The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent is guilty of discrimination in employment on the basis of race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Leatharine Leon. She has been employed by Respondent, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, for more than 13 years. In the fall of 1988, Petitioner was employed in the position of Criminal Justice Administrator. Petitioner supervised a section within the Crime Information Bureau. In October, 1988, Martha Wright, a white female, became the Bureau Chief of the Crime Information Bureau. After evaluating the needs and personnel of the Bureau, Wright consulted with other Respondent management personnel and began the implementation of organizational changes within the Bureau. On or about November 22, 1988, Wright notified Petitioner that she was to be reassigned to duties as an Administrative Assistant II. The position was specifically created to provide administrative support to the Bureau. Wright wanted Petitioner to accept the transfer voluntarily. After thinking overnight about the matter, Petitioner refused and the reassignment was made on an involuntary basis. Upon the expiration of a required 14 day notice period to Petitioner, Respondent effectuated the reassignment of Petitioner in the early part of December, 1988, to the administrative assistant position. Petitioner continued to enjoy her same salary and pay grade. As established by the Final Order of the PERC Commission in Case No. CS-89-238, Respondent's transfer to the Administrative Assistant II position was warranted, comported with procedural requirements and served a legitimate governmental interest. At the time of Wright's action transferring Petitioner, Wright had already determined to make other organizational changes to the Bureau. Subsequently, implementation of those changes resulted in the merger of two sections of the Bureau; the criminal history input section formerly headed by Petitioner, a black female, and the criminal history bureau section headed by a white female. The white female head of the criminal history bureau section, Judi Croney, became a unit supervisor within the new section and was given additional special projects. Iris Morgan, a senior management analyst employed in a position with a higher pay grade than that held by Petitioner, assumed Petitioner's previous supervisory duties. Further, Morgan assumed additional duties and responsibilities associated with determining the viability of the merger of the two bureau sections and then supervising the merger. Respondent's management wanted to continue a higher level manager position over the enlarged section resulting from the merger action. Wright envisioned that the new section supervisor position would require an individual adept at conceptual work, as opposed to operational management. Since she met all minimum qualifications for the position, Morgan was selected to continue as the new section head. Petitioner did not adapt well to her position as the Administrative Assistant II. She was unable to perform duties of the position in an independent fashion. Consequently, she received below satisfactory performance evaluations on March 28, 1989, May 2, 1989, June 1, 1989, and July 28, 1989. After the last unsatisfactory performance evaluation, Petitioner was demoted from the Administrative Assistant II position, a pay grade 18 position, to a technician position with a pay grade of 14. However, Petitioner's salary was not reduced and has not been reduced to date. After Petitioner was removed from the Administrative Assistant II position in July or August of 1989, the position was filled by Jerrie Bell, a black female, who is still employed in that position. Bell has performed satisfactorily in the position and has the ability to work independently without constant instruction and supervision. As a result of reorganization, supervisory positions were reduced from ten to seven positions within the Bureau. All other affected supervisors, a total of five individuals, were white. All but one of them voiced objection to Respondent's actions; however, none of the objections varied or prevented implementation of Respondent's proposed changes. Respondent does not have a work practice which discriminates with regard to compensation, conditions and privileges of employment on the basis of an employee's race. Further, Petitioner has not been subjected to such discrimination by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-4270 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-45. Adopted in substance, but not verbatim. 46.-48. Rejected as unnecessary to result. 49. Adopted by reference. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, Esq.. Acting Executive Director Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Leatharine Leon 1751 Centerville Road Tallahassee, FL 32317 Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esq. P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Clerk Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner has been the victim of an unlawful employment practice by the alleged failure to re-hire him by the Respondent because of his alleged disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was employed as a machinist operating a "pega" machine for the Respondent at times pertinent hereto, in 1992 and 1993. On or about February 24, 1992, while he was home for lunch, the Petitioner apparently suffered a stroke. He was hospitalized and his wife and a nurse informed his employer of his medical condition. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. It is a manufacturer of commercial laundry equipment and employs more than 15 employees. Because of the medical condition related to his stroke, the Petitioner applied for and was granted a medical leave of absence on or about February 24, 1992 or shortly thereafter. There is apparently some question whether the Petitioner's supervisor actually signed the leave request, but the employer does not dispute that he was legitimately on a medical leave of absence until August 13, 1992. There is also some dispute concerning whether the Respondent employer knew that the Petitioner had suffered a stroke or not. The complainant's personnel file, however, contained two notes dated March 12, 1992 and August 17, 1992 from Dr. Watts, his treating and attending physician. The March 12, 1992 note confirmed that the Petitioner had been hospitalized and had had an abnormal cerebral imaging result, also suffered from hypertension and, at that time, was unable to return to work. The August 17, 1992 note from Dr. Watts stated that the Petitioner could return to work and stated that there were no restrictions on his activities. Thus, the evidence of record indicates that there was a basis for the Respondent to know that the Petitioner had a stroke or some type of disability between February 24, 1992 and August 17, 1992. Upon his release by his attending physician on August 17, 1992, without medical restriction of his activities, so that he could return to employment, there was no basis for the Respondent to believe from that point forward that the Petitioner had any disability. This is borne out by the Petitioner's own testimony revealing that he repeatedly sought re-employment with the Respondent during the period from August 1992 through February 1993 without advising the Respondent of any employment restrictions due to his medical condition or any purported disability. When the Petitioner returned to the Respondent's place of business on August 17, 1992 and sought to come back to work after his medical leave, the plant manager informed him that he had no openings for him at that time. There were two positions being filled at that time, but they were not positions for which the Petitioner was qualified. One was a position requiring skill at electrical schematic reading, which was an electrical assembly position. The Petitioner was not qualified for this position. The other position was as a "tig welder", a highly-skilled type of welding process. The Petitioner was not qualified to perform this, as well, because of his lack of knowledge of welding. The position, and similar positions, operating "pega" machines (machine tools), which the Petitioner had filled and performed prior to his illness, were all filled and unavailable at the time the Petitioner sought to return to work in August of 1992. Neither the Petitioner nor his physician had given any indication of when the Petitioner could return to work, prior to August 13, 1992, nor was there any communication with the Petitioner or his physician for six months during his leave of absence, other than the provision to the company of the physician's note in March 1992 concerning the brief description of his medical condition. Consequently, on August 13, 1992, when Mr. Rieff, the plant manager, received a note from the Petitioner's physician stating that he could return to work without restriction, there were no positions available for his type of skill and training. Therefore, the company recorded the Petitioner's status, as of August 1992, as being discharged due to the conclusion of his medical leave with no open positions suitable for him being available. The Petitioner testified that he sought employment several times during the period of August 1992 through January 1993 by attempting to contact or contacting Mr. Rieff. He stated that Mr. Rieff told him to check with him every two or three weeks because each time he spoke with him, Mr. Rieff informed him that no openings were available at that time. The Petitioner, however, filed no application for employment until he learned, from a visit to the state employment service office in February of 1993, that the Respondent was looking for a "pega machine operator". The Petitioner filed an application with the company at that time. Upon receiving the application or learning of it, Mr. Horton, Human Resources Director of the company, reviewed it and noted that the Petitioner had had previous experience with the company performing this same job. Mr. Horton had not been with the company at the time the Petitioner had left for his medical leave and, therefore, had no knowledge of his medical history, skills, abilities, and other past history with the company. Consequently, he consulted with Mr. Rieff concerning the advisability of re-hiring the Petitioner. Mr. Rieff advised against re-hiring the Petitioner because the Petitioner had had an attendance problem while he was employed by the company. In fact, although his other job skill and performance ratings were the highest, his attendance rating was the poorest in the company's system and means of rating performance. Consequently, because of Mr. Rieff's negative recommendation, on the basis of the Petitioner's past poor attendance record, which is substantiated by the evidence, Mr. Horton elected not to re-hire him. Mr. Horton did not know at that time of the medical history of the Petitioner because the medical records were housed in a different department of the company. Mr. Horton was the decision-maker for that employment decision. The employment action which resulted in the Petitioner filing the charge of discrimination at issue occurred when the Respondent failed to hire the Petitioner. The Petitioner maintains that it was on account of his medical condition or disability. The Petitioner verbally sought employment by contacting Mr. Rieff periodically from August 1992 through January 1993. On approximately January 7, 1993, Mr. Rieff effectively told the Petitioner that he would not hire him in the foreseeable future and that if he needed the Petitioner, he could call him. In February 1993, the application was actually filed by the Petitioner for employment, and Mr. Horton took the above negative action with regard to it. It is undisputed that the Respondent granted the Petitioner six months of medical leave. Whether or not the Respondent knew of the precise nature of the medical problem for which the Petitioner was given medical leave, the fact is established that upon the Petitioner being released by his treating physician with no restrictions and able to return to work, the Petitioner had no disability in terms of any impediment to his full employment, performing the full range of duties he had performed before the medical incident occurred in February 1992. Consequently, the Petitioner was not disabled from August 13, 1992 forward. The established reason that the Petitioner was not hired again by the Respondent company was because of his poor attendance record and not because of any perceived disability suffered by the Petitioner. In fact, at the times pertinent hereto when the decision at issue was made not to re-hire the Petitioner, the Petitioner suffered from no disability, and the Respondent had no perception that he did.
Recommendation Based on 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 RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Commission on Human Relations dismissing the petition filed by the Petitioner, Dennis W. Thomas, in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 December, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-2126 The parties were accorded the opportunity to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in the form of Proposed Recommended Orders. The Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact, which are accepted (Nos. 1-6) to the extent they do not conflict with or are inconsistent with the findings of fact made by the Hearing Officer. The Petitioner submitted a post-hearing pleading, in letter form, which really amounts to an argument as to the quantity, quality and weight to be ascribed to the evidence and included citation to the relevant statute, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, and a court case which merely is cited for the purpose of pointing out that employment cannot be denied a person on account of illness and disability. That principle is not in dispute in this proceeding. The Petitioner did not separately state proposed findings of fact which can be specifically ruled upon by the Hearing Officer. Nevertheless, all legal and factual issues alluded to in the Petitioner's pleading have been addressed and ruled upon in the body of this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis W. Thomas 4396 Clyde Lane Post Office Box 56 Marianna, Florida 32447 Roger W. Horton, III Human Resources Director Unimac Company, Inc. 3595 Industrial Park Drive Marianna, FL 32446-9458 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact John Stewart is a correctional officer with permanent status. He filed a timely appeal on his five-day suspension with the Career Service Commission. Franklin Ashe, Assistant Food Service Director, was Stewart's immediate supervisor and rater at the time in question. Stewart had transferred to kitchen duties shortly after his initial rating as a Correctional Officer I in March, 1976. Ashe prepared Stewart's first rating as a Correctional Officer I working in the kitchen as a steward on April 25, 1977. At that time Stewart had worked in the southwest unit kitchen since the and of March, 1977. His duties in the southwest unit kitchen were direction and supervision of inmate cooks and cook's helpers. Prior to his transfer, Stewart's duties were to take the noon meal to the prisoners working on work details outside the prison. However, Ashe had also supervised Stewart prior to his transfer to the southwest unit kitchen. His performance of his initial duties were presumably satisfactory because this was apparently a good assignment and Stewart performed these duties until March, 1977. The benefits of this job included no shift work and weekends off. In late March, 1977, Stewart who was active in a union organizational effort received oral warning from D. E. Carter concerning passing out union material on the premises of the prison. Shortly thereafter, Stewart who was an alternate to the bargaining talks, was moved from his duties serving prisoners on work detail and assigned to shift work. Shortly after that he was moved to the southwest unit kitchen. The evaluation involved in this case followed shortly thereafter. Ashe's evaluation of Stewart was delivered to Ashe by one of the Correctional Officers II or sergeants who were assigned duties in the kitchen. Ashe was displeased about the rating and asked the sergeant about speaking to Ashe. A meeting occurred between Ashe and Stewart in Ashe's office shortly after Stewart came to work on May 23, 1977. This meeting lasted about five minutes. Stewart states that he asked Ashe about the rating and Ashe replied that it was self-explanatory and that he just called the facts the way they were. Beyond this Ashe gave no explanation of the basis for his rating of Stewart. Ashe does not deny this, but alleges that Stewart was abusive and insubordinate by stating that he (Ashe) was full of shit. Ashe then attempted to terminate the meeting by leaving. Ashe stated that Stewart blocked his way out of the door and told him that he was a baby not a man and that if they met on the street, Ashe had better move over. Stewart denies having used vulgar or threatening language with Ashe, but admits that be did stand in the door way and did say Ashe was a baby not a man. Stewart never received an explanation of his rating. Based upon the foregoing Stewart was suspended for five days.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer finds that good cause existed for disciplinary action against Stewart. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of November, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond Gearey, Esquire Department of Offender Rehabilitation 1311 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Walter Thomas, Esquire Voyager Building 2255 Phyllis Street Jacksonville, Florida Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Department of Administration Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact William H. Mathias was initially employed by SWFWMD as Director of Employee Relations on January 30, 1980, at pay grade At the time of Petitioner's employment William C. Tatum was Executive Director of SWFWMD. Petitioner has over ten years' experience in personnel relations and security and holds two master's degrees. Due partly to Petitioner's aggressiveness and strong personality, he began exerting influence in the personnel division in pushing the Personnel Department in directions not necessarily approved by Tatum. Tatum wanted to reduce the influence the Personnel Department was having on SWFWMD. On July 26, 1982, Petitioner was transferred to the Field Operations Division with no change in grade. Exhibit 5, which announced this transfer, stated Petitioner was transferred as Assistant Director. On July 28, 1982, a subsequent memorandum, Exhibit 6, was issued by Tatum changing Petitioner's title from Assistant Director to Acting Administrative Assistant. Prior to this transfer Tatum spoke with William F. Sietman, Director of Field Operations, who advised Tatum that he had no need for Petitioner in the Field Operations Division however, Tatum insisted that Petitioner, with his two master's degrees, could make a valuable contribution to SWFWMD if placed in the right niche. Shortly thereafter, Tatum was replaced as Executive Director by Gary W. Kuhl, who was promoted to that position from Assistant Executive Director. The first evaluation report submitted by Sietman on Petitioner, at the end of his first six months on the job, was unsatisfactory. Petitioner appealed to Kuhl, who withdrew his evaluation partly because no job description had been prepared for the position occupied by Petitioner. Kuhl directed the preparation of a job description for the work to be done by Petitioner. When the job description_ was prepared, the position was given the title of Program Management Analyst and the duties to be performed are as contained in Exhibit 1. Principally, Petitioner's function was to do some coordinating of the budgets prepared by the various sections in Field Operations, coordinate planning and negotiate and oversee the building maintenance contract. This position was a staff function as opposed to a line function in which the incumbent would exercise direction, or command, over the section heads. As a staff function his duties were coordination as opposed to direction. Subsequent to his initial unsatisfactory evaluation at the end of his six months probationary period, Petitioner's evaluations improved each evaluating period and at the time of his termination his performance can be described as very good. However, on several occasions complaints about Petitioner giving personnel advice to Respondent's employees regarding overtime, job classifications, and pay grades reached Kuhl. This was the subject of a memorandum addressed to Petitioner and Sietman by Kuhl on May 15, 1984 (Exhibit 7). Petitioner was told to leave personnel matters and advice to the Personnel Department or face disciplinary action. Changes in the functions imposed on Respondent in 1984 necessitated the employment of additional technical people and the establishment of additional technical positions at SWFWMD. The Governing Board indicated to the Executive Director that the budget could not be raised by the amount needed to fund all of these positions and that cuts would have to be made. Kuhl met with the various division heads to require more justification for the proposed new positions and to ascertain which existing positions they could eliminate. This resulted in a proposed list of positions including the librarian, Petitioner's position, and other positions currently unoccupied. As a result of these discussions it was concluded the unfilled positions and the position of Program Management Analyst could be eliminated. By memorandum dated August 17, 1984 (Exhibit 4), Kuhl advised the Governing Board of the proposed reduction in work force. By letter dated August 20, 1984 (Exhibit 15), Kuhl advised Petitioner that the position of Program Management Analyst was eliminated effective immediately and that he was eligible to apply for any other position in SWFWMD for which he was qualified. Petitioner appealed the termination to the Governing Board and, when the Board affirmed his termination, he filed the instant petition. Prior to the transfer of Petitioner to the Field Operations Division, the budget was prepared by each section chief for his section, and the division director coordinated the budgets. While Petitioner was assigned to Field Operations, he performed this budget coordination role previously taken by the director. When Petitioner's position was eliminated, the division reverted to the way it operated before Petitioner's arrival, with little, if any, noticeable effect. The role Petitioner had assumed in supervising the maintenance contract also reverted back to where it was before Petitioner's arrival, again with no noticeable effect.
The Issue Whether Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent is guilty of unlawful employment practices as alleged in the Petition for Relief. AUTHORITY Chapters 120 and 760, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, D. Paul Sondel, was born August 13, 1928, and was, at the time of final hearing, 65 years of age. On April 11, 1993, Petitioner saw a newspaper advertisement for the position of Analyst I with the Florida Board of Bar Examiners (FBOBE). On April 12, 1993, Petitioner went to the office of the employment agency which the FBOBE was using to locate and screen applicants. Petitioner was told that he would not be allowed to apply or take the pre- employment test for the position because he had a graduate degree and only persons who have a Bachelor's degree but no graduate degree(s) were allowed to apply. On June 1, 1993, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, in which he alleged that the FBOBE requirement that no one would be considered for the position of Analyst I who had a higher level degree than the minimum required Bachelor's degree, served the "intended purpose" of eliminating older applicants, especially those over Petitioner further alleged that the existence and implementation of such FBOBE policy was in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Respondent hired two persons to fill the April 1993 advertised position of Analyst I. One of the persons hired was 24 and the other was 23 years of age. The FBOBE is an administrative agency of the Supreme Court of Florida and charged by the court with the responsibility of evaluating the character, fitness and competence of each applicant for admission to the Florida Bar. Petitioner has established that he is a person in a protected group; that adverse employment action was taken against him; that the persons hired for the position in question were outside the protected group; and that, but for his graduate degree, he was qualified for the position in question. The FBOBE has a current staff of 29 full time employees. As of March 30, 1994, of those employees, three were 40 years or older at the time of employment. Nine of these employees are currently 40 or older. The employment application used by the FBOBE does not request any information regarding an applicant's age. The FBOBE have hired individuals in the past who were 40 years of age or older. The FBOBE uses the American Employment Agency, Inc. to advertise vacancies and to conduct preliminary screening. Kathryn E. Ressel has been employed by the Respondent for over 22 years and is currently the Deputy Executive Director of the FBOBE. Ms. Ressel is responsible for the instructions given to the employment agency concerning the qualifications for the position of Analyst I. Ms. Ressel testified that the reason for the FBOBE policy of excluding applicants with post graduate college or university degrees is not intended to restrict employment opportunities to younger persons and is not related to the age of any applicant. Ms. Ressel's testimony is that past experience in hiring persons with graduate degrees has indicated that such persons tend to stay in the Analyst positions for short periods of time and leave when an employment opportunity presents itself in the field for which the person is educated. Ms. Ressel testified that the Analyst I position is an entry level position and that the Analyst receives extensive on-the-job training to enable the newly hired employee to perform assigned duties and meet job related responsibilities in an effective and efficient manner. Therefore, according to Ms. Ressel, when Analyst I's leave the employment of the FBOBE after a short time on the job, the Respondent is unable to recoup the time, energy and expense involved in training such individuals. Ms. Ressel's testimony articulates a reasonable nondiscriminatory basis for the employment practice at issue. Ms. Ressel's testimony indicates that the employment policy at issue is age neutral in that it is applied to all individuals who apply for the position of Analyst I, regardless of age. Ms. Ressel's testimony in this regard is unrefuted. Official notice is taken that a given individual is generally older at the time such person receives a graduate degree than when the same individual receives a Bachelor's degree. It does not follow, however, and Petitioner has failed to prove (statistically or otherwise), that in any specific job applicant pool available to the Respondent to fill Analyst I positions, potential applicants with graduate degrees are older than potential applicants who possess only Bachelor's degrees. Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (statistical or otherwise) that the employment policy at issue has a disparate impact on persons 40 years of age or older. Petitioner has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason articulated by the FBOBE as the basis for rejecting Petitioner's application is in fact a pretext and/or that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition for relief filed in this case be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES W. YORK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1994.
Findings Of Fact Martin Marietta Corporation is a multi-state, multi- national defense contractor. Respondent functions as one of its primary divisions/operations in Orlando, Florida. The Petitioner, Frank Maggio was born on April 3, 1914. Petitioner was employed by Respondent on June 16, 1981 in the position of Quality Control Fabrication Inspector A (Fate A Inspector) at Respondent's Orlando facility. Respondent's primary role within the overall corporate operation is the production of highly sophisticated, high-tech missile systems. The development and production of these weapons is maintained under tight security due to the involvement of the national defense effort. Because of Respondent's participation in military and defense programs, the manufacturing process is constantly reviewed and critically inspected by governmental agencies. The Respondent utilizes "state-of-the-art" machines and equipment on its advanced, technical and highly complex defense projects. Petitioner's responsibilities as a Fab A Inspector included checking the first piece of hardware off of the machines, qualifying the tape that runs the machine with his stamp and checking the dimensions of the first layout. This procedure is referred to as a set-up and, once "bought off" "accepted) by the "A" inspector, it establishes the critical reference point or benchmark for the sophisticated, state-of- the-art-manufacturing processes of the Respondent. Respondent's operations involve the manufacture or production of weaponry or weapons systems that require tolerances The Petitioner was given a warning that another similar incident might result in further disciplinary action, up to and including discharge and specifications which are not found or even known in consumer oriented production plants. Certain pieces of equipment used will drill and measure within one one-thousandth of an inch (1/1,000"). The integrity of the highly integrated and closely coordinated production procedures depends upon the correct initial setting, which "commits" the production process. If the initial setting is off or in error, nonconforming parts or items will be manufactured. If the nonconforming parts cannot be reworked or brought into tolerances, they are regarded as scrap and represent a loss to the company. The Petitioner functioned as the only Fab A Inspector on the second shift with very little, if any, supervision. "B" and "C" Inspectors were present, but not performing in a capacity that could provide a backup for Petitioner. In February, 1983, Petitioner functioned under the direct supervision of Charles Holley, Chief Quality Inspector. Although both men worked on the second shift, Petitioner performed as a Fab A inspector and was responsible for making the initial, critical decisions on "set-up" tapes for the second shift production operations. On April 5, 1983, while on his second shift assignment, Petitioner "bought off" on a first piece inspection in order to qualify a newly released tape. On April 7, 1983, the first shift rejected a piece on that particular tape because the dimensions were out of tolerance. Subsequently, after a second inspection of the piece by the senior tool inspector, it was determined that the part was non-conforming and out of tolerance. This error lead to the production of approximately 180 pieces of "scrap" and a loss of about $100,000. As a result of this incident, Mr. Holley, Petitioner's superior, completed a Significant Incident Report (S.I.R.) dated April 18, 1983, which was placed in Petitioner's personnel file. Pursuant to routine procedure, Petitioner was counseled about the S.I.R. and given an opportunity to respond. The Petitioner was given a warning that another similar incident might result in furhter disciplinary action, up to and including discharge. Following the April, 1983 incident, Mr. Holley felt that Petitioner's work performance began to decline. Mr. Holley was dissatisfied because Petitioner often used scales for measurements at times when Mr. Holley believed that calipers should have been used. In addition, Petitioner used his lunch break to take naps, and several times he was late returning to work. Sometime in late September or early October, the Petitioner approved a piece of hardware similar to that involved in the April, 1983 incident and it too was rejected for being out of tolerance. Following this incident, Mr. Holley once again went to the Personnel and Industrial Relations Department (S.I.R.) attempting to have another S.I.R. placed in Petitioner's file. However, the management in P.I.R. did not allow the report to be placed in Petitioner's file. Subsequently, Petitioner was not reprimanded or otherwise disciplined and no official record was kept of this incident. During February, 1984, a "set-up" error by Petitioner on a secret laser tracking missile project know as "Hell-Fire" caused unusable parts to be manufactured and a financial loss to Respondent. Prior to submitting an S.I.R., Mr. Holley met with management in the Personnel and Industrial Relations Department to discuss the Petitioner's situation. It was at this time that Mr. Thomas Mallis, supervisor of employee relations, seized upon the idea of Petitioner's upcoming 70th birthday on April 3, 1984 as a way in which to be rid of Petitioner. Mr. Mallis reasoned that rather than attempting to terminate Petitioner for cause, Petitioner's 70th birthday would provide a point where Petitioner could be "gracefully retired" under Martin Marietta Corporation's corporate retirement policy. Martin Marietta Corporation has a nationwide corporate retirement which requires retirement at age 70. Generally, the company does not enforce this requirement at facilities which are located in states where such a policy violates age discrimination laws. Likewise, Respondent does not generally enforce the corporate wide retirement policy at its Orlando facility because it is subject to Florida state law concerning age discrimination. As of April 4, 1984, Respondent employed approximately 11,000 employees. Approximately 5,017 of those employees were 40 years of age and a small number were over 70. Although the company's age 70 retirement policy is not generally enforced at Respondent's Orlando facility, the retirement plans provided by the company and the benefits package negotiated by the union with the company for retirement pay focus on age 70 as the point at which retirement benefits mature or "top out." After age 70, no further benefits accrue under the retirement plan. Thus, as a matter of established practice and/or expectation on the part of the employees, virtually all workers have retired or plan to retire on or before their 70th birthday. Therefore, Mr. Mallis believed that having respondent "retire" at age 70 would be an easy non-confrontational way to terminate Petitioner's employment. As a member of the United Aerospace Workers local bargaining unit, Petitioner would have had the right to object and file a grievance concerning any proposed termination for cause by Respondent. By "retiring" Petitioner under the corporate policy, Mr. Mallis believed that a "bitter challenge" under the union's often cumbersome grievance/arbitration procedures could be short-circuited. Under the Respondent's progressive discipline system, generally employees are given 3 to 5 S.I.R.'s or written warnings before any stronger action is taken. At the time of his involuntary retirement by Respondent on April 4, 1984, the Petitioner was not vested under the company's retirement program and was not entitled to any benefits thereunder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that the Respondent is guilty of a violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes and awarding the Petitioner attorney's fees. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner be reinstated to his former position. The Respondent may seek to institute proceedings within 30 days from the date of the final order to terminate Petitioner for cause based on his work performance up to April 4, 1984. If the respondent is barred from attempting to terminate Petitioner for cause based on those past incidents for whatever reason, if Respondent chooses not to institute termination proceedings, or if the Respondent successfully defends any termination proceedings, then the Petitioner shall be entitled to back pay for the statutory maximum of two years. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Egan, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802 Thomas C. Garwood, Jr., Esquire 57 West Pine Street, Suite 202 Orlando, Florida 32801 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner (None submitted) Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 14 and 16. Matters not contained therein are rejected as misleading. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Matters not contained therein are rejected as misleading. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 5, and 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7,/ Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 10 and 11. Matters not contained therein are rejected as unnecessary and subordinate. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 13, 14, 16, and 17. Matters not contained therein are rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and/or subordinate. In particular, the finding that the "Petitioner under normal circumstances, should have been discharged for his pattern of poor performance and the associated financial impact upon the company" is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Matters not contained therein are rejected as subordinate and/or not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rejected as argumentative and/or subordinate. ================================================================ =
Findings Of Fact 1. Petitioner (Randolph) is an African-American female. 2. Petitioner was hired by Respondent on June 2, 1997, and was terminated by Respondent from her employment on September 30, 1997. 3. When initially hired, Petitioner’s official employment class title was Other Personnel Services (OPS) Paralegal Specialist. 4. On July 1, 1997, approximately one month after her date of employment, Petitioner’s official employment class title was changed to Administrative Secretary and Petitioner’s pay plan status was changed from OPS to Career Service. 5. On September 1, 1997, Petitioner's class title was reclassified to Paralegal Specialist. 6. From July 1, 1997, until the date of her termination, Petitioner was employed in a probationary status by DOAH with her primary job responsibilities being that of a proofreader. 7. Probationary employees are not entitled to progressive discipline and can be terminated at will pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 60L-36.005. 8. Ann Cole, the clerk of DOAH, interviewed all candidates for the newly created proofreader position. 9. There were several applicants for the proofreader position and after a series of tests and interviews Ann Cole determined that Petitioner was the best applicant for the proofreader position and Petitioner was hired for the job. 10. Approximately one month after Petitioner was hired, a second proofreader (Dr. Rappendelli) was hired. Dr. Rappendeli is a white female. 11. Both Petitioner and Dr. Carol Ripandelli were supervised at DOAH by Ann Cole. ATTENDANCE HISTORY 312. During the first month of her employment Petitioner shared a work area in DOAH’s mailroom with current DOAH employee Elma Moore, an African-American female. 13. Elma Moore typically arrived at work between 7:00 and 7:15 a.m. even though the required start time for employees of the clerk’s office was 8:00 a.m. 14. Elma Moore was able to directly observe the times during which Petitioner arrived at work. Ms. Moore noted that Petitioner reported to work forty-five minutes late on her first day. Ms. Moore further noted that Petitioner would often be late. 15. Elma Moore was relocated to another part of the clerk’s office when Dr. Rappendelli was hired. 16. Elma Moore, even from her new workstation, continued to be situated such that she was able to observe the times at which Petitioner customarily arrived at work. 17. Elma Moore testified that during the four month period that Petitioner worked for DOAH, at least two to three times each week, Petitioner would arrive at work approximately ten to thirty minutes beyond the mandatory 8:00 a.m. start time for employees. 18. The testimony of Elma Moore is further corroborated by the affidavit of Deanna Hartford. 19. Ms. Hartford, who was the Deputy Clerk Supervisor for DOAH during Petitioner’s period of employment, stated that she observed Petitioner arrive to work late, without notice, on several occasions during her OPS employment and during her career service probationary employment. 20. Ms. Hartford stated in her affidavit that around the first week of September 1997 she was asked by Ann Cole to observe Petitioner’s attendance. Ms. Hartford noted that during this period of observation Petitioner arrived to work at’ the following times on the dates as indicated: September 8, 1997, 8:20 a.m.j; September 9, 1997, 8:25 a.m.; September 10, 1997, 8:10 a.m.; and September 17, 1997, 8:20 a.m. 21. Ms. Hartford reported to Ann Cole, Petitioner's supervisor, that Petitioner was frequently late for work. 22. This is consistent with Elma Moore’s testimony that Petitioner, at least two to three days per week, was customarily late for work in excess of ten minutes. 23. Petitioner attempted to contradict the testimony of Elma Moore and the affidavit of Deanna Hartford by testifying that she was told by her supervisor, Ann Cole, to make up her tardy time thereby excusing the fact that she was habitually late for work. 24. Ms. Cole stated the importance of proofreaders being punctual to work, and testified that she and Petitioner had at least two meetings where they discussed Petitioner’s tardiness issue prior to her termination. 25. Ms. Cole stated that she spoke with Petitioner about her timesheet and attendance, and the need for Petitioner to tell her when she is late and how she plans to make up her time. 26. Ms. Cole stated that Petitioner’s communication regarding her promptness and plans to make up time never improved. 27. Ms. Hartford stated that she never observed Petitioner disclose her late arrivals to her supervisor, Ms. Cole. On more than one occasion, Ms. Hartford stated, she reported Petitioner’s tardiness to Ms. Cole, who indicated she was unaware of the late arrival. PHONE USE 28. Unlike some of the other jobs in the clerk's office, the proofreader’s duties and responsibilities did not require the utilization of the telephone. 29. Elma Moore stated that during the time that she shared an office with Petitioner, her desk was in close proximity to Petitioner’s desk and that on several occasions she noticed that Petitioner was talking on the telephone. 30. Elma Moore stated that Petitioner was using the telephone for personal calls frequently. 31. Elma Moore further testified that she knew that the responsibilities and duties of the proofreader did not require Petitioner to use the telephone. 32. Deanna Hartford noted in her affidavit that she personally observed that Petitioner was always on the phone. 33. Ms. Hartford also noted in her affidavit that other employees at the Clerk’s office had complained to her about Petitioner’s excessive use of the telephone. 34. Ms. Hartford advised her supervisor Ann Cole about Petitioner’s excessive phone use. 35. In response to the complaint about Petitioner's excessive use of the telephone, Ms. Cole contacted DOAH’s information services department and requested that they audit all of the telephone extensions for the clerk’s office. 36. The audit results for the clerk’s office revealed that during the audit period, employees, excluding Petitioner, averaged 85.5 outgoing phone calls. 37. Petitioner, however, had 294 outgoing calls attributed to her extension during this period. Dr. Carol Ripandelli, the other proofreader, had 79 outgoing calls attributed to her extension during this same period. 38. The audit results for the clerk’s office revealed that during the audit period, employees, excluding Petitioner, averaged 1.6 outgoing calls that exceeded ten minutes in duration. 39. The number of outgoing calls exceeding ten minutes in duration that were attributed to Petitioner's extension during the audit period totaled thirteen. Dr. Carol Ripandelli had only two outgoing calls that exceeded ten minutes in duration attributed to her extension during the audit period. 40. Petitioner denied having made the number of phone calls attributed to her extension. Petitioner also charged that it was possible that other employees could have made outgoing calls from the phone on Petitioner’s desk. 41. Elma Moore testified that it was neither the practice nor the custom of employees of the clerk’s office to regularly use the telephone of other employees. INITIATIVE 42. Deanna Hartford, in her affidavit, noted that in July of 1997 she was asked by Ann Cole to provide additional training to the proofreaders. 43. Petitioner and the other proofreader were instructed to inform Ms. Hartford when they were caught up with their work so that the additional training could be provided. 44. Dr. Carol Rappendeli, the OPS proofreader, sought and received additional training in several areas including filing, assisting in the quarterly file purge and destruction, outgoing docketing procedures, and maintaining the Florida Administrative Code supplements. 45. Petitioner never sought additional training as requested. 46. Ann Cole observed Petitioner nodding off on at least three occasions while in an important proofreading standards meeting. 47. Ms. Cole observed Petitioner cutting coupons at her desk the morning of September 22, 1997, during business hours. 10 48. Elma Moore also testified to the fact that Petitioner, during business hours would frequently work on a personal book when she wasn’t proofreading. DISRUPTIVE AND RUDE BEHAVIOR 49. Ms. Cole testified that along with the attendance problems and telephone usage, Petitioner also had attitude problems. 50. On two occasions, Petitioner felt the need to apologize for rude comments made to her supervisor, Ms. Cole. 51. Ms. Cole observed rude behavior by Petitioner directed toward Dr. Ripandelli when they were discussing proofreading on a particular order. 52. Ms. Cole stated that when Petitioner gets in one of her moods, teamwork between Petitioner and Dr. Ripandelli is ineffective. 53. Ms. Cole testified that she had to speak with Petitioner about her radio and that it was so loud it caused a disturbance in the break room. 54. Dr. Ripandelli testified that Petitioner’s radio was so loud that she bought herself headphones in order to drown out Petitioner’s radio. i 55. In contrast, Ms. Cole testified that Dr. Ripandelli gets along with all the judges and that Dr. Ripandelli interacts fine with her. TERMINATION 56. Ms. Hartford stated that Petitioner never discussed with her any need to accommodate her for a disability or for her religion. 57. Ms. Hartford further stated that Petitioner never mentioned that she was being discriminated against for any reason. Ms. Hartford never observed Petitioner walk with a limp, or have sores or bandages on her legs. 58. Petitioner was terminated on September 30, 1997, due to her chronic tardiness, excessive use of the telephone, and her general failure to demonstrate initiative.
Conclusions Petitioner: Ms. Audrey Randolph, Pro Se 2644 Edgewood Avenue, West Jacksonville, FL 32209-2431 904-713-9913 For Respondent: Mr. Linzie F. Bogan, Esquire Office of the Attorney General PL-01 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399 850-414-3300 ext. 4650
Recommendation 29 In the present case, Respondent showed a legitimate reason for discharging Petitioner. Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination based upon her race, religion, disability or marital status. Petitioner also failed to demonstrate that Respondent discriminated against her in retaliation for Petitioner engaging in an activity that was protected by Section 760.10(7), Florida Statutes. Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 4A day of Vabir ; 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, kative Law Judge sd Way, Bin A-0 32398-1703 Filed with the clerk of the Florida Commission of Human Relations this 2" day of December 2003. 30 COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Audrey Randolph 2644 Edgewood Avenue, West Jacksonville, FL 32209 Mr. Linzie F. Bogan, Esq. Office of the Attorney General PL-01 The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399 Harry Hooper Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Secretary of Commission Mike Hanson Room 1801, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0001
The Issue In two separate Petitions For Relief From An Unlawful Employment Practice, Petitioner, George F. Carter, alleges that Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his age and as retaliation for his previous filing of a complaint alleging age discrimination by DER. Petitioner alleges that as a result of the discrimination and retaliation, Petitioner was not chosen for various positions for which he applied and was given performance evaluations lower than he deserved. DER's position is that there are legitimate, non- discriminatory reasons for the actions Petitioner complains of, and that these reasons are not pretextual.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of the witnesses at hearing, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the stipulations of the parties, I make the following findings of fact. Findings based on stipulations Petitioner, George R. Carter, is an-employee of DER in the Northeast District Office in Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner became an employee of DER after its creation in 1975. He was first employed as a Field Inspector (Position No. 0532). He was previously employed by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund and by the Department of Agriculture. On January 3, 1977, Petitioner took a voluntary demotion (deleting lead worker status) to transfer from the Gainesville office to the Jacksonville Office (Position No. 0097). On June 15, 1977, Petitioner was promoted to an Environmental Specialist I position (0097) when his Pollution Control Specialist position was deleted. On May 16, 1980, Petitioner was promoted to an Environmental Specialist II position (No. 0532). At that time Petitioner was given a 10% salary increase. On March 1, 1982, Environmental Specialist II positions were reclassified by the Legislature as Environmental Specialist I. Petitioner was placed into the new class and given a salary increase. On October 21, 1982, Petitioner received a written reprimand for taking unauthorized leave. On July 1, 1985, Petitioner was voluntarily assigned to another ESI position (00597) in Jacksonville. On February 20, 1986, Petitioner was voluntarily reassigned to another ESI position (00524) in Jacksonville. The rest of the findings Petitioner was born February 1, 1915. On January 11, 1980, Petitioner filed a complaint with the Florida. Commission on Human Relations in which he asserted that DER had discriminated against him because of his age. On August 2, 1982, Petitioner filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations in which he asserted that DER had discriminated against him because of his complaint of January 11, 1980. On October 19, 1976, Petitioner received a written reprimand for: (1) falsification of timekeeping records, (2) unauthorized use of a state vehicle, and (3) unauthorized leave. Petitioner was suspended without pay April 27 through April 29, 1983, for insubordination. The suspension was upheld by order of the Career Service Commission dated January 7, 1986. Petitioner has appealed the suspension to the Duval County Court. Petitioner's principal claim of age discrimination concerns his non-selection for an Environmental Specialist II position (No. 00354) in Tallahassee in 1978. Petitioner filed a grievance with DER alleging age discrimination. DER investigated the grievance and then dismissed it as unwarranted. The State Personnel Director adopted the DER recommendations and conclusions. Petitioner appealed the State Personnel Director's decision to the Career Service Commission, which assigned the case Docket No. 79-58. By order dated September 21, 1979, the Career Service Commission sustained the decision of the State Personnel Director that Petitioner's complaint of age discrimination was without foundation. In addition to that specific complaint, Petitioner broadly contends that he has been discriminated against because of his age by DER's failure to hire him for a large number of other positions for which he applied, which positions are listed on Petitioner's Exhibit No. 33A. The only basis for this aspect of Petitioner's charge of discrimination is that a younger person was chosen to fill each position. In 1979 Petitioner filed a grievance with DER alleging age discrimination regarding the positions listed in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 33A. DER investigated the charges. The investigation included an examination of interview summaries from twenty-three of the positions for which Petitioner applied. DER concluded that there was no evidence of age discrimination in the selection process. During the course of the investigation Petitioner admitted that age was never mentioned when he was interviewed for the positions. Most of the positions for which Petitioner applied were high level positions which would have involved several steps of promotion for Petitioner. It is unusual for a person in DER to be so quickly promoted without working his way through the ranks. It is a legitimate consideration when hiring a person to look at his pattern of application for positions. If a person applied for a broad range of positions without an apparent sincere interest, that would weigh negatively against the indiscriminate applicant. The positions for which Petitioner applied were in widely varied fields, e.g., hazardous waste, solid waste, dredge and fill, potable water, groundwater, coastal zone management, limnology, noise control, domestic and industrial wastewater, water analysis, water resources restoration, grant coordination, enforcement, and quality assurance. DER could have legitimately concluded that Petitioner was indiscriminately applying for positions and weighed this against Petitioner when making its selection decisions. Petitioner claims to have a Ph.D. degree in Biology from Pacific Southern University in Seattle, granted in 1976 while Petitioner was employed by DER in Gainesville, Florida. Petitioner's applications formerly listed a Ph.D. and Petitioner attached a copy of his supposed degree. Petitioner's current resume does not include a copy of his degree and notes that PSU is unaccredited. Searches by DER in 1977 and 1978 were unable to confirm the existence of PSU. The address listed on Petitioner's transcript was at the time of the search occupied by Marcia's Steno and Message Center. According to Petitioner, after discovering that PSU was unaccredited, Petitioner changed his resume to reflect that fact. Falsification or misrepresentation of credentials on an employment application can properly be a negative consideration when making a personnel decision. DER could have appropriately used this information in deciding to not promote Petitioner. An employee's history of adherence to established policies and procedures is a valid consideration when making personnel decisions. DER could reasonably have considered Petitioner's disciplinary history when making personnel decisions concerning Petitioner. Petitioner's disciplinary history would be particularly relevant to the supervisory positions he sought. Since 1980 the Petitioner has received the following performance evaluation ratings: September 1, 1980 to August 31, 1981: 6.86 September 1, 1981 to August 31, 1982: 5.6 August 31, 1982 to July 14, 1983: 4.14 July 14, 1983 to September 1, 1983: 4.93 September 1, 1983 to August 31, 1984: 5.1 September 1, 1984 to June 30, 1985: 6.0 Petitioner was rated by the same supervisor, Jeremy Tyler, from 1980 through 1985. Mr. Tyler explained that Petitioner's initial evaluation was fairly high because he had not known Petitioner for a long time and had not had a good opportunity to appraise his work. Mr. Tyler explained that he lowered Petitioner's ratings in subsequent evaluations so that they accurately reflected Petitioner's performance in relation to his co-workers. This method of rating Petitioner was in accord with a memorandum from the Secretary of DER in 1981 requiring that performance evaluations be fair and accurate, and that outstanding evaluations be given only in instances of truly outstanding work. Petitioner has been a good employee and has done acceptable work, but he has not been an outstanding employee. Petitioner's performance evaluations accurately reflect his performance. All of Petitioner's evaluations fall into the satisfactory or above satisfactory categories, (or, for the 1985 evaluation, the "achieves performance standards" category) except for the special evaluation of 4.14 which was triggered by the incident of insubordination which led to Petitioner's suspension. DER's Internal Management Policies and Procedures Manual explains that "Achieves Performance Standards" means "fully satisfactory performance or 'a job well done.'" The policy manual recognizes that the majority of the workforce should receive this rating. Some employees in similar positions did less work than Petitioner or performed their work in a less timely manner than Petitioner, but had performance ratings higher than Petitioner. This was because Petitioner's supervisor attempted to evaluate his employees relative to each other based on their total performance, not on just one facet of their performance. While some employees performed fewer inspections than Petitioner, their inspections were more complex and demanded more time. While some employees were habitually late with their inspection reports, the high quality of their reports compensated for their untimeliness and the reports were never so late as to prejudice DER. With each employee's performance taken as a whole, Petitioner's performance evaluations were fair and accurate. Petitioner is openly disdainful of authority. He frequently questions the decisions and policy choices of his supervisor and even of the Secretary of DER. In the incident that led to Petitioner's suspension for insubordination, Petitioner admitted that he wrote a letter (stating that DER would not allow development on a piece of property) in order to help a private individual escape a contract which Petitioner determined was fraudulent. Such a letter was not authorized by Petitioner's superiors, but Petitioner wrote it because he felt that it was the proper thing to do. Petitioner will frequently independently evaluate a situation and do what he believes is right, regardless of whether such action is authorized or in accordance with agency policy. Additionally, Petitioner claims, with sincerity. that he is an expert in a multitude of fields, although his claims of expertise have not been borne out by his performance or the observations of his superiors. Petitioner's broad claims of expertise reduce his credibility when he is being considered for positions, even when Petitioner actually may be competent in the subject matter of the position under consideration. Further, Petitioner is overly considerate of the needs and desires of the public, bending and breaking the rules as he feels is appropriate in order to aid members of the public seeking permits from DER. Petitioner does not apologize for his unauthorized and improper actions (such as doing construction drawings for applicants or requesting information by telephone instead of in Writing as required by DER rules); rather, Petitioner takes pride in helping citizens avoid the bureaucratic "red tape." DER has not discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his age, nor has DER retaliated against Petitioner because of his having filed a discrimination charge against DER. DER has had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for denying promotions to Petitioner, and those reasons have not been pretextual. Petitioner's performance evaluation ratings have been fair and do not reflect discrimination or retaliation against Petitioner in any way.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued dismissing both of the Petitions For Relief filed by George F. Carter. DONE AND ORDERED this 12th day of May, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. 4 MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. George F. Carter Post Office Box 17949 Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Paul R. Ezatoff, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Dana Baird, Esquire Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Ms. Betsy Howard, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303 APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact contained in the post-hearing submissions of the parties. Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings Petitioner's post-hearing document titled Suggested Stipulations For Settlement does not contain any proposed findings of fact. Accordingly, no specific rulings on proposed findings of fact are addressed to that document. Petitioner's post-hearing document titled Summary Of Appellant's Presentation contains a mixture of Petitioner's factual contentions, legal contentions, conclusions, and arguments, all of which are substantially intertwined. A large number of Petitioner's comments in the subject document are irrelevant to the issues to be decided in these consolidated cases. Similarly, much of what is included in Petitioner's post- hearing summary consists of subordinate details and unwarranted conclusions. Addressing first the top half of the first page of the summary, the factual contentions in the first three numbered paragraphs are rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as in large part not supported by competent substantial evidence. The unnumbered paragraph addressing low morale is rejected for several reasons, including being irrelevant to the issues in this case and not supported by competent substantial evidence. With regard to the contentions at the bottom half of page one and at the top of page two to the effect that Petitioner is an "outstanding employee," the greater weight of the evidence supports a finding that Petitioner is on the whole a good employee or a satisfactory employee, but not an outstanding employee. While Petitioner certainly has some outstanding qualities, he has also displayed characteristics which detract from his job performance. Some of these characteristics are summarized in DER Exhibit No. 11. Other characteristics which contraindicate classification of Petitioner as an outstanding employee are reflected in the incidents described in the findings of fact which led to disciplinary action against Petitioner. With regard to the contentions on page two of Petitioner's summary to the effect that his evaluation was unjust, the following are my specific rulings on each of the paragraphs related to that topic. Paragraph number one is rejected because it is in part inconsistent with the greater weight of the evidence. Further it fails to take into account the quality of work, which is a major factor in evaluations. Paragraphs number two, three, four and five are rejected because they are for the most part irrelevant. They contain inferences not warranted by the evidence and are not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. The unnumbered paragraph at the bottom of page two is rejected as constituting argument rather than proposed findings, as not supported by competent substantial evidence, and as constituting inferences not supported by the evidence. With regard to the contentions on pages three and four of Petitioner's summary on the subject of the alleged pattern of harassment, discrimination, reprimand, and reprisal, the following are my specific rulings on each of the paragraphs related to that topic. Paragraph number one is rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph number two is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph number three is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph number four is accepted in part and rejected in part. The first sentence is accepted. The second sentence is rejected as irrelevant and as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraphs number five and six are rejected as irrelevant, as not supported by competent substantial evidence, and as inconsistent with the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph number seven is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. The top two unnumbered paragraphs on page four are rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph number six at the top of page four is accepted. With regard to the contentions on page four of Petitioner's summary under the caption "REPRISALS," the following are my specific rulings on each of the paragraphs related to that topic. The first unnumbered paragraph under the subject caption is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Paragraph number one is rejected as subordinate and as irrelevant in light of other more persuasive evidence as to why Petitioner was not promoted or given higher evaluations. Paragraph number two is rejected because it consists of conclusions not warranted by the evidence, is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence, and is for the most part irrelevant to the issues in this case. With regard to the contentions on page four and five of Petitioner's summary under the caption "DISCRIMINATION," the following are my specific rulings on each of the paragraphs related to that topic. The first unnumbered paragraph under the subject caption is rejected because the first sentence is irrelevant standing alone and the second sentence is not supported by competent substantial evidence and incorporates inferences not warranted by the evidence. Paragraph number one is accepted in part and rejected in part. The substance of the first two sentences is accepted. The last three sentences are rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence in the record. Paragraphs number two, three, and four are rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence in the record. Paragraph number five is rejected because it includes conclusions not warranted by the evidence and is not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraph number six is rejected as irrelevant in light of other evidence in the record. The paragraphs on pages five and six under the caption "PROTEST AND SUGGESTION ON HANDLING OF GRIEVANCES" do not constitute proposed findings of fact. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings Paragraphs 1 through 11 of Respondent's proposed findings are accepted. Paragraph 12 is rejected because it is a discussion of the issues rather than a proposed finding of fact. Paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of Respondent's proposed findings are accepted. Paragraph 18 is for the most part rejected as redundant or as constituting argument rather than proposed findings. The substance of paragraphs 19, 20, and 21 is accepted. Paragraph 22 is rejected because it is a discussion of the issues rather than a proposed finding of fact. The substance of paragraphs 23, 24, and 25 is accepted with the exception of certain gratuitous editorial comments.
The Issue Whether Respondent must repay $558.74 for alleged salary overpayment for the period between December 14, 1990 and April 26, 1991.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Allen was a career service employee with the Department who was subject to the collective bargaining agreement. Respondent was designated as the Public Assistance Specialist I who would act in a supervisory capacity during her unit supervisor's maternity leave. Respondent accepted the temporary appointment and received a higher rate of pay from the Department during the time she was filling the position, in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, a career service employee who performs the duties of a higher level position for a period of time more than twenty-two workdays within any six consecutive months, is eligible to receive a promotional pay increase. This pay increase should be granted in accordance with the Personnel Rules of the Career Service System, beginning with the twenty-third day. This type of temporary appointment is referred to within the Career Service System as "Out of Title" work, and is located in Article 21 of the agreement. Employees being paid at a higher rate while temporarily filling a position in a higher classification are returned to their regular rate of pay when the period of employment in the higher class is ended. Originally, Respondent's "Out of Title" status and increased pay were to be effective from June 1, 1990 until the supervisor returned from maternity leave. This time period began on June 1, 1990 and ended in some respects on December 14, 1990. The supervisor returned to work on a four-day basis, Tuesdays through Thursdays, for an additional three month period. Due to some special needs of the supervisor related to the birth of her child, the Department allowed her to continue to remain at home on Mondays after she was originally due back to work from maternity leave. This arrangement continued from December 14, 1990 to March 20, 1991. During these Mondays, Respondent continued to actively perform the duties of the higher level supervisory position for eleven consecutive weeks. In addition, Respondent acted as the unit supervisor during all other days her supervisor was unavailable for work. These additional days, however, were not arranged for in advance by the supervisor before returning to work from maternity leave, as were the consecutive Mondays. On April 29,1991, a Report of Personnel Action from the Department transferred Respondent from her higher "Out of Title" pay and status to her permanent position as a Public Assistance Specialist II [a promotion received April 12, 1991]. The effective date of the action was made retroactive to December 14, 1990, the day the supervisor on maternity leave returned to her job on a four-day a week basis. Prior to her receipt of the Report of Personnel Action on April 30, 1991, Respondent was unaware that her "Out of Title" job duties and the commensurate pay increase ceased on December 14, 1990. She had been performing supervisory duties on Mondays after that date under the belief that an overlap in position was permitted to assist the supervisor with her temporary special needs involved with childbirth and the baby's care. Respondent was not advised of the amount of the overpayment of salary the Department contends she received between December 14, 1990 and April 26, 1991, until July 25, 1991. The original amount of the salary overpayment the Department sought to recover from Respondent was $558.74. After the parties stipulated that Respondent performed supervisory functions on the eleven scheduled Mondays, the Department reduced its claim for overpayment to reflect a higher salary for Respondent on those dates. This reduced the claim for overpayment by $65.03, thus making the Department's total claim $493.71.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: Respondent is to be notified by the Department of the grievance procedures that can be used for the settlement of this dispute between employer and employee, along with the time deadline she has to elect the procedure to be used for the dispute resolution. The pending case is to be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and transferred to the correct forum timely elected by Respondent, without prejudice to either party. DONE and ENTERED this 27 day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE No. 91-6197 Respondent's Recommendation of Facts are addressed as follows: Rejected. Whether overpayment occurred needs to be resolved in a different forum, based on one or more of the following: an interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement; an interpretation of an overlap in position in this case; or an unfair labor practice. Accepted. See Finding of Fact #8 and Factual Stipulation #5. Rejected. Contrary to law. See Rue 3A-31.309(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 17, Florida Statutes. Accepted. See Factual Stipulation #7. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley Esq HRS District VI Legal Office Room 500 - Fifth Floor 4000 W Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd Tampa Fl 33614 Annie L Allen 6420 N 23rd St Tampa Fl 33610 John Slye Esq General Counsel Dept of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd Tallahassee Fl 32399 0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk Dept of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd Tallahassee Fl 32399 0700
The Issue The issues are whether the Respondents committed unlawful employment practices against Petitioner, and if so, to what relief is she entitled.
Findings Of Fact In the spring of 1994, Respondent CSD began operating a residential detention program for juvenile offenders pursuant to a contract with the Department of Juvenile Justice. The purpose of the program, commonly known as Hamilton House, was to provide redirection to the lives of its youthful residents/clients. Hamilton House had 48 beds divided between two dormitories. Respondent CSD assigned each resident to the appropriate dormitory, level six or level eight, depending on the type of security and rehabilitative services required. The program included an educational program as well as facilities for vocational and recreational activities. Respondent CSD employed Petitioner, a 51 year-old white female, as a resident advisor at Hamilton House from March 24, 1994 through June 30, 1996. Petitioner initially worked the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift in the level six dormitory. At times she served as the acting shift supervisor though she was not paid a supervisor's wages. When Petitioner began working for Respondent CSD, she lived with her elderly mother, Lotus Musgrove, whose colon cancer was in remission. At that time, Mrs. Musgrove was able to live independently and did not need a caretaker. On April 24, 1994, some of the clients managed to gain access to a bottle containing an alcoholic beverage. Petitioner and other employees received a verbal warning for failing to adequately monitor the behavior and movement of the clients. A training letter was placed in each employee's personnel file. In May of 1995, Respondent CSD hired Bobby Williams, Sr., as a resident advisor in the level eight dormitory. Mr. Williams is a black male. He eventually assumed the position of shift supervisor for the entire facility. There is no evidence that Petitioner sought this full-time position or a similar supervisory position at any time during her employment with Respondent CSD. In October of 1995, some of the clients accused Petitioner and another staff member of inappropriate conduct including, but not limited to, furnishing them with prohibited magazines and movies. As a result of the allegations, Respondent CSD suspended Petitioner and her co-worker without pay on October 18, 1995. By letter dated October 20, 1995, Respondent CSD advised Petitioner in writing that there was insufficient evidence of misconduct to warrant termination of her employment. However, the letter stated that Petitioner had violated company policy and procedure by allowing a youth to leave his room for extended periods after curfew. Respondent CSD paid Petitioner and her co- worker for the time they were suspended during the internal investigation. Respondent CSD subsequently reassigned Petitioner and her co-worker to work in a different dormitory and on a different shift. The change in time and location of their work shift was necessary to ensure there was no contact between them and the clients who had accused them of improper conduct. Petitioner was assigned to work the 3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. shift in the level eight dormitory. In a written statement dated October 23, 1995, Petitioner objected to the change in her shift. She preferred to continue working the 11:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. shift. She asserted that, during the day, she took care of her 78 year-old mother who had cancer. Respondent CSD did not immediately honor Petitioner's request. On or about November 24, 1995, Petitioner voluntarily purchased some supplies in the amount of $20.98 from a retail store. The supplies included the following: hand sprayers, cotton swabs, hydrogen peroxide, rubbing alcohol, highlighters, marker, Sharpies, and other miscellaneous items. Petitioner requested reimbursement from Respondent CSD because she intended to use the supplies at work. Respondent CSD declined to reimburse Petitioner for the supplies. There is no evidence that Respondent CSD ever authorized the purchase of the supplies. On December 11, 1995, a resident in the level eight dormitory attempted to discard a container of contraband tobacco. Petitioner detected his effort and responded appropriately. She received a letter of commendation for exemplary action which was placed in her personnel file. On January 23, 1996, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Juvenile Justice made a formal and final determination that "[i]t is inconclusive that staff members Julie Toughton and Alice Musgrove engaged in improper conduct with clients." On or about February 1, 1996, Petitioner took a box of pens and pencils from a client's desk. The client became upset and exhibited inappropriate behavior toward Petitioner. As a result of the client's tantrum, Petitioner took token-economy points from the client. Petitioner filed a written complaint dated February 4, 1996, with Respondent CSD after learning that one of her supervisors, Mike Myers, changed the client's point sheet. Petitioner's February 4, 1996, statement also asserted that Supervisor Myers was mishandling clients' mail. She complained that he was logging clients' mail and making the clients read their personnel mail to him. According to Petitioner, handling client mail was the responsibility of "line staff." On one occasion in February 1996, Petitioner was 30 minutes late reporting to her assigned duty station in the dormitory. She spent that time in the administration building because she refused to work with one of her co-workers. Supervisor Myers was responsible for changing Petitioner's time sheet to reflect a 30-minute deduction in regular time. On another occasion in February 1996, Petitioner and other employees worked two hours of overtime due to a crisis situation with one of the clients. Petitioner elected to "bank" the overtime rather than receive time-and-one-half of overtime pay. The other employees chose to receive overtime pay. Petitioner was off from work on February 22-23, 1996. When Petitioner arrived at work on February 24, 1996, her time sheet was not with the time sheets of other employees. Petitioner's time sheet was locked in a supervisor's office until February 26, 1996, because the supervisor was not at work. There is no indication in the record whether Petitioner's time sheet was locked up inadvertently or due to a dispute over Petitioner's wages. On March 1, 1996, Petitioner filed a written grievance with Respondent CSD regarding her pay. She claimed that Supervisor Myers was harassing her and discriminating against her by changing her time sheet without her knowledge. Specifically, Petitioner complained that Mr. Myers cheated her out of 30 minutes of regular time on one occasion and two hours of overtime on another occasion. She complained that her time sheet was locked in a supervisor's office for four days. On March 4, 1996, the Program Director, Dale Edwards, agreed that Petitioner should not be penalized for one-half hour of regular pay because she was in the administration building during the disputed time. Additionally, Mr. Edwards directed Supervisor Myers not to change an employee's time sheet without prior approval. He also requested that Petitioner furnish documentation that the company owed her for the two hours of overtime. Mr. Edwards was under the mistaken impression that the dispute over Petitioner's time sheet had been resolved. In March of 1996, Petitioner was working the midnight shift in dormitory eight consistent with her written request dated October 23, 1995. On March 18, 1996 and March 27, 1996, Petitioner made written requests for a change to the 7:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. shift. Petitioner specifically wanted to replace a Ms. Aikens on the morning shift. Respondent CSD did not honor Petitioner's request. However, there is no evidence showing that Ms. Aiken's position was ever filled, and if so, whether Respondent CSD selected a person of a different race or a younger to file the position. Petitioner was absent from work between April 8, 1996, and April 16, 1996, on April 22, 1996, and on April 29, 1996, due to illness and/or medical appointments. While she was absent, her inner-office mail box became so full that the mail had to be removed. The administrative manager gave Petitioner's mail to her supervisor. On April 23, 1996, Supervisor Myers completed Petitioner's annual performance appraisal for the period March 14, 1995 through March 14, 1996. Petitioner disagreed with the determination that she had difficulty communicating with others. Petitioner's mental health counselor, Christine Clark, sent Mr. Edwards an unsolicited letter dated April 23, 1996. According to the letter, Ms. Clark was treating Petitioner for family/employment related stress reduction. The letter states as follows in pertinent part: Due to the demands of her home environment, caretaking of her elderly mother who is dying from colon cancer, I am recommending that Ms. Musgrove be reassigned new working hours, namely a day schedule of approximately 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM in order to effectively and efficiently facilitate the evening and night care of her mother. In addition, Ms. Musgrove appears to have unresolved issues regarding her personnel file and salary still due to her for 30 minutes or .5 hour pay as well as two hours uncompensated work from several weeks ago. I personally read your approval for this compensation but apparently this has still not yet been indicated on her pay check. There also remain the allegations of her misconduct charges that appears not to be fully resolved. As an employee she does have the legal right to have these fully addressed and challenged. From my understanding that although the misconduct charges have been dropped, there are still areas that compromise Ms. Musgrove's reputation as a resident advisor. Mr. Edwards did not disclose the contents of Ms. Clark's letter to any employee of Respondent CSD other than his superiors, who advised him to get a release from Petitioner before responding to the letter. After receiving Ms. Clark's letter, Mr. Edwards had a telephone conversation with Petitioner's mother because Petitioner was not at work or at home. During the conversation, Mr. Edwards inquired about the mother's health. Mr. Edwards learned that Mrs. Musgrove's cancer had been in remission since 1993 and that she no longer required assistance with daily living activities. Mr. Edwards did not disclose any information regarding Petitioner's employment status, medical condition, or personal business to Mrs. Musgrove. Petitioner's sister placed an unsolicited telephone call to Mr. Edwards several days after he talked to Mrs. Musgrove. The purpose of the call was to thank Mr. Edwards for his concern over Mrs. Musgrove's health. During the telephone call, Mr. Edwards and Petitioner's sister did not exchange any information relating to Petitioner's employment, medical condition, or personal business. On April 29, 1996, all staff at Hamilton House received a memorandum advising them as follows, in pertinent part: As a result of the recent competitive bid conducted by District 3, Department of Juvenile Justice, Gator Human Services has been awarded the contract to operate the Hamilton County Youth Treatment Complex starting July 1, 1996. The memorandum also included information regarding the transfer of operations to the new service provider. Respondent CSD advised employees that, if requested, it would supply Gator Human Services the name, position title, hire date, and current salary of each employee of record. Respondent CSD stated that no other information would be given to the new organization without the consent of the employee. On May 1, 1996, Mr. Edwards wrote two memoranda regarding Petitioner's pay. First, Mr. Edwards directed the administrative manager to pay Petitioner for .5 hours of regular wages out of the company's petty cash fund and to get a receipt for the payment. Second, he directed the resident life manager to allow Petitioner to leave work two hours early (with pay) at a time of her choosing within the next work week. Petitioner could not "bank" the time indefinitely because Respondent CSD's contract was scheduled to expire on June 30, 1996. Mr. Edwards phoned Petitioner at home on May 2, 1996, to request a written release so that he could respond to Ms. Clark's letter. Petitioner wrote that release on May 3, 1996. The release gave Mr. Edwards permission to disclose confidential information to Ms. Clark. On May 3, 1996, Petitioner signed a written acknowledgment that receipt of $4.06 in payment for .5 regular hours would end the issue of the .5 regular hours owed to her. On May 10, 1996, Respondent Gator informed the staff at Hamilton House of the procedure for handling applications for employment with Respondent Gator's new program, Tiger Success Center. Applications were due on or before May 28, 1996. Interviews were to be scheduled between May 28, 1996, and June 7, 1996. Applicants would be advised of the final selections and employment offers by June 14, 1996. Respondent Gator requested that each applicant take a copy of their most recent performance appraisal to their employment interview. By letter dated May 13, 1996, Mr. Edwards responded to Ms. Clark's inquiry. First, he explained that questions regarding Petitioner's compensation had been resolved. Second, he stated that letters from the Department of Juvenile Justice and from the Office of the Inspector General had been added to Petitioner's personnel file, clearing her of all misconduct allegations. Third, he explained that the day shift would be the least desirable shift in terms of stress reduction because the activity level of the residents is highest during the day. Mr. Edwards also revealed that Petitioner's mother was treated successfully for cancer in 1993 and that her current health failed to support the need for a change in Petitioner's shift. Finally, Mr. Edwards noted that he had to consider the needs of the residents and other staff. A copy of Ms. Clark's inquiry and Mr. Edwards' response were placed in Petitioner's personnel file. Neither of the documents were disclosed to unauthorized persons. On May 22, 1996, the employees at Hamilton House received another memorandum advising them that after June 30, 1996, Respondent CSD would no longer operate the facility. The employees were encouraged to apply for employment with the new organization. Petitioner was scheduled for an employment interview on May 30, 1996. However, the interview was rescheduled because she was unable to keep the appointment. Petitioner's application for employment with Respondent Gator is dated May 31, 1996. She also furnished Respondent Gator with copies of three performance appraisals. Petitioner's signature on the application authorized Respondent Gator to make inquiries of references and former employers regarding her general character and past performance. There is no evidence that Respondent Gator ever made any such inquiries about Petitioner. A panel of three people representing Respondent Gator interviewed Petitioner. The panel asked her the same questions that they asked other applicants. Petitioner was very negative and critical of the existing program and Respondent CSD during her interview. After the interview, each member of the interview panel tallied their score sheets independently. All three agreed that Petitioner should not be given further consideration for employment with Respondent Gator because of her negative attitude and low interview scores. On June 13, 1996, Petitioner received a memorandum from Respondent Gator stating that the company was unable to offer her a position of employment. That same day, Respondent Gator offered employment to every other Hamilton House staff applicant except one black male, Mr. Humphrey. Respondent Gator hired a black female, Latasha Bristol, who worked in the level eight dormitory with Petitioner. Ms. Bristol is younger than Petitioner. However, she was not hired to replace Petitioner. Respondent Gator hired Ms. Bristol to work in the level six dormitory. Respondent Gator offered an employment position to a white female, Lucy Oxendine. Ms. Oxendine was over 60 years old at the time. She declined to accept a job with Respondent Gator for personal reasons. Mr. Edwards was hired by Respondent Gator to continue as program director after July 1, 1996. However, neither he nor any other employee of Respondent CSD shared any information about Petitioner with Respondent Gator or had any input into Respondent Gator's decision not to hire Petitioner. Respondent Gator based its decision not to employ Petitioner solely on the results of her interview which was very negative. On June 14, 1996, the staff at Hamilton House received a memorandum stating that anyone interested in accepting employment with Respondent Gator must sign up on June 19, 1996. On June 14, 1996, Petitioner's doctor faxed a medical excuse to Respondent CSD stating that Petitioner could not return to work for an undetermined period of time. The document indicates that Petitioner's diagnosis involved anxiety, depression, and work-related stress. The doctor commented that Petitioner was the primary caretaker of her mother who was terminally ill with cancer. The doctor's June 14, 1996, fax was received by Respondent CSD in the administrative manager's office. It was on her desk for a brief period of time before it was delivered to Mr. Edwards. There is no credible evidence that any employee of Respondent CSD disclosed the contents of the fax to unauthorized persons. Petitioner's doctor did not give her permission to return to work until after July 1, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that FCHR enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's Charges of Discrimination against both Respondent CSD and Respondent Gator. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: H. B. Stivers, Esquire Levine and Stivers 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Faye Musgrove Post Office Box 657 Live Oak, Florida 32064 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
