The Issue Whether the Respondent (the Agency) may assess costs against the Employer, who is denominated the Petitioner in the case, for rehabilitative temporary total disability benefits for an employee who was injured on the job, returned to work for approximately three years, and then was discharged for cause unrelated to his injury?
Findings Of Fact James Rutan (Rutan) was hired by Piedmont Airlines of Jacksonville on June 4, 1985. The employer changed its name to U.S. Airways (US Air) in April 1997. Rutan’s position was a fleet service employee. In this capacity, his duties were varied, but among his duties were loading and unloading baggage and freight from aircraft. On September 25, 1993, Rutan was loading baggage, picked up a heavy bag, pulled it across his chest, and injured his shoulder. He went first to the emergency room, then to Dr. Depadua, and finally to Dr. Fady Bahri, who determined that Rutan had torn his rotator cuff. Dr. Bahri operated on Rutan’s shoulder in November 1993, and Rutan returned to light duty with US Air in January 1994. Rutan continued in light-duty status until March 15, 1994. Two contradictory documents were introduced from Dr. Bahri’s office regarding Rutan’s status as of March 15, 1994. One document, sent to the workman’s’ compensation insurer, indicates that Dr. Bahri determined Rutan had reached Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) with a 12 percent impairment rating and physical restrictions of light work, lifting a maximum of 20 pounds, lifting and carry objects weighing up to ten pounds, and no repetitive overhead activities. However, the other document, attached to Dr. Bahri’s deposition, from the US Air file indicates that Rutan was cleared to return to “full duty.” The doctor was unable to explain in his deposition the apparent contradiction in the two determinations. Rutan testified at hearing concerning his injury and its effect upon his work. Rutan loaded and unloaded baggage and freight from aircraft, and that to do so, he crawled into the cargo bay of the aircraft several times each day and either stacked bags or boxes, or threw bags or boxes to the person stacking them. This caused him pain, and he took quantities of over-the-counter and prescription pain relievers to cope with the pain and continue working. He did not complain to his supervisor(s) about discomfort from performing his duties or seek an accommodation for his handicap. Rutan's supervisor, Lynn Moore, testified regarding Rutan’s job performance. She was his supervisor for approximately two months. She observed his work during that time, and Rutan performed full duty, lifting everything he needed to lift. During the period Moore was Rutan’s supervisor, Rutan did not make any complaints of pain or complain of an inability to do the work. Rutan did not make any requests for transfers, or make any requests for accommodation for a handicap pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. In the first week of April 1997, US Air terminated Rutan for cause. Although the details were not discussed, the discharge was not related to his previously injury or its impact upon his work. Ms. Moore was familiar with the records of Rutan’s employment, and these records reflected Rutan missed a total of 90 days of work due to the injury and surgery. The records further reflect he returned to full duty not later than October 16, 1996, and worked in that capacity until his discharge. Rutan worked for approximately six months following October 16, 1996, without requesting an accommodation or other relief. Ms. Moore testified regarding the positions available at US Air for persons with Rutan’s experience. There were positions available that would have accommodated Rutan’s limitations.2/ Subsequent to his discharge, Rutan had a second surgery on his shoulder on May 11, 1998, that related back to his original injury. Dr. Bahri made another determination of MMI following this surgery on October 1, 1998. Dr. Bahri again determined that there was a 12 percent impairment, but stated that Rutan was able to do medium level work restricted to occasional lifting 21-50 pounds, frequent lifting of 11-20 pounds, and constant lifting of ten pounds with no overhead activities with the right arm or shoulder. These limitations are less restrictive, and permit Rutan to lift more than the limitations originally imposed after the 1993 surgery. At the time of the second surgery, Rutan was a full time student pursuing the profession for which he was "retrained." Subsequent to his second surgery and approximately one year after his discharge for cause, Rutan filed a DWC-23 on April 14, 1998 seeking rehabilitation temporary total disability benefits pursuant to Chapter 440, Florida Statutes. The Agency interviewed Rutan, and was aware of his work history, injury, and discharge for cause unrelated to his injury. Because he had been terminated before his presented his application, and was already approved for tuition benefits and enrolled in college, Rutan’s application was handled differently than a person who was employed by an employer. The employer was not required to sign the DWC-23, and Rutan was sent directly to Mark W. Toigo for vocational evaluation. Mr. Toigo’s evaluation of Rutan’s potential for finding employment without retraining was consistent with the standards for such evaluations and the Agency’s rules. Tiogo concluded that Rutan needed to be retrained. His conclusion was based upon two primary determinations: his determination Rutan physically could not perform the work required to work in his old job which was based upon the documentation provided to the workman's compensation insurer, and his determination that Rutan could not make the amount of money he made in his old job without retraining. The first of these determinations is not supported by the facts presented at hearing. There is documentation that Rutan was returned to full duty, which implicitly is without restriction or limitation. If we assume that Rutan was not returned to full duty by Dr. Bahri after his first surgery, the facts reveal Rutan had performed the duties of his prior job under restrictions that were more stringent than those imposed after his second surgery without complaint or requests for accommodation. Mr. Tiogo did not consider the impact of Rutan’s termination for cause because the Agency’s position was Rutan could not physically perform the duties of his employment; therefore, the job was not and had never been suitable. Ms. Moore and Mr. Richard Hall testified that US Air had positions available in the same pay range as Rutan’s that did not require lifting of the type precluded by Dr. Bahri. Had Rutan not been discharged for cause and had he requested an accommodation due to his physical limitations, US Air would have been legally required to and able to accommodate his needs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter its Final Order dismissing the administrative complaint seeking reimbursement for rehabilitation temporary total disability benefits from the Employer/Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2001.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice based on his age.
Findings Of Fact Currently, Petitioner is a retired, 68-year-old male. He retired from Respondent at the age of 66. Petitioner began his employment with Respondent as a truck driver. The position of truck driver, involves many long hours of driving (sometimes over 56 hours) various interstate and intrastate truck routes, along with some lifting and exposure to diesel fumes. Petitioner attributed a variety of illnesses and health problems to his work as a truck driver. Some of the illnesses and health problems are hypertension and heart blockage and failure, which resulted in the implantation of a pacemaker, carpal tunnel syndrome, polyneuropathy, muscular and autonomic system problems and pathological hyper-insomnia. Petitioner offered no evidence that any of these conditions resulted from his employment with Respondent. Prior to September 9 or 10, 2000, at the age of 64, Petitioner was hospitalized for heart problems. Around September 9 or 10, 2000, Petitioner was released from the hospital. Upon his return to work, he gave his employer a physician’s note indicating that his work duties be limited to 40 hours a week. Petitioner met with Respondent’s transportation manager regarding whether less lengthy routes were available or whether his schedule or work duties could be adjusted. The employer did not have the ability to adjust the length of the routes, but added a second driver to ride and help with the driving on any route that Petitioner drove. Petitioner inquired about office work and was told that if he was interested in such work he needed to apply at the main office to see what was available. In part, because Petitioner liked driving and in part because the lesser number of hours involved in office work would cause Petitioner to earn less, Petitioner elected not to pursue and did not apply for such office work. No adverse employment action was taken against Petitioner, and Petitioner continued to work for Respondent. At some point during this meeting, Petitioner alleges that the transportation manager said, “Why don’t you just retire.” Petitioner offered no specific context for this statement other than it was a general conversation about his health and closeness to retirement age relative to the adjustments that could be made to his driving duties. One isolated statement such as the one above does not demonstrate any intent to discriminate on Respondent’s part based on Petitioner’s age, especially since no adverse employment action was taken against Petitioner and Petitioner continued to work for Respondent. Around January 1, 2001, for medical reasons, Respondent approved a Leave of Absence with pay for Petitioner. In June or July, 2002, Petitioner filed his first workers compensation claim with Respondent. Petitioner’s claim was turned over to Respondent’s workers' compensation insurer, Kemper Insurance Company. Petitioner did not offer any evidence that Kemper was under the direction or control of Respondent in any decisions Kemper made regarding paying or litigating Petitioner’s claim. In any event, Petitioner’s claim was contested. The main reason the claim was contested was that Kemper alleged that Petitioner’s “injuries” were not work-related. Over the years, Petitioner has amended his claim to include, among other health claims, the health problems listed above. Kemper has maintained its defense. During a mediation session on December 11, 2002, at which the employer was not present and in response to an inquiry regarding Kemper’s defense, Kemper’s representative stated that except for the carpal tunnel claim, all of Petitioner’s medical conditions were due to the natural aging process. Petitioner claims this statement demonstrates an intent on his employer’s part to discriminate against him based on his age. Such an isolated statement does not demonstrate such an intent especially since such conditions can be age related, there was no expert medical evidence demonstrating the cause of Petitioner’s health problems, the statement did not come from the employer, and there was no evidence that the insurer was under the direction or control of the employer regarding decisions to litigate or the factual basis for the defenses that the insurer would raise. The workers' compensation litigation continues to date. In the interim, Petitioner remained on a leave of absence with pay until January 1, 2003. He retired thereafter. There was no evidence that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner or that Petitioner suffered any adverse employment action based on his age. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relation 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Glynda Copeland Qualified Representative Tree of Life, Inc. Post Office Box 410 St. Augustine, Florida 32095-0410 Robert C. Johnson 560 Florida Club Boulevard, Suite 112 St. Augustine, Florida 32084
The Issue The issue in this case is who is entitled to payment of remaining retirement benefits due to James E. Brandon, deceased.
Findings Of Fact James E. Brandon was employed by the Hillsborough County Parks and Recreation Department and was a participant in the Florida Retirement System (FRS). Mr. Brandon had a long standing relationship with Dennis A. Barga. In February 1995, James E. Brandon applied for FRS disability benefits due to a medical condition. On the application for disability benefits, James E. Brandon designated Dennis A. Barga as his primary beneficiary. The application for disability benefits was approved in June 1995, with an effective retirement date of March 1, 1995. James E. Brandon elected to receive benefits under "Option 2" of the FRS, which provides for a lifetime benefit to the covered employee. Option 2 also provides that, if the covered employee does not survive for the ten years following retirement, payment is made to a designated beneficiary for the remainder of the ten year period. James E. Brandon died on August 28, 1995, of the condition which resulted in his disability. James E. Brandon did not personally receive any of his disability benefits. By letter dated September 29, 1995, the Division notified Mr. Barga that he was entitled to receive the remaining benefit payments for the ten year period. At the end of September, the Division sent two checks to the home of James E. Brandon. One check covered the initial benefits period from March 1995 through August 1995. The second check was for the September 1995 benefit. The checks were not returned to the Division and apparently were cashed or deposited. On October 10, 1995, the Division was notified by William Brandon that his brother, James E. Brandon, had completed a form amending his designation of beneficiary and that the form had been filed with the Division. The Division searched its files and located a form, FRS M-10, which was apparently filed on July 25, 1995, by James E. Brandon, and which amends his prior designation to identify sequential beneficiaries. The amended beneficiaries, in order, are William W. Brandon, III, Daniel A. Brandon, and Victoria Weaver Stevens. The Brandons are family members of the deceased. Ms. Stevens is a long-time family friend and was also employed by the Hillsborough County Parks and Recreation Department. FRS Form M-10 is the form adopted by the Division for use by a non-retired FRS participant in designating a beneficiary. Form M-10 does not require execution before a notary public. FRS Form FST-12 is the form adopted by the Division for use by a retired participant in designating a beneficiary. Form FST-12 requires execution before a notary public. The amendment of the beneficiaries should have been executed on a Form FST-12. The Form M-10, which was filed on July 25, 1995, was provided to James E. Brandon by the human resources office of the Hillsborough County Parks and Recreation Department. The form was obtained by Victoria Weaver Stevens apparently at the request of the deceased. The filing of the improper form was through no fault of James E. Brandon. The Petitioner suggests that the signature on the Form M-10 is a forgery. There is no credible evidence to support the assertion. The evidence establishes that the deceased sometimes included his middle initial in his signature, and other times did not. The Petitioner suggests that during the last weeks of the deceased's life, he was overmedicated, was often unaware of his surroundings, and was likely manipulated into changing the designated beneficiaries. There is no credible evidence that James E. Brandon was mentally incapacitated and unable to understand the import of his decisions at the time the amendment was filed with the Division.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Division of Retirement enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition of Dennis A. Barga. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: A. J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Paul A. Rowell, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 David T. Weisbrod, Esquire 601 North Franklin Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Stanley N. Danek, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Thomas Frost, Esquire 7901 Fourth Street North Suite 315 St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Sylvester Brown, was subject to discrimination in employment for the reasons alleged in the Petition.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Sylvester Brown, was terminated from his position as Laborer, position number 51343, within the Facilities Operation and Maintenance Department of Florida State University (FSU) on October 7, 1999, for violation of a Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave. The Petitioner had been employed by FSU for 24 years. Petitioner's Disciplinary Violations Leading to Termination Attendance is a critical element of the Laborer's job because departmental productivity depends on the reliable availability of employees. The Petitioner received a copy of Rule 6C2-4.070, Guidelines for Disciplinary Action, Rules of the Florida State University Administrative Code on January 29, 1988, which provided notice to the Petitioner of FSU's standard of conduct and the associated penalties for violation. The Petitioner was cited for numerous disciplinary infractions prior to his dismissal. The Petitioner's work history documents a consistent trend of absences which grew progressively worse over time. A list of documentation in evidence, exhibiting disciplinary action taken by FSU against the Petitioner includes: A three day suspension for Absence Without Authorized Leave (AWOL) and Excessive Absences, dated January 3, 1997. A written reprimand for Excessive Absences and AWOL, dated August 6, 1996. An oral reprimand for excessive absences, dated April 26, 1996. 1996. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated February 29, A written reprimand for AWOL, dated August 14, 1991. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated June 5, 1989. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated February 22, 1989. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated July 8, 1988. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated May 25, 1988. The Petitioner was cited for excessive tardiness in an official written reprimand dated July 8, 1988, and the Petitioner was again reminded that his performance hindered the department's ability to perform its function. An oral reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated January 28, 1988. An oral reprimand for misuse of state property and equipment, dated July 11, 1985. A written reprimand for misuse of state property and equipment dated March 21, 1984. A written reprimand for excessive absences, dated February 7, 1984. A written reprimand for AWOL and misuse of state property and equipment dated, January 25, 1983. A three day suspension for AWOL, dated July 27, 1981. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated July 13, 1981. The Petitioner was directed in an August 14, 1991, written reprimand to phone his supervisor as close to 8:00 a.m. as possible on days he would be unable to report to work. The Petitioner was reminded in the February 29, 1996, written reprimand of the policy requiring employees to provide supervisors with advanced notice or documentation for leave to be authorized. The Petitioner was informed on April 26, 1996, that his absences, both excused and unexcused, exceeded established attendance and leave standards. Specifically, from January through April, the Petitioner used 33 hours of annual leave, 31 hours of sick leave, and 29 hours of leave without pay. FSU notified the Petitioner that his absences and sick leave totaling 33 hours during the period from April 26, 1996 to August 6, 1996, were deemed excessive and in contravention of departmental standards. The Petitioner was also cited for six hours of being absent without authorized leave. The Petitioner's chronic absenteeism did not improve. The period from August 6, 1996 through January 3, 1997, witnessed 46 hours of sick leave or unauthorized leave on the Petitioner's part. An inventory of the Petitioner's absences following his suspension from January 7-9, 1997 until August 22, 1997, catalogued 56 hours of sick leave, 16 hours of leave without pay and two hours of absence without authorized leave. This amount of leave was "considered to be excessive and completely unacceptable." [Id.] Further, the university did not receive any medical excuses for the Petitioner's use of sick leave during this period. [Id.] Counseling was provided to the Petitioner by FSU regarding the use of sick leave on August 17, 1998. An examination of the Petitioner's attendance revealed that he used 63 hours of sick leave from February 20, 1998 through August 6, 1998. [Id.] The university's standard for the same period of time was 33 hours of sick leave. [Id.] The Petitioner was further advised by FSU that he would not be compensated for three consecutive absences or three absences within a 30-day period without proper medical documentation. FSU assessed the Petitioner's attendance from January 8, 1998 through August 6, 1998, by comparing the standard allocated for sick leave to the Petitioner's actual use of sick leave. The sick leave standard for employees for the period under review was 44.16 hours whereas the Petitioner expended 67 hours of sick leave. [Id.] The record establishes that the Petitioner was warned 17 times in writing through reprimands, memorandums, and counseling notices dating back to 1981 that absenteeism was punishable under university employee disciplinary standards. Tardiness and absenteeism are, in fact, grounds for dismissal under the FSU Handbook for Employees. The Petitioner was warned twice in writing that failure to rectify his recurring absenteeism could result in his dismissal. Petitioner's Termination The FSU's Guidelines for Disciplinary Action are based on the concepts of progressive and cumulative discipline. The Disciplinary Guidelines outline standards to apply for punishable offenses to ensure similar treatment. Ms. Susannah Miller, Manager of Employees Relations at FSU, testified that the Petitioner's personnel file revealed the worst case of absenteeism she has seen at FSU. Excessive absences is defined in the Guideline for Disciplinary Action as "an attendance record of recurring absences, even though all or a majority of the absences were necessary and excused." Dismissal is allowed as proper punishment for an employee's fourth violation of the excessive absence rule. FSU notified the Petitioner of its intention to terminate him for excessive absences, effective on or shortly after October 12, 1998. In lieu of firing the Petitioner, FSU elected to allow the Petitioner to enter into a "Last Chance Agreement" (LCA) with FSU to avoid dismissal. Ms. Miller stated that Last Chance Agreements allow a final opportunity for employees to improve their performance. Ms. Miller further testified that to her knowledge FSU has never retained any employee that violated a Last Chance Agreement. The Last Chance Agreement required the Petitioner to (1) obtain prior written approval of requests for annual leave or leave without pay; (2) follow departmental policy and call-in between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. and speak personally with his supervisor or proper designee if he was sick and unable to report to work; and (3) agree that violation of any LCA provision would result in immediate termination for cause. The Petitioner violated the Last Chance Agreement when he did not report for work on August 27, 1999, because he neither obtained prior approval for the absence nor followed the call-in procedure. The Petitioner also failed to provide any documentation justifying his absence. The Petitioner was in violation of the Last Chance Agreement on August 31, 1999, when he was tardy without permission and failed to follow the call-in procedure. The Petitioner's breach of the Last Chance Agreement is even more egregious because he collected his paycheck prior to work and could have easily informed his supervisor or the designee that he needed leave that day. In addition to violating the terms of the Last Chance Agreement, the Petitioner was also AWOL on August 27 and August 31, 1999. AWOL is "failure to obtain approval prior to any absence from work" and is punishable by dismissal for the third occurrence. The Petitioner admitted that he violated the Last Chance Agreement. On September 15, 1999, FSU informed the Petitioner of its decision to terminate him for violating the Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave. The Petitioner was dismissed on October 7, 1999. Petitioner's Step One Grievance was denied on December 13, 1999. FSU's decision to terminate the Petitioner for violation of the Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave was upheld by the State University System of Florida in its Step Two Grievance decision. Petitioner's Injury The Petitioner's Position Description reveals that lifting is an integral part of a laborer's duties. The Petitioner's 1995 Position Description allocates 85 percent of the job's essential function to lifting, moving and arranging university property and requires that the laborer be able to lift 30 pounds. The Petitioner sustained a back injury at work on September 4, 1997. The Petitioner's job duties changed as a result of the injury and he was tasked with inspecting fire extinguishers from September 10 through November 12, 1997. A physical capacity assessment performed on the Petitioner indicated that he was capable of performing at a medium demand level. The Department of Labor defined medium demand as capable of lifting 50 pounds and pushing and pulling 50 pounds. The Petitioner was temporarily re-assigned to the Grounds Section of the Facilities, Operations and Maintenance Department on December 23, 1997. The Petitioner testified that his job function involved re-cycling. The Petitioner's assignment in the Grounds Section was light duty and he was informed that his job duties could be modified after his physician reviewed the physical capacity assessment. Dr. Alexander, the Petitioner's physician, declared the Petitioner fit for medium demand duty with a 35-pound lifting limit on March 24, 1998. Robert Pullen, American Disabilities Act Coordinator at FSU, was directed by Carolyn Shackleford, under the University's Reasonable Accommodation Policy, to ensure that the Petitioner's job activities with the Grounds Section did not exceed the 35p-pound lifting threshold. The Petitioner never contacted Mr. Pullen's office regarding reasonable accommodation. Mr. Pullen determined that the Petitioner's duties did not violate the lifting restriction and were in full compliance with the accommodation policy. The Petitioner testified that he could lift 35 pounds repetitively. The record reflects no evidence of age discrimination committed by the Respondent against the Petitioner. The record indicates no evidence that the Petitioner was terminated due to his race. The Petitioner presented no evidence or testimony regarding retaliation by FSU.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore,
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Norma J. Nolan, was discriminated against by Respondent, K.D.P., Inc. d/b/a Western Sizzlin Steak House, in violation of the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, on the basis of handicap, constituting an unlawful employment practice. Whether Petitioner has established a basis for, or entitlement to, an award of damages if, in fact, the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: K. D. P., Inc., operated a restaurant known as Western Sizzlin Steak House in Bradenton, Florida, which business was established prior to the alleged incident of July 1990. This business has continued in operation to the current time under the same management and with many of the same employees, although the restaurant has subsequently become known as Cattle Company Cafe. The Respondent, K. D. P., Inc., d/b/a Western Sizzlin Steak House, now known as Cattle Company Cafe (KDP), owned by Jack Parrish, has been managed by Kevin Wreford for approximately twelve years. Parrish relies on Wreford for the day-to-day operation of the business, hiring and firing decisions, and supervisory responsibility. The Petitioner was employed from December 1989 through February 1990 by Upjohn Health Care on a part-time basis as a respite worker. While she was physically able to do that job, Petitioner chose to leave that employment as it had little work available for her with that agency and Petitioner wished to work at a location closer to her home. Petitioner applied for employment with KDP by way of written application on August 2, 1990. Petitioner's employment application did not indicate any physical handicap, disability or limitation. Wreford interviewed Petitioner for the position of part-time cashier in early 1991. During the interview, Wreford discussed with the Petitioner the duties of the position for which she had applied. Those duties included taking payment from customers at the cashier's stand, overseeing the salad and sundae bar, checking the women's restroom, cleaning glass in the area of cashier's stand and watching for walkouts (walkouts being customers who walk out without paying for their meals). Petitioner advised Wreford that she was capable of performing these duties but was concerned about her lack of experience in working with cash and making change. Wreford hired Petitioner as a temporary, part-time cashier, and Petitioner began work in that capacity for Respondent on February 3, 1991. Petitioner continued in the employment of the Respondent in the capacity of part-time cashier through July 17, 1991. At the time Petitioner was hired by Respondent on February 3, 1991 there was a large wooden bar stool located behind the counter where the cashier took payments for meals. All cashiers working for the Respondent, including Petitioner, were allowed to sit on this stool at times when they were not waiting on customers (cashiers were required to stand while waiting on customers) or performing other assigned duties as set out in Finding of Fact 6. Sometime around July 1, 1991, Wreford discussed with the cashiers, including Petitioner, his concerns about the cashiers not performing their other assigned duties when they were not waiting on customers. Performing other assigned duties required the cashiers to be away from the cashier's area. At this time, Petitioner made Wreford aware of her knee problem and advised him that she may have difficulty standing for long periods of time. There had been no mention of this problem previously nor had Petitioner experienced any problem with her knee previously. Likewise, Petitioner did not experience any problems with her knee in carrying out her assigned duties during the next two weeks. In fact, both Wreford and Parrish were pleased with Petitioner's performance during this period. On or about July 12, 1991, Parrish's wife who had become involved in the management of the restaurant advised Parrish that the stool needed to be removed from the cashier area because: (a) the stool was showing its wear and tear and was aesthetically unpleasing; (b) the stool was taking up too much room resulting in the cashiers not being able to perform their duties properly, particularly looking for walkouts and; (c) to prevent a certain cashier (not Petitioner) from abusing the privilege of the stool by sitting on the stool for extended periods of time and not performing her other assigned duties. On or about July 12, 1991, Parrish removed the stool from the caahier's area and placed it in his office where it remains today because the stool has a sentimental value in that Parrish used the stool in his first restaurant. On or about July 13, 1991, when Petitioner arrived for work and noticed the stool had been removed she met with Parrish and Wreford and advised them that she could not work without the stool because of her knee. Parrish and Wreford offered to accommodate her problem by allowing Petitioner to sit at a table adjacent to the cashier area when she was not waiting on customers or performing her other assigned duties. Petitioner advised Parrish and Wreford that she could not work under those conditions but that she would stay on until a replacement was found. Parrish and Wreford accepted Petitioner's resignation but encouraged Petitioner to continue her employment until she could determine if the accommodation would be satisfactory. Petitioner continued to work for Respondent until July 17, 1991, and was able to function without any problems with her knee under the accommodations provided by Respondent. However, after Petitioner resigned she never asked to be reinstated even though she was able to function under the accommodations provided by Respondent. Although Petitioner alleged that she had a physical disability/handicap because of problems she had related to an alleged right knee replacement done some years earlier, there was no medical evidence or other documentation establishing any physical handicap or restrictions/limitations in her ability to work. There were other cashiers employed by Respondent who had conditions similar to Petitioner's conditions who were able to function with the same accommodation offered Petitioner. One of those was the person hired by Respondent to take Petitioner's position. Petitioner collected unemployment compensation after leaving Respondent's employment, as well as other forms of assistance, such as food stamps and housing assistance. Additionally, after leaving Respondent's employment Petitioner developed "female problems" and is not seeking employment even though she attended computer school. There was no evidence as to the amount of damages suffered by Petitioner. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that Petitioner was discriminated against on the basis of a handicap by Respondent or that any unlawful employment practice occurred. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish facts to show that there were legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons for the action taken by Respondent in removing the stool and providing other accommodations for the cashiers, including Petitioner. There was insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that the Respondent's articulated reasons for its action were pretextual.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a Final Order finding that the Petitioner, Norma J. Nolan, was not discharged due to her handicap in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, and that the Petition For Relief be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of June, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-3903 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed Findings of Fact 1 through 13 have been adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order, except where they may be subordinate, cumulative, unnecessary, irrelevant, immaterial or a restatement of testimony rather than presented as a finding of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed Findings of Fact 1 through 32 have been adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order, except where they may be subordinate, cumulative, unnecessary, irrelevant, immaterial or a restatement of testimony rather than presented as a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Norma J. Nolan, Pro Se 1109 Harvard Avenue Bradenton, Florida 34207 Donna L. Derfoot, Esquire Post Office Box 3979 Sarasota, Florida 34230 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahasse, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his race in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, when Petitioner was an employee of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact From November 2004 until early 2008, which period includes all times relevant to this case, Petitioner Robinson Nelson ("Nelson") worked for Respondent Alutiiq-Mele, LLC ("AML") as a security guard. Nelson, who is black, alleges that on two discrete occasions, AML unlawfully discriminated against him based on race, once denying him an overtime shift which he requested, and the other time refusing to assign him "equal work hours." The first incident allegedly took place on "or about March 1, 2005." According to Nelson, he called his supervisor that day, using a telephone at his workstation, to ask that he be scheduled to work overtime on his day off. The supervisor, Nelson claims, told him that overtime had been "eliminated" and denied Nelson's request. Shortly thereafter, as Nelson tells it, the supervisor called Nelson's coworker, Nadja Abreu, and offered her the overtime that Nelson had just been denied. Nelson's story cannot be squared with AML's records, which the undersigned considers reliable and truthful and hence credits. Nelson's timesheet for the week of February 27 through March 5, 2005, shows (and it is found) that he worked all seven days that week, putting in 40 regular hours and 26 overtime hours. Ms. Abreu's timesheet for the same period shows (and it is found) that she worked four days, accruing 40 regular hours and four overtime hours. At hearing, Nelson claimed (apparently for the first time) that the telephone conversation with his supervisor regarding overtime had not occurred on or about March 1, 2005—— as he had alleged originally in his Charge of Discrimination (signed on November 20, 2005) and maintained as recently as the Joint Prehearing Stipulation (dated May 30, 2008)——but rather some two weeks later, on or about March 15, 2005. Again, however, credible contemporaneous records belie Nelson's claim. A payroll document shows (and it is found) that Nelson and Ms. Abreu each worked 40 regular hours during the week of March 13, 2005——and neither put in overtime. (Moreover, Nelson did not work on March 15 and 16, 2005, which means that, if Nelson called his supervisor on March 15, as he asserted at hearing, then he likely would not have been at his workstation at the time, which is inconsistent with his testimony that he placed the call while at work.) Regarding the second alleged incident of discrimination, Nelson claims that on Monday, October 31, 2005, shortly before 9:00 a.m., he received a telephone call at home from his supervisor, who wanted to know why Nelson had failed to report for work that morning. Nelson says he told his supervisor that he had not been scheduled to work that day, and he could not work because he was babysitting. Nelson complains that, in connection with this situation, AML "denied" him regular work hours because of his race. In addition to being facially illogical, Nelson's claim of discrimination is contradicted by reliable and persuasive documentary evidence. First, AML's payroll record shows (and it is found) that Nelson worked four hours on Sunday, October 30, and seven-and-a-half hours each day the next Tuesday through Friday, making a total 34 regular hours during the week of October 30, 2005. While this was not quite a full-time workweek, that Nelson worked fewer than 40 hours one week is not, of itself, proof that AML "denied" him six hours of work. In fact, AML did not "deny" Nelson a work opportunity, as other contemporaneous documents——not to mention Nelson's own testimony——show. In evidence are two work schedules pertaining to the week of October 30, 2005. One was printed on October 28, 2005, and the other on October 30, 2005. There are a number of differences between them; each, however, notes that "scheduled hours are subject to change as needed." On the earlier schedule, Nelson was to be off on Monday, October 31, 2005. On the subsequent schedule, he was to work from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. that day. Had Nelson reported to work on October 31, 2005, as (ultimately) scheduled——and as he was asked to do——Nelson would have worked more than 40 hours the week of October 30, 2005. Ultimate Factual Determinations Taken as a whole, the evidence in this case is either insufficient to establish that AML discriminated unlawfully against Nelson on the basis of his race; or it proves, affirmatively, that AML did not, in all likelihood, unlawfully discriminate against him. Either way, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that AML did not violate the civil rights laws in its treatment of Nelson while he was an employee of AML.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order finding AML not liable to Nelson for racial discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Erwin Rosenberg, Esquire Post Office Box 416433 Miami Beach, Florida 33141 Christine L. Wilson, Esquire Jennifer A. Schwartz, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 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 is whether the Petitioner, Thelma H. Dampier, is entitled to consideration of her second application for disability retirement benefits based on the submission of new medical information.
Findings Of Fact Thelma H. Dampier was a member of the Florida Retirement System (FRS), Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, and had more than ten years of creditable service. She terminated her employment in August, 1988. In October, 1988, Ms. Dampier applied for in-line-of-duty disability retirement under FRS. By its final action letter received by Ms. Dampier on July 27, 1989, the Division denied her application for disability benefits. Under the applicable procedural rules, Ms. Dampier had 21 days to file a petition for an administrative hearing before the State Retirement Commission. She failed to request a hearing on the denial of benefits and her right to a hearing ceased. On September 8, 1990, Ms. Dampier filed a second application for in- line-of-duty disability retirement benefits. The application included medical records from Doctors Evans, Andrews, Barrow, and Chance. The medical records of Doctors Evans and Andrews had been submitted with and considered in connection to the first application. The medical records of Doctors Chance and Barrow were submitted for the first time with the second application. The report of Dr. Barrow opines that Ms. Dampier is permanently and totally disabled, but it does not reflect her condition at the time she terminated employment or any connection between her condition and her employment. The report of Dr. Chance, a chiropractic physician, relates to neck, shoulder and lower back pain. The report does not state that Ms. Dampier is totally and permanently disabled. Instead, it states that Ms. Dampier suffers only mild degenerative changes. It also does not relate that opinion to the date on which her employment terminated. The Division has a policy set forth in a Memorandum for Record dated July 17, 1990, regarding handling of reapplications for disability benefits. The policy specifies that reapplications will be considered "only when the member presents information of the existence of a medical condition that existed prior to termination of employment--unknown at the time of the initial application." This policy is reasonable and consistent with the Chapter 121.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Division of Retirement enter a Final Order denying consideration of Thelma H. Dampier's second application for in-line-of-duty disability benefits. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division ofAdministrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Division of Retirement Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3(3); and 4(4). Proposed findings of fact 5 and 6 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 7 is repetitive and unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Thelma H. Dampier Post Office Box 342 Melrose, FL 32666 Stanley M. Danek Division Attorney Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Building C Tallahassee, FL 32399 A. J. McMullian III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Building C Tallahassee, FL 32399 John A. Pieno, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550
The Issue Whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her alleged disability in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Danette Marshall ("Marshall") was employed by Respondent Sam's East, Inc. ("Sam's Club") from October 1, 2004 to March 31, 2005. She worked at a store in Tallahassee and, at all relevant times, held the position of "greeter." The essential functions of a greeter were, then as now, constantly to (a) greet members (shoppers) and check membership cards, (b) keep the entrance area clean and organized by picking up after members and providing them with carts, and (c) resolve member concerns. It was (and is) important to Sam's Club that greeters be mobile at all times. While working on February 9, 2005, Marshall experienced such pain and swelling in her feet that she asked to leave work early to seek medical treatment. With her supervisor's permission, Marshall went to the emergency room, where she was diagnosed with bilateral plantar fasciitis and referred to a podiatrist. Marshall saw a podiatrist later that month. The evidence adduced at hearing is insufficient to make findings concerning the prescribed treatment and Marshall's prognosis.2 It is undisputed, however, that her doctor suggested Marshall should stand only for brief periods while working. Following the doctor's advice, Marshall asked her employer to either provide her with a stool on which to sit or, alternatively, transfer her to another position that would not require constant standing. Sam's Club refused to let Marshall sit on a stool while on the job because, in its view, greeters are supposed to be constantly moving about their work stations, keeping busy attending to shoppers and performing other duties. Sam's Club could not give Marshall a sedentary job because it did not have such a position available for her. Marshall's supervisor did, however, informally accommodate Marshall by letting her take an extra five-minute break most every hour, conditions permitting. Despite that, after February 21, 2005, Marshall effectively stopped coming to work, claiming inability to perform.3 In consequence of Marshall's repeated failures to report for work, Sam's Club informed her that she needed either to resume working immediately or take a medical leave of absence——and failing that, her employment would be terminated. Marshall was given a Leave of Absence form to complete and submit for approval if she were to opt for taking time off. To be eligible for a medical leave, a Sam's Club employee must obtain a certification from his or her doctor (or other health care provider) specifying, among other things, the dates during which the employee needs to be away from work. Marshall brought the Leave of Absence form to her podiatrist, who signed the document but failed fully to complete the certification, putting "X"s on the lines where the "begin leave" and "return date" information should have been inscribed. In early March 2005, Marshall submitted her Leave of Absence form. Sam's Club subsequently notified Marshall that the form was not in order because the doctor's certification was incomplete; it reminded her that leave could not be authorized unless she submitted a properly completed request. Thereafter, Marshall returned to her podiatrist and asked him to complete the required certification, but he refused to do so.4 Effective March 31, 2005, Sam's Club terminated Marshall's employment due to her chronic absenteeism and professed inability to perform the job of greeter without a stool on which to sit and rest from time to time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order finding Sam's Club not liable to Marshall for disability discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent has engaged in an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, by discriminating against Petitioner based on his disability.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been employed as a correctional officer by Respondent at all times pertinent to this proceeding at Tomoka Correctional Institution (TCI) in Volusia County, Florida. The prison houses adult male inmates. Staff at TCI has the primary mission of providing for the public safety through the care, custody and control of the inmates housed in that facility. In early 1998, Petitioner was diagnosed with Non- Hodgkin's Lymphoma and began treatment for the disease. He was granted leave as needed for treatment and continued otherwise to work. Petitioner requested and was eventually granted the privilege of working a double shift only in those situations where he could take the next day off. In December of 2000, he requested that he be assigned to a perimeter post half of the time, and that he not be assigned to the chow hall or to guard sick inmates. Since Petitioner did not provide sufficient medical information to support the requested accommodation, it was denied. Respondent assigned Petitioner to be a "roving perimeter officer" on June 18, 2001. These officers observe the secure perimeter of the facility to ensure that no unauthorized entry into or out of the facility takes place. Each officer on this assignment is issued a shotgun, revolver and a motor vehicle. Each officer has a specific part of the perimeter fence to guard. Petitioner, as a result of medication he takes for his condition, experienced an urgent need to defecate, and left his post after calling for a replacement. As a consequence, Petitioner was thereafter assigned duty only where he would have immediate access to bathroom facilities. Petitioner provided documentation from his health care provider to Respondent indicating that Petitioner could work any post in the facility subject to certain qualifications. He should be given 16 hours' advance notice of the assignment to permit him to plan his medication schedule if he were assigned to the perimeter or other station where bathrooms were not readily available. Additionally, Petitioner was to be relieved within nine minutes of requesting a needed bathroom break. Petitioner also needed to have constant access to cold water and not be subjected to temperatures in excess of 90 degrees for more than an hour. As a result of his special needs, Petitioner remained assigned mainly to inside posts. He meets all requirements to work in the TCI observation towers, which have bathroom facilities and are climate controlled. He is assigned to such a tower one day per week. Respondent will not provide Petitioner 16 hours' notification of a future assignment so as to permit him to schedule his medication in such a way as to avoid urgent bathroom usage. Further, Respondent will not provide relief within nine minutes so that Petitioner can use the restrooms when necessary. Petitioner is generally assigned by Respondent to dormitory duty with the exception of tower duty one day per week. The dormitory is air-conditioned, but such assignment is stressful, fatiguing, and could adversely affect Petitioner's physical condition of lymphoma which is presently in remission.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2004, 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 22nd day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ernest L. Reddick, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Lawrence A. Lopenski 2482 Barbarossa Avenue Deltona, Florida 32524 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
