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. ================================================================ =
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, by discriminating against Petitioner based on her race.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a financial company that owns and services student loans. Petitioner is a black female. She was employed in Respondent’s Florida Loan Servicing Center (Service Center) on two separate occasions. The first time she worked for Respondent from September 1989 until September 1990. During that time, Petitioner did not experience anything that she felt was racial discrimination at the Service Center. Petitioner left her initial period of employment with Respondent by resigning and moving to South Florida. Petitioner subsequently returned to Panama City, Florida. Initially, she worked for the Bay County School Board. Thereafter, from July 2001 to November 2001, she returned to work as a Loan Origination Representative (LOR) for Respondent through a temporary agency, Kelly Services. In August 2001, Petitioner received a training evaluation, which indicated that Petitioner was meeting all expectations. In November 2001, Petitioner converted to a regular employee position with Respondent. Petitioner received her 90-day initial review in February 2002. According to her written evaluation, Petitioner needed to improve in two areas: (a) successfully meeting the goals established during the 90-day initial review period; and (b) demonstrating initiative and resourcefulness in work performance. The evaluation states as follows in relevant part: A discussion was held with Millie regarding her productivity for application and phone call processing during the review period. At that time, Millie was placed on a verbal warning for her performance. She currently averages 3.65 applications per hour. The department standard is 5 applications per hour. Millie also currently averages 6.66 calls per hour for the review period. The department standard is 8 calls per hour. Pursuant to this evaluation, Respondent extended Petitioner's 90-day initial review period for a 30-day period in which Petitioner was required to perform according to Respondent's standards. The evaluation advised Petitioner that failure to meet standards might result in further disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. In March 2002, Respondent selected Petitioner to represent the National Team for Private Credit Originations. This designation required Petitioner to undergo two days of additional training. Respondent has well-disseminated policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment on the basis of race. These policies are available to employees through Respondent’s Employee Reference Manual and Code of Business Conduct. Respondent’s internal website also contains employee-related information such as policies, notices and the company’s equal employment opportunity and anti-harassment policies. Further, Respondent distributes an annual affirmation of its anti- discrimination and anti-harassment/anti-retaliation policies via e-mail. Petitioner knew of Respondent’s commitment to diversity. Petitioner became aware of Respondent’s equal employment opportunity and anti-harassment/anti-retaliation policies immediately upon being employed with Respondent. In November 2001, Petitioner received Respondent’s Employee Reference Manual, Respondent's Code of Business Conduct, and a copy of Respondent’s annual reaffirmation of its anti- harassment/anti-retaliation policies. The annual reaffirmation outlined the procedure an employee should follow to report discrimination or harassment, and provided several avenues for reporting such conduct. Petitioner was also aware that Respondent had an internal website with employee information. Respondent’s anti-harassment policy prohibits retaliation against employees who report harassment. The policy also protects employees who participate in an investigation of a claim of harassment. Petitioner knew individuals in Respondent’s Human Resources Department. For example, when Petitioner first interviewed for a job with Respondent, she met Joni Reich, Respondent’s vice president of human resources. From July 2002 to November 2002, Petitioner’s immediate supervisor was Paul Wunstell. Mr. Wunstell was Respondent's supervisor of Private Credit Originations. In early July 2002, Bobby Wiley, Respondent’s human resources director for the Service Center was counseling an employee for performance issues when the employee made an internal discrimination complaint. The employee stated that a supervisor had made a racially discriminatory comment about the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. The employee told Mr. Wiley that Petitioner could confirm the racially derogatory comment. On July 19, 2002, Petitioner was asked to go to the human resources department. Upon her arrival, Petitioner met Mr. Wiley for the first time. Mr. Wiley directed Petitioner to a conference room. Mr. Wiley explained that he had asked Petitioner to meet with him because he was investigating a discrimination complaint made by another employee about a supervisor who might have said something derogatory about the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday. He explained that he had been told that Petitioner might have some knowledge about these events. Several times, Mr. Wiley asked Petitioner whether she knew of any racial discrimination at the Service Center and whether she had heard a supervisor make a racially derogatory comment. Petitioner denied being aware of any race discrimination at Respondent's facility. Petitioner stated that she did not want to talk to Mr. Wiley. Although Petitioner understood that she was required to report discrimination, she did not provide Mr. Wiley any information supporting or corroborating the complaint that he was investigating. During the meeting, Petitioner appeared nervous. She told Mr. Wiley that she was uncomfortable meeting with him. Mr. Wiley replied that their conversation would be confidential, “between the two of them,” or words to that effect. Petitioner mistakenly interpreted Mr. Wiley’s comment to mean that he would do nothing with any information provided by Petitioner and that he simply wanted to “contain” or cover up the issue of possible discrimination. Petitioner did not ask Mr. Wiley to clarify what he meant by his statement that their conversation would be “between the two of them.” During his meeting with Petitioner, Mr. Wiley conducted himself in a professional manner. However, because he was eating ice cream when he met with Petitioner and did not have a note pad, Petitioner mistakenly thought he did not take allegations of discrimination seriously. Mr. Wiley was eating an ice cream bar that had been distributed around the human resources department immediately before Petitioner came to see him. The conversation between Mr. Wiley and Petitioner lasted approximately ten minutes. Mr. Wiley thanked Petitioner for meeting with him. Mr. Wiley stated that he was glad to hear there was no discrimination at Respondent’s facility because Respondent would not tolerate discrimination. Petitioner then left the conference room. After the July 19, 2002, meeting, Petitioner never contacted Mr. Wiley to complain of discrimination or retaliation. Additionally, Petitioner’s supervisor, Mr. Wunstall, never knew about Mr. Wiley’s meeting with Petitioner. On or about July 1, 2002, Respondent advised all employees serving as LORs that they would be required to attend a training class on July 13, 2002. The purpose of the class was to ensure the proper handling of Laureate School Accounts for Private Credit Originations. Each employee needed an active Laureate computer ID and password in order to participate in the hands-on training. As instructed, Petitioner immediately advised Respondent that she did not have access to the Laureate software on her computer. On July 8, 2002, Respondent sent Petitioner an e-mail regarding her Laureate computer password. After receiving the password, Petitioner still could not gain the appropriate computer access. On July 9, 2002, Petitioner informed Respondent that she did not have the Laureate software installed on her personal computer. Respondent then made arrangements for Petitioner to test her password on another computer. Respondent also arranged to have the Laureate icon placed on Petitioner's computer. On July 23, 2002, Petitioner wrote a letter to Ms. Reich complaining about her meeting with Mr. Wiley. The letter stated that, although she had not told Mr. Wiley about it, Petitioner thought there was racial discrimination at the Service Center. Petitioner’s letter indicated that she wanted to make a statement concerning discrimination against blacks. In the letter, Petitioner requested information on Respondent’s policies and procedures to report such discrimination. Mr. Wunstell never knew that Petitioner had sent a letter to Ms. Reich complaining about racial discrimination. On July 29, 2002, Petitioner allegedly fainted at work due to panic attacks. Respondent's staff called an ambulance that took Petitioner to the hospital. Petitioner claims she was absent from work for three consecutive days without calling her supervisor and without being terminated for abandoning her job. On August 2, 2002, Petitioner received a letter from Ms. Reich. In the letter, Ms. Reich apologized for Mr. Wiley's failure to handle the meeting with Petitioner in a manner that Petitioner felt was appropriate. Ms. Reich told Petitioner that Respondent viewed discrimination complaints seriously and she included a copy of the anti-harassment policy, which outlined procedures for reporting harassment or discrimination. Ms. Reich explained several avenues to report discrimination. Ms. Reich’s letter also indicated that she and senior director of human resources, Joyce Shaw, would be in Florida within the next two weeks. In the letter, Ms. Reich asked Petitioner to meet with them to discuss her concerns and to promptly address any alleged discrimination. On August 12, 2002, Petitioner received an e-mail from Ms. Shaw to schedule a meeting on August 19, 2002. The text of the e-mail did not state the reason why Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich wanted to meet with Petitioner, but Petitioner knew the reason for the meeting. The e-mail asked Petitioner to contact Ms. Shaw either on her cellular telephone or by e-mail to schedule the meeting. Mr. Wunstell did not have the capability to access Petitioner’s e-mail messages and there is no evidence that he saw Ms. Shaw’s e-mail. On August 19, 2002, Petitioner met with Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich for approximately one hour. Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich listened to Petitioner’s concerns. They were pleasant to Petitioner during the meeting. During the August 19, 2002, meeting, Petitioner first complained that Mr. Wiley had been disrespectful or inattentive during their July 19, 2002, meeting. Petitioner also told Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich about her feelings that black employees were treated differently in the workplace. This was the first time that Petitioner discussed her race discrimination concerns with anyone who worked for Respondent. When pressed for more specific information, Petitioner stated that: (a) she felt black employees received different training than non-black employees; and (b) black employees’ questions were not answered as promptly or as thoroughly as the questions of non-black employees. Petitioner did not provide Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich with specific examples of racially discriminatory behavior or the names of any minority employees who Petitioner felt experienced discrimination. That same day, after the meeting with Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich, Petitioner provided Ms. Shaw with several e-mails about the Laureate computer training. The e-mails did not illustrate any mistreatment of Petitioner. During the August 19, 2002, meeting, Petitioner told Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich that she was experiencing panic attacks. Ms. Reich suggested that Petitioner take advantage of Respondent’s employee assistance program for the alleged panic attacks. Ms. Reich and Ms. Shaw told Petitioner that they would look into her concerns. They did not tell her they would contact her again in the future. Instead, Ms. Reich gave her business card to Petitioner in case she needed to contact Ms. Reich in the future. After the August 19, 2002 meeting, Petitioner did not contact Ms. Reich or Ms. Shaw again during her employment with Respondent. During the hearing, Petitioner testified that she complained to Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich about the following: (a) supervisor Melanie Childree's reference to the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday as "spook day"; (b) three employees telling an African American manager not to go to the "master cube," which Petitioner felt was a racial reference to "slave talk"; (c) a hearsay statement from a student's mother who called another employee at the Service Center to accuse a white customer service representative of calling her daughter "stupid nigger"; and (d) where a black supervisor was married to a white woman, one employee allegedly said he was "going to string [the black supervisor] up for messing with our women." Apparently all of these alleged incidents occurred before Petitioner's July 19, 2002, meeting with Mr. Wiley. The most persuasive evidence regarding these allegations is that Petitioner did not report them to Ms. Shaw or Ms. Reich or anyone else in Respondent's chain of command. Instead, the complaints that Petitioner shared with Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich on August 19, 2002, were non-specific generalizations. Moreover, Mr. Wunstell was never aware of Petitioner’s meeting with Ms. Reich and Ms. Shaw to complain about discrimination. Petitioner does not know what steps, if any, Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich took after their meeting to look into her concerns. At the hearing, Ms. Shaw testified that she investigated Petitioner’s concerns and found them to be unfounded. First, Ms. Shaw reviewed the e-mails provided by Petitioner but did not find anything inappropriate in their contents. Second, Ms. Shaw interviewed the director in charge of Petitioner’s department, Ann Nelson. Ms. Nelson explained that the process by which employee questions were answered made it unlikely that employees could be singled out due to their race. According to Ms. Nelson, all employee questions were directed to a central telephone helpline staffed by supervisors or senior employees who randomly responded to calls. Ms. Shaw correctly concluded that it would be difficult for racially discriminatory behavior to occur in such context. Third, Ms. Nelson assured Ms. Shaw that training was the same for all employees. Student loans are heavily regulated by federal law and thus, the manner in which employees handle borrowers is regulated, making Petitioner’s concerns about unequal employee training unfounded. Finally, Ms. Shaw spoke to the person in charge at the Service Center, Renee Mang, to determine if Ms. Mang was aware of any racial discrimination concerns at the facility. Ms. Mang, whose office was in close proximity to Petitioner’s cubicle, indicated that she was not aware of any racially discriminatory behavior in the workplace and that no one had complained to her about discrimination. After the investigation, Ms. Shaw was unable to corroborate Petitioner’s racial discrimination allegations. On or about September 30, 2002, Respondent gave Petitioner a verbal warning regarding her phone quality control average. The department's expected call productivity average was 8 calls per hour at the minimum level of customer service. From July 1, 2002, to September 25, 2002, Petitioner's average was 7.5 calls per hour. Once again, Petitioner was given 30 days to meet the department's performance goal of at least 9 calls per hour at Petitioner's level of customer service. On October 8, 2002, while employed with Respondent, Petitioner applied for full-time employment with the Bay County School Board. Petitioner applied for employment in the school system because she felt a lot was going on at Respondent’s facility and her mental health counselor suggested she look for employment elsewhere. Petitioner had followed Ms. Reich’s suggestion and enrolled in mental health counseling through Respondent’s employee assistance program. Respondent accommodated Petitioner by adjusting her work schedule and allowing her to report for work late on the days she had appointments with her mental health counselor. For example, on or about October 24, 2002, Respondent requested an adjustment in her work schedule so she could attend a mental health counseling session. Respondent accommodated Petitioner's request. During the hearing, Petitioner testified that Respondent adjusted the work schedule of a white female LOR to match the work schedule of her husband who also worked for Respondent. The husband's work schedule required him to work until 7:30 p.m. every day. According to Petitioner, the schedule adjustment resulted in the white female employee having no work to perform for 30 minutes per day after the phones shut down at 7:00 p.m. However, there is no evidence that Petitioner or any other employee ever made a similar request for a work schedule accommodation under similar circumstances. On October 29, 2002, Petitioner suffered a workers’ compensation accident. A telephone headpiece flicked off and hit Petitioner across the face, resulting in an uncomfortable feeling and a small chip on her tooth. On October 30, 2002, Petitioner reported the accident to Respondent’s Benefits Specialist, Kristi Scott and requested to see a dentist. From that time on, Petitioner and Ms. Scott communicated directly with each other regarding treatment for Petitioner’s injury. Ms. Scott kept Petitioner updated on her progress locating a dentist that would accept Petitioner as a patient for a workers' compensation claim. Mr. Wunstell was not involved in arranging for treatment for Petitioner’s injury. Petitioner was not required to channel her communications with Ms. Scott through Mr. Wunstell. On October 31, 2002, Ms. Scott sent Petitioner an e-mail stating that Ms. Scott had been unable to locate a dentist who would see Petitioner as a workers' compensation patient. Ms. Scott's e-mail directed Petitioner to see any dentist of her choice to treat her injury. Ms. Scott told Petitioner that Respondent would reimburse her for any out-of- pocket expenses that resulted from her dental visit. Petitioner did not suffer immobilization as a result of the injury to her mouth and she did not have to undergo treatment as a result of her injury. Petitioner did not feel her condition was an emergency. In fact, she did not see a dentist immediately because neither her regular dentist nor other dentists considered her mouth injury an emergency. Following the October 29, 2002, mouth injury, Petitioner continued working. She worked full days the rest of the week: October 30, 2002, through November 1, 2002. On Monday, November 4, 2002, Petitioner did not show up for work. Instead, that morning Petitioner drove herself to her mental health counseling session. After her counseling session, around noon, Petitioner called Mr. Wunstell from home. During this telephone conversation Petitioner told Mr. Wunstell that she had seen a doctor in the morning. She also told Mr. Wunstell that her mouth was in severe pain, and she was trying to find a dentist who would see her. At the time of Petitioner's conversation with Ms. Wunstell, Petitioner had made appointments with two dentists. Petitioner typically worked until 7 p.m. During their noon telephone conversation, Mr. Wunstell specifically asked Petitioner whether she was planning to return to work that day. Petitioner responded that she would be returning to work later that day. Petitioner did not tell him that she was unable to work, nor did she request time off work. Petitioner alleges that she told Mr. Wunstell during their November 4, 2002, telephone conversation that her neck was bothering her, that she needed to see a doctor, in addition to a dentist, that she was unable to work and that she asked Mr. Wunstell to have Ms. Scott call her at home. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner did not mention any of these things during her telephone conversation with Mr. Wunstell. Petitioner made no effort to obtain Ms. Scott’s telephone number. After her November 4, 2002, call to Mr. Wunstell, Petitioner made no effort to contact Ms. Scott directly regarding her workers' compensation injury, despite the fact that Petitioner and Ms. Scott had been communicating directly about the injury until that time. Petitioner did not show up for work the rest of the week of November 4, 2002. She did not call Mr. Wunstell or anyone else at Respondent’s office during the week of November 4, 2002, to inform them of her condition or her expected return to work date. Respondent has a job abandonment policy. An employee who is absent from work for three consecutive days without notifying his/her immediate supervisor will be considered to have voluntarily resigned or abandoned his/her job. Respondent’s job abandonment policy applies to all employees, including those who are injured on the job. When an employee is a no call/no show for three consecutive days, the job abandonment policy is applied in a fairly automatic manner. The employee’s immediate supervisor does not call the employee at home. Instead, the supervisor contacts Teresa Jones in the human resources department, indicates that the employee has been a “no call/no show” for three consecutive days, and directs the human resources department to send a termination letter. This type of transaction is handled by lower-ranking human resources department employees at the Service Center, and neither Mr. Wiley nor Ms. Shaw participated in the process of sending out termination letters. When Petitioner did not come to work and failed to contact Mr. Wunstell after their November 4, 2002, conversation, Mr. Wunstell instructed Ms. Jones to send Petitioner a letter informing of her termination for job abandonment. There is no evidence that Ms. Shaw, Ms. Reich or Mr. Wiley influenced Mr. Wunstell’s decision to request that Respondent send Petitioner a termination letter pursuant to the job abandonment policy. By letter dated November 8, 2002, Respondent informed Petitioner that, pursuant to the company’s job abandonment policy, she was deemed to have voluntarily abandoned her job by being absent for three consecutive days without contacting her supervisor after November 4, 2002. Respondent’s letter encouraged Petitioner to contact Ms. Jones if she had any questions regarding Respondent’s letter. Also attached to the termination letter was an Exit Interview questionnaire and postage pre-paid envelope. The questionnaire asked Petitioner to explain why she had resigned her employment. Petitioner did not return the questionnaire and made no effort to contact Respondent to protest, contest, or clarify her employment status. After receiving the November 8, 2002, letter, Petitioner did not file a petition for unemployment compensation benefits. Instead, on November 17, 2002, exactly two weeks after the last day She came to work for Respondent, Petitioner began working with the Bay County School District. Mr. Wunstell did not apply Respondent’s job abandonment policy to Petitioner for retaliatory reasons because he did not know of her alleged protected activity. Mr. Wunstell may not have terminated Petitioner in July 2002 when she was absent for three days. However, Mr. Wunstell has otherwise consistently and non-discriminatorily enforced the job abandonment policy and has terminated numerous employees pursuant to the job abandonment policy. There is no evidence that Respondent applied its job abandonment policy differently to Petitioner than it did to other employees. During the year 2002 and the first few months of 2003, Respondent terminated 28 employees pursuant to its job abandonment policy. Of these 28 employees, 25 were white, and none had complained about discrimination or participated in a discrimination investigation. Except for Petitioner's three-day absence in July 2002, there is no evidence of any other employee who violated Respondent’s job abandonment policy by being absent from work for three consecutive days without calling and who was not terminated. In January 2003, almost two months after her separation from Respondent, Petitioner wrote a letter to Al Lord, Respondent’s CEO. The letter incorrectly alleged that Respondent had not provided assistance in obtaining dental treatment for Petitioner’s on-the-job tooth injury. The letter for the first time informed Respondent that Petitioner felt she was involuntarily terminated. Unlike Petitioner’s testimony at the final hearing, the letter to Mr. Lord did not allege that Petitioner had told Mr. Wunstell on November 4, 2002, that she needed to see both a dentist and a doctor for her injury. Likewise, the letter did not allege that Petitioner asked Mr. Wunstell to have Ms. Scott call her at home. On February 11, 2003, Petitioner received a letter from Ms. Shaw. The letter informed Petitioner that she had looked into the allegations contained in the letter to Mr. Lord and had found them to be unsupported and inaccurate. Ms. Shaw's letter concluded as follows: (a) Respondent non-discriminatorily and consistently enforced its job abandonment policy; and (b) Respondent had assisted Petitioner in obtaining treatment for her dental injury. Finally, the letter questioned why, if she had not intended to voluntarily quit her job, Petitioner had made no effort to contact Respondent upon receipt of her November 8, 2002, termination letter. On March 15, 2003, Petitioner wrote a letter to Ms. Shaw. In the letter, Petitioner did not allege that she had told Mr. Wunstell on November 4, 2002, that she needed to see a doctor, in addition to a dentist, as a result of her mouth injury. Petitioner’s letter also did not state that she had asked Mr. Wunstell to tell Ms. Scott to call her at home regarding an appointment with a doctor. Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with the FCHR on June 2, 2003. During the processing of her charge of discrimination, Petitioner complained that Respondent had improperly withheld from her last payroll check a portion of her pay for 66 hours of accrued, unused vacation time. This was the first time Respondent learned of this allegation. Although Petitioner believed that Mr. Wunstell had given instructions for Respondent to withhold a portion of her vacation pay, she never contacted Mr. Wunstell or Respondent’s human resources department to report or challenge this incorrect deduction. When, after the filing of the charge, Respondent received information about the incorrect deduction, it immediately investigated and reimbursed Petitioner for the incorrect deduction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Millie Carlisle 105 Detroit Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 Luisette Gierbolini, Esquire Zinober & McCrea, P.A. Post Office Box 1378 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 800 Tampa, Florida 33601-1378 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the Respondent, City of Largo, as employer of Petitioner, Cleareather B. Gross, committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of race.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, a black female, was hired as a Clerical Assistant I for the City of Largo's City Clerk's Office on September 21, 1981 and was assigned to the mail room. The Petitioner was hired for the position by City Clerk Kay Klinsport, a white female. The interview went well and, although there were other candidates for the position, the Petitioner was hired. Shortly after commencing work with the City Clerk's Office, the relationship between the Petitioner and her supervisor, Kay Klinsport, began to turn sour. Ms. Klinsport utilized very strict management and supervisory techniques and was not considered a very good personnel manager by many of her subordinates. The Petitioner is an extremely assertive person and takes pride in her willingness to "speak her mind" in all situations. Ms. Darlene Trowell, a white female, worked as a secretary in the City Clerk's Department during the time in question. Ms. Trowell also had trouble with Ms. Klinsport's management and supervisory techniques, but decided that the best way to deal with her was by keeping quiet and having limited contact. Ms. Klinsport antagonized several of her subordinates, both white and black. Ms. Klinsport decided that the Petitioner should be watched especially close and asked Ms. Trowell to "keep an eye on her (Petitioner)." This occurred as a result of Ms. Klinsport's management techniques, the Petitioner's overall assertive attitude and several complaints that were received regarding the Petitioner. Ms. Klinsport no longer works for the City of Largo. Darlene Trowell frequently complained to the City Manager regarding Ms. Klinsport's managerial techniques. The City of Largo has written guidelines governing employee conduct and discipline; those guidelines are titled "Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Measures" and a copy is provided to all employees. The guidelines require that supervisors pursue a philosophy of "progressive discipline" by administering gradually increasing disciplinary actions for each successive instance of employee misconduct. Possible disciplinary actions include oral reprimand, written reprimand, suspension, and ultimately, dismissal. Kay Klinsport received several complaints regarding the Petitioner, at least one of these complaints came from the Fire Chief and one complaint came from an employee of the Police Department. In her position with the City Clerk's Office, the Petitioner had occasion to come into contact with employees of the Police and Fire Departments. One of the complaints about Petitioner came from a black employee of the Police Department. On December 3, 1981, J. G. Knight, Fire Chief, sent an interoffice memorandum to Kay Klinsport complaining of the Petitioner's behavior. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Mr. Knight had received numerous verbal complaints and at least two written complaints of confrontations and harrassments by the Petitioner when it becomes necessary for fire department clerical employees to conduct business in or around the mail room. In addition, the complaint alleged that the Petitioner wrongfully opened a sealed envelope addressed to an employee of the fire department concerning the death of a member of his immediate family. On January 29, 1982 Kay Klinsport, City Clerk, issued the Petitioner a written reprimand. The reprimand specifically addressed friction between the Petitioner and other employees and noted the following: 11-16-81 - Failure to complete a project from personnel; 12-1-81 - A confrontation with Becky from the Fire Department; 12-10-81 - A confrontation with Barbara from Public Works Department Refusal to stamp signatures on annexation notices; A confrontation with Bonnie concerning Vivian and Marlene; Problem involving mail from P. O. Box 137 and directions given from Lynn in Finance; A confrontation with Charlotte regarding mail pick-up during distribution; 1-25-82 - Compensatory time confrontation as to date used; 1-26-82 - Attitude involved throughout day and into next.' The written reprimand stated that if Petitioner received another reprimand for the same reason, she would be suspended without pay for five days in accordance with personnel rules and regulations. On February 16, 1982 Kay Klinsport, City Clerk, issued a written reprimand to the Petitioner. This reprimand involved a complaint that Ms. Klinsport had received from the Police Department concerning the Petitioner's use (or rather misuse) of the microfilming equipment. The Police Department allows the City Clerk's Office to use certain camera equipment for microfilming records. Specifically, the reprimand alleged that the Petitioner continued to run documents through the machine without proper preparation (i.e., removing staples and paperclips) despite being instructed as to the proper use of the equipment. Improper use of the machine by failing to remove staples and paperclips can cause the machine to malfunction because the staples and paperclips accumulate in the bottom of the machine. The written reprimand warned Petitioner that if she continued to misuse the camera equipment at the Police Department, she would be suspended for three days. On October 8, 1982 Kay Klinsport, City Clerk, issued a written reprimand to the Petitioner. The written reprimand cited the following: 10-1-82 - Incident involving Lynn McKenzle, Finance Department, in failure to readily relinquish use of the computer; 10-6-82 - Copy paper incident with Brenda stemming from incorrect certificate of indebtedness turned into supervisor, department head; and Verbal complaints from several other employees. On the basis of this written reprimand, the Petitioner was suspended for five days without pay. The Petitioner was warned that should her attitude continue to interfere with subordinate and/or fellow employee relationships, she would be dismissed. On November 12, 1982, the Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination against the City of Largo with the Equal Opportunity Commission (case #025830181). On November 30, 1982 Kay Klinsport issued a written reprimand to Petitioner, Specifically, the reprimand addressed the Petitioner's poor attitude and ability to deal with subordinates and/or fellow employees and noted a confrontation between the Petitioner and "Kay and Leah." On the basis of this written reprimand, the Petitioner was suspended without pay for five days, with termination of employment to take effect on December 7, 1982. Effective July 4, 1982, the Petitioner was moved from Clerical Assistant I to Acting Clerical Assistant II. On September 29, 1982, the Petitioner sent a memo to Kay Klinsport indicating her desire to apply for the permanent position of Clerical Assistant II. On November 21, 1982, the Petitioner was returned to her permanent position of Clerical Assistant I. Lynn McKenzie, a white female, was hired to fill the Clerical Assistant II position. The Petitioner performed poorly on the Clerical Assistant II written test and was not hired for the vacant position. Of the five people that took the examination, the Petitioner placed last; however, Ms. McKenzie did not make the highest score. On March 21, 1982, the Petitioner's probationary appraisal was made by Kay Klinsport. In the evaluation, the Petitioner was rated "satisfactory" on overall performance. With the exception of "attitude," all factors were rated "satisfactory;" attitude was indicated as "generally neutral; disposition and outlook varied with mood." On September 21, 1982, the Petitioner received her "anniversary performance appraisal" which was completed by Kay Klinsport. The Petitioner's overall performance was rated as "satisfactory." Ms. Klinsport did, however, mention that the Petitioner's attitude varied with her mood. The Petitioner appealed her discharge and on September 19, 1983, an order of the Federal Mediation and Faciliation Service was issued directing that the City of Largo reinstate the Petitioner without any back pay to the position held by her on the date of her discharge. The Mediation order found that the Petitioner's conduct warranted a disciplinary penalty short of discharge. The Petitioner returned to work on October 5, 1983. However, the Petitioner resigned on February 4, 1984.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner's Petition for Relief be denied in that no unlawful employment practice has been shown. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of December 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303 Aurelio Durana, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303 Ms. Patricia Catalano Personnel Analyst City of Largo Post Office Box 296 Largo, FL 33540 Ms. Cleareather B. Gross 915 North Garden Avenue Clearwater, FL 33515 Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esq. P. O. Box 639 201 E. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 838 Tampa, FL 33601
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
The Issue Whether the suspension of the Petitioner Nelson was based on just cause.
Findings Of Fact Allen T. Nelson, Petitioner, was employed by the Department of Education, Division of Universities, University of Florida, as a Career Service employee Custodial Worker in the Physical Plant Division. During a three and a quarter month period of time the official attendance record disclosed 20 attendance deficiencies ranging from 15 minutes tardy to unauthorized absences for a full day. The employee had received an oral reprimand on July 8, 1977 for unsatisfactory attendance; a written reprimand on July 29, 1977 for unsatisfactory attendance and on September 29, 1977 was advised that his probationary period as a Groundskeeper II was unsatisfactory because of his attendance record. Because his probation was unsatisfactory, he was returned to his permanent position as a Custodial Worker. Notwithstanding official reprimands as well as counseling from his immediate supervisor, Mr. Earl Davis, and the Personnel representative for the Physical Plant Division, Mr. Danny Busseni, the employee's pattern of poor attendance and tardiness continued. While suggesting that some of his tardiness was caused by transportation problems and some of his absences were caused by family sickness and personal business, the employee was unable to give any clear or convincing reason why his attendance patterns were in any manner excusable. The employee indicated that he felt that the agency had not treated him fairly and this was one of the reasons for his poor attendance. Documentary evidence submitted by the employer confirms the steps of progressive discipline taken against the employee in an effort to improve his attendance record. The Guidelines for Standards of Disciplinary Action promulgated by the University provide that for unsatisfactory attendance the first offense shall result in an oral reprimand, the second offense in a written reprimand and that following a third offense the employee may be suspended for one week or dismissed. 8, All employees were aware of the guidelines which were incorporated in an Employee Handbook, covered in employee orientation sessions as well as being posted in areas where Career Service Employees are employed. Competent substantial evidence exists to sustain the action of the agency and "just cause" for the suspension of the employee is evident.
Recommendation Sustain the decision of the Respondent University of Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Allen T. Nelson 227 N.W. 7th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32611 Ashmun Brown, Esquire 207 Tigert Hall University of Florida Gainesville, Florida 32611 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Career Service Commission 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department, an executive agency of the State of Florida, is an employer as that term is defined in Section 760.01(6), Florida Statutes. Vickers is a black male who at all times material to this proceeding was employed by the Department. Vickers was first hired as a COI at the Mayo Correctional Institution, Lafayette County, Florida, on or about October 30, 1987, and transferred to the Madison Correctional Institution, Madison County, Florida, on or about February 19, 1988. At all times material to this proceeding, Vickers held permanent status within the Career Service System, enacted and authorized under the laws of Florida. On April 28, 1989, Vickers was promoted from COI in food service to COII in food service. Vickers was placed on a nine-month probationary status insofar as the promotion was concerned. Vickers was selected for this promotion over two other white candidates. The interview team consisted of Eric Holt, Cathy Leggett and Aubrey Dean. Then-Superintendent, Terry Hicks selected Vickers for the promotion on the recommendation of the review committee. In the position of COII in food service, Vickers was responsible for supervising staff and inmates in the preparation of food at the Madison Correctional Institution. Vickers would supervise as many as three correctional officers and as many as 20-30inmates. Among those under Vicker's supervision was COI, Janice Lingenfelter and inmate Jeffery Lausin. On or about August 15, 1989, Lingenfelter made a complaint to COII Nellie Cunningham that Vickers had been sexually harassing her. Lingenfelter then made a written complaint to Hicks, who then requested that an inspector from the Department's Inspector General's Office be assigned to investigate the allegations. CO Inspector II William Dotson was assigned to investigate the allegations made by Lingenfelter. Dotson began his investigation on August 17, 1989, by interviewing several witnesses including Lingenfelter, Cunningham, Lausin and Vickers. Dotson's investigative report was completed and sent for review to the Inspector General of the Department on October 3, 1989. It was determined through Dotson's investigation that there was evidence to support Lingenfelter's claim of sexual harassment against Vickers and a failure by Vickers to maintain a professional relationship with staff and inmates under his supervision. Dotson's report was sent to Hicks at Madison Correctional Institution sometime between October 4, 1989 and November 1, 1989. By letter dated November 1, 1989, Vickers was notified that disciplinary charges were being brought against him for violating certain Department rules pertaining to sexual harassment and failure to maintain a professional relationship with inmates under his supervision. That letter, signed by Hicks, also advised Vickers of his right to request a conference, prior to any final action being taken, at which he could present evidence to refute or explain the charges against him. Vickers requested and was given a conference held on November 28, 1989. At that conference, Vickers was represented by counsel and presented a statement to Hicks regarding the charges against him. Vickers was notified by letter dated December 6, 1989 that he would be suspended for five days without pay for his violation of the rules cited in the charging letter of November 1, 1989. On or about August 18, 1989, Vickers was reassigned from food service to security. Hicks made this reassignment due to the investigation into allegations of sexual harassment against Vickers which had originated in food service. After reviewing Dotson's investigative report, and after hearing Vickers' response to the charges against him, Hicks made the decision to demote from COII to COI. The demotion was effective December 15, 1989. At the time of the demotion, Vickers was in probationary status as a COII. Hicks determined that Vickers had exhibited an inability to properly supervise the inmates and staff under his supervision. An inmate in food service had patted a female correctional officer in food service (Lingenfelter) on the buttocks. Hicks attributed this lack of discipline on the part of the inmate to poor supervision by Vickers. On or about December 15, 1989, Vickers was given a below standards performance appraisal written by Eric Holt, his supervisor. On the front of the appraisal was the indication that it was a probationary appraisal. Personnel Manager Leggett told Hicks that it should be a special performance appraisal rather than probationary, but Hicks did not change the appraisal prior to giving it to Vickers. This performance appraisal was incorrectly titled "probationary" rather than "special", and later determined to be invalid. Vickers was not given an annual performance appraisal on his anniversary date (October 30, 1989) because he was in a probationary status. While the failure to give a timely and appropriate employee performance appraisal may be a violation of the Career Service System Rules, Chapter 22A-9, Florida Administrative Code, this not would prohibit the Department from demoting an employee who is on probationary status because of a promotion, if there were legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the demotion. Vickers has never received a Performance Appraisal wherein he was rated at less than an "Achieves Level", other than the Performance Appraisal entitled "probationary" which was later determined to be invalid for reasons other than the rating of Vickers' performance. Vickers appealed his suspension and demotion to the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC). A hearing was held, since it was determined that PERC did have jurisdiction to review Vicker's suspension but not his demotion. Under the personnel rules governing state employees, a person who is in probationary status in a class may not appeal his or her demotion from that class. After hearing and weighing the evidence and argument of both parties, the Hearing Officer entered a Recommended Order dated March 2, 1990 wherein it was found that the Department had proven the charges against Vickers by a preponderance of the evidence, and therefore, just cause existed for discipline. The Hearing Officer also determined that the five-day suspension should not be reduced, specifically citing the seriousness of the offense as it related to his duties and responsibilities. A Final Order was issued by PERC on May 2, 1990 adopting the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order in its entirety and dismissing Vicker's appeal. Approximately January 3, 1990, interviews were held to fill the position of COII in food service from which Vickers had been demoted. Of the eleven applicants, two were black males, one was a black female, five were white males, and three were white females. One of the black males cancelled his interview, while the other "declined F.S." (food service). The black female was promoted to a position with the Hamilton Correctional Institution. Larry Pickels, a qualified white male, was selected for the position. Neither the "invalid Performance Appraisal" nor Hick's decision to demote Vickers were motivated by Vickers' race or sex, to wit: black and male. The Department has produced sufficient admissible evidence to show that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for demoting Vickers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, accordingly, recommended that the Commission enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner, Curtis Vickers, was not demoted due to his race or sex in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statute, and that the Petition for Relief be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of February, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5279 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings On Proposed Findings Of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the finding(s) of fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(1); 2(2,3); 3(4); 4(14); 5(2,19); 6(11); 7(7,18); 8(7); 11(10); 12(17); 13-14(16); 15-16(15); 18(14); 19(12); 20-21(14); 27(7,8); 31(16). Proposed findings of fact 9 and 10 are a restatement of testimony rather than a finding of fact, but see Finding of Fact 8. Proposed findings of fact 17, 28 and 32 are unnecessary. Proposed findings of fact 22-26, and 33 are neither material nor relevant. Proposed findings of fact 29 and 30 are more in the way of an argument than findings of fact. Proposed finding of fact 34 is neither material nor relevant, unless it is shown that Vikers' demotion was discriminatorily movitated. Specific Rulings On Proposed Findings Of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1. The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number inparenthesis is the finding(s) of fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(2); 2(4,5); 3-14(6,7,8,9,10, 11,12,13,14,17,18 and 19, respectively). COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahssee, FL 32399-1570 Gary L. Asbell, Esquire McMurry & Asbell 1357 East Lafayette Street Suite C Tallahassee, FL 32301 Harry K. Singletary, Jr. Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, Esquire General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500 Ernest L. Reddick, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-2500
Findings Of Fact On October 23, 1978, Petitioner was hired as secretary to W. J. Crist, president of Hygroponics, Inc. On February 26, 1979, W. J. Crist evaluated Petitioner's overall job performance as "good." With respect to cooperation, the Petitioner was rated in the category of "cooperates very well," the highest rating possible for that category of performance. With respect to job knowledge, she was rated as showing "unusual capacity," also the highest rating possible for that category of performance. On March 5, 1979, Petitioner received an increase in salary from $4.18 per hour to $4.51 per hour, based in part upon her increased responsibilities and in part upon demonstrated merit. Following is Hygroponics, Inc.'s office staff organization chart dated May 2, 1979: HYGROPONICS, INC. OFFICE STAFF ORGANIZATION CHART | President | /| W. J. Crist |\ / | | \ / | \ \ \ | Purch. Agent | | Controller | \ | Technical Service | | Dick Destival | | James Jobe |" \ | Dick Jeffery | | | | | "" \ | | " / | | " "\ | " / | | " \" | " / | | " \ " | " / | | " \ " | " / | | " \ " | " / | | " \ " | " / | | "\ "| | Marsha | | Liz | | Nell | | Arlene | | Carolyn | | Betsy | | | | | | | | | | | | | /|\ Direct lines of authority. Answerable to this person at all times " Indirect lines of authority. Answerable for secondary duties and when direct lines are not available. The above organizational chart does not include the company's chief executive officer. On occasion, members of the company's secretarial staff went directly to the chief executive officer with employment-related problems. In September, 1979, after James Jobe, the controller referenced in the above chart, left the company's employ, W. J. Crist, the company president, advised Petitioner that she was to become office manager. After that time, Petitioner assumed many of the duties of office manager. Petitioner inquired when she would receive a raise commensurate with her increased responsibilities, and was advised that this would be accomplished after the company hired a new controller. Emmett Singleton was hired to fill the position of controller on October 29, 1979. On December 11, 1979, Petitioner formally became acting office manager. On that date Petitioner was evaluated by Emmett Singleton, who rated Petitioner highest in the areas of decision-making and ability to organize, and lowest in the areas of acceptability and responsibility. Specifically, Singleton made the following comments concerning Petitioner's job performance: "Has difficulty in establishing satisfactory relationships with people"; "Average leader, conventional in manner and enthusiasm, conveys ideas but does not motivate group"; "Has problem with admitting an error or fault"; "Reluctant to accept job responsibilities. Supervision and follow-up often required"; "Considers job an eight to five task with scheduled breaks reguardless [sic] of status of workload"; "Employee is preoccupied with the position rather than a concern for getting the job done"; and, "Employee resents being monitored or controlled. Sometimes uncooperative and slow to respond to direction." In addition, members of the company management group, other than Emmett Singleton, commented on this evaluation that Petitioner "alienates co-workers," "Has experienced confusion in the scheduling of grower school," and expressed concern with Petitioner's "attitude." The controller noted on the evaluation form that he planned ". . .to work closely with [Petitioner] for the next 60 days and make an assessment during this time as to whether on [sic] not suited for office manager." Finally, Mr. Singleton noted on Petitioner's performance review form that Petitioner ". . .is classified as Acting Office Manager and is on probation with reguard[sic] to classification. No change in rate of pay is being made at this time. Employee will be reevaluated in 60 days on or about 2/10/80." In order to improve her skills in the area of acceptability and responsibility, Petitioner requested that Mr. Singleton issue a memorandum clarifying the lines of her authority especially since her subordinates had not been advised that she had been given supervisory responsibility over them. Her request was denied at that time because Singleton wanted to first determine whether she could handle the position. On January 12, 1980, Singleton reevaluated Petitioner's job performance. According to Singleton's rating, Petitioner had improved in the areas of acceptability and responsibility, which had been her weak points in the evaluation performed one month earlier. On this same day, Petitioner was reclassified from acting office manager to office manager, and received an increase in pay to $821.60 per month, retroactive to November 1, 1979. Petitioner also assumed the duties of payroll clerk and accounts payable in addition to the duties of office manager. Shortly after receiving this promotion, Petitioner advised employees of Hygroponics, Inc., that she was pregnant. W. J. Crist and Emmett Singleton acknowledged her pregnancy, and the latter inquired concerning her intentions regarding her employment. Petitioner responded that she intended to continue working for the company, and to return to work after the birth of her child. Hygroponics, Inc., had no maternity leave policy. No other female employee had ever given notice of pregnancy and stated her intention to return to work following childbirth. However, at least two other employees had become pregnant during the term of their employment with Hygroponics, Inc. One of these employees, in fact, suffered two miscarriages during her term of employment, and continued working with the company. Another female worker became pregnant, gave birth to a child, and returned to work without ever advising the company or the company ever being aware that she had been pregnant until after she had returned to work. On January 30, 1980, Petitioner submitted a memorandum to Eugene Crist, the company's chief executive officer. The memorandum suggested changes regarding the responsibilities of certain of the office personnel under her supervision. Petitioner had previously discussed these suggested changes with Emmett Singleton, her immediate supervisor, who advised her that he thought her suggestions were a good idea. At the time the memorandum was submitted to the company's chief executive officer, W. J. Crist, the president of the company, was out of the state. On January 30, 1980, Eugene Crist showed the memorandum to Emmett Singleton. The memorandum was then returned to Petitioner by the company's chief executive officer with a notation that the matters contained in the memorandum should be handled through Singleton. Two days later, on February 1, 1980, Singleton asked Petitioner for the memorandum. When Petitioner could not locate the memorandum, and offered to discuss the details of it with Singleton, Singleton advised her that there was no basis for conversation if she could not produce the memorandum. As noted above, Singleton had seen and read the memorandum two days previously when it was shown to him by Eugene Crist. Upon W. J. Crist's return to Florida, Singleton advised him that Petitioner had submitted a memorandum directly to the company's chief executive officer, and that when Singleton asked Petitioner to see the memorandum, she advised him that she had misplaced it. On February 8, 1980, W. J. Crist circulated a memorandum to the Hygroponics, Inc., executive staff concerning Petitioner's ". . .insubordination, poor attitude [and] defiance of executive orders. This memorandum provided, in part, as follows: It is my understanding that Carolyn recently drafted a memorandum on her proposed changes in office duties for many people, changes in accounting procedures, etc. I have been informed that she: "by-passed you, her immediate superior and by-passed me, her next-in-line superior." and delivered this memo directly to Gene, our CEO. Then when Gene informed her to "discuss the memo directly with you," she advised you "she did not even have the memo anymore." I find these actions, on Carolyn's part very distressing and feel we must take disciplinary actions with her. So - what are the problems. Her "uncooperative" and "attitude" problems outlined in your personnel evaluation of her on December 11, 1979 (which she acknowledged) when you put her "on probation," the first time, still persist. She demonstrated anything but teamwork in by-passing her two immediate superiors and going directly to our CEO. This is very bad for an employee to do but even worse for her since she is suppose [sic] to be a leader of our people in her slot as Office Manager. Her disregarding Gene's directive to discuss the memo with you was corrected only by your insistance[sic] that the two of you discuss it. Her statement to you that "she no longer had the memo" is also distressing. Has she destroyed it? This additional negative certainly weakens her argument that "she went directly to Gene because he was going out.[sic] (Original emphasis.) The above-referenced memorandum solicited the views of the company's executive staff as to whether to terminate Petitioner, discipline her in some fashion, or give her an opportunity to resign. The decision was unanimous among all five members of the executive staff to terminate Petitioner. No member of the executive staff questioned Petitioner before concurring in the decision to discharge her. Such a memorandum of concurrence was not the company's standard practice in discharging employees, which generally was for the discharge decision to be made by the employee's supervisor alone. Hygroponics, Inc., was, at all times material to this proceeding, a rather small organization, numbering at the most approximately fifty employees. As a result, many of the internal functions of the company were informal in nature. For example, there were no strict lines of authority for secretarial staff to air grievances or make suggestions. There was, however, a generalized procedure for employees to approach their immediate supervisor with any employment-related problems. There is no direct substantive evidence in the record in this cause from which it can be concluded that Petitioner was terminated from her employment because she was either female or pregnant. Further, whatever circumstantial evidence there is in this record to support such a contention is overcome by Respondent's demonstration that Petitioner was at best an employee of average ability who management viewed at times to be a problem employee. It appears, therefore, that the reason for Petitioner's discharge was an accumulation of events, culminating in her memorandum of January 30, 1980, being submitted to the company chief executive officer, and not for any reason relating to her sex.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Commission on Human Relations, dismissing the Petition for Relief, and denying the relief requested therein, with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS 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 2nd day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. White, Jr., Esquire 229 McKenzie Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 John F. Daniel, Esquire Post Office Box 2522 Panama City, Florida 32401 Dana Baird, Esquire Florida Commission on Human Relations 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Suite 100, Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard E. Williams Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Suite 100, Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues for consideration in this hearing are whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner in employment because of his national origin, and whether Respondent unlawfully retaliated against Petitioner by discharging him from employment.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, CCCS, was a nonprofit charitable corporation engaged in providing personal financial and credit counseling in Tampa, affiliated with the United Way. It is an employer within the meaning of the Human Rights Act of 1977 and Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. CCCS has adopted, and had in effect at all times pertinent herein, a written policy of equal employment opportunity and affirmative action. This policy is outlined in a personnel policy manual prepared by CCCS which is provided to all employees and which was provided to Petitioner. In August, 1991, CCCS management decided to hire an individual to fill the vacant accounts manager position. Initial screening of applicants was conducted by Gloria Jackson who interviewed several candidates, including Petitioner, and recommended three of these to the President, Diane Trithart. Petitioner, Emmanuel Ebeh, was one of the three recommended and was the successful candidate selected by Ms. Trithart. At the time, Petitioner, who is black and a native of Nigeria, was residing, with his family, at Metropolitan Ministries because he was unable to provide housing and sustenance for his family without employment. He had no experience in either personal financial management or employee supervision. Up until that time, he had worked as a cook, a kitchen helper, a mail room clerk, and a pipe-fitter's helper. However, even with his lack of supervisory experience and an absence of supervisory training, Ms. Trithart felt he should be afforded this opportunity. Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Ms. Jackson. She assisted Petitioner and his family in their move into government assisted housing, even to the extent of having her husband rent a truck to help move Petitioner's personal belongings and the furniture donated by Metropolitan Ministries to their new home. Once installed in the job, Petitioner was provided with a six weeks training program, including a syllabus, to assist him in making the transition into his new position. Nonetheless, it appears that during his training period, Petitioner had difficulties accomplishing his job tasks. Within six weeks, Ms. Jackson met with him to discuss errors made in client deposit entries and at that time, provided him with written procedures to follow. She gave him a two week warning confirmed in a written memorandum dated September 17, 1991, the date of the counseling. On September 26, 1991, Ms. Jackson followed up the two week warning period with another memorandum which noted the continuation of existing problems in Petitioner's department and which extended the warning period to October 4, 1991. Mr. Ebeh continued to experience job difficulties. At first, one of his employees, Ms. Warhul, tried to cover for him, but was unable to continue to do both her own job and his. As a result, she contacted Ms. Jackson and described the situation as she saw it. Ms. Jackson then tried to discuss the matter with Mr. Ebeh. However, whenever she did, he would insist on speaking with Ms. Trithart about the issues, claiming he felt it necessary to resist Ms. Jackson's directions. Ms. Trithart promptly and explicitly explained to Mr. Ebeh that his unjustified resistance of Ms. Jackson's direction constituted insubordination and would not be tolerated. Nonetheless, he continued to resist any guidance from Ms. Jackson, whether in the form of direction or constructive correction, becoming defensive and contending that his intentions were good and he was being misunderstood. He claims that Ms. Jackson was always on his back. Petitioner's performance problems were not isolated however, nor were they restricted to incidents with Ms. Warhul. He frequently had problems with misplaced files, posting entries to wrong accounts and other errors of a similar nature which were observed by other CCCS employees. On one occasions, Ms. Jackson asked Petitioner to prepare a letter to creditors who had worked with CCCS in the past but who were not currently participating in their program. She specifically requested that Petitioner let her review a draft of the letter before it was dispatched. Notwithstanding that direction, Petitioner prepared a letter, dated March 4, 1992, which contained a number of grammatical errors and misstatements of procedure and policy, and dispatched it to approximately 2,500 creditors without allowing Ms. Jackson or anyone else in authority to review or approve it. He thereafter left a note on the desk of Mary Jennus, CCCS' education coordinator, advising her that Ms. Jackson and Ms. Trithart wanted her to make changes in the letter and enclosures. This was not so. On March 19, 1992, Ms. Trithart called a meeting with Petitioner, Ms. Jackson and Ms. Jennus to discuss this letter, and at which she orally reprimanded Petitioner both for sending it out without authority and for the inappropriate use of her name in giving false instructions to Ms. Jennus. This meeting was subsequently memorialized by memorandum. Though management contended Petitioner's letter adversely impacted on the agency's image, he asserts it had good results in that some income was realized. On March 30, 1992, Ms. Jackson prepared a written evaluation covering Petitioner's performance for the prior six months. This report indicated Petitioner had continuing problems in the performance of his duties and in his supervision skills. It also called for a further review in 90 days to assess his progress in meeting the requirements of his job. Petitioner refused to sign this evaluation and requested a meeting with Ms. Trithart. Though a note by Ms. Jackson on the evaluation indicates she would arrange that meeting, it cannot be determined if, in fact, such a meeting took place. However, on April 13, 1992, Petitioner prepared a memorandum to operations personnel in which he alludes to "miserable and harsh treatment from management and especially our boss." He also noted the possibility his employees might not be satisfied with his treatment of them and solicited their comments and complaints to him or to the assistant director. This memo discomfited at least one of his employees, Ms. Warhul, who took exception to it in writing. Ms. Mosley also disagreed with his conclusions regarding a harsh working environment and thought it inappropriate for him to send out such a memo without consulting the other employees in the department. He was the department head, however, and his memo, though it might be considered ill advised and somewhat inflammatory, was from him to the people in his department. He did not claim his conclusions were theirs nor did his comments accuse them of misconduct. A meeting of all operations personnel was called by Ms. Trithart for April 13, 1992, the date of that memo. All employees were given the opportunity to express their concerns and it became apparent that not all operations personnel agreed with Petitioner in his characterization of their work environment. The memorandum of that meeting indicates his subordinates see Petitioner as an individual who broods over situations and lets things build up to a point where he writes a memo rather than discussing the problem. An example of this is Petitioner's note on a memo dated April 13, 1992 encouraging all employees to take their lunch break and reminding them that only time before and after normal duty hours may be considered for compensatory time off. Petitioner describes this memo as "inconsiderate treatment" and concludes it was directed at him because he was not taking lunch breaks because he "was sad and depressed because of how [he] was constantly humiliated." After the meeting on April 13, 1992, Ms. Trithart again reviewed Petitioner's file and determined that in light of his most recent infractions, including the unauthorized creditors letter and the false instructions to Ms. Jennus, and his continuing performance mistakes, it would be best to terminate his employment. Her rationale was that he could not be an effective supervisor if he felt, as he clearly did, that he did not have the support of either his employees or his supervisors, and this was compounded by his insubordination which, she believed, undermined the morale in his department and Ms. Jackson's authority as his supervisor. He was, therefore, discharged on April 13, 1992. None of the employees who testified indicated, nor was there any other independent evidence to establish, that Petitioner had been treated any differently while employed by CCCS than any other employee. By the same token, save the personal impressions testified to by Petitioner, there was no indication that either race or national origin played any part in the decision to terminate his employment and it is found they did not. To the contrary, the evidence is clear that the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment with CCCS was based on his failure to meet required standards in the performance of his duties and nothing more. The same is true regarding his claim that his discharge was in retaliation to his complaint in his April 13, 1992 memo regarding what he perceived as the harsh working environment both he and his subordinates had to endure. In that regard, it is found that the memo in question is, in itself, insubordination and evidence of the improper work climate created by the Petitioner rather than his employers. Had he truly felt the treatment given him was harsh, miserable and unfair, the grievance procedures outlined in the personnel manual he had been given would have provided an appropriate avenue for adjustment as opposed to the inflammatory and insubordinate action he took. Petitioner claims his supervisors did not uniformly apply company standards. He asserts he has been treated differently from white employees who were treated with kindness and politeness and when found to have committed errors in their performance, were given time to improve. For example, he cites the case of a Ms. Sweeny who refused to sign an acknowledgment of error and who was merely demoted instead of discharged. In his case, he notes, he met with hostility. He claims no concern was given to the legal issues involved in his situation and he was discharged right away. This is, however, not the case. The evidence is quite clear that Petitioner was counselled on several occasions and evaluated formally during his period of employment with no discipline taken against him. Only when he published the insubordinate memo of April 13, 1993 was action taken. On the basis of that memo and the record of his substandard prior performance, Ms. Trithart decided to discharge him. Petitioner also claims that Ms. Warhul and others who testified against him were engaged in a conspiracy to hide the unhealthy atmosphere which existed. He asserts he was told by Ms. Warhul she would not support him when he wrote his memo because she was afraid of losing her job. It is his contention that she and he were previously close. In actuality, though she was under his supervision, she gave him much of the training he received. He believes that she and many other employees do not like Ms. Jackson but are afraid to say so. Petitioner offered no independent proof of this contention, however, and it is found to be unsupported. Petitioner also takes exception to the claim by CCCS's management that his English was hard to understand. He claims that during the entire 8 months he worked there, his English was never criticized until such time as the decision was made to discharge him. At that time, he contends, he was told that he did not project the proper image the company desired. Mr. Ebeh also notes that he was constantly confronted with a situation where his immediate supervisor would approve something he did and then deny it. Ms. Jackson would approve in advance something his department proposed and then, when it was not well received, deny approving it. Petitioner claims that because of the actions of CCCS's management, he has undergone great stress. When he applied for the position with the firm he and his family were homeless and he admits he was helped considerably by the job and the company personnel. However, he claims he did not get all the help for free and asserts he has paid back for what he received during those first few weeks. He also claims that he has been maligned by company personnel who reported to his job service counsellor that he was soliciting money from coworkers and that he had a bad body odor. These comments humiliated him and he notes that they did not come about until after he complained to Ms. Trithart. Petitioner has no job now and no income and claims to be suffering from health problems. As of April, 1993, a Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services physician noted that he is suffering from raised cholesterol which interferes with his employment "for the present." His total monthly income for himself, his wife and his four sons is $600.00, out of which he must pay approximately $300.00 in rent and $113.00 for utilities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing Emmanuel Ebeh's Petition for Relief from the alleged unlawful employment practices of discrimination based on race or national origin, and of retaliation filed against the Respondent CCCS. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 25th day of June, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Emmanuel B. Ebeh 4002 East Pocahontas, #110 Tampa, Florida 33610 James R. Freeman, Esquire Shear, Newman, Hahn & Rosenkranz, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4149
