Her choosing a third time not to report the alleged sexual harassment by Deputy Davis to her immediate supervisor does present a significant obstacle in the evaluation of Ms. Atwater's credibility. Having carefully weighed and evaluated all the relevant, persuasive, and credible evidence, the undersigned is unable to find that Ms. Atwater's testimony is superior in weight and quantity that Deputy Davis for months engaged in the conduct of which Ms. Atwater has accused him. This determination reflects the fact finder's judgment concerning the weight of the evidence and nothing more; it is not a finding regarding what occurred or did not occur during unspecified months when Deputy Davis may have been in the presence of Ms. Atwater. Allegations that Deputy Davis intentionally delayed or caused delay of inmates desiring conference with Ms. Atwater. Regarding her final allegation of sexual harassment by retaliation against Deputy Davis, Ms. Atwater recalled that on one occasion, Deputy Davis intentionally caused a "two-hour" delay in getting inmates on her list from their cells to the conference area where she awaited them. The purported intent of this alleged two-hour delay was to threaten or to produce a negative consequence regarding Ms. Atwater's performance of her duties. I find that Ms. Atwater's August 9, 2002, memo to her supervisor, Deputy Armsheimer, purporting to be a chronology of events that occurred on August 8, 2002, conclusively demonstrates that Deputy Davis was not the cause, directly or indirectly, for Ms. Atwater's two-hour delay in getting the two inmates she had requested. The evidence demonstrates that Ms. Atwater gave her form "62" list (inmates to be pulled who had requested a conference with her) to the control deputy, Deputy Salazar, in barrack C and waited 40 minutes. Returning to the holding area and inquiring as to the whereabouts of her inmates, Deputy Davis and not Deputy Salazar informed Ms. Atwater that the top three inmates on her list were not there. Ms. Atwater asked Deputy Davis of the inmates' whereabouts, but he gave her no further explanation. Ms. Atwater thereafter called Deputy Hartfield, who is in her chain-of-command, to ask if he would look into the matter and Deputy Hartfield promised to get back to her. Ms. Atwater waited for Deputy Hartfield's return call. After waiting an unspecified period of time and not receiving Deputy Hartfield's returned message, she called Deputy Hartfield a second time and was told that he had relayed his message to control (Deputy Salazar) about one and one-half hours ago. In that message, Deputy Hartfield explained that her first requested inmate (no name given) had been moved to maximum security and her second inmate (Brandon) was written up earlier that morning by him. In her August 9, 2002, memo to Deputy Armsheimer, Ms. Atwater wrote, "the conversation concluded with me stating [to Deputy Hartfield] if I had known 1 1/2 hours ago, I would have just left out of here and could have eaten lunch." It is significant that Ms. Atwater authored her August 9, 2002, memorandum to Deputy Armsheimer, for the singular purpose of explaining the exact cause (and persons involved) of her two-hour plus wait for inmates who were not pulled for her. At the final hearing in May 2003, she contradicts her August 9, 2002, written statements by testifying that Deputy Davis caused her a "two-hour" delay in pulling her inmates. This obvious contradiction is a severe detriment upon her credibility. Ms. Atwater's memorandum to Sergeant Groff, dated October 30, 2002, was written to give a recount of her experiences with Deputy Davis during all times pertinent to this case. She began her memorandum with the statement: "[S]o for the whole story to be clear, I must tell you how we ended up here and start from the beginning." In her first sentence of the second paragraph appears the first conflict in the evidence of record. In that sentence, Ms. Atwater writes, "Shortly after starting to work here, I began to experience unpleasantness from Cpl. Kenneth Davis. His obnoxious gestures, comments and disposition could not be tolerated any longer." (This conclusion consisted of the three separate allegations against Deputy Davis made herein above.) With this opportunity to formally complain of sexual harassment in the work place, Ms. Atwater failed to include the fact that it was she who initially asked Deputy Davis why Lieutenant George called her the sexually offensive name of "Ms. Ashwood." Intentionally choosing to allege that Deputy Davis' answer to her question why Lieutenant George kept calling her "Ms. Ashwood" was the initial sexual harassment that created a hostile work place is contradictory to her testimony. Continuing, Ms. Atwater wrote--"I did tell him that I felt he 'played too much,' and need[ed] to stop moaning and groaning behind me." Even though she recounted moaning and groaning, she specifically omitted her alleged verbatim statements made by Deputy Davis (Finding of Fact 12 hereinabove) when he answered her question "why Lieutenant George calls me Ms. Ashwood." This is significant in that Ms. Atwater's testimony was that Deputy Davis' alleged verbatim statements when he answered her question were so "sexually harassing" that she was "immediately" offended the moment she heard them. Yet, she omits any mention that it was Lieutenant George continuously calling her "Ms. Ashwood" that initially and repeatedly offended her. The name Ashwood she considered had such a negative sexual reputation in the community that she was immediately offended and sexually harassed when Lieutenant George first called her Ms. Ashwood and each time thereafter. She omits any mention that it was her inquiry of Deputy Davis, "why Lieutenant George [sexually harassing her] was calling her the offensive name of Ms. Ashwood" that produced the alleged response. Based upon Ms. Atwater's acknowledgement contained in her October 30, 2002, memorandum to Sergeant Groff, I find that her allegations that Deputy Davis caused a delayed wait of two hours to get inmates pulled and, thus, "creat[ed] a hostile work environment" to be contrary to her August 9, 2002, memorandum to Sergeant Armsheimer, admitting that had she known her inmates were not in barrack C, she would have left and had lunch "one and one-half" hours prior. Ms. Atwater further admits in writing that from May of 2002 forward, she and Deputy Davis "barely" spoke to one another. If Ms. Atwater's memory is presumed to be accurate and she and Deputy Davis discontinued speaking to one another during the March through May 2002 period, it was not logical to conclude that Deputy Davis repeatedly and continually moaned and groaned in her ear for "months" thereafter (i.e. June, July, August, and October). For the fourth time, Ms. Atwater chose not to and did not report this fourth incident to her immediate supervisor at or near the time it occurred. Her sexual harassment complaint against Deputy Davis was filed after her October 2002 complaint was filed against Lieutenant George. Her fourth decided refusal to immediately report sexual harassment by the same co-worker is not a defense, if he were guilty of such conduct, and does not absolve Deputy Davis from liability. Her choosing a fourth time not to report the initial alleged sexual harassment by Deputy Davis during the March through May period, when coupled with the contradiction between her testimony that Deputy Davis was the cause of a two-hour delay in pulling her inmates, and her memorandum wherein she acknowledges that her inmates had been written up by Sergeant Hartfield, presents a credibility obstacle. Ms. Atwater makes no further mention of Deputy Davis in her October 30, 2002, memoranda, devoting the remainder to Lieutenant George. She recounts in detail their initial friendly relationship, turning to a cold and unfriendly relationship, the keeping-your-distance treatment, their many phone conversations at work, their lunch dates away from the work place, and their private phone calls when at home, ending on October 24, 2002, with an incident of kissing and Lieutenant George rubbing his groin against her buttocks and her resisting his advances. (See Joint Exhibit J-1.) In her final paragraph, Ms. Atwater relates how, unbeknownst to Lieutenant George, she arranged for a three-way call between herself, Lieutenant George, and her uncle, a City of St. Petersburg employee. She arranged the three-way call for the purpose of securing a witness to corroborate her statements regarding the Lieutenant George sexual harassment encounter. Though her alleged initial sexual harassment was initiated by Deputy Davis and continued for months, Ms. Atwater made no similar attempt to corroborate her claims of sexual harassment against Deputy Davis. Knowing that Deputy Davis was not within her chain-of-command and not in a supervisory position over her, there was no logical reason for Ms. Atwater to fear promotions and job security. Ms. Atwater knew that filing a complaint against a lieutenant within her chain-of- command presented a greater risk than filing a complaint against Deputy Davis who was not in her chain-of-command. Her choosing not to record (or procure corroboration) the Deputy Davis incidents, when coupled with her delay of many months in reporting her compliant through proper channels because of fear of reprisal, rings hollow. It was after the Administrative Review Board had begun an investigation of Ms. Atwater's October 2002 complaint of sexual harassment against Lieutenant George that the Sheriff initiated an investigation of Deputy Davis. Only after her egregious October 24, 2002, incident involving Lieutenant George did she file a subsequent and separate sexual harassment compliant against Deputy Davis. In the absence of corroboration, Ms. Atwater's testimony of a single incident of intentional touching and her testimony of alleged verbatim statements made by Deputy Davis and his unequivocal denial presents a "she said-he said" dilemma. Neither party's testimony is inherently more credible than the other party's testimony. Contrary to the opinion of Major Brunner, who sat on the Administrative Review Board, that when the Administrative Review Board questioned Deputy Davis regarding those allegations, Deputy Davis was "in denial." This assumption and by implication presumed guilt, thereby lending credibility to Ms. Atwater's allegations, is a conclusion not based on fact and is contrary to the evidence adduced during the de novo proceeding. Ms. Atwater's testimony of incidents having occurred over a four-month or more period and the lack of time or specific dates coupled with the contradictions between her testimony during the final hearing and her August 9, 2002, memorandum to her supervisor, creates an unfathomable chasm in the evaluation of her credibility. The Inspection Bureau of the Administrative Inspection Division investigated Ms. Atwater's complaint and submitted their investigative results to the Administrative Review Board, made up of various employees with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. The Administrative Review Board determined that Petitioner, Deputy Davis, had violated the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Civil Service Act, Laws of Florida, 89-404, as amended by Laws of Florida, 90-395, Section 6, Subsection 4: violation of provisions of the law or rules, regulations, and operating procedures of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. The Administrative Review Board determined that Deputy Davis' conduct was a violation of the rules and regulations of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, Rules 3-1.1 (level five violation) and 5.16, relating to sexual harassment and discrimination as defined in the Sheriff's General Order 3-4. The Administrative Review Board determined that Deputy Davis' available range of discipline was calculated in conformance with the matrix contained within General Order 10-2 of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office that allocates a point scale to various violations. The matrix provides that a level five offense, which includes sexual harassment, results in a 50- point assessment. Deputy Davis scored a total of 50 cumulative points with a discipline range of five-day suspension up to and including termination. Demotion is also authorized under the applicable General Order. After considering the evidence and available sanctions, the Sheriff notified Deputy Davis on March 10, 2003, that he was imposing a ten-day suspension without pay and demoting him from the rank of corporal to the rank of detention deputy. After weighing all the evidence, including the Sheriff's evidentiary presentation of Ms. Atwater's testimony of verbal comments made and intentional body conduct allegedly engaged in by Deputy Davis, this fact finder finds the uncorroborated hearsay evidence insufficient to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the allegations that Deputy Davis made sexually harassing verbal comments to Ms. Atwater, and that he made intentional sexually harassing body contact with her, so as to create a hostile work environment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office enter a final order finding that: Petitioner did not commit the verbal and physical conduct alleged in the charging document and that there was no violation of the rules, regulations, and policies of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office as alleged. Petitioner's ten-day suspension from his employment as a detention corporal with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office was therefore inappropriate. Petitioner's demotion from his previous rank of detention corporal to the rank of detention deputy was therefore inappropriate. Petitioner's ten-day suspension from his employment as a detention corporal with the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office be restored with full detention corporal's pay and benefits. Petitioner be restored to the rank of detention corporal2 and given full duties and responsibilities as previously held. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 20th day of August, 2003.
