The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice based upon her disability or based upon retaliation, in purported violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was employed as a Training Specialist II in the staff development department of the Sunland facility of the Department of Children and Families. (Now the Agency for Persons With Disabilities.) At times relevant hereto, in October 2003, the Petitioner, Constance Gatewood, was employed by "Sunland Marianna" (Sunland). The Respondent Department of Children and Family Services is an agency of the State of Florida charged, as pertinent hereto, with implementing statutes, rules, and policies concerning persons with disabilities who are within its custody or otherwise. A meeting was conducted with Sunland's management and the Petitioner on October 8, 2003, in which the Petitioner provided documentation from a physician confirming that she suffered from a condition triggered by exposure to certain chemicals or perfumes. This condition was described as "potentially life threatening." The condition apparently primarily involved the Petitioner's respiration. Sunland sought to accommodate this condition by instructing attendees to training sessions conducted by the Petitioner to refrain from using perfumes, colognes, etc., which might aggravate the Petitioner's condition. There is no dispute that the Petitioner has a disability of this nature. Sunland also provided each new employee who came for training with the Petitioner with a separate similar notification. Sunland also posted the notification in and around the staff development building, the Petitioner's primary work place. Sunland also relocated the Petitioner's office and ordered alternative non- irritating cleaning supplies in order to accommodate the Petitioner's condition. Despite these accommodations the Petitioner's condition still sometimes became symptomatic. In an effort to minimize her exposure to perfumes or other chemicals the Petitioner on occasion would teach from her doorway, rather than standing in her accustomed place in front of the class. On occasion she would have to teach her class with all the doors opened, which sometimes created an uncomfortable draft in cold weather. On other occasions she would send students out of her class in the belief that they were wearing a perfume, cologne, or other chemical agent which was irritating her respiratory condition. On one or more occasions she had to rely on a co-worker to perform a cleaning task for which she was responsible. The Petitioner received a performance evaluation in March of 2004, which contained an overall rating of 4.33, a score which reflects that her performance exceeded expectations. On performance expectation number one, however, she received a grade of three rather than the four she had received the prior year. This was based upon a decline, in her employer's view, of her performance related to team work and respect for others. Because of this reduction from a four to a three on this category of her performance evaluation the Petitioner filed a Career Service Grievance. She contended that her performance had been based upon "confidential information," despite her supervisor's assurances that it was based on her supervisor's perception of problems the Petitioner had in the areas of cooperation with co-workers and respect for class attendees. Upon investigation, the Career Service Grievance was denied by a memorandum of April 8, 2004. Dr. Clemmons, the superintendent of the Respondent's facility, continued efforts to accommodate the Petitioner and her disability. He offered the Petitioner a job in an open position as a social worker on or about April 1, 2004. This position would have no deleterious effect on the terms, conditions, privileges, or benefits of the Petitioner's employment. The Petitioner was apparently pleased to have the job transfer to the new position and, in fact, volunteered to begin the position prior to the customary two week notice period. The Respondent has continued to attempt to accommodate the Petitioner and her disability as she has raised issues regarding her disability upon assuming her new position. The Petitioner, however, did not identify in advance any accommodation-related issues to her employer prior to beginning work in her new position.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Constance Gatewood Post Office Box 262 Campbellton, Florida 32426 Amy McKeever Toman, Esquire Agency for Persons With Disabilities Sunland Center 3700 Williams Drive Marianna, Florida 32446 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 Respondent committed an unlawful employment action against Petitioner by discriminating against her based on her disability in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2005).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a 120-bed skilled nursing home. Respondent is licensed by the State of Florida and certified by Medicare and Medicaid. Petitioner is and has been a Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) since 1975. In January 2005, Petitioner worked for Elder Care, sitting with one of Respondent's resident's from 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Toward the end of the month, she began looking for another job because her hours as a sitter were being cut back. Petitioner learned that Respondent had an opening for a floor technician (floor tech). Petitioner had experience cleaning floors, so she applied for the job on January 31, 2005. Petitioner gave her application to Respondent's receptionist. Respondent then sent the application, to Teresa Engram, Respondent's Assistant Director of Housekeeping. The application included a health checklist/assessment. Petitioner indicated on the form that she suffered from high blood pressure, back pain, and asthma. Ms. Engram reviewed Petitioner's application, and, during an interview, inquired whether Petitioner would be able to perform the necessary work. Ms. Engram explained that the person hired for the job would have to work a flexible schedule because the facility's floors could only be stripped and waxed at night when the patients were asleep. Petitioner assured Ms. Engram that she would be able to do the job. Petitioner did not reveal that she suffered from depression. Petitioner did not tell Ms. Engram that her health problems, such as asthma, would prevent her from working around the strong chemicals used in stripping floors. Petitioner told Ms. Engram she would be able to work at nights with advance notice so that she could arrange a babysitter for her grandchild. Petitioner passed the required medical test and background check. She began working on or about February 1, 2005. Her regular hours were from noon to 8:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday, with the understanding that she would have to work scheduled night shifts. Petitioner initially trained with another floor tech, Johnnie Betsy. After a few days, Petitioner worked on one side of the facility and Mr. Betsy worked on the other. Her duties included sweeping, mopping, and buffing the floors, as well as taking out the trash. At least once a year, Respondent's floor techs strip and wax the floors in the facility. The project takes about a month from start to finish. The work is performed at night. The waxing and stripping project was already underway for 2005 when Petitioner began working for Respondent. Ms. Engram made several attempts to schedule a night shift for Petitioner so that she could train with Mr. Betsy and help him strip and wax floors. Petitioner let Ms. Engram know that she did not want to work the night shift. Additionally, Petitioner was unhappy with her salary and complained that she should be making more money. Ms. Engram discussed Petitioner's complaints with Rhonda Cheney, Respondent's Director of Laundry and Housekeeping. Eventually, Petitioner learned that Respondent had an opening for a CNA position. Petitioner told Ms. Engram and Ms. Cheney that Petitioner was going to apply for the CNA position because it involved fewer hours, two days on and four days off. At some point in time, Petitioner received Social Security disability benefits. There is no competent evidence to show what disability Petitioner had that entitled her to disability benefits. Apparently, Petitioner lost her disability benefits before she started working for Respondent because she made too much money at a prior job. Petitioner wanted the new CNA position even though she would make less money than a full-time floor tech. Petitioner believed she could reestablish her disability benefits if she earned less money. Sometime during the first week of March 2005, Ms. Engram advised Petitioner that she would have to work the night shift beginning 9:00 p.m. on March 6, 2005, till 5:00 a.m. on March 7, 2005. Petitioner agreed to work as scheduled, with the understanding that she and Mr. Betsy would strip and wax hall floors. Petitioner testified that she told Ms. Engram that she should have an ambulance present on the night of March 6, 2005, in case Petitioner had an asthma attack from the strong chemicals used to strip the floors. Petitioner's testimony in this regard is not persuasive. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner never verbally discussed her mental or physical health problems with Ms. Engram. On March 3, 2005, Petitioner learned from Mr. Betsy that there was not enough wax to complete the job planned for the evening of March 6, 2005. Even without the wax, Petitioner and Mr. Betsy had plenty of work to do stripping floors. The floors did not have to be waxed the same night they were stripped. Petitioner decided to work her regular hours on March 6, 2005, from noon to 8:00 p.m. Petitioner made this decision without Ms. Engram's knowledge or approval. Mr. Betsy worked alone on the March 6, 2005, night shift. He spent the evening stripping floors, using the wax that was available to polish a small area, and performing other routine tasks. On March 7, 8, and 9, 2005, Petitioner worked her regular hours. Ms. Engram did not discover that Petitioner had not worked her scheduled shift on March 6, 2005, until Ms. Engram made a routine check of the time cards on or about March 9, 2005. Petitioner was still hoping to get the new CNA position on March 9, 2005. That evening, Petitioner was working as a floor tech when she noticed that Sid Roberts, Respondent's interim administrator, was working late. Petitioner approached Mr. Roberts to tell him about her application for the CNA position and why she needed the new job. During that conversation, Petitioner told Mr. Roberts that she suffered from depression and that she had previously received disability benefits for that condition. On or before March 10, 2005, Ms. Engram consulted with Ms. Cheney about Petitioner's decision not to work her scheduled shift on March 6, 2005. Ms. Engram and Ms. Cheney did not discuss Petitioner's alleged disability or health problems. Ms. Engram was not aware that Petitioner had any health problems that needed to be accommodated. Ms. Cheney was not aware that Petitioner had any health problems at all. After consulting with Ms. Cheney, Ms. Engram made the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment. Ms. Engram took this action because Petitioner did not work from 9:00 p.m. on March 6, 2005, to 5:00 a.m. on March 7, 2005, as agreed, but unilaterally and without Ms. Engram's knowledge, decided to work her regular hours on March 6, 2005. Subsequently, Mr. Roberts attended a meeting with Ms. Cheney. Inquiring about Petitioner's employment status, Mr. Roberts learned that Ms. Engram already had terminated Petitioner. Mr. Roberts did not have any part in the decision to hire or fire Petitioner. Mr. Roberts did not tell Ms. Cheney or Ms. Engram about his conversation with Petitioner on the evening of March 9, 2005, until after Ms. Engram terminated Petitioner's employment. Mr. Roberts' knowledge that Petitioner suffered from depression did not contribute to the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment.
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 30th day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barbara Martin 635 West Hubbard Avenue Deland, Florida 32720 Kelly V. Parsons Cobb and Cole Post Office Box 2491 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115-2491
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practices alleged in Petitioner's charge of discrimination and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is now, and has been since June 2008, employed as a "per diem" switchboard operator at Holy Cross Hospital. She was employed as a part-time switchboard (PBX) operator in University's PBX Department from July 25, 2005, until she resigned on October 26, 2008.6 As a University switchboard operator, Petitioner was responsible for answering and appropriately handling and routing, with dispatch, incoming calls (including "codes," which are emergency calls) to University's switchboard during her shift. The manager of University's PBX Department when Petitioner was hired was Eleanor Dingus. At no time did Ms. Dingus have occasion to discipline Petitioner, nor did Ms. Dingus ever receive any complaints from other operators about Petitioner's "performance on the switchboard." Gloria Gonzalez replaced Ms. Dingus as the PBX manager in July 2006, and has held that position ever since. At all times material to the instant case, directly under Ms. Gonzalez in the chain of command in University's PBX Department was Cathy Hudson, the PBX supervisor. Reporting to Ms. Hudson were three switchboard operators who served as "team leaders," one of whom was Miriam Reyes. At the bottom of the chain of command were Petitioner and approximately three other non-"team leader" switchboard operators. The PBX Department provided switchboard services on a 24-hour per day, seven-days a week, basis. At all times, there was either one operator or two operators (each using separate "consoles") taking calls. When there were two operators on duty, one operator's not picking up calls, or "staying on a call for an unusually long amount of time," would result in the other operator's having "more calls to pick up." Petitioner primarily worked the evening shift. "Sometimes she worked alone," and sometimes she worked a shift with another operator. In August 2007, Petitioner received a merit pay increase to $11.90 per hour (from $11.55 per hour) based upon an annual performance appraisal Ms. Gonzalez had completed on July 10, 2007. The appraisal contained the following "Evaluation Summary": Evaluation Summary Strengths/accomplishments: Gladys is a good operator. Very responsible and always on time. Areas for growth: Gladys needs to [acc]ept our Departmental changes in a much more positive manner and not get caught up with the small stuff or negativity in our Dept. This was the last annual performance appraisal that Petitioner received prior to her resignation on October 26, 2008, notwithstanding that, pursuant to written University policy, University employees were supposed to "receive an evaluation at least annually, normally twelve months from their anniversary date (date of hire) or last change of position date (promotion, lateral move, and demotion) . . . in order . . . to monitor adherence to performance standards to manage, develop and motivate individual performance." Prior to her 2007 annual evaluation of Petitioner, Ms. Gonzalez had started receiving complaints about Petitioner's performance from operators who had shared shifts with Petitioner. Over time, the complaints became more numerous. According to what the operators had told Ms. Gonzalez, Petitioner had been "slow answering [calls]"; kept "the switchboard on busy"; "take[n] her time getting to the switchboard at times"; and on occasion, "stay[ed] [on] too long with a caller." These were things that Ms. Gonzalez herself had personally observed. Initially, Ms. Gonzalez just verbally counseled Petitioner about these issues. Petitioner "would sometimes get upset" during these counseling sessions. In November 2007, Petitioner was formally disciplined for "unsatisfactory performance regarding receiving calls." The discipline she received was in the form of a "written warning" contained in a Notice of Corrective Action prepared by Ms. Hudson (the PBX supervisor and Ms. Gonzalez's second-in- command) and approved by Ms. Gonzalez. Petitioner was given a 30-day (probationary) period to improve her performance. The decision to place Petitioner on probation was made jointly by Ms. Gonzalez and Jennifer Lindsey, University's human resources operations manager. Ms. Gonzalez monitored Petitioner's performance on the switchboard during her probationary period and determined that it had improved sufficiently to warrant Petitioner's return to non-probationary status, without the imposition of any further disciplinary action. Unfortunately, Petitioner's performance deficiencies subsequently "resurfaced." On May 20, 2008, after receiving a complaint about Petitioner from Ms. Reyes (one of Ms. Gonzalez's three "team leaders"), Ms. Gonzalez prepared and gave to Petitioner a Notice of Corrective Action, reflecting that she was issuing Petitioner a "verbal warning" for "[n]ot responding to the switchboard in a timely manner." The following "details of the . . . infraction" were given in the notice: Gladys was informed that she would take over the switchboard at 4 pm on 5/12/2008 for a department meeting. She did not turn her switchboard on at that time and calls started to accumulate. Miriam asked Gladys to take over the switchboard and Gladys did not do so with a sense of urgency. The expectation going forward is that Gladys will answer the switchboard as soon as it buzzes. The notice also contained the following "Corrective Action Plan": [On] 11/21/07 [Petitioner] was given 30 days for performance improvement and although the plan was completed on 1/9/08, previous performance concerns have resurfaced with the timely answering of the switchboard. It is our expectation that within 30 days we will be able to review her performance with answering calls and be able to notice significant improvement. When presented with the notice, Petitioner wrote on it, under "Employee Comments," the following: "This was one incident on our meeting day. I do remember when it occurred." The notice had been presented to Petitioner by Ms. Gonzalez at a meeting between the two at which Ms. Lindsey had also been present. As University's human resources operations manager, it was Ms. Lindsey's responsibility to make sure that employees met the physical requirements of their position and were otherwise fit for duty. One of the physical requirements of the position Petitioner held was to "[h]ear alarm, telephone/tape recorder/normal speaking voices." During the May 20, 2008, meeting at which Petitioner was presented with the Notice of Corrective Action, Ms. Lindsey "asked [Petitioner] if [Petitioner had] heard the switchboard." Petitioner "perceived th[is] as a statement of age discrimination by Ms. Lindsey"7 (albeit one that did not "affect [her] job"). Despite what Petitioner may have believed, in making such an inquiry, Ms. Lindsey was simply seeking to find out if the reason for Petitioner's not "timely answering . . . the switchboard" was that she had a hearing problem. Petitioner responded to Ms Lindsey's question by telling Ms. Lindsey that "she did hear the calls, but that . . . the calls pile up all the time." Ms. Lindsey required Petitioner to review a Position Minimum Requirement[s] Checklist. After reviewing the document, Petitioner signed it, indicating that she believed that she met all of the requirements of her position. Some time after the May 20, 2008, meeting, Ms. Gonzalez heard from Ms. Hudson that Ms. Reyes had reported being asked by Petitioner, in a confrontational manner, whether it was Ms. Reyes who had complained about Petitioner's "[n]ot responding to the switchboard in a timely manner" on May 12, 2008. Ms. Gonzalez thereafter personally contacted Ms. Reyes to find out what had happened during this post-May 20, 2008, incident involving Ms. Reyes and Petitioner. Ms. Reyes, when contacted, told Ms. Gonzalez that Petitioner had "threatened" her. The matter was brought to the attention to Ms. Lindsey, who made the decision to suspend Petitioner for three days. The suspension was "for the purpose of conducting a fact-finding investigation" to determine whether Petitioner, in her dealings with Ms. Reyes, had violated University's Workplace Violence Policy (HR-2000-009), which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: POLICY University Hospital and Medical Center is committed to providing a safe workplace for all employees, patients, physicians and visitors. Workplace violence of any type committed by or against employees, patients, physicians or visitors will not be tolerated. PROCEDURE A. To ensure safe and efficient operations, University Hospital and Medical Center expects and requires all employees to display common courtesy and engage in safe and appropriate behavior at all times. * * * The following list of behaviors, while not all inclusive, provides examples of conduct that is prohibited. * * * Making threatening remarks; Aggressive or hostile behavior that creates a reasonable fear of injury to another person or subjects another individual to emotional distress; * * * Reporting Procedures Any potentially dangerous situation must be reported to a Supervisor, Security Department or Human Resources. Reports can be made anonymously and all reported incidents will be investigated. Reports or incidents warranting confidentiality will be handled appropriately and information will be disclosed to others on a need-to-know basis only. All parties involved in a situation will be counseled and the results of the investigation will be discussed with them. Employees are expected to exercise good judgment and to inform Security and/or Human Resources if any employee, patient or visitor exhibits behavior which could be a sign of a potentially dangerous situation. Such behaviors include but are not limited to: * * * Displaying overt signs of extreme anger, hostility, resentment or stress; Making threatening remarks; * * * e. Display of irrational or inappropriate behavior. * * * During the investigation, Petitioner submitted to Ms. Lindsey a "rebuttal" statement, dated May 29, 2008, which read as follows: This serves as notification that I am in complete disagreement with any claims made about my work performance as stated by Gigi Gonzalez. Gigi stated on 5/20/08, with Jennifer Lindsey in HR as witness, that a team leader Miriam Reyes said there were two calls backed up on the switchboard when we were changing shifts on Monday 5/12/08. She had already signed off and was abruptly leaving the office without checking if I was logged in before she signed off. Both calls were answered without problem or complaint by the callers. It is a normal occurrence when more than one call comes in at once for them to be what she referred to as "backed up." Miriam signed off the switchboard before checking if I was signed on. I received a 30 day probation disciplinary action and she did not. Per our work instruction, an operator is not to leave the position before a relief operator is available. I find the comment made by Jennifer "can you still hear the phone" a discriminatory reference to my age of 76-years-old. Furthermore, I was called at home by Jennifer Lindsey on 5/29/08 [and] put on involuntary suspension without pay for 3 days. Jennifer claimed that since I asked Miriam what she said about the incident that it was inappropriate. I was not asked about the situation. Rather I was interrogated. I have a right to know what is causing a disciplinary action . . . on my record. I also have the right to dispute or state my complaints without retaliation. Unpaid suspension without a proper investigation was undue hardship and a measure of retaliation. Since I was told I must sign the probation notice whether I agree with it or not, I request this to be in my personnel file and sign[ed] as received and reviewed by my supervisor as previously stated orally in the said meeting on May 20, 2008. This claim is unwarranted and causes undue financial hardship. Following the completion of her investigation, Ms. Lindsey determined that there was "insufficient evidence" to conclude that Petitioner had violated University's Workplace Violence Policy. Petitioner was put back on her normal work schedule and paid for the three days she had been suspended (and had not worked). Ms. Lindsey's "insufficien[cy]" determination was set forth in the following written statement Petitioner was given (and which she signed) on June 5, 2008: After an investigation was conducted on the incident that occurred on May 23, 2008, it is concluded that a discussion between Gladys and a co-worker did take place regarding Gladys' verbal warning for performance on May 20th. Gladys does admit to questioning her co-worker regarding information she may have provided to the manager of PBX regarding her performance. There is insufficient evidence to support that Gladys threatened her co-worker or that she was verbally abusive in any way. In the future Gladys will restrict her conversations with Miriam to business- related activities. This means only communication that must take place for her to perform the functions of her job. Any unnecessary communications or interactions may result in disciplinary action. In the future it is expected that Gladys will follow the Employment Dispute Resolution policy HR 2006-416 to express any disputes or state any complaints that she may have. A copy of this policy is being presented to Gladys today for reference. Gladys will be paid for the days that she was suspended in order to conduct this investigation. In late June 2008, in accordance with the "Corrective Action Plan" set forth in the Notice of Corrective Action she had given Petitioner, Ms. Gonzalez reviewed Petitioner's performance in the area of "answering calls." Ms. Gonzalez, in a document that she prepared and presented to Petitioner on or about July 18, 2008, described the "results" of that review as follows: Operator Gladys Norris has completed her performance improvement plan as of Sunday 6/29/08. In the course of the 30 days, I have been able to observe Gladys on the switchboard. Gladys has improved greatly. She has answered the board much more quickly. She did not let the board pile up. She put the callers on hold and then came back to the calls. I am confident that Gladys understands and is taking seriously her switchboard duties. She is very much aware that whenever possible, we should not let the calls pile up as emergency codes come through the switchboard. At around this same time (mid-July 2008), Petitioner learned that she needed to have emergency vascular surgery, and she so informed Ms. Gonzalez via an e-mail message, sent the evening of July 17, 2008, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * . . . . But last week I had to have some tests done rather quickly and unfortunately have to have an unexpected urgent surgery performed (vascular nature). The doctor called me late this afternoon and said he has scheduled me for next Wednesday July 23rd. At this writing I cannot say how long I will be out from work but he did say at least three or four weeks for recovery. I will keep you apprised of my situation. You may have me on medical leave also. I will not be working anywhere during my recovery period so I cannot list any hours right now. Petitioner was granted leave for this "unexpected urgent surgery," as well as for her "recovery period." When she returned to work from leave, Petitioner was given her work schedule for September, which had her working the hours and days she "usually worked." Her schedule for September, however, was subsequently changed and, to her displeasure, she had to work three "overnight," Saturday night/Sunday morning shifts (from 11:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.) that month. She had never before, as a University employee, worked an "overnight" shift. When Petitioner asked Ms. Hudson why she had to work these "overnight" shifts, Ms. Hudson responded, "That's just the way it is." Up until September 18, 2008, throughout her employment at University, Petitioner had used a University-provided headset when working at the switchboard. On September 18, 2008, her headset and those of the other employees in the PBX Department were taken away in anticipation of their being replaced by new headsets (from Verizon). That same day, Petitioner and the other switchboard operators received the following e-mail from Ms. Gonzalez, informing them that they would soon be experiencing an uptick in call volume: Subject: Pavilion[8] Calls Ladies, Please note that starting Tuesday morning, we will be getting all the Pavilion[']s calls. There will be more Ext: 2221. Please make sure that you go over all Ext and Pavilion info. Keep in mind that call volume is going to increase. So do not spend a long time on any one call. Remember the time allowed for each call is 24 seconds per call. The Hospital wants a live person to answer at all time[s]. Also make sure that you know how to page all Pavilion calls over head. So ladies, when you clock in, and enter the PBX office, you must be ready to log in and start to work immediately. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Due to delays, it was not until November (approximately two months later) that all of the old headsets were replaced by new ones. The first new headsets came in a group of three.9 They arrived in the first half of October and were given to Ms. Gonzalez (the PBX manager), Ms. Hudson (the PBX supervisor), and Ms. Reyes (one of the three "team leaders"). On October 15, 2008, Ms. Gonzalez held a departmental meeting at which she discussed "what was going on with the headsets." Petitioner was at the meeting. From September 18, 2008, until her resignation on October 26, 2008, Petitioner had to use a "hand-held phone," instead of a headset, to answer calls coming in to University's switchboard. Approximately two weeks after she had started using the "hand-held phone," Petitioner began experiencing pain in her wrists, arms, shoulders, neck, and lower back. She visited her primary care physician, Greg Sherman, M.D., for treatment of the pain. The pain went away five or six weeks after she had stopped working at University. All told, the pain lasted no more than ten weeks. Based on what she had been told by Dr. Sherman,10 Petitioner attributed the pain she was experiencing during this period to her using a "hand-held phone" when working the switchboard at University. Despite the onset of the pain, Petitioner continued to work and perform her job duties at University for approximately three or four weeks until she felt she could do so no longer and resigned. During this period, she made her supervisors aware that she was in pain. On the morning of October 2, 2008, during a telephone conversation, she told Ms. Hudson that her "wrist, arms and neck hurt." Ms. Hudson did not ask Petitioner for any further details, and Petitioner did not provide any. Two weeks later, on October 16, 2008, at 10:34 p.m., Petitioner sent Ms. Hudson the following e-mail: Dear Cathy, Regarding my PTO [Paid Time Off] request for Nov 13, 14, 15, 16 (Thurs, Fri, Sat, Sun) I am wondering when I will know if it has been approved. Also do you know when my headset will arrive? I went to the doctor yesterday because I have had pain for a week now in my shoulders and wrists. I explained that I have been working without my headset for the past four weekends. He stated that that was likely the cause of the strain. I do hope the headset will arrive soon. A week having passed without Petitioner's having received a reply from Ms. Hudson, Petitioner, at 9:34 p.m. on October 23, 2008, sent the following e-mail to Ms. Gonzalez, to which Ms. Gonzalez never replied: Re: Waiting for an e-mail answer Hello Gigi, I sent an e-mail to Cathy regarding the headsets on Oct 14th.[11] I have not received a reply as of today. I understand a few operators have already received their headsets. Shouldn't we all have them as we work the same consoles? Working without my headset for the past 4 weekends has caused problem[s] in my wrists and shoulder/neck which I had to see a doctor [about] last week. After taking off earlier in the week because of the pain she was experiencing, Petitioner "tried to come in" to work at University on October 26, 2008, but she did not stay her entire shift. Because she did not know when she "was going to get a headset" and she had experienced "a lot of pain" working without one, Petitioner decided to resign her position at University. At 11:05 a.m. on October 26, 2008, she gave notice of her resignation by sending Ms. Lindsey the following e-mail: I hereby give notice that today, Sunday October 26, 2008 will be my last day at University Hospital. I have used a headset since the first day of employment in July 2005 when on PBX. Over the past five weeks I have been forced to work without my headset. My physical condition has been aggravated to the point I am forced to resign. Management has been uncooperative in this problem as well as many others I have addressed that have gone unanswered. Despite the pain she was experiencing at the time, Petitioner continued working, without interruption, as a switchboard operator at Holy Cross Hospital, where she had the use of a headset. To date, University has not filled the position from which Petitioner resigned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order finding University not guilty of the unlawful employment practices alleged by Petitioner in her charge of discrimination and dismissing the charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 April, 2010.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to discrimination in the work environment by the Department of Corrections (DOC) due to Petitioner's race, sex, and handicap in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Thaise Hampton, is a female African- American. On January 20, 1995, Hampton was hired by the Correctional Educational School Authority (CESA) to work as a teacher at DOC's Apalachee Correctional Institution (ACI). Hampton had not worked before that time. During the 1995 legislative session, CESA was abolished by the State of Florida Legislature. CESA’s education and job training program functions were transferred to DOC along with most positions, inclusive of Hampton’s. Hampton was placed on probationary status as a DOC employee, effective July 1, 1996. On April 12, 1996, Hampton had an on-the-job injury when she slipped and fell in the cafeteria of the institution. The State of Florida's Division of Risk Management (Risk Management) administered the workers’ compensation case for the State of Florida. Hampton was treated by a physician and excused from work because of the injury. Hampton was evaluated by Michael W. Reed, M.D., an authorized treating physician for Hampton’s work-related injury, on July 15, 1996. By correspondence dated July 22, 1996, Dr. Reed reported his evaluation of Hampton. Dr. Reed found that Hampton suffered from lumbar degenerative disc disease. He recommended physical therapy and light duty work restrictions on lifting objects greater than 20 pounds. On August 29, 1996, DOC received further correspondence forwarded by Risk Management from Dr. Reed. In that correspondence dated August 28, 1996, Dr. Reed stated that Hampton could return to work full duty and that she had reached Maximum Medical Improvement, with a 0 percent permanent impairment rating. He did not indicate that there were any work restrictions. Hampton reported to work on September 3, 1996. At that time, she was utilizing a walker to ambulate around the compound. Joseph Thompson, the Warden at ACI, and the hiring/firing authority over Hampton at that time, expressed security concerns that Hampton was utilizing a walker. He asked the personnel manager, Derida McMillian, to inquire into the situation. As a result, McMillian contacted Paul Bohac, Hampton’s supervisor, and requested that both he and Hampton come to her office. She then informed Hampton that she was not authorized to utilize a walker unless a physician had prescribed one for her use. She told Hampton that she was in receipt of a letter from Dr. Reed that indicated she could return to work on regular duty with no restrictions and that a walker represents such a restriction. McMillian then told Hampton that she could not use a walker at work until she produced a medical report indicating a need for same. She also told Hampton that a physician’s statement would be needed or her leave would not be authorized. Hampton stated that she understood and would provide the appropriate medical reports on September 5, 1996. McMillian relayed Hampton’s statements that she would provide documentation by September 5, 1996, to Margaret Forehand, a personnel technician who was a liaison with the Division of Risk Management at that time. Because no such documentation was received by September 5, 1996, Forehand called Hampton at home on September 9, 1996. Hampton advised her that she would get her attorney to obtain a doctor’s statement. On September 10, 1996, Hampton called Forehand and said that her lawyer would obtain a doctor’s statement and send it to DOC. On September 17, 1996, Hampton contacted Forehand with questions regarding her paycheck received on September 13, 1996. Forehand advised that DOC had not received the physician’s statement that was to have been provided on September 5, 1996. Forehand reiterated at that time that Hampton needed to provide a doctor’s note as to her status. Hampton told Forehand that her attorney would be taking care of the matter. On September 18, 1996, Forehand spoke with Alice Taylor at the Division of Risk Management and was advised that Risk Management had received a letter from a Dr. Ayala regarding Hampton’s condition. Taylor told Forehand that Ayala's letter did not change anything--Hampton had not been removed from work or prescribed a walker. Neither McMillian nor Forehand was aware of any prescription for a walker by a Dr. Randall dated June 3, 1996, until March 11, 1997, when they were shown the prescription. Additionally, Forehand had no record indicating that Dr. Randall was approved by the Division of Risk Management as a treating physician. On September 19, 1996, Hampton appeared at the personnel office. She did not have a prescription for a walker at that time. Thus, Hampton was considered to be on unauthorized leave status since September 5, 1996. Warden Thompson terminated Hampton’s employment on September 19, 2001, for excessive unauthorized absences. Hampton alleged that several white male employees and an inmate were allowed accommodations: Mr. Ammons; Paul Bohac; and inmate John Peavy. Warden Thompson testified that he approved a request for Mr. Ammons to use a wheelchair after receiving a request from the CESA Personnel Office. He was informed that Mr. Ammons would be retiring in 30 days. Mr. Ammons was not a DOC employee. Warden Thompson stated that he was not aware that Paul Bohac had worn a back brace into the office or that he had brought an ergonomic chair into the office. If he had known that he was using special medical equipment, he would have requested a prescription for the devices. Paul Bohac was not utilizing a walker. Warden Thompson was not aware that inmate John Peavy was issued a walking stick; however, inmates were allowed to utilize assistive walking devices if the medical department authorized it. Warden Thompson approved Hampton’s termination because of her unauthorized absences. She refused to work at full duty or provide a physician’s statement documenting any work restrictions.
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 ENTERED this 24th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 24th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marva A. Davis, Esquire 121 South Madison Street Post Office Box 551 Quincy, Florida 32353-0551 Gary L. Grant, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, Superior Construction Company Southeast, LLC (Superior), wrongfully terminated Petitioner, James Walker, and refused to rehire him based on his disability in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA).
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner was hired as a laborer by Superior in March 2016. During his tenure with Superior, Petitioner also worked as a flagger and a roller machine operator (roller operator). Superior is a construction company specializing in roadway and highway improvement projects. Superior was Petitioner’s employer as defined by the FCRA. § 760.02(7), Fla. Stat. During the relevant time period, Petitioner worked for Superior on a construction assignment known as “15901 Wekiva Project” (Wekiva Project). Oscar Matson, Superior’s superintendent at the relevant time, was Petitioner’s ultimate supervisor and made day-to-day decisions regarding equipment and staffing. Mr. Matson made all employment decisions with regard to Petitioner, including his hiring and job assignments. Jose Gomez, the project manager at the relevant time, oversaw the administrative side of Wekiva Project and supervised the engineering staff. Mr. Matson consulted with Mr. Gomez regarding the construction staff, and Mr. Gomez was familiar with all of the employees working on this project, including Petitioner. The parties stipulated Petitioner suffers from a disability. Relevant Policies Although Superior offered evidence of its Equal Opportunity Policy (EOP), there is no evidence it provides protections for applicants or employees with disabilities. The EOP states in relevant part: Statement of Policy To further the provisions of equal employment opportunity to all persons without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and to promote the full realization of equal opportunity through a positive continuing program[,] it is the policy of Superior Construction Company to assure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, religion, sex, color or national origin. * * * N. Handicapped Relative to direct federal contracts, we shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of a physical or mental handicap in regard to any position of which the employee or applicant for employment is qualified. There was no evidence whether the Wekiva Project was federally funded or part of a federal contract. Although there was no evidence of a written policy, there was testimony that Superior had a reasonable accommodation process that allows an employee who requires an accommodation to request one through his or her supervisor or through a Human Resources hotline. This process was followed by Petitioner. Petitioner’s Accommodations Petitioner began working for Superior as a laborer with the primary duties of shoveling dirt and cleaning roads. The laborer position was physically demanding and required standing, climbing, crawling, and lifting up to 40 pounds. The position also required constant walking and moving within the project site. Petitioner worked ten-hour shifts on weekdays and eight-hour shifts on weekend days. In April 2016, approximately a month after he was hired, Petitioner was hospitalized for a toe injury incurred at work. Although he was injured on the job and knew he was obligated to report the injury to his supervisors, Petitioner did not. He failed to report the incident to Mr. Matson or anyone else because he did not want “a workman’s comp” issue. On or around April 19, 2016, Petitioner brought medical documentation titled “Work/School Status” to Superior indicating that his work duties should be modified until May 10, 2016. The medical documentation indicated Petitioner should be limited to “light duty.” It also indicated Petitioner could perform the following activities: “Limit[ed] standing/walking” and “Light weight activity.” As a result, Mr. Matson initially placed him in a “flagger” position. This position involved directing traffic in one place, and was considered “light duty” because it did not involve heavy lifting or continuous walking. Although the timing is unclear, Mr. Matson later placed Petitioner in the position of roller operator, where he operated a large piece of equipment. As a roller operator, Petitioner was not required to stand, walk or lift. There was no evidence Petitioner complained to Mr. Matson regarding the assignment to either the flagger or roller operator position, nor did he request further accommodation. The undersigned finds Superior accommodated Petitioner’s request for “light duty.” Petitioner had no attendance, disciplinary, or other issues from April 2016 through the summer of 2016 in the flagger or roller operator position. On August 12, 2016, Petitioner was admitted into a medical facility and was out of work. Upon his return on or about August 18, 2016, Petitioner gave Mr. Matson medical documentation titled “Disability Certificate.” That document certified that Petitioner was “unable to return to work” and was “not able to work until further notice.” As a result of the August 18, 2016, meeting, Mr. Matson prepared Petitioner’s termination paperwork. What triggered the termination paperwork on August 18, 2016, is in dispute. Petitioner asserts when he returned to Superior, Mr. Matson told him he was concerned about his health and fired him. Superior counters that Petitioner informed Mr. Matson he had to quit because he was unable to work due to his medical condition, and Superior advised Petitioner to reapply when he was ready. For the reasons below, the undersigned finds Superior’s version of the facts is more consistent with the credible evidence and testimony. First, Superior’s version of events is corroborated by Petitioner’s own sworn statements made in his Charge and Amended Charge of Discrimination, in which he states Superior “advised me to come back to work when I was ready.” Second, Mr. Matson’s testimony that Petitioner told him he was unable to work is consistent with the Disability Certificate provided by Petitioner and with Mr. Matson’s work notes made on August 18, 2016. Those notes indicate Petitioner “said he had to quit because he has austioprosis [sic]. We filled out a termination paper for him.” Although Petitioner challenges the reliability of these notes because he actually had “osteomyelitis,” it is plausible that Mr. Matson mislabeled or misspelled the illness given his unfamiliarity with it and the phonetic similarity between the two terms. Third, Petitioner’s assertion that he was fired is inconsistent with statements he made on subsequent applications when asked the “reason for leaving” Superior. In one application he answers “no work”; in another he lists “medical reasons.” Nowhere does he disclose or state that he was fired or terminated. Finally, based on Petitioner’s demeanor and the inaccuracies and inconsistencies between his testimony and the other evidence, the undersigned finds Petitioner’s testimony less credible than that of Mr. Gomez and Mr. Matson. Petitioner was unable to recall specific dates or details about alleged conversations or his work/medical status. Petitioner admitted he lied to Superior about the injury causing him to go out on leave in April 2016. He blamed discrepancies between his hearing testimony and sworn statements in the documents submitted to the Commission on his attorney; he blamed inconsistencies in the statements made in his disability benefits paperwork on the insurance company; and he explained misleading statements in subsequent job applications as necessary white lies. The undersigned finds Superior’s explanation that it processed Petitioner’s termination after it was clear he could not work and there was no date certain as to when he could return, and its version of facts surrounding Petitioner’s separation more credible. Regardless, however, of whether he quit or was fired, Petitioner was not qualified to work on August 18, 2016. He offered no evidence, nor is there anything in the record, indicating that his inability to work had ever changed, or that the restrictions and limitations set forth in the Disability Certificate were ever lifted. As such, the undersigned finds Petitioner could not perform his job duties and could not work as of August 18, 2016. Petitioner’s Reapplication Petitioner claims he reapplied for a position with Superior numerous times after August 2016. Other than a July 2017 application, it is unclear how often or what other times he reapplied. Petitioner claims Superior did not rehire him because of his disability. As proof, he states Mr. Matson and Mr. Gomez made comments inquiring about his health. The undersigned finds these comments were innocuous and were expressions of concern for his well-being, rather than related to his specific disability. Petitioner’s attempt at reemployment with Superior is also suspect. There was no admissible evidence to prove that Superior was actually hiring in July 2017. In fact, there was evidence Petitioner only reapplied for work at Superior to better his legal position for future litigation; Petitioner admitted he reapplied for a position at Superior “because my attorney said to reapply to see how they would react.” Petitioner also made statements in disability insurance applications that he was unable to work at the time he reapplied for work at Superior. Specifically, as of July 17, 2017, the date of Petitioner’s Social Security Application for Disability Insurance, Petitioner indicated he could not work and had been unable to work since September 1, 2016. Irrespective of Petitioner’s motives, Superior asserts it did not consider his disability when Petitioner reapplied, but rather that it did not rehire Petitioner because it had no vacancies. Mr. Matson credibly testified that in July 2017, the Wekiva Project was coming to an end and he was struggling to keep the staff occupied until the next assignment. Mr. Matson explained, “we were long on help at that time.” Mr. Gomez also met with Petitioner in July 2017 regarding his reapplication. At the time Superior was working on another project, Project 16903. Mr. Gomez told Petitioner that he would be eligible for the next project, Project 17904, but that project was not starting until late 2017 or early 2018. This is consistent with Petitioner’s application dated July 5, 2017, which has a handwritten notation: “Consider Rehire for 16903 per Jose G. till 17904 Ready.” Mr. Gomez was not responsible for Project 17904, nor was there any evidence that the person hiring for Project 17904 was aware of Petitioner’s disability. Superior never rehired Petitioner. The undersigned finds Superior did not consider Petitioner’s disability, but rather, based its decision not to rehire Petitioner on the fact it did not have any vacancies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Petitioner, James Walker, did not prove that Respondent, Superior Construction Company Southeast, LLC, committed an unlawful employment practice against him; and dismissing his Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 4th day of January, 2019.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice, specifically whether Respondent failed to accommodate Petitioner's alleged disability.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was hired by Dollar General in December 2006 as the second shift Human Resources (HR) Representative I for Dollar General's Alachua Distribution Center. As the second shift HR Representative I, part of Petitioner's responsibilities was to interact with the employees who worked on the second shift. Petitioner's immediate supervisor throughout her employment was Donna Myers, Senior Human Resource Manager. Ms. Myers interviewed and hired Petitioner. Petitioner's job as a HR Representative required her to conduct interviews, drug tests, participate in committees, interact with employees, transfer employees, and other employee- related duties. Petitioner was qualified for the position as HR Representative, having a master's degree in human resources management. Some concern existed among management as to whether Petitioner could be as effective in her job if she were to use a golf cart. The concern was whether she would be less approachable by employees when driving around rather than walking up to the areas where they worked. Since there was an "open door" policy for employees to approach Petitioner, she could always meet them in her office if they had enough time during a break. Company policy dictates that at least 10 percent of the HR Representative's time should be spent "walking the floor." Petitioner understood the walking requirement to be at least an hour per shift. Dollar General maintains and enforces an Anti- Discrimination and Harassment Policy, which prohibits, among other things, discrimination based on an employee's disability. Dollar General's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy also contains a provision which provides, in pertinent part, that it intends to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act by providing reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities. Dollar General's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy includes a procedure that allows and urges any employee who believes that that he or she is the subject of or has been the subject of discrimination to report the alleged discrimination by contacting a toll-free number. Ms. McIntosh was an employee of Dollar General, was aware of Dollar General's policy prohibiting discrimination and harassment in the workplace based on disability, and acknowledged receipt of Dollar General's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy. Dollar General's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy applies to all employees. As an employee, Dollar General's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy applied to Ms. McIntosh. All of Dollar General's management team, who testified at hearing, were aware of the company's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy. Dollar General's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy instructs employees to speak with their supervisor or to call the Employee Response Center to request an accommodation or report any type of discrimination. Ms. McIntosh took medical leave in October 2007. In the October 25, 2007, certification for her medical leave, Ms. McIntosh's treating physician estimated that the probable duration of her condition was one to two weeks. Further, in the November 15, 2007, recertification, Ms. McIntosh's physician estimated that the probable duration of her condition was two to three months. Effective November 24, 2007, Ms. McIntosh's physician released her to return to work without any restrictions. The release does not indicate that Ms. McIntosh was unable to climb stairs or walk for extended periods of time. Ms. McIntosh was physically able to do her job when she returned from medical leave. Ms. McIntosh identified the disabilities for which she requested accommodations as arthritis in hips and knees, a dislocated disk, and a pinched nerve. Ms. McIntosh claims that her disabilities limited her ability to walk, stand, and climb stairs. Petitioner recalls making her first request for an accommodation to her direct supervisor, Donna Myers, to use the golf cart to tour the million-square-foot facility, and to be excused from climbing in September 2007 after being diagnosed with arthritis in her hips and knees. Petitioner reports being told that the golf carts were no longer allowed for use by HR personnel. Ms. Myers denied this exchange taking place, and testified that the golf cart was available for Petitioner's use at any time. Robert Barnes, the distribution center manager, confirmed Petitioner's understanding that the designated HR golf cart was no longer used in HR. Petitioner also reported her October 2007 injury to Ms. Myers. Petitioner was even seen at the emergency room by Mr. Barnes. The medical leave paperwork was submitted to Ms. Myers by Petitioner. Dollar General had knowledge of Petitioner's injuries and medical condition. Upon her return to work in December 2007, Petitioner again asked Ms. Myers about using the golf cart and decreasing the amount of time she was required to spend on the floor of the distribution center. This request was denied. Again, Ms. Myers denied that this exchange took place between Petitioner and her. Petitioner began to use a cane or walking stick to help her get around the distribution center. Ms. Myers acknowledged seeing Petitioner walking with aid of the stick. Petitioner is firm in her testimony that she informed her supervisor and others up the chain of command of her condition and her need for an accommodation. Nevertheless, Ms. Myers denies that Ms. McIntosh asked to use a golf cart, to be relieved of her responsibility to walk the facility to interact with employees, or to be excused from walking up and down the stairs to meet with employees. A series of correspondence and emails supports Petitioner's claim that Dollar General's management was aware on some level of the seriousness of her physical limitations. Medical records that were submitted to Ms. Myers in October 2007 by Petitioner describe her knee pain and inability to walk up stairs. Those records estimate two weeks before Petitioner's return to work. The October medical report led to a November 9, 2007, letter from Ms. Myers to Petitioner requesting an updated medical certification. Petitioner complied and provided a medical certification showing the knee injury to be more serious than first thought and accompanied by a herniated disc. This report evidenced a return to work time of two to three months after physical therapy and additional diagnostic procedures. Finally, Dollar General received a Fitness for Duty form from Petitioner's health care provider stating a return to work date of November 24, 2007. Petitioner convinced her physician to clear her for work under the belief she had to be qualified at 100 percent in order to return. Prior to raising the issue of her medical condition, Petitioner had a stormy relationship, at times, with her supervisor, Ms. Myers. An exchange of emails occurred in March and April of 2007 between Petitioner and Mr. Harbison detailing Petitioner's issues with Ms. Myers. Petitioner did not ask Mr. Harbison, who was in her direct chain of command, to modify the responsibilities of her job in any way, nor did she mention -– until her suspension in March 2008 -– that she allegedly requested and was denied a reasonable accommodation. Petitioner did not call Dollar General's Employee Response Center to request an accommodation for her medical condition. Petitioner believed that hotline to be only for hourly employees, although Dollar General's written policies did not dictate any such restriction. When Petitioner returned to work in December 2007 after receiving treatment for her knee and back injuries, she experienced difficulties in standing for extended periods, in walking, and in climbing stairs. The pain she experienced was intense when engaging in any of these activities. She was able, despite the pain, to perform tasks of daily living, such as bathing and dressing herself, which allowed her to go to work. In addition to not being permitted to use the golf cart to perform her job, Petitioner had a broken chair in her office which made it more difficult for her to get relief when she was not walking the distribution center floor. She was first able to get a chair from the office next door to hers, and then Mr. Arrendell allowed her to bring in a chair from the conference room. Petitioner recalls many instances of interaction with her supervisors and managers about her physical limitations, including discussions about her inability to walk in a Christmas parade and her inability to stand up without leaning against a wall during a staff presentation she made. Dollar General's witnesses were not able to recall the substance of these interactions, except for remembering that Petitioner had an issue of some sort regarding the parade. Petitioner was suspended in early March 2008, pending an investigation, and her employment was ultimately terminated on March 11, 2008, for conduct unbecoming of an HR professional. No evidence was produced at hearing as to the circumstances leading to her dismissal. Petitioner did not have surgery related to her back or knee conditions until after she left the employ of Dollar General. She received pain management until she had surgery on her back. She received a consultation for her knee injury, but never had surgery performed. Upon leaving her employment, she had no insurance to cover her medical bills. The medical bills amounted to approximately $200,000, with the hospital bill for her surgery being $106,000 by itself. Petitioner has suffered financial losses which led her to borrow money for food, for her electric bill, losing her truck, losing her home insurance, and becoming three months behind on her mortgage. Petitioner has suffered emotionally as well. She suffers anxiety attacks and has had suicidal thoughts. Petitioner tried to return to work after leaving Dollar General. She secured a manager's job with Cato, a women's fashion store. The job did not require any heavy lifting or climbing of stairs. Her salary there was approximately half of her $43,000 salary at Dollar General. She worked at Cato for less than six months, earning gross pay of $11,600. She left when she suffered pain that required a trip to the emergency room which resulted in her having her back surgery. She did not return to work at Cato. Petitioner's only other earnings after leaving Dollar General were unemployment compensation benefits of $498 every two weeks, plus a $25 bonus from the federal stimulus package. Petitioner could have performed the essential functions of her employment if a reasonable accommodation had been made for her physical limitations. Dollar General has made accommodations for employees with physical limitations in the past, generally in the context of a workers' compensation injury.
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 finding that an unlawful employment practice occurred; that Respondent should have provided a reasonable accommodation for Petitioner's disability; awarding attorney's fees to Petitioner in accordance with a Title VII action and costs; and such other relief as the Commission shall deem appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2010, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Melanie A. Mucario, Esquire Mucario, McHugh & Dowdel, PLLC Post Office Box 781847 Orlando, Florida 32878-1847 Alva Cross Hughes, Esquire Fisher & Phillips LLP 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2525 Tampa, Florida 33602 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent has been discriminated against on account of her handicap or disability in connection with her termination of employment, in alleged violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Teresa Cavanaugh, was employed by Sprint from 1985 through 2000. During 1999 and 2000, Ms. Cavanaugh held the position of Technical Analyst I, assigned to the Carrier Market’s department at Sprint’s National Access Service Center in Leesburg, Florida. In this position, Ms. Cavanaugh was responsible for assuring that orders for the use of Sprint’s local telephone lines by long distance carriers such at AT&T were processed correctly. Ms. Cavanaugh’s immediate supervisor in this position was Robert Whittaker, the Customer Access Manager. Mr. Whitaker’s immediate supervisor was Jackie Picard, the National Customer Service Manager. On August 26, 1999, the Petitioner was arrested in Marion County, Florida and charged with two third-degree felonies involving obtaining a controlled substance by fraud and possession of a controlled substance. The Petitioner informed Sprint’s house counsel, Susan Stucker, of her arrest on August 31, 1999. Ms. Cavanaugh explained the arrest to Ms. Stucker and Ms. Stucker informed Ms. Cavanaugh that she needed to report the arrest to her supervisor. Ms. Stucker also told the Petitioner that as long as the arrest was not related to work, she would be permitted to continue working for Sprint until such time as there was a disposition of the charges. After speaking with Ms. Stucker, the Petitioner informed Mr. Whitaker of her arrest. The Petitioner testified that Ms. Stucker informed her, in the above-described conversation, that her job would not be affected as long as adjudication was withheld with respect to the criminal charges. Ms. Stucker, however, denied telling that to Ms. Cavanaugh and instead testified that she would never have made such a statement because, pursuant to Sprint’s unwritten policy, convictions for or pleas to felony charges are terminable offenses, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld. Ms. Stucker also told the Petitioner that Sprint’s policy was to that effect in a subsequent conversation. This dispute in testimony is resolved in favor of that given by Ms. Stucker because of the respective demeanor of the witnesses and Ms. Stucker’s undisputed testimony that on at least two other occasions she approved terminations of persons who pled nolo contendere to felony charges. Her testimony was corroborated by documentation regarding the nolo contendere plea of one of the persons whose employment was terminated, Wilson Hinson. In fact, as with Ms. Cavanaugh, Mr. Hinson’s records demonstrate that the court withheld adjudication of guilt regarding the charges against him. Several weeks later, on Friday, September 17, 1999, the Petitioner sent an e-mail to Mr. Whitaker expressing that she was "losing control of her mind," was "spinning out of control," felt "helpless and desperate," was "going over the edge," and needed "some serious help." The Petitioner indicated also that she had an "overwhelming sense of helplessness and hopelessness." Ms. Cavanaugh stated in her e-mail, and in testimony at the hearing, that prior to this incident, she never had felt this way. She further testified that she had no prior history of mental illness. After reading the Petitioner's e-mail, Mr. Whittaker became concerned that Ms. Cavanaugh could be a threat to herself or to co-workers. Based upon this concern, he shared the e-mail with Ms. Picard, and both Mr. Whittaker and Ms. Picard informed the Human Resources Department of Sprint of its contents. Mr. Whitaker, Ms. Picard and Colby Gilson, the Manager of Employee Relations, developed a plan whereby the Petitioner would be placed on paid "crisis leave" and referred to Sprint's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for evaluation as to her ability to safely perform her job. Mr. Whittaker informed the Petitioner that she was being placed on leave and referred to EAP on the morning of her next scheduled work day, Monday, September 20, 1999. After meeting with Mr. Whittaker, the Petitioner was placed on leave and evaluated by the EAP. The Petitioner informed the psychiatrist who was evaluating her as part of the EAP process that her mood had improved after being placed on leave. The Petitioner was cleared to return to work on a part-time basis in late December 1999 or early January 2000. She was allowed to return to a full-time schedule in late January 2000. On or about June 27, 2000, the Petitioner, on her own initiative, commenced a short-term disability leave. Because the leave was for an alleged mental condition, the Petitioner was asked to undergo an independent medical examination (IME) pursuant to Sprint's standard policy of verifying leaves for conditions that are difficult to review through objective medical evidence (e.g., mental conditions and soft tissue injuries). The Petitioner underwent the IME, which confirmed her need for leave. The Petitioner then remained on leave until October 17, 2000, at which time she returned to work on a part- time basis. She resumed a full-time schedule approximately one week later, on October 23, 2000, with no restrictions on her ability to work. Due to the amount of leave the Petitioner had taken to date, during September and October 2000, Sprint's Benefits Department in Kansas City sent the Petitioner two letters informing her regarding the availability of long-term disability benefits and disability retirement benefits, respectively, should she wish to apply for them. These letters were sent out pursuant to the Benefits department's standard practice of notifying employees who have been out comparable periods of time of the availability of such benefits so as to minimize the potential lapse in benefits should an employee exhaust all of his or her short-term disability leave. After her return from leave, on or about October 31, 2000, the Petitioner told Mr. Whittaker that she was taking what she believed to be a very strong prescription that had been given to her by her doctor. Mr. Whittaker consulted with Mr. Gilson as to whether he needed to take any action in response to this information. Mr. Gilson informed Mr. Whittaker that he should require the Petitioner to provide a note from her doctor indicating whether or not she could continue at work while taking the medication. Mr. Whittaker followed Mr. Gilson's directions and requested that the Petitioner provide a note from her doctor. She submitted such a note to Mr. Whittaker on November 2, 2000. According to that note, the Petitioner was cleared to work with no limitations or restrictions, "as long as she participates in treatment and maintains compliance with medications and scheduled appointments." The Petitioner has not established how any major life activities have been substantially limited by any alleged mental condition. On or about November 29, 2000, the Petitioner informed Mr. Whittaker that her probation officer would be calling him to verify that she worked at Sprint and was coming to work on a regular basis. According to Whittaker, at no time prior to that conversation had the Petitioner informed him of any final disposition of the felony charges filed against her. Mr. Whittaker informed Mr. Gilson of this conversation, and Gilson then asked Stacy Smith, a security investigator, to contact the court in Marion County to determine whether there had been any final disposition of the charges lodged against the Petitioner in August 1999. Mr. Smith, who as part of his regular job duties had been tracking the proceedings against the Petitioner and other Sprint employees subject to criminal charges, contacted the Marion County Clerk's office which provided documents showing that, in October 2000, the Petitioner pled nolo contendere to the two felony charges. The documents Mr. Smith received also showed that the court had withheld adjudication on the basis of that plea. The information Mr. Smith received from the court ultimately was provided to Mr. Gilson, Ms. Stucker, Mr. Whittaker and Ms. Picard. Based upon Sprint's unwritten policy regarding terminations for felony convictions or pleas, Mr. Whittaker recommended the termination of the Petitioner's employment. Ms. Picard concurred with Mr. Whittaker's recommendation, as did Picard's immediate supervisor, Krystal Barr. Mr. Whittaker's recommendation was reviewed by Ms. Stucker, Mr. Gilson, and David Sapenoff, Mr. Gilson's immediate superior. Each of these individuals concurred in the decision to terminate the Petitioner’s employment. On the basis of Mr. Whittaker's recommendation, and the above-mentioned concurrences, the Petitioner's employment was terminated on December 14, 2000. Although the Petitioner claims that she was never told the basis for her termination, both Mr. Whitaker and Ms. Picard testified that the Petitioner was told that she was terminated because of her felony plea. This dispute in testimony is resolved in favor of that of Mr. Whittaker and Ms. Picard, given both the respective demeanor of the witnesses and the fact that the records of the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security indicate that the Petitioner stated in an interview, regarding her entitlement to unemployment compensation benefits, that she was terminated because of her felony conviction.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations denying the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Teresa Cavanaugh 3010 Northeast Seventh Lane Ocala, Florida 34470 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patrick M. Muldowney, Esquire Akerman Senterfitt Post Office Box 231 Orlando, Florida 32802-0231 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based upon a disability in violation of section 760.10(a), Florida Statutes (2017); and, if so, what remedies are appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The original complaint filed with FCHR states in pertinent part: “I am a disabled female. I have been discriminated against based on disability. On 8/17/2017, I told my CEO (Mr. David Yokeum) that I had to leave the office due to my disability. I was feeling dizzy and needed to take my medication. . . . Respondent knew I had a previous injury on my arm/hand and that I couldn’t use my hand in an excessive amount. I re-injured my hand while cleaning and went to the Emergency Room. I was placed on medical leave until I was cleared by Hand Surgeon. . . . I was told I was no longer needed because I couldn’t clean. The Petition for Relief filed after the FCHR’s Determination of No Cause states in pertinent part: “discriminated, treated unfairly due to anxiety disorder; wrongfully demoted to cleaning person resulting in further aggravation of an injury.” No mention of the anxiety disorder appears in the original complaint. Melissa Bruno is a single mother with two sons. Her father, Thomas Tegenkamp, owns a local business in the Sunrise area. Mr. Tegenkamp has enjoyed a long-standing friendship with David Yokeum, the chief executive officer of WCA USA, Inc. (WCA). There was little, if any, evidence presented about WCA, except that Mr. Yokeum was the chief executive officer and that, at the time of Petitioner’s employment, there were approximately 25 employees. At some point, Mr. Yokeum mentioned to Mr. Tegenkamp that his company was looking for an employee for the office.1/ Mr. Tegenkamp told Mr. Yokeum that his daughter was looking for a job. No evidence was presented regarding her qualifications for the job at WCA-–her past training and job experience was as a cosmetologist. It appears from the evidence that she was hired primarily because of her father’s friendship with Mr. Yokeum. Petitioner was hired by WCA in July 2014 as a receptionist. Initially, her duties included answering the phone and the door, ordering supplies, and helping around the office. Her position was a salaried, as opposed to an hourly, position. About four months after Petitioner was hired, she was given responsibility for the UPS program. The UPS program is a billing function that needed to be completed each week, and involved downloading approximately 20,000 lines of data regarding shipping charges, separating the lines by “members,” and invoicing those members for their shipping costs. Matthew West is the regional director of North America for WCA, and has been with the company for approximately six years. He performed the duties related to the UPS program previously, in addition to several other responsibilities, and performed these duties after Petitioner’s departure. He believes that the UPS program can be completed by one person and is not a full-time job. He was not informed by Petitioner or anyone else that Petitioner had any type of disability. Sudkhanueng Bynoe has worked for WCA for 16 years in a variety of capacities, and currently serves as the company’s office manager. She participated in Petitioner’s hiring, and performs the company’s human resources functions. She remembered that, at some point, Petitioner told her that Petitioner had G.A.D. (generalized anxiety disorder), but she was not familiar with the acronym, and Petitioner did not explain what G.A.D. meant. Petitioner did not ask for any modification of her work based on her anxiety. She acknowledged that she did not advise Ms. Bynoe that her generalized anxiety disorder limited her ability to perform tasks, and did not ask for an accommodation. Both Petitioner’s brother and father testified at hearing. When asked at hearing, neither identified any disability from which Petitioner suffered while working at WCA. Both knew she took medication, but did not know what kind of medication or the basis for taking it. Neither identified any activity of daily life that was impaired by any type of disability. In late 2014, Petitioner was arrested for driving under the influence (DUI). She claimed that the reason for the arrest was that she was overmedicated for her anxiety disorder. She notified her employer about the DUI, and had a conference with Mr. Yokeum and Ms. Bynum about the legal requirements she needed to fulfill with respect to the DUI. None of the documents related to the DUI were admitted into evidence, and the specific requirements were not identified. However, it is undisputed that WCA allowed her time off to attend whatever court dates she had, and that she was allowed to come in late and leave early for an unspecified length of time because she needed to get a ride from her father to and from work. Mr. West described Petitioner as someone who tried very hard, and put in a lot of hours. However, her performance was not up to par. The UPS program needed to be completed each week, and her timeline for completion was way too long. She was often as much as a week behind. He recalled her having a couple of “meltdowns” while with the company, but was never informed that she had a disability. In addition to the length of time that it took Petitioner to complete her work each week, she developed a problem with attendance. When she did come to work, she was frequently late, and took lengthy breaks during the day. Mr. West testified that employees started with five vacation days at the beginning of employment, which would progress to ten days. He testified that there was no specific time allotted for personal time in addition to the vacation days. Ms. Bynoe indicated that employees were allotted ten days each year for vacation, and ten PTO (personal time off) days. Respondent believed that she had ten days for vacation and ten days for PTO, for a total of 20 days each year. Assuming that the attendance policy in fact allowed both vacation days and PTO days, Petitioner’s absences exceeded what was allowed. For example, in 2015, Ms. Bruno took nine days of sick leave, 15.5 days of PTO, and nine days of vacation, for a total of 33.5 days. She was allowed to work from home an additional five days, although working from home meant that someone else had to perform her receptionist duties. In 2016, she took 14 days of sick leave, 10.5 of PTO, and nine days of vacation, again for a total of 33.5 days. She came in after 10:00 a.m. an additional six days and worked from home an additional three days (two full days and two half days).2/ Petitioner had hand surgery in June 2016, which accounted for at least some of her absences. In 2017, from January 1 until August 31, Petitioner took six days of sick leave, 6.5 days of personal leave, and one day of vacation. She worked from home on 8.5 days, and was late (coming in after 10:00 a.m.) 13 times. She was also absent from the office an additional 11 days, of which ten were attributed to her suspension as of August 17, 2017. There were two occasions, although the dates were not specified, where Petitioner did not come into work and did not call to say that she would not be coming in. In short, Petitioner was late or absent more times than anyone else in the company. Because of her absenteeism, there was a meeting at some point in 2017 with Ms. Bynoe and another employee, where Ms. Bynoe requested that Petitioner sign in when she came to work and sign out when she left. She was the only employee required to sign in and out, but the procedure was implemented because of her excessive absences that other employees did not share. Petitioner’s absences were related to a variety of problems, including her mother’s passing, an anxiety disorder, dental work, hand surgery in June 2016, a partial hysterectomy, and ovarian cysts. Petitioner also had some issues with one of her sons, which increased her stress. However, the greater weight of the evidence does not indicate that she had a disability as is contemplated under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The evidence also does not establish that Petitioner ever asked for an accommodation based upon a disability. The greater weight of the testimony established that WCA made several attempts to assist her, by having people help her with carrying supplies and allowing her to occasionally work from home, even though that impeded her ability to perform her receptionist duties. In 2017, issues related to Petitioner’s performance came to a head. Mr. West had several discussions with Petitioner during the last six months of her employment, because she was often as much as a week late completing each week’s invoices. She was also often late in the mornings, and while she testified that when she came in after 10:00 a.m., it was because she was picking up supplies for the office, she did not notify her supervisor at the time that that was what she was doing. As noted above, she was allowed to work from home several times during her last year of employment. A few months before her termination, Petitioner came to work with a cast on her arm, and told Mr. West that she had dropped a couch on it at home. She had broken her wrist. However, she did not ask for a less strenuous job because of her hand, and did not ask for help with the UPS program. Other employees helped her with carrying supplies and other manual tasks. Petitioner was aware that she was behind in her work. On August 16, 2017, she spoke directly with Mr. Yokeum and told him she needed additional help. The next morning Petitioner reported to work, but had to leave for the day shortly after she started, because she was dizzy and “twitching,” and was afraid it would evolve into a panic attack. Once again, Petitioner texted Mr. Yokeum to advise him of her absence and the reason she had to leave the office. Mr. Yokeum was not her direct supervisor. On August 17, 2017, Petitioner was advised by letter from Mark Mairowitz, WCA’s Executive Vice President, that she was being suspended from the office until at least September 1, 2017, due to her office attendance. The letter she received states in part: Hello Melissa David Yokeum called me to his office this morning to express his displeasure at your office attendance record as he has grown very concerned. Because of his relationship with your father, he has asked me, as WCA Executive Vice President, to interact with you and to let you know that you are NOT to contact David from now on. He has no desire to hurt your family and so he has turned all matters regarding your employment over to me. Again, you are NOT to contact David in any way. Doing so will jeopardize your continued employment at WCA. You are only to deal with me from this day forward. Your attendance record has been examined by David and myself and we find a disturbing pattern of absence, with far more days/hours out of the office than other WCA employees. We are concerned for your health and your safety in getting to and from the office and before you can return to the office, you will be required to undergo a complete medical evaluation/examination and obtain a “clean bill of health” letter from a physician before you can return to work. Furthermore, as David will be out of the office until September 1st, he prefers you NOT be in the office until his return. So, consider yourself on suspension until that date. Mr. Mairowitz’s letter also requested that Ms. Bruno return her office computer and cell phone until she was reinstated, and advised her that her salary would be unaffected by the suspension. However, it is unclear from the letter what health issue Mr. Mairowitz is referencing. In early September 2017, Ms. Bruno returned to the office. At this time, she was relieved of her responsibilities related to the UPS program and reassigned to cleaning in addition to stocking the office and breakroom. The cleaning consisted of vacuuming, mopping the floor, and taking out the trash. From management’s point of view, this assignment would allow her to have flexible hours and less responsibility, while not suffering any reduction in pay. From Petitioner’s point of view, the change in job responsibilities was demeaning and humiliating, and meant to embarrass her. Ms. Bruno cleaned the office once, over Labor Day weekend, and did not do so again. She testified that after cleaning the office that weekend, she experienced significant pain in her hand and had to go to the emergency room to have it examined. While she testified that the emergency room sent her home with a work release for two days or until cleared by her hand surgeon, no documentation from the emergency room was submitted at hearing, and no evidence was submitted to demonstrate that the emergency room records were provided to WCA.3/ Ms. Bruno advised Mark (presumably Mark Mairowitz) that she hurt her hand and could not clean the office the way it needed to be cleaned. She did not report back to work at WCA. There was some testimony that the office was closed for a period in September related to a hurricane that hit the area, but there was no evidence as to how many days the office was closed. Petitioner’s employment was terminated as of September 29, 2017. Petitioner saw her hand surgeon on or about September 26, 2017. She submitted documentation from the Vanguard Aesthetic Plastic Surgery which is, for the most part, illegible, but is clear enough to confirm that she was seen as a patient and received some instructions. She did not report to Ms. Bynoe that she had gone to the emergency room, and did not inform her that she was unable to perform work cleaning and organizing the office because of her hand or because of any other disability. Petitioner did not testify that she was unable to perform the duties of cleaning and organizing the office because of her G.A.D. Petitioner did not establish by the greater weight of the evidence that she has a disability. However, she did establish that toward the end of her employment, WCA perceived her as having some sort of disability, as evidenced by Mr. Mairowitz’s letter to her requesting that she get a doctor’s clearance to return to work. Despite evidence that there were concerns, it is not at all clear whether WCA’s perception is based upon problems with her hand or problems caused by her anxiety disorder. Petitioner did not establish by the greater weight of the evidence that she requested an accommodation from her employer based on a disability. Likewise, she did not establish that WCA ever denied a request from Petitioner for an accommodation. Petitioner did not establish that WCA treated persons without a disability differently. No evidence was presented regarding any employee with a similar position and a similar attendance history, much less that such a person was treated differently than Petitioner. If anything, the evidence supports the view that WCA went to great lengths to accommodate Petitioner, in large part because of her father’s relationship with Mr. Yokeum.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Petition for Relief be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 30th day of January, 2019.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is eligible to receive disability income payments under the State Group Disability Income Self-insurance Plan (DISP).
Findings Of Fact On or about February 1, 2005, James S. Purdy, Public Defender for the Seventh Judicial Circuit, State of Florida, hired Petitioner as a "part-time" appellate attorney. Petitioner's duties included representing indigent criminal defendants on appeal. As a "part-time" attorney, Petitioner worked the same number of hours as full-time attorneys. His workload was equivalent to the workload carried by all part-time and full- time appellate attorneys. However, except to attend weekly staff meetings, Petitioner did not perform his duties at the Public Defender's Office. Petitioner and other "part-time" attorneys were free to work from home and/or to maintain a private law office. During Petitioner's employment with the Public Defender's Office, Craig S. Dyer, Deputy Public Defender, was in charge of personnel. James Wulchak, Chief of the Appellate Division, was Petitioner's direct supervisor. Petitioner has been under the continuous care of a physician for Parkinson's disease since his diagnosis in 1997. Parkinson’s disease is a neurological degenerative movement disorder for which there is no known cure. The disease's symptoms initially are responsive to medication but become less responsive over time as the disease progresses. Despite the slow progressive nature of Parkinson’s, Petitioner always was able to compensate for his disability by typing his briefs during the periods of time that his medications were effective in relieving his symptoms. Sometimes he worked before dawn, during the evening hours, or on weekends. Petitioner never informed Mr. Purdy, Mr. Dyer, or Mr. Wulchak that he was unable to perform his duties due to a physical disability. Petitioner never requested or advised his employer of a need for special accommodation to perform his assigned tasks. Petitioner continued to perform the duties required of him as an appellate attorney up through the last day of his employment. Petitioner's employer never contemplated dismissing Petitioner due to his inability to perform satisfactory work. In a meeting on March 25, 2008, Mr. Purdy requested Petitioner's resignation due to an incident unrelated to his disability. Petitioner responded that he needed time to ascertain the status of his insurance benefits. Several days later, Mr. Dyer placed a telephone call to Petitioner. Petitioner again refused to resign. On April 15, 2008, Petitioner attended a routine weekly staff meeting. After the staff meeting, Mr. Dyer and Mr. Wulchak had a private meeting with Petitioner. When Petitioner refused to tender his resignation, Mr. Dyer terminated Petitioner's employment effective immediately. But for the incident unrelated to Petitioner's physical condition, Petitioner's employer would have allowed him to continue to work after April 15, 2008. The next day, Petitioner met with representatives of the Public Defender's Office to surrender files. The Public Defender's Office denied Petitioner's request to be paid for work performed on April 16, 2008. As of April 15, 2008, Petitioner had accumulated 228 hours of annual leave and 242.59 hours of sick leave. Respondent paid Petitioner for 120 hours of annual leave, the maximum allowed. Petitioner did not receive payment for accumulated sick leave because he had not worked six years for the state. At all times relevant here, Petitioner's employment was classified as Select Exempt Service (SES). The DISP is one of the employment benefits that Respondent provides to SES employees under Florida Administrative Code Rules 60P-6 and 60P- The purpose of DISP is to provide employees who are on leave with income once their accumulated leave is depleted. In April 2008, Petitioner filed a claim for disability benefits with the Social Security Administration. On May 5, 2008, Petitioner filed a Notice of Intent to file a claim for benefits under the DISP. In the notice, Petitioner asserted that he was disabled as of April 15, 2008, the last day he was a paid employee. Within 90 days thereafter, Petitioner filed his completed claim for disability income payments under DISP. In a letter dated July 1, 2008, Respondent advised Petitioner that he was not eligible to receive DISP payments because he was no longer a state employee. A letter dated July 5, 2008, advised Petitioner that he would receive Social Security disability income in the amount of $2,060 per month commencing October 2008. Petitioner offered the deposition testimony of Richard Boehme, M.D. in lieu of testimony at hearing. Dr. Boehme, a board-certified neurologist, treated Petitioner several times in 2003 and again in January 2004. Thereafter, Dr. Boehme did not see Petitioner professionally until August 2008. Dr. Boehme's medical opinion was that Petitioner was totally disabled and unable to perform the duties pertaining to his employment as of January 1, 2008. Dr. Boehme's testimony is not persuasive in light of Petitioner's continued productivity up through April 15, 2008. Dr. Boehme did not place any specific limitations on the physical activities of Petitioner. According to Dr. Boehme, there was no medical reason to keep Petitioner from continuing to perform the same duties he performed on his last day at work. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner was performing satisfactorily on April 15, 2008.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order finding that Petitioner is not entitled to DISP benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonja P. Mathews, Esquire Department of Management Services Office of the General Counsel 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Henry T. Swann, III Henry Swann, III Post Office Box 4415 St. Augustine, Florida 32085 Dennis Robert Schutt, Esquire Schutt, Schmidt & Noey 2700-C University Boulevard West Jacksonville, Florida 32217 John Brenneis, General Counsel Department of Management Services 4050 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact Petitioners', Joseph and Shelly Grainger, are husband and wife. They have one five year old son, Christopher Grainger. Joseph Grainger is the primary wage-earner for the family. At present, Joseph Grainger is unemployed due to a back problem. His previous employment was with a parcel shipping company. Due to his unemployment, Mr.Grainger is receiving approximately $653.00 a month in unemployment benefits. He will receive unemployment benefits until December, 1990, when his unemployment benefits terminate. As a recipient of unemployment benefits, Mr. Grainger must actively seek employment and is considered to be employable by the State. Proposed Rule 10C-1.11 Florida Administrative Code, implements federal and State law requiring the Department to furnish Aid to Families with Dependent children to indigent families whose principal wage-earner is unemployed (AFDC- UP). The law and the proposed Rule require the principal wage-earner to participate in the Job opportunities and Basic Skills program (JOBS). Florida has mandated that the spouse of the principal wage-earner also participate in the JOBS program, if funds are available. For AFDC-UP purposes, the Graingers constitute a three person assistance group. The assistance group determines the amount of benefits an applicant1 may receive if the applicant qualifies under the myriad eligibility requirements of the AFDC-UP program. The assistance group also sets the amount of income an assistance group may not exceed and still qualify for AFDC-UP. In this case, the Graingers' income limit is $294.00. Clearly, because of the amount of unemployment benefits Mr. Grainger is receiving, the Graingers do not now qualify for AFDC benefits and are not now receiving AFDC benefits which will be impacted by the proposed Rule. Since the Graingers are not now qualified for the AFDC-UP program and Mr. Grainger is employable, they have not established that they will suffer an injury from the proposed Rule's implementation of sufficient immediacy to entitle them to a hearing under s 120.54, Florida Statutes. See Agrico Chemical v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 406 So.2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Alice P., 367 So.2d 1045, (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Florida Department of Offender Rehabilitation v. Jerrv, 353 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); and Village Park Mobile Home Association v. State Department of Business Regulation, 506 So.2d 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Accordingly, the Graingers do not have standing to challenge the proposed rule. Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions Of Law and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, IT IS ORDERED that the Petitions filed in Case Nos. 90-5157RP and 5158R are dismissed and the Division's files closed. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANA CLEAVINGER 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 2nd day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Cindy Huddleston Florida Legal Services, Inc. 2121 Delta Way Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Scott LaRue Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 1, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Liz Cloud, Chief Bureau of Administrative Code The Capitol, Room 1802 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Carroll Webb, Executive Director Administrative Procedures Committee Holland Building, Room 120 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1300
