Findings Of Fact Following an April, 1985 inspection of the ACLF known as Family Affairs, Respondent timely obtained certificates for its two employees viz. Elinore Kolligs and Kathy Cisterna showing them free from communicable diseases and presented these certificates at the follow up inspection to satisfy the cited deficiency. Those two employees were employed during the April, 1986 annual inspection which resulted in a repeat citation for the same alleged violation, i.e. no certification that the employees were free from communicable disease. There is no requirement that employees of an ACLF obtain certificates annually that they are free from communicable diseases. The fact that documentation had been provided to DHRS following the April, 1985 inspection that these same employees cited in 1986 were free from communicable diseases should have carried over to the 1986 inspection. Exhibit 3 lists three employees under ACLF 26, the third being Virginia Sumter who worked as a volunteer at the facility. Ms. Sumter was a former resident at the facility who had provided a certificate that she was free of communicable diseases when she entered as a resident. In this connection during the proceedings Respondent inquired of Petitioner's witness if non-paid volunteers required certificates showing them free from communicable diseases and the response was in the affirmative. When asked if this also applied to Boy or Girl Scouts who worked at the ACLF as volunteers no satisfactory answer was forthcoming. One of the two uncorrected violations listed in the Administrative Complaint dated March 19, 1987 is that Respondent had six residents when the facility was licensed for only five (ACLF 2). This violation was noted at the April 14 inspection and also at a follow up inspection on July 14, 1986. The house in which this facility is located is large and on a minimum square feet per resident basis can accommodate nine residents. On March 18, 1986, before the April, 1986 inspection, Respondent obtained zoning approval from the City of Clearwater to increase the capacity of the ACLF to seven persons (Exhibit 15). Respondent had also communicated with the ACLF Program Manager in Petitioner's Jacksonville office and had been assured that her application to increase the licensed capacity to six residents would be approved. By letter dated May 14, 1986, (Exhibit 10) Respondent was advised by Petitioner that at the time of the April 14, 1986 survey an appraisal for the application to increase licensed capacity from five to six was conducted and the facility met all standards related to the increase. By letter dated May 29, 1986, Petitioner acknowledged that notice of approval of the application to increase the licensed capacity had been received and a recommendation approving the increase had been forwarded to the Office of Licensure and Certification in Jacksonville, Florida (Exhibit 16). By letter dated July 21, 1986, Respondent was issued a new license authorizing six residents at the facility. During the survey conducted on April 14, 1986 the facility did not have a week's supply of non-perishable food on hand as required (ACLF 67) and this deficiency remained uncorrected at the follow up inspection on July 14, 1986. Respondent acknowledged that during that period Mrs. Kolligs' daughter was injured in an accident, that Mrs. Kolligs devoted much time to her daughter and authorized the cook to use the emergency supplies if necessary due to the curtailment of Mrs. Kolligs' shopping time. Subsequent to the July, 1986 re-inspection Mrs. Kolligs sold the facility and no longer operates this ACLF.
The Issue Should Petitioner impose discipline on Respondent in association with her correctional certificate and law enforcement certificate?
Findings Of Fact In consideration of the election of rights form, in which Respondent limited dispute of allegations of facts in the Administrative Complaint to those accusations of "fraternization" between Respondent and a female inmate Donna Rodriguez (Rodriguez), it is assumed that Respondent agrees that she holds a correctional certificate and a law enforcement certificate issued by Petitioner. Further support for the finding in relation to the correctional certificate, is based upon the fact that Respondent served as a correctional officer in the John E. Pope Correctional Facility, Seminole County, Florida, as contemplated by the Administrative Complaint. During the period in question Rodriguez was an inmate in the Seminole County Correctional Facility. Rodriguez was an inmate participating in the RRAP Program related to drug rehabilitation. Rodriguez entered that program in May 2002, and was a participant at all times relevant to the Administrative Complaint. Respondent was responsible for Rodriguez as a correctional officer at the facility. While serving as a correctional officer Respondent engaged in inappropriate conduct with Rodriguez, conduct outside Respondent's professional duties. Respondent brought V05 shampoo and conditioner into the facility where Rodriguez was incarcerated. Respondent transferred the substances from their original containers into unlabeled bottles which were the property of Rodriguez. Respondent then took the V05 bottles from the cell where the transfer was made. Respondent in her testimony at hearing acknowledged that this provision of hair care products to Rodriguez was unauthorized. In a statement provided to Investigator Teresa Maiorana of the Seminole County Sheriff's Office, Respondent acknowledged that the provision of the V05 products constituted the introduction of contraband into the Seminole County Correctional Facility. In a telephone conversation between Respondent and Rodriguez, Respondent had asked Rodriguez what kind of hair conditioner Rodriguez liked. The answer was V05. This led to the provision of the shampoo and conditioner. The telephone call was among many telephone calls made from Rodriguez to Respondent while Respondent was at home. While Rodriguez was incarcerated she placed numerous telephone calls to Respondent at her home, totaling approximately 7 to 8 hours in duration. Respondent was charged for the calls made to her home. To make matters worse, in a telephone conversation with Rodriguez, Respondent agreed with the inmate to deny that the telephone calls had taken place. Respondent had provided her home telephone number to Rodriguez to facilitate the calls. The telephone calls between Rodriguez and Respondent were part of an on-going relationship that had a romantic overture. The nature of romantic overture was described by Respondent in a statement given on December 6, 2002, to Investigator Teresa Maiorana as "an emotional attachment." That relationship lasted approximately two months. The relationship between Respondent and Rodriguez involved physical contact. Five to ten times while Rodriguez was incarcerated there were hugs and kisses, some on the lips. While out of the facility on the way to church or returning from church there was a hug and a kiss on the cheek. Respondent recognizes this conduct as inappropriate given her position as a correctional officer. Respondent gave Rodriguez a "mood ring." Without a request from Rodriguez, Respondent obtained socks and t-shirts from other inmates in the correctional facility and provided them to Rodriguez. Respondent also provided Rodriguez M&Ms candy that Respondent had paid for from a vending machine in the correctional facility commissary. Respondent and Rodriguez prepared and passed written correspondence between themselves in the correctional facility. Examples of the correspondence which Respondent gave to Rodriguez in the facility are found within Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 5 admitted into evidence. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 7 admitted into evidence is constituted of correspondence prepared by Rodriguez to give Respondent that was not delivered. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 5 in its terms expresses a level of affection directed from Respondent to Rodriguez. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 7, although undelivered, constitutes expression of affection from Rodriguez to Respondent. Respondent acknowledges receiving 30 or more letters from Rodriguez. The letters Respondent gave to Rodriguez were written while Respondent was at work in the correctional facility or were purchased outside the facility and brought in and given to Rodriguez. The correspondence provided from Respondent to Rodriguez in the correctional facility was not through authorized official channels.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which revokes both Respondent's certificate as a correctional officer and as a law enforcement officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gwendolyn Byrd 1758 Vanallen Circle Deltona, Florida 32738 Rod Caswell, Program Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be terminated from employment with Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Mr. Davis was employed by the Sheriff's Office as a deputy sheriff. He had been employed by the Sheriff's Office for 11 years. On July 26, 2010, Mr. Davis was assigned to work a post in the healthcare facility of the Pinellas County jail, beginning at 7:00 a.m. This facility houses inmates who have medical problems. The inmates are placed in pods, and the pods are monitored by using direct supervision, meaning a deputy is stationed inside the pod with the inmates and is able to directly monitor and interact with the inmates. Additionally, the deputy supervising the inmates is able to summon medical assistance within the building for the inmates. On July 26, 2010, Inmate Kyle Howard (Mr. Howard) was housed in the pod that Mr. Davis was supervising. On that same day, Mr. Howard came to Mr. Davis and told Mr. Davis that he was ill. Sometime during the day, two inmates came to Mr. Davis and told him that Mr. Howard was sick and throwing up a lot. Standing about 30 feet away from Mr. Howard, Mr. Davis witnessed Mr. Howard "over the toilet in a vomiting mode." Around 9:00 a.m. on July 26, 2010, the nurse, who gave medications to the inmates, gave Mr. Howard a suppository for the nausea. Sometime between 3:08 p.m. and 3:47 p.m., an inmate came to Mr. Davis and told him that Mr. Howard was not responsive. Mr. Davis went to Mr. Howard's cell, discovered that Mr. Howard was not responsive, and called for emergency medical assistance. Mr. Howard was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead. One of the responsibilities of Mr. Davis was to interact with inmates to determine what problems may exist and to summon medical assistance if necessary. On July 26, 2010, Mr. Davis did not attempt to speak to Mr. Howard to determine what was wrong with him and did not call for medical assistance until Mr. Howard was found unresponsive. Mr. Davis was required to check on the inmates in the pod every 30 minutes to monitor the wellness and security of the inmates in the pod. Mr. Davis is required to check each cell and inmate during these checks. After each 30-minute check, Mr. Davis is required to record on a Daily Log Report that he performed the check. The Daily Log Reports are part of the official records of the Sheriff's Office. Mr. Davis admitted that he did not make a complete check every 30 minutes as he was required to do. He walked part of the way down the hall and observed some but not all the inmates. He entered in the Daily Log Report that he had made the checks as required. During some of Mr. Davis's shift on July 26, 2010, Mr. Davis was playing Hearts on the computer and was checking Yahoo and MSN. Prior to the incident at issue, Mr. Davis had been disciplined two times for inappropriate use of computers while on duty. Mr. Davis has admitted that he committed the violations that are charged, but contends that he should be suspended rather than terminated from his employment. The Sheriff Office's General Order 10-2 sets forth the guidelines to be used in the application of discipline. The range of penalties is based on the severity of the violation, from Level One, which is the least severe, to Level Five, which is the most severe. Failing to monitor Mr. Howard and to call for medical assistance for Mr. Howard are severe violations and are Level Five violations. Failing to accurately record his 30-minute checks, because he was not checking each of the inmates during his rounds, is also a severe violation and is a Level Five violation. General Order 10-2 provides that two Level Five violations are assigned 60 points. The disciplinary range for 60 points is a seven-day suspension to termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered terminating Mr. Davis's employment with the Sheriff's Office. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Sherwood S. Coleman, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office 10750 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 33778 Jimmie Davis 2086 Pine Ridge Drive Clearwater, Florida 33763 James L. Bennett, County Attorney Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756
The Issue Whether Respondent was the subject of an unlawful discrimination action as defined in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female. She was certified as a corrections officer in March 1991. In November 1995, Petitioner was employed by Respondent, Department of Corrections, at Taylor Corrections Institution in Perry, Florida, as a correctional officer with the rank of sergeant. Prior to her employment at Taylor Corrections Institution she had been a corrections officer at a correctional facility in Jefferson County. Petitioner did not have employment problems while working at the Jefferson County facility. Petitioner's first year at the Taylor County correctional facility was "O.K." However, Petitioner was not well liked among her fellow officers. Between June through October 1996, Petitioner was the subject of several complaints from her fellow officers. These separate complaints were: On June 12 or 13, 1996, King cursed at an entire dormitory of inmates. On June 19 King was assigned to assist another officer in conducting a recount of inmates. She failed to assist the officer in conducting the recount. On July 24, 1996, King was assigned to escort the swill truck (a food truck) by the control room sergeant. She refused to accept the assignment and cursed at the control room sergeant. A few days later, she confronted another officer in a hostile and threatening manner because the officer had submitted an incident report concerning King's conduct in cursing at the control room sergeant. On October 9, another sergeant asked King to sign a typed incident report regarding King's loss of her state-issued handcuff case. King initially refused to sign the report. Shortly thereafter, she tore up the report in the presence of an inmate because she was displeased with certain comments in the report. On October 28, King cursed at a coworker. Id. PERC Final Order dated October 8, 1997. In October 1996, Petitioner filed several internal discrimination complaints against the agency generally opposing unfair employment practices. The exact nature of these complaints was not established by the evidence. On December 13, 1996, Petitioner received a notice of disciplinary charges being brought against her based on the earlier-filed employee complaints. The notice lists the charges as follows: Multiple charges are being brought against you stemming from several investigations. In the first case, you are being charged with malicious use of profane or abusive language toward inmates, visitors, or persons under supervision, use of verbal abuse of an inmate, conduct unbecoming a public employee, and willful violation of state statute, rule, directive, or policy statement. Specifically on June 25, 1996, an anonymous request was received by the Superintendent's Office alleging that you cursed the entire dormitory of inmates on June 13, 1996. It was also alleged that you had been gambling and would not pay off your debts. This prompted an investigation into these allegations. Several witnesses including an inmate verified the above allegations. The basis for these charges is contained in the Institutional Investigation Report #96-044, a copy attached and made a part hereof. This conduct violates Department of Corrections' Rules 33- 4.001(4)(a), 33-4.002(4)(9), and 33- 4.003(6)(20)(22)(24), F.A.C., copies attached and made a part hereof. In the second case, you are being charged with willful violation of state statute, rule, directive, or policy statement, conduct unbecoming a public employee, unwilling to follow lawful orders or perform officially designated duties, interference with an employee, failure to follow oral or written instructions, witness tampering during an investigation, and retaliation. Specifically on July 24, 1996, Sergeant J. Pickles reported that while assigned as Control Room Supervisor, he advised you via radio that he needed an escort for the swill truck. You responded by telephone and stated "Why are you calling me? I'm not escorting that fucking swill truck. I'm busy in the Caustic Room. Get someone else to do that shit." Officer V. Aman submitted an incident report verifying the telephone conversation since it was the dormitory in which she was assigned to that you came to use the telephone. On August 1, 1996, Officer Aman also stated that you made threats toward her in retaliation for submitting her report, in which you admitted to confronting this officer. The basis for these charges is contained in Institutional Investigation Report #96-052, a copy attached and made a part hereof. This conduct violates Department of Corrections' Rules 33-4.001(4)(a), 33- 4.002(4)(11)(17), 33-4.003(22)(24)(32), F.A.C., and Sections 914.22, 914.23, Florida Statutes, copies attached and made a part hereof. In the third case, you are being charged with willful violation of state statute, rule, directive, or policy statement, conduct unbecoming, unwillingness to perform officially designated duties, substandard quality of work, negligence, and failure to follow oral or written instructions. Specifically, on June 19, 1996, a recount was ordered and you were informed by the control room that your dormitory officer needed assistance in the recount. The officer stated that he waited approximately ten (10) minutes for your arrival and proceeded to recount without assistance. He then submitted an report as to the incident. You then submitted an incident report concurring with the officer with the exception that you observed the recount from the Officer's Station. The basis for these charges can be found more specifically contained in the Institutional Investigation #96-058, a copy attached and made a part hereof. This conduct violates Department of Corrections' Rules 33-4.001(4)(a), 33-4.002(4)(11) and 33-4.003(10)(13)(22)(24)(32), F.A.C., Institutional Post Orders 17.02(j), 06.03(B)(1b)(1c)(1f)(lg)(2a), and (D)(4), and Institutional Operating Procedures 3.03.3(C)(5)(11e), copies attached and made a part hereof. In the fourth case, you are being charged with conduct unbecoming a public employee, willful violation of state statute, rule, directive, or policy statement, and destruction or abuse of DC property or equipment. Specifically on October 9, 1996, you submitted an Incident Report for losing your state issued handcuff case. On October 13, 1996, after being typed, Sergeant Chad Dees gave the Incident Report to you to be signed. Upon receiving the report, you allegedly stated "I will show you what I will do with this," then tore the report up and walked away. You admitted to tearing up the report because of the comments written by Captain Simons, but denied making the comment alleged by Sergeant Dees. Officer Tammy Alvarez witnessed you tear up the report, but denied hearing any statements made by you. The basis for these charges is contained in the Investigative Report #96-23008, a copy attached and made a part hereof. This conduct violates Department of Corrections' Rules 33-4.001(4)(a), 33-4.002(25), and 33- 4.003(22)(24)(27), F.A.C., copies attached and made a part hereof. All of these charges pre-date Petitioner's internal complaints. On January 23, 1997, a predetermination conference was held on the above charges. The evidence did not demonstrate that the employee charges or the disciplinary action were retaliatory in nature or based in discrimination. Moreover, the factual basis of the charges was upheld in the PERC Final Order. As referenced in the letter, Petitioner was the subject of several investigations conducted by the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Corrections. The role of the Inspector General was to gather the facts and evidence involved in a complaint. The Inspector General does not make any recommendations as to discipline or determine if a rule or statutory violation has occurred. Raleigh Sistruck, an Inspector with the Inspector General's office conducted some of the investigations of Petitioner. He did not personally know Petitioner. There was no evidence that he treated Petitioner differently than he did any other investigatory subject. Nor did Inspector Sistruck engage in any conspiracy or act alone to fabricate evidence against Petitioner or elicit false testimony from witnesses. Indeed, the only evidence presented in this case, is that Inspector Sistrunk followed standard investigatory procedures in investigating the complaints against Petitioner. In January, 1998, Petitioner was accused of soliciting an inmate and another correctional officer to cause harm to another inmate at the facility. The Inspector General's office investigated that accusation. Again there was no evidence that the inspectors engaged in any conspiracy to falsify or fabricate evidence. Normal investigatory procedures were followed. Based on the various complaints and the findings set forth in various Inspector General investigations, Mr. Drake decided to terminate Petitioner. Petitioner received a letter of extraordinary dismissal on February 7, 1997. The dismissal letter dismisses Petitioner for: This dismissal is the result of you being charged with willfully engaging in conduct which violates state statutes and Agency rules; conduct unbecoming a public employee; failure to conduct yourself in a manner consistent with the welfare of inmates; soliciting, bartering, dealing, trading with or accepting a gift or other compensation from an inmate(s); willfully treating an inmate in a cruel or inhuman manner; threatening or interfering with other employees while on duty; failure to maintain a professional relationship with inmates; giving false testimony; and interfering with an inmate. Specifically, on or about January 10, 1997, you solicited the assistance of inmate Tony Jackson, DC#724515 and Correctional Officer Jacqualyn Jackson-Beasley to cause harm to inmate Mike Doty, DC#725094. As a result of your actions and requests, Officer Jackson- Beasley, inmate Jackson, inmate Mark Smith, DC#724887, inmate Alberto Matta, DC#191523 and inmate Thomas Carrillo, DC#195319, conspired and did plant a homemade knife, with an approximate 14 inch blade, in inmate Doty's cell in an effort to set him up. When inmates Carrillo and Matta entered F- Dorm with the knife, Officer Jackson-Beasley signaled then with her fingers indicating inmate Doty's cell number. She also acted as a cover while the inmates planted the knife in inmate Doty's cell. Once the knife was planted, you and Officer Jackson-Beasley had a telephone discussion during which you instructed her to call Sergeant Gerald Miller and have inmate Doty's cell searched. Once Officer Jackson-Beasley reported the information to Sergeant Miller, a search of Doty's cell was made and the knife was recovered. Sergeant Miller than notified Captain William F. Buchtmann. After questioning by Captain Buchtmann, inmates Carrillo and Mata, both admitted their participation in placing the knife in inmate Doty's pillow and stated they were contacted by inmates Jackson and Smith for assistance. Carrillo was told by Jackson and Smith that it was you who wanted inmate Doty taken care of and they gave inmate Carrillo the impression that if he took care of inmate Doty, he would be paid $50.00 and be given an undisclosed amount of marijuana for his assistance. The following day, January 11, 1997, you stated to inmate Jackson words to the effect, "They locked up inmate Smith" and "That motherfucker talked" (referring to inmate Matta) You also stated to inmate Jackson words to the effect, "It's not cool for me to be seen talking to you." On or about January 17, 1997, Officer Beverly Pratt overheard you state to an unidentified inmate, words to the effect, "Something needs to be done with Doty." On that same date, inmate Willie Jackson, DC#041463, overheard you state to an unidentified inmate, words to the effect, "I am going to get Officer Jackson-Beasley and Sergeant Miller." When questioned under oath, on January 24, 1997, you gave false testimony when you denied all allegations. Additionally, the letter dismisses Petitioner for the earlier disciplinary charges discussed at the predetermination conference in December. Mr. Drake, Superintendent of Taylor Correctional Institute at the time, testified that Petitioner's termination was based on his belief that she had in fact committed the aforementioned rule and statutory violations. He stated that the termination was not based on Petitioner's race or sex or any other of her characteristics; rather, the termination was based on rule and statute violations. There was no evidence which demonstrated Mr. Drake engaged in any conspiracy to concoct evidence against Petitioner or to falsely accuse her. Angela Ratliff, Personnel Supervisor at the time, testified that she did not have any conversation with Petitioner wherein she told her that the Department, her supervisors or coworkers were "out to get her" or words to similar effect. Additionally, Ms. Ratliff does not recall having any conversations with prospective employers for Petitioner. The Respondent's policy is to recite to a prospective employer information contained in the employee's personnel file. The Department does not offer opinions or recommendations about an employee. Moreover, most of the information in the personnel file is considered a public record and must be released to any person or entity requesting the information. In any event, other than broad general statements about seeking employment and what she was told by others who did not testify at the hearing, there was no evidence regarding any specific prospective employer or the information, if any, the prospective employer received from the Department. There is no doubt that Petitioner feels very strongly she was discriminated against. The problem with Petitioner's case is a total lack of evidence to support her allegations. Throughout the hearing she made allegations of discrimination. However, no evidence apart from her allegations of which she had no personal knowledge, was offered. For instance, the alleged paper trail created against her or documents she claimed were changed were not introduced into evidence. No witness was called who wrote or filed such document or statement was called to testify about any such document or statement or any alleged change made to the document or statement. The paper noises or pauses of tape-recorded interviews of witnesses taken during the Inspector General's investigation did not support Petitioner's claim that the witnesses were prompted or told what to say. Such noises or pauses sounded exactly like pages being turned in a notebook when one page is full and a new page is needed to continue taking notes. The pauses sounded like a note taker pausing the witnesses' statement in order to catch up the notes to the witnesses' statement. Given these critical lapses in evidence and the earlier PERC Final Order, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Anita King 108 Alice Street Perry, Florida 32347 Gary L. Grant, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Azizi M. Coleman, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact The Marion County Board of County Commissioners ("Respondent" hereinafter) is a public employer within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(2). Joseph Fortier was formerly an employee of the Respondent and a public employee within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(3). Robert W. Merklein was formerly an employee of the Respondent, and a public employee within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(3). The Charging Party is an employee organization within the meaning of Florida Statutes Section 447.203(10). Joseph Fortier was hired by the Respondent on January 27, 1975, to work as a truck driver in the Respondent's road department. Fortier's supervisors were Harmon Hall, the Respondent's Road and Bridge Supervisor; and Charles M. Brakefield, the Respondent's Director of Public Works. During the time that he was employed by the Respondent Fortier demonstrated that he was a capable truck driver; however, several incidents came to his supervisors' attention which reflected upon Fortier's judgment. During the Spring of 1975, another truck driver, Roy Bennett, reported to Hall that he was driving his truck ahead of Fortier who was also driving a truck. Fortier was following so close behind Bennett that Bennett feared an accident and pulled off the road in order to allow Fortier to pass. In July, 1975, the Department's receptionist, Betty Townsend, received a phone call from a woman who reported that two of the Respondent's trucks had been observed racing on a busy street. From the description of the trucks Hall determined that Fortier had been driving one of them. Hall himself had observed Fortier tailgating other trucks, and had received other reports which indicated that Fortier may have been driving his vehicle recklessly. On September 9, 1975, Fortier was involved in an accident. The truck he was driving collided into the rear of a car at an intersection in Ocala. The police charged Fortier with following too closely, and after pleading not guilty he was adjudicated guilty of that charge. Harmon Hall conducted an investigation of the accident on behalf of the Respondent. Fortier had contended that the brakes on his truck failed and that the truck was overloaded. These contentions were not born out by the investigation. A similar load to that which Fortier was carrying on the date of the accident was placed on the truck, and it was found to be within the vehicle's weight limitations. Furthermore, the vehicle's brakes performed properly while it was fully loaded. It is possible that the tests conducted by the Respondent were inaccurate. The load on Fortier's truck could have been heavier than the test load. Efforts were made to duplicate the load, however, and Hall and Brakefield were justified in believing that Fortier may have been operating the vehicle in a careless manner when the accident occurred. Late in the afternoon on Friday, September 19, Brakefield instructed Hall to summon Fortier to Brakefield's office. It was Brakefield's intention to discuss the unfavorable reports that he had received respecting Fortier's accident, and the various other reported incidents of reckless driving that he had received respecting Fortier. There was considerable conflict in the testimony respecting when Hall confronted Fortier. Quitting time was 4:30 p.m. At the latest Hall approached Fortier at 4:28 p.m. and told him that Brakefield wanted to see him. Fortier adamantly refused to go to Brakefield's office, saying that it was quitting time, and that his time was his own. Fortier told Hall to go to hell. Hall asked Fortier if that meant he was resigning and Fortier told him that it did not. Hall told Fortier that he was no longer employed with the Respondent. On Monday, September 22, the next working day following this confrontation, Fortier reported to work. Hall approached Fortier and told him that he was no longer employed. Fortier asked him why, and Hall reminded him of the confrontation of the previous Friday. Joseph Fortier was discharged from his employment with the Respondent as a result of his refusal to meet with Brakefield on September 19, 1975. Both Brakefield and Hall were aware that Fortier was active in a union organizing campaign. There was no evidence offered at the hearing from which it could be concluded that Fortier's union activities motivated Hall and Brakefield in discharging him. The Respondent has had other truck drivers who have had accidents that were their faults, and who were not discharged; however, neither Brakefield nor Hall had even, prior to September 19, been confronted with a refusal to obey an order. It was this refusal that motivated them to discharge Fortier. Robert Merklein was hired by the Respondent during September, 1974, to work as a truck driver in the Respondent's Road Department. Merklein was initially assigned to drive a large dump truck, but he was not able to operate that vehicle, and he was assigned to a smaller dump truck. In May, 1975, Merklein was assigned to haul lime rock. His truck got stuck in loose sand. He tried to get the truck out of the sand by applying power, which resulted in the drive shaft breaking. In October, 1975, Merklein was assigned to dump a load of lime rock into an area where there was soft sand. He got stuck in the sand. He tried to get the truck out of the sand by shifting into the lower gears and spinning the wheels. This made the truck rock back and forth; however, the axle snapped. Subsequent to this accident Harmon Hall reprimanded Merklein. Hall told Merklein "this one is on me, but the next one is on you." Hall instructed Merklein that if he got stuck in soft sand again he should wait for assistance and not apply power to the truck. Approximately one month later Merklein again got stuck in the sand. Again he tried to extricate Merklein again got stuck in the sand. Again he tried to extricate his truck by applying power in the lower gears and rocking the truck back and forth. The truck was stuck up to the axles, and the drive shaft broke. Shortly after this incident Merklein told Hall that he had made a mistake in trying to get the truck out of the sand rather than just leaving it. Investigation of the damaged truck, and the drive shaft confirmed that too much power had been applied to the vehicle while it was struck in the sand. On November 19, 1975, Merklein was called into Brakefiled's office and informed that he was discharged. Other drivers had broken drive shafts, and had been at fault, but were not terminated. Only two other drivers had had as much difficulty with drive shafts as Merklein had, and each of these drivers resigned in anticipation of being terminated. Robert Merklein was discharged from his employment with the Respondent because of driving errors that he had made which resulted in expensive damage to the Respondent's vehicles. Merklein's supervisors were aware that he was engaged in a union organizing campaign. Merklein's union activities formed no part in the decision to discharge him.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner based on an alleged disability.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a Carnegie I residential and coeducational university of approximately 40,000 students and over 13,000 full and part-time faculty and staff located in Tallahassee, Florida. The Office of Financial Aid (OFA) is responsible for the overall administration of student financial aid, including federal, state, and institutional financial aid. Of the approximate 40,000 students, 25,000 on average receive some form of financial aid in the amount of approximately $300 million dollars per year. OFA hired Petitioner on August 7, 1990, as a secretary. Thereafter, Petitioner worked for OFA for almost 18 years. During her 18 years of employment, Petitioner resigned from OFA on three occasions. She resigned in 1996 and again in 2006, only to be rehired by the same OFA Director each time. Petitioner submitted her third resignation and notice of retirement on September 19, 2008, effective September 30, 2008. With one exception, Petitioner did not make Respondent aware of any complaints or allegations of unfair treatment prior to her ultimate retirement from OFA. She never complained to anyone that she was being stalked, monitored, or overworked more than her co-workers. She did complain on one occasion that Joann Clark, OFA's Assistant Director, was walking by her office/work station and knocking on the wall/desk/counter. All new employees receive Respondent's policies and procedures relative to retirement and employee benefits eligibility. The policies and procedures include sections on the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Workers' Compensation (WC). On July 13, 2005, Petitioner had surgery for carpel tunnel of the wrist. Petitioner did not inform her immediate supervisor of the scheduled surgery until July 12, 2005, even though Petitioner's doctor scheduled the surgery on June 13, 2005. On July 12, 2005, Petitioner's supervisor was Lassandra Alexander. Ms. Alexander provided Petitioner with copies of, ADA, FMLA, and WC forms and reviewed them with her as soon as Ms. Alexander became aware of the surgery scheduled for the next day. Petitioner told Ms. Alexander that she was not going to worry about applying for an accommodation under the ADA, for leave under FMLA, or WC benefits. Petitioner failed to timely file for WC in July 2005. She was not eligible to receive Workers' Compensation benefits because she did not comply with the proper protocol and procedures. Petitioner returned to work on August 29, 2005, with a doctor's statement recommending her for "light duty." On September 23, 2005, Petitioner presented a doctor's statement recommending her to work half time, four days a week. Respondent complied with the doctor's recommendations. Respondent divided Petitioner's work among other co-workers and also allowed Petitioner to take breaks as needed. On October 26, 2005, Petitioner presented a doctor's statement, allowing her to return to work full time. After October 26, 2005, Petitioner never submitted any further medical documentation to indicate that she had continuing work restrictions. After October 26, 2005, Petitioner did not formally request an accommodation or furnish medical documentation indicating a need for an accommodation. Even so, Respondent continued to provide Petitioner with support and assistance as requested. On July 25, 2008, Petitioner signed a letter confirming her appointment to a full-time position. That same day, Petitioner signed a Memorandum of Understanding that advised her about the FMLA, Respondent's Sexual Harassment and Non-discrimination Policies, and Respondent's Workers' Compensation Program Guidelines. Petitioner's testimony that she never received copies of these documents and that she was unaware of benefits and eligibility forms at any time during her several hires by OFA is not persuasive. There is no competent evidence that Petitioner was substantially limited in performing the essential functions of her job or that she suffered from a disability as defined by the ADA after October 2005. Additionally, Petitioner never informed her supervisors of an alleged on-going disability and never provided medical certification to substantiate her current allegations. Therefore, it is clear that Petitioner's co- workers and supervisors did not regard her as having an impairment. Petitioner's work evaluations for her entire 18-year employment with OFS were above standards. Petitioner's supervisors valued her work ethic and production in the office. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent's staff did not intentionally discriminate against Petitioner. They did not harass Petitioner by any means, including stalking her, excessively monitoring her work habits, isolating her to her office, giving her more work than her co- workers, tampering with her office computer, refusing to investigate her allegations of vandalism to her car in the parking lot, and refusing to give her a new office chair and computer mouse that she requested on an office "wish list." Petitioner's testimony to the contrary is not credible. At some point in time, Petitioner complained to Willie Wideman, OFA's Associate Director, that Assistant Director Joanne Clark was knocking on the wall to her office/workspace/counter. Mr. Wideman spoke to Ms. Clark, determining there was no validity to Petitioner's allegations. Petitioner also complained to her friend and co- worker, Joann Smith, that she was irritated because people were knocking on her counter. Ms. Smith admitted she had knocked on Petitioner's counter as a means of friendly communication, a way to say hello in passing. Later, Ms. Smith became aware of the "no knocking" sign on Petitioner's desk. Petitioner's two letters of resignation and her notice of retirement clearly demonstrate that she did not perceive any discrimination, harassment or hostile work environment from her fellow employees or supervisors. All of Petitioner's colleagues were shocked when they learned about Petitioner's complaint and read the allegations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Cheryl Mask-Brockman 536 West 5th Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Brian F. McGrail, Esquire Florida State University 424 Wescott Building 222 South Copeland Street Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner received notice of the August 19, 2005, administrative hearing, and if not, whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on his race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. In the fall of 2004, Petitioner's cousin, Barry Walker, worked for Respondent as a cook. Mr. Walker recommended that Respondent hire Petitioner as a dishwasher. James Pigneri, Respondent's owner, interviewed Petitioner and decided to hire him as a dishwasher on a trial basis. Petitioner began washing dishes for Respondent in September 2004. In October 2004, Petitioner began a 90-day probationary period as Respondent's dishwasher. At that time, PMI Employee Leasing (PMI) became Petitioner's co-employer. PMI has a contractual relationship with Respondent. Through this contract, PMI assumes responsibility for Respondent's human resource issues, payroll needs, employee benefits, and workers’ compensation coverage. On October 10, 2004, Petitioner signed an acknowledgement that he had received a copy of PMI's employee handbook, which included PMI's policies on discrimination, harassment, or other civil rights violations. The handbook states that employees must immediately notify PMI for certain workplace claims, including but not limited to, claims involving release from work, labor relation problems, and discrimination. The handbook requires employees to inform PMI within 48 hours if employment ceases for any reason. PMI's discrimination and harassment policies provide employees with a toll-free telephone number. When an employee makes a complaint or files a grievance, PMI performs an investigation and takes any corrective action that is required. The cook-line in Respondent's kitchen consist of work stations for all sauté and grill cooks. The cook-line runs parallel to a row of glass windows between the kitchen and the dining room and around the corner between the kitchen and the outside deck. Customers in the dining room and on the deck can see all of the cooks preparing food at the work stations along the cook-line. On the evening of December 18, 2004, Respondent's business was crowded with customers in the dining room and on the deck. On December 18, 2004, Petitioner was working in Respondent's kitchen. Sometime during the dinner shift, Petitioner was standing on the cook-line near the windows, talking to a cook named Bob. Petitioner was discussing a scar on his body. During the discussion, Petitioner raised his shirt, exposing his chest, arm, and armpit. The cook named Bob told Petitioner to put his shirt down. Erin Pigneri, a white male, is the son of Respondent's owner, James Pignari. As one of Respondent's certified food managers, Erin Pigneri must be vigilant about compliance with health code regulations when he works as Respondent's shift manager. Erin Pigneri has authority to recommend that employees be fired, but his father, James Pigneri, makes the final employment decision. On December 18, 2004, Erin Pigneri, was working as Respondent's manager and was in charge of the restaurant because his father was not working that night. When Erin Pigneri saw Petitioner with his shirt raised up, he yelled out for Petitioner put his shirt back on and to get off the cook-line. Erin Pigneri was alarmed to see Petitioner with his shirt off on the cook-line because customers could see Petitioner and because Petitioner's action violated the health code. Petitioner's reaction was immediately insubordinate. Petitioner told Erin Pigneri that he could not speak to Petitioner in that tone of voice. Erin Pigneri had to tell Petitioner several times to put his shirt on, explaining that Petitioner was committing a major health-code violation. When Petitioner walked up to Erin Pigneri, the two men began to confront each other using profanity but no racial slurs. Erin Pigneri finally told Petitioner that, "I'm a 35- year-old man and no 19-year-old punk is going to talk to me in that manner and if you don't like it, you can leave." Erin Pigneri did not use a racial slur or tell Petitioner to "paint yourself white." After the confrontation, Erin Pigneri left the kitchen. Petitioner went back to work, completing his shift without further incident. Petitioner did not have further conversation with Erin Pigneri on the evening of December 18, 2004. Erin Pigneri did not discuss Petitioner or the shirt incident with any of the waiters or any other staff members that night. On Monday evening, December 20, 2004, Erin Pigneri was in the restaurant when Petitioner and his cousin, Mr. Walker, came to work. Petitioner was dressed in nicer clothes than he usually wore to work. Mr. Walker approached Erin and James Pigneri, telling them that they needed to have a meeting. Erin and James Pigneri followed Petitioner and Mr. Walker into the kitchen. The conversation began with Mr. Walker complaining that he understood some racist things were going on at the restaurant. Mr. Walker wanted talk about Erin Pigneri's alleged use of the "N" word. Erin Pigneri did not understand Mr. Walker's concern because Mr. Walker had been at work on the cook-line during the December 18, 2004, shirt incident. According to Petitioner's testimony at the hearing, Mr. Walker had talked to a waiter over the weekend. The waiter was Mr. Walker's girlfriend. Petitioner testified that the waiter/girlfriend told Mr. Walker that she heard Erin Pigneri use the "N" word in reference to Petitioner after Erin Pigneri left the kitchen after the shirt incident on December 18, 2004. Petitioner testified that neither he nor Mr. Walker had first- hand knowledge of Erin Pigneri's alleged use the "N" word in the dining room. Neither Mr. Walker nor the waiter provided testimony at the hearing. Accordingly, this hearsay evidence is not competent evidence that Erin Pigneri used a racial slur in the dining room after the "shirt incident." During the meeting on December 20, 2004, Erin Pigneri explained to Petitioner and Mr. Walker that the incident on December 18, 2004, involved Petitioner's insubordination and not racism. Mr. Walker wanted to know why Erin Pigneri had not fired Petitioner on Saturday night if he had been insubordinate. Erin Pigneri told Mr. Walker that he would have fired Petitioner but he did not want Respondent to lose Mr. Walker as an employee. Apparently, it is relatively easy to replace a dishwasher but not easy to replace a cook like Mr. Walker. Erin Pigneri asked Mr. Walker and another African- American who worked in the kitchen whether they had ever heard him make derogatory racial slurs. There is no persuasive evidence that Erin Pigneri ever made such comments even though Petitioner occasionally, and in a joking manner, called Erin Pigneri slang names like Cracker, Dago, and Guinea. Petitioner was present when Mr. Walker and Erin Pigneri discussed the alleged racial slurs. Petitioner's only contribution to the conversation was to repeatedly ask whether he was fired. Erin Pigneri never told Petitioner he was fired. After hearing Mr. Walker's concern and Erin Pigneri's explanation, James Pigneri specifically told Petitioner that he was not fired. James Pigneri told Petitioner that he needed to talk to Erin Pigneri and that they needed to work things out, man-to-man. After the meeting, Mr. Walker began his work for the evening shift on December 20, 2004. Petitioner walked around talking on his cell phone, telling his mother that he had been fired and she needed to pick him up. James Pigneri told Petitioner again that he was not fired, that Petitioner should go talk to Erin Pigneri, and that Erin Pigneri was waiting to talk to Petitioner. Erin Pigneri waited in his office for Petitioner to come in to see him. Petitioner never took advantage of that opportunity. During the hearing, Petitioner testified that James Pigneri made an alleged racial slur in reference to Petitioner at some unidentified point in time. According to Petitioner, he learned about the alleged racial slur second-hand from a cook named Bob. Bob did not testify at the hearing; therefore, there is no competent evidence that James Pigneri ever made a racial slur in reference to Petitioner or any other employee. Contrary to PMI's reporting procedures, Petitioner never called or informed PMI that he had been harassed, discriminated against, fired, terminated, or ceased working for Respondent for any reason. On December 22, 2004, PMI correctly concluded that Petitioner had voluntarily terminated or abandoned his employment. When Petitioner filed his Employment Complaint of Discrimination on January 11, 2005, Petitioner listed his address as 6526 Lance Street, Panama City, Florida, which is his mother's residence. On April 18, 2005, FCHR sent the Determination: No Cause to Petitioner at 6501 Pridgen Street, Panama City, Florida, which is the address of one of Petitioner's friends. When Petitioner filed his Petition for Relief on May 25, 2005, Petitioner listed his address the same as his mother's home. FCHR transmitted the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings, indicating that Petitioner's address of record was the same as his friend's home. Therefore, the June 9, 2005, Notice of Hearing, and the July 12, 2005, Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing were sent to Petitioner at his friend's address. During the hearing, Petitioner admitted that between January 2005 and August 2005, he lived back and forth between his mother's and his friend's residences. When he lived with his friend, Petitioner did not check his mail at his mother's home every day. However, Petitioner admitted that he received the June 9, 2005, Notice of Hearing, scheduling the hearing for July 18, 2005, and the July 12, 2005, Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing for August 19, 2005. Petitioner testified that he knew the first hearing was rescheduled to take place on August 19, 2005. According to Petitioner, he misplaced the "papers" identifying the location of the hearing at the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims in Panama City, Florida. Petitioner asserts that he went to the county courthouse on August 19, 2005, based on his erroneous belief that the hearing was to take place at that location. After determining that there was no administrative hearing scheduled at the county courthouse on August 19, 2005, Petitioner did not attempt to call FCHR or the Division of Administrative Hearings. On December 1, 2005, the undersigned sent Petitioner a Notice of Hearing, scheduling the hearing after remand for January 25, 2005. The December 1, 2005, Notice of Hearing was sent to Petitioner at his mother's and his friend's addresses. The copy of the notice sent to his friend's home was returned as undeliverable. During the hearing on January 25, 2005, Petitioner testified that he used one of the earlier notices (dated June 9, 2005, and/or July 12, 2005) to locate the hearing site for that day. This was necessary because Petitioner had misplaced the December 1, 2005, Notice of Hearing. All three notices have listed the hearing site as the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims, 2401 State Avenue, Panama City, Florida.
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 23rd day of March, 2006, 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 23rd day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Wheeler, Esquire McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod Pope & Weaver, P.A. Post Office Box 550770 Jacksonville, Florida 32255-0770 Marlow Williams 6526 Lance Street Panama City, Florida 32404
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on his race contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2009).
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates a lumber mill in a community known as Cypress near Marianna, Florida. In 2007, Respondent hired Petitioner, an African-American male, to operate a 966 Caterpillar loader (the loader) at the mill. Melvin Lewis is an African-American male. Mr. Lewis is a second-shift supervisor. At all times relevant here, Mr. Lewis was Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Mr. Lewis reports directly to Ross Jackson, a white male. Mr. Jackson has been Respondent's general manager since January 2008. In May 2008, Mr. Lewis told Petitioner that the loader was slowly leaking brake fluid. Mr. Lewis instructed Petitioner to always check the loader to ensure that it had brake fluid. On or about Thursday, May 28, 2009, between 2:30 a.m. and 3:00 a.m., Petitioner was involved in an accident while operating the loader. Petitioner told Mr. Lewis that a log fell onto the loader, the brakes failed, and the loader went over a retaining wall. After the accident, Mr. Lewis immediately checked the brake fluid reservoir. He found the reservoir empty. Petitioner knew or should have known the standard procedure to follow when, and if, a log rolled onto a loader. In that event, the loader operator was supposed to immediately call his supervisor on the two-way radio and request help. At the time of the accident, Petitioner and Mr. Lewis had working two-way radios. Petitioner used the radio to call Mr. Lewis right after the accident. He did not call for help when the log first rolled onto the loader. On May 28, 2009, Petitioner was operating the 966 loader on a ramp that is 75-feet long and 40-feet wide with a retaining wall on each side of the ramp. At the high end of the ramp is a flat area where Petitioner was picking up logs from a pile. To get off of the flat part of the ramp, Petitioner had to accelerate backwards to then go down the ramp. When the accident occurred, Petitioner had traveled almost all of the way down the 75-foot ramp and then turned the loader 90 degrees toward the retaining wall. To go over the one and one-half foot retaining wall, the loader must have been traveling at a fairly high rate of speed. The accident tore the transmission off of the loader. The loader was inoperable and had to be repaired. The cost of the repairs was over $14,000. After the accident, Mr. Lewis told Petitioner that "this is really bad." Mr. Lewis first directed Petitioner to clock-out and go home. Mr. Lewis then told Petitioner to stay until Mr. Jackson arrived at work at 5:00 a.m. When Mr. Jackson came in to work, he told Petitioner that he would be suspended until Mr. Jackson and Mr. Lewis had a chance to review the situation. Mr. Jackson told Petitioner to report back on Monday, June 1, 2009. Mr. Lewis decided that Petitioner should not be allowed to operate equipment for the following reasons: (a) Petitioner failed to keep brake fluid in the loader as instructed; (b) Petitioner failed to call for help on his radio when the log rolled onto the loader; and (c) with the log on the loader, Petitioner accelerated backward down the ramp, turned the loader 90 degrees, and drove the loader fast enough to hit the retaining wall and bounce over it. Mr. Lewis recommended termination of Petitioner's employment. Mr. Jackson concurred. Petitioner was terminated on June 1, 2009. No evidence indicates that the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment was based on his race. There was no persuasive evidence that Respondent gave any white employee more favorable treatment under similar circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric J. Holshouser, Esquire Fowler, White and Boggs, P.A. 50 North Laura Street, Suite 2800 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Gary Powell 6782 Bumpy Lane Grand Ridge, Florida 32442 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified correctional officer and a certified instructor, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued November 16, 2004, and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was certified by Petitioner as a correctional officer and as an instructor. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) at its Indian River Correctional Institution (IRCI) with the rank of Major. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ken Torres was employed by the DOC at IRCI with the rank of Lieutenant. On June 11, 2003, Tvaris Burch, Errol Whiley, and Keith Conley were inmates at IRCI. At no time did any of these three inmates have authorization to be in Respondent’s office at IRCI. The only door to Respondent’s office opens to a long hallway. This door is normally locked. At approximately 6:15 p.m. on June 11, 2003, Respondent entered his office at IRCI and was followed by Lt. Torres. Respondent and Lt. Torres saw three inmates on the floor attempting to hide under Respondent’s desk. Each inmate attempted to conceal his identity by pulling his tee shirt up over his head. It is undisputed that both Respondent and Lt. Torres ordered the three inmates to come out from under the desk and the inmates refused those orders. It is also undisputed that the inmates came out from under the desk after Respondent threatened to order Lt. Torres to spray them with chemical agents. What happened next is the center of the dispute in this proceeding. Petitioner alleged that Respondent kicked one of the inmates and that he kicked and punched another inmate as they came out from under his desk. Petitioner also alleged that Respondent failed to file a mandatory Use of Force Report and that he lied to an investigator (Mr. Glover) in a sworn statement. Respondent asserted that he did not kick or otherwise use unauthorized force against any of the three inmates, that he had no reason to file a use of force report, and that he did not lie to the investigator. In support of its allegations, Petitioner presented the testimony of inmate Burch, Mr. Glover, and Lt. Torres. In addition, Petitioner presented the investigative report prepared by Mr. Glover and certain affidavits gathered by Mr. Glover during the course of his investigation. The following facts are not in dispute. After the three inmates came out from under the desk and were on their feet, they were ordered to remove the tee shirts from their heads and were identified as being inmates Burch, Whiley, and Conley. They were stripped searched by Respondent and Lt. Torres and contraband was removed from them. Additional security was called and took the three inmates to the prison nurse for a pre-confinement physical. This type medical examination is mandatory for an inmate about to be confined for disciplinary purposes. The inmates did not complain to anyone that they had been injured or mistreated by Respondent or by anyone else. The nurses noted no injury on any of the inmates. The three inmates were then confined for disciplinary reasons. An incident report was written and a Disciplinary Report was filed for each of the three inmates. Neither Respondent nor Lt. Torres filed a Use of Force Report, which is a mandatory report after physical force is used against an inmate. On June 12, 2003, approximately 24 hours after the incident in Respondent’s office, both inmate Burch and inmate Whiley declared a medical emergency. Both inmates were promptly taken to the medial unit and examined by prison nurses. Inmate Burch told nurse Rhea Harris that he had been injured by being kicked in the head, but he would not identify the person who kicked him. At the final hearing, inmate Burch testified that Respondent kicked him in the head as he was coming out from under the desk and in the knee when he tried to stand up. He further testified that the blow to the knee caused him to fall to the floor, which broke his glasses. Ms. Harris observed a bump on the side of inmate Burch’s head that could be consistent with inmate Burch’s being kicked.5 Inmate Whiley was seen by Nurse Debra Barriner on June 11 and June 12, 2003. On June 12, 2003, inmate Whiley told Ms. Barriner that he had a sore neck and a sore area on his face on the left cheek. Ms. Barriner observed areas of slight swelling and discoloration that were consistent with inmate Whiley’s complaints. Inmate Whiley refused to tell the nurse what caused his neck and left cheek to become sore. In an affidavit subsequently secured by Mr. Glover, inmate Whiley alleged that Respondent had kicked him as he was coming out from under the desk and hit him in the stomach after he stood up. In an affidavit secured by Mr. Glover, inmate Conley stated that he was not struck by Respondent on June 11, 2003, but that he saw Respondent strike inmates Burch and Whiley. Approximately a week after the incident in Respondent’s office, corrections officers intercepted a note being passed from the cell of inmates Burch and Whiley to the cell of inmate Conley. This note was turned over to Lt. Torres, who was the shift supervisor, who testified that he threw the note away and could not recall its details. Lt. Torres did recall that the note made a reference to his being promoted as a result of the allegations that had been made against Respondent. In a sworn interview given to Mr. Glover, Lt. Torres stated that he saw Respondent kick inmates Burch and Whiley. He repeated that statement at the formal hearing. On closer examination, Lt. Torres testified that he did not witness Respondent make physical contact with any of the inmates, but that he saw him making kicking motions in the directions of the inmates. On further examination, the following exchange occurred between Petitioner’s counsel and Lt. Torres beginning at page 85, line 22 of the Transcript: Q. Let me ask you this: If you did not see Major Passino actually strike an inmate, why then did you feel that it was necessary to report such an incident.[6] A. Why did I feel that? That’s my responsibility. Q. At the time that this incident occurred, why did you consider that there had been a use of force. A. Why? Q. Yes. A. Only because of what the inmates said, that they were injured, did I suspect that there was a use of force. Q. And that was only after the inmates had declared a medical emergency – A. Yes, sir. Respondent’s testimony that he did not use unauthorized force against inmates Burch and Whiley is found to be credible. The conflict in the evidence is resolved by finding that Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent battered inmate Burch or Whiley.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing all counts of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of, June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of June, 2005.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice in one or more of the following ways: by discriminating against Petitioner based on her race and/or gender; (b) by subjecting Petitioner to a hostile work environment; and (c) by retaliating against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent hired Petitioner, a black female, as a correctional officer on or about February 25, 2002. Petitioner was initially assigned to the Hernando County Jail. After a series of transfers at Petitioner's request, Respondent assigned Petitioner to the Lake City Correctional Facility in July 2005. Petitioner continued to serve at that facility until she was terminated. On multiple occasions during her employment, Petitioner received copies of Respondent's Harassment/Sexual Harassment policy and Respondent's Code of Ethics policy. Petitioner received formal training relative to the substance of these policies when she was hired and annually thereafter. In October 2007, Petitioner filed two grievances against Captain Michael Register and Chief Daniel Devers. The grievance against Chief Devers alleged a "hostile" work environment. Specifically, Petitioner asserted that Chief Devers created a divide-and-conquer environment by telling new staff that "several dirty officers work for Respondent and that the new staff are to tell on them and replace all the old staff members." The grievance against Captain Register alleged race and gender harassment. Specifically, Petitioner claimed that Captain Register did not relieve Petitioner on time "for three weeks straight." Petitioner believed that Captain Register's alleged conduct was due to his dislike for her and favoritism toward other staff members. Petitioner did not allege that Captain Register or Chief Devers ever said anything to Petitioner or anyone else regarding her race or gender. In response to Petitioner's grievances, Respondent performed an in-house investigation. Subsequently, Petitioner's grievances against Captain Register and Chief Devers were denied as unfounded. Petitioner alleges that she was sexually harassed by Officer/Correctional Counselor Roderick Polite. As a Correctional Counselor, Officer Polite did not have authority to change the terms and conditions of Petitioner's employment except that it was possible for Petitioner to receive work orders from a Correctional Counselor. Petitioner went on two consensual dates with Officer Polite prior to his alleged harassment. The first date was in late November 2007. The second date was in early December 2007. At the time that Petitioner went on these dates, she was temporarily broken up with Correctional Officer Darian Blue. In late November and early December 2007, Petitioner worked the 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. shift. Officer Polite was assigned to the 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. shift. Petitioner refused to go to Respondent's December 14, 2007, Christmas party with Officer Polite. Thereafter, Officer Polite called Petitioner's house continuously for three days. In a telephone conversation on December 17, 2007, Officer Polite allegedly told Petitioner that he "just had sex with a girl." Officer Polite also allegedly stated that his fascination with her would be over if she would just give him oral sex. Petitioner told Officer Polite "no" and ended the conversation. Petitioner claims that Officer Polite began to harass her at work after the December 17, 2007, telephone conversation. According to Petitioner, the harassment continued until January 10, 2008. Specifically, Petitioner claims that Officer Polite was critical of her work performance and changed the procedures she was to follow regarding mail distribution and the cleaning of pods by inmates. Officer Polite allegedly also accused Petitioner of improperly counseling an inmate. Petitioner alleges that Officer Polite "wrote her up" on one occasion. However, Petitioner admits that she never saw the alleged write-up. Petitioner also admits that she never suffered any adverse action as a result of the alleged write-up. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Officer Polite never filed a disciplinary action against Petitioner. Petitioner did not complain about Officer Polite's conduct until January 9, 2008. On that date, Petitioner spoke with Captain Joseph Ruby about Officer Polite's alleged conduct. Respondent’s sexual harassment policy prohibits physical and verbal harassment, including inappropriate threats and requests. The policy also set forth the procedure by which employees should utilize to complain about harassment and states that complaints will be promptly and thoroughly investigated. Accordingly, on January 10, 2008, Petitioner was interviewed by Respondent's in-house investigator. Petitioner told the investigator about Officer Polite's alleged harassment but stated that she did not want to file a formal grievance against him. Petitioner simply requested that she be allowed to return to work and that she not have to work with Officer Polite. Officer Polite subsequently resigned his position as a Correctional Counselor and stepped down to a Correctional Officer position. Additionally, Respondent changed Officer Polite to the 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. shift. If there were occasions when Petitioner's and Officer Polite's shifts overlapped, Respondent granted Officer Polite's requests not to work around Petitioner. In March 2008, Petitioner applied for one of three open positions as a Correctional Counselor. Based on the interview panel's recommendation, Warden Jason Medlin selected a white female and two black females for the positions. Petitioner was not selected for one of the positions because of her personnel and disciplinary record, including a prior allegation of excessive force against inmates. Moreover, there is no evidence regarding the personnel and disciplinary records of the three females selected for the positions. On March 30, 2008, Petitioner was assigned to the control room in the South 2 Unit. Her primary duty was to maintain the log and to open doors for other officers. At some point during her shift, Petitioner removed an inmate from his cell, took him to master control, and left him there. A Lieutenant requested another Correctional Officer, Amanda Sanders, to escort the inmate back to his cell and assist Petitioner with a search of the inmate's cell. When Officer Sanders and Petitioner arrived at the cell, the inmate's cellmate, Jose Sandoval, was sitting on his bunk bed. Officer Sanders told Inmate Sandoval to leave the cell. When Inmate Sandoval did not comply, Petitioner ordered him to stand up to be handcuffed. Inmate Sandoval continued to sit on his bunk bed. Petitioner then told Officer Sanders to call a "code red," a request for assistance from other officers. Officer Sanders did not comply immediately with Petitioner's request because Officer Sanders did not believe there was a need for assistance or a reason to handcuff Inmate Sandoval. Next, Petitioner grabbed Inmate Sandoval by his arm, physically removed him from his bed, and placed him face first into the wall. Officer Sanders did not have any contact with Inmate Sandoval when Petitioner removed him from his bed. Inmate Sandoval somehow turned to face Petitioner who had her back to Officer Sanders. Officer Sanders heard a "smack" and concluded that Petitioner had struck Inmate Sandoval. Officer Sanders then saw Inmate Sandoval spit at Petitioner. Officer Sanders immediately called a "code red" and assisted Petitioner in placing Inmate Sandoval on the floor and handcuffing him. Other officers arrived and removed Inmate Sandoval from his cell and the unit. As recorded on the facility's video cameras, the officers carried Inmate Sandoval by his neck, two or three feet off the floor. The officers choked him and slammed him onto the floor. The cameras recorded Inmate Sandoval in the medical department, so incoherent that he had to be held up to prevent him from falling over. When force is used against an inmate, the incident report must be sent to the Florida Department of Corrections' Inspector General (IG). In this case, the IG performed an investigation, concluding that Inmate Sandoval was assaulted by the facility's officers and that blood was cleaned off the walls to hide the assault. Respondent subsequently received a copy of the IG's report. On April 11, 2008, Respondent terminated all officers involved, including Petitioner, for violation of Respondent's Code of Ethics. Specifically, Respondent terminated Petitioner for physically abusing the inmate, for failing to report the extent of abuse on the inmate in written reports and during the IG's investigation, and for failing to call into the facility as directed while on administrative leave after the incident. Other officers that were terminated included the following: (a) Correctional Officer Darian Blue (black male) for use of excessive force; (b) Lieutenant Phillip Mobley (white male) for failure to accurately report the extent of abuse; (c) Captain/Shift Supervisor Joseph Ruby (white male) for failure to accurately report the extent of abuse; (d) Correctional Officer Grace Davie (white female) for failure to accurately report the extent of abuse; (e) Correctional Officer Melissa Fontaine (white female) for failure to accurately report the extent of abuse; and (f) Correctional Officer Eunice Cline (white female) for failure to accurately report the extent of abuse. Respondent did not terminate Officer Sanders. The IG's report did not show that she violated any of Respondent's policies during the incident.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR dismiss the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Chelsie J. Roberts, Esquire Ford & Harrison LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1300 Orlando, Florida 32801 Dafney Cook 2445 Dunn Avenue, Apt 610 Jacksonville, Florida 32218 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway. Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
