The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent Wildwood Golf Operations, LLC, committed an unfair employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner when it terminated Petitioner's employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Wildwood Golf Operations, LLC, is a multi- faceted business, consisting of a 71-room hotel with meeting facilities, a 5,000-square-feet restaurant with banquet facilities, tennis courts, a swimming pool, a driving range, and a golf course. While Petitioner's nephew was employed by Respondent as a clerk in its pro shop, he introduced Petitioner to Peter Sands, the director of golf, and Paul Earnhart, the golf manager. The four of them played golf together on several occasions, and Petitioner was considered to be a pleasant, cheerful person like his nephew. When Petitioner's nephew was about to leave Respondent's employ, he recommended to Sands that Sands hire Petitioner as his nephew's replacement. Sands and Earnhart were amenable to the idea. In July 2009 Petitioner completed an application for employment form and was subsequently hired to work part-time in the pro shop. He also gave golf lessons and continued to play golf on Respondent's course. On his application for employment, Petitioner left blank the section asking for information on Petitioner's prior employment. He did answer the question asking if he had ever been convicted or pled guilty to any crime, felony or misdemeanor, other than a minor traffic offense. By answering that question in the negative, he failed to disclose his two prior convictions for shoplifting, to which crimes he had pled guilty. Shoplifting is an offense which would have prevented Petitioner from being hired. Membership information, including the types of memberships Respondent offers together with cost information, was kept in a file folder in an open file folder holder behind the counter in the pro shop. It was part of Petitioner's job duties, as it was for Respondent's other employees, to provide that membership information to anyone inquiring. The importance of selling memberships for the economic viability of Respondent's business was stressed to Respondent's employees. On three separate occasions, Earnhart came into the pro shop and asked Petitioner for a copy of the membership information which was kept in the file. On the first occasion, when Petitioner was unable to retrieve it, Earnhart retrieved the information himself and explained to Petitioner that providing membership information was an important part of Petitioner's job duties. On the second occasion, which occurred approximately a week later, Earnhart again came into the pro shop and asked Petitioner for the membership information. When Petitioner was unable to comply with his request, Earnhart again showed Petitioner where the information was kept. He also told Petitioner that that was the second time he was unable to provide membership information to Earnhart and that Petitioner should not let that happen again. Approximately a week later, on September 27, 2009, Earnhart again came into the pro shop and requested a copy of the corporate membership information from Petitioner. When Petitioner was unable to provide it, Earnhart went to the computer in the pro shop and printed a copy from Respondent's website. While Earnhart was at the computer, Petitioner came to him, bent down next to Earnhart's face, probably less than a foot away, and said, essentially, that he was too well-educated to be reprimanded. Earnhart was shocked and angered by Petitioner's belligerent and confrontational manner. Earnhart retorted rudely and left the pro shop. He encountered Peter Sands, who was on his way into the pro shop, and told Sands what had happened, told him that was Petitioner's third and last time, and instructed Sands to find a replacement for Petitioner, train the replacement, and then terminate Petitioner's employment. On October 14, 2009, Sands had a conversation with Petitioner advising Petitioner that Petitioner's employment was going to be terminated. On October 21, 2009, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment. At that time, Petitioner was still within his probationary period, which, under Respondent's policies, meant he could be terminated without cause. The day after he was fired, Petitioner sent a letter to Respondent advising that he was disabled and requesting accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The letter did not specify what disability Petitioner was claiming. Until receipt of that letter, Petitioner had never advised Respondent that he was disabled and he had not been perceived to be disabled by any of Respondent's employees who testified in this proceeding. During the term of his employment by Respondent, Petitioner made no request for accommodations due to any disability. While he did request a footstool to put his feet on while he was sitting behind the counter in the pro shop, he did not advise that his request was related to a disability rather than simple comfort. Likewise, when Petitioner requested to not work the normal Sunday 12-hour shift, he did not mention it was related to a disability. He was given a shorter Sunday shift as were other employees who requested one. Although Petitioner used a handicapped flag on occasion on his golf cart when he was playing golf, so do other people who are not handicapped but simply want to enjoy the privilege of driving closer to a green. In 1996 Petitioner was involved in an accident while working as a paramedic. He suffered a broken arm and tendon damage "throughout his body." After he was rehabilitated, he returned to work for another three years before he lost his job. Petitioner exhibited reluctance to disclose the nature of his alleged disability during the final hearing in this cause. He eventually disclosed at the final hearing that he was 100 percent disabled for "physical limitations," post-traumatic stress disorder, and chronic depression, but identified his disability in his deposition as post-traumatic stress disorder and insomnia. No medical evidence was offered to support Petitioner's allegations that he is disabled. He relied, instead, on hearsay documents, such as his motor-vehicle- handicapped-parking placard, his Medicare card, and his social security card. No competent evidence was offered as to whether Petitioner still has the disability he had when those documents were obtained or for which alleged disability each of those documents was issued. Rather, Petitioner admitted during the final hearing that his insomnia is controlled by medication, that it has been over five years since he received any treatment for post- traumatic stress disorder, and that he doesn't remember who diagnosed him with that condition. He testified in deposition and at final hearing that his post-traumatic stress disorder and his insomnia do not affect his ability or prevent him from being employed. More importantly, Petitioner testified at the final hearing that his alleged conditions did not affect his ability to retrieve membership information from the file folder and, further, that he does not believe that he was terminated by Respondent based on his disability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of committing an unfair employment practice and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT 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 September, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Joubert 7 Farrier Lane Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Grubbs, Esquire Quintairos Prieto Wood & Boyer, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 510 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent is liable to Petitioner for employment discrimination in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2018).1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 63-year-old female, who was employed by Respondent in its Child Support Program in the Tallahassee Service Center from June 9, 1997, to April 5, 2010. In 1997, Petitioner became employed as a Revenue Specialist II (“RS II”) in the Payment Processing and Funds Distribution (“PPFD”) section, where she performed financial reviews and audits of client financial accounts. On January 28, 2005, Petitioner was promoted to RS III in that section, where Petitioner continued to perform financial reviews and audits, and assumed supervisory duties, including interviewing candidates and training new employees. In that position, Petitioner was considered a PPFD team expert. At her request to “learn something new,” Petitioner was transferred to the Administrative Support section in April 2009. She was assigned half-time to the Administrative Paternity and Support (“APS”) team, and half-time to support the PPFD team. The split-time arrangement was terminated in July 2009, and Petitioner was assigned to APS full-time. On December 7, 2009, Petitioner received her first performance evaluation for her new position. The evaluation covered the time period from April 17, 2009, to January 29, 2010.2/ Petitioner’s supervisor, Katherine Osborne, rated Petitioner’s overall performance at 2.11. Petitioner was placed on a Corrective Action Plan (“CAP”) concurrent with her December 7, 2009 performance evaluation. The CAP period ended on February 8, 2010. On February 16, 2010, Petitioner was notified, in writing, that the Department intended to demote her to the position of RS II because she did not successfully complete the expectations during the CAP period, or “failed the CAP.” Petitioner exercised her right to an informal hearing to oppose the intended demotion. On March 2, 2010, Petitioner was notified, in writing, that she was being demoted to the position of RS II because she failed the CAP. Petitioner resigned from her position with the Department, effective April 5, 2010. On September 15, 2010, Petitioner filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), challenging her demotion as illegal employment discrimination. On February 12, 2011, the EEOC issued its determination, stating that it was “unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the [requisite] statutes.” Petitioner’s 2017 Applications On August 16, 2017, the Department advertised 20 openings for an RS III (position 4372) in customer service administration. Petitioner applied for the position, met the screening criteria, took and passed the skills verification test, and was interviewed for the position. Petitioner was interviewed by a selection committee composed of Tiffany Clarke, Janeen Evans, and Jonathan McCabe. Each of the three committee members rated Petitioner’s interview as “fair” on a scale which ranged from “poor,” “fair,” and “good,” to “excellent.” Petitioner was not considered for the position following her interview. While the Department made some offers to candidates, ultimately the Department did not hire any candidates for position 4372. On October 2, 2017, the Department advertised 30 openings for an RS III (position 6380) in customer service administration. The main difference between the screening criteria for positions 4372 and 6380 was in education and experience. Position 4372 required applicants to have child support experience, while position 6380 gave a preference to applicants with child support experience. The Department’s goal in revising the requirements was to increase the applicant pool in response to the advertisement for position 6380. Petitioner applied for position 6380, met the screening requirements, passed the skills verification test, and was interviewed for the position. Petitioner was interviewed by a selection committee composed of Tiffany Clarke, Lance Swedmark, and Taronza Robinson. All three committee members rated her interview as “good,” and recommended advancing Petitioner’s application for reference checks. Mr. Swedmark conducted reference checks on Petitioner’s application. During that process, he was informed of Petitioner’s prior CAP failure, demotion, and resignation. Based on that information, the selection committee determined Petitioner would not be considered for the position. Hires for Position 6380 The Department hired 30 applicants from the pool for position 6380. Of the 30 hires, 10 were over age 40. Specifically, their ages were 56, 50, 49, 49, 48, 46, 44, 43, 42, and 41. Petitioner was 61 years old when she applied for position 6380. None of the members of the selection committee were aware of Petitioner’s age when she applied, or was interviewed, for the position. The ages of the 30 new hires were compiled from human resources records specifically for the Department’s response to Petitioner’s March 2018 charge of discrimination. None of the members of the selection committee were aware of Petitioner’s 2010 EEOC complaint against the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent, Florida Department of Revenue, did not commit any unlawful employment practice as to Petitioner, Jacquelyn James, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2018-04904. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 July, 2019.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Robert F. Cameron, was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, Osceola County, based on his disability, race, or national origin in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act. 1 All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2020), unless otherwise noted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner brings this action alleging that the County discriminated against him based on his disability, race (white), and national origin (Canadian). Specifically, Petitioner asserts that the County failed to provide him a reasonable accommodation to allow him to participate in the application and selection process for a County job. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and under the governance of the Osceola County Board of County Commissioners. At the final hearing, Petitioner testified that he is a disabled individual with at least seven disabilities. Pertinent to this matter, Petitioner stated that he is partially deaf in one ear which limits his ability to hear.4 In addition, Petitioner relayed that his disability(ies) affect his normal life in that he has frequent medical appointments and requires an increased number of restroom breaks. On October 15, 2019, Petitioner, who is from Canada, applied for the position of Budget Analyst II (the "Analyst Position") with the County. The Analyst Position falls within the County's Office of Management and Budget Department ("OMB"). The OMB is responsible for preparing the County's 2 By requesting a deadline for filing a post-hearing submission beyond ten days after the filing of the hearing transcript, the 30-day time period for filing the Recommended Order was waived. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.216(2). 3 Petitioner filed a revised version of his post-hearing submittal on October 9, 2020, which the undersigned considered as Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order in writing this Recommended Order. 4 At the final hearing, Petitioner initially strenuously objected to identifying his specific disability, asserting that his right to privacy protects him from having to disclose personal medical information, except as requested by a medical professional. annual budget, as well as analyzing and evaluating budget transfers for the County Commissioners. The County initiated the recruitment process for the Analyst Position by posting the opening on the website www.governmentjobs.com on October 14, 2019. Petitioner found the posting on the website and submitted his application through the same. At total of 15 individuals applied for the position, including Petitioner. The application window for the Analyst Position closed on October 21, 2019. Thereafter, the County's Human Resources Department screened the 15 applications to ensure the interested persons met the minimum qualifications for the job. Eleven applicants, including Petitioner, possessed the required qualifications. The Human Resources Department forwarded those 11 applications to the OMB for consideration. The OMB reviewed the 11 applications and selected three individuals to interview. These applicants included Petitioner (a white male), Lizette Rivera (a Hispanic female), and Sean Lower (a white male). Thereafter, the Human Resources Department set up a panel of five County employees to interview the candidates. Petitioner learned that he was being considered for the job on Thursday, October 24, 2019. That morning, the County called Petitioner at his home in Canada to inquire whether he was available for an interview the next day, Friday, October 25, 2019. Damaris Morales, an administrative assistant in the OMB, made the call. This case centers around what was said during that morning phone call. Petitioner and Ms. Morales left the conversation with vastly different impressions of what transpired. The Phone Call According to Petitioner Petitioner testified that Ms. Morales called him at a most inopportune time. His home phone rang at 8:44 a.m. At that moment, Petitioner was rushing out of his apartment to reach a 9:00 a.m. doctor's appointment. In fact, Petitioner had already started his car with an automatic starter, and it was running in his driveway. After he heard his phone ring, however, he turned back to answer the call. Petitioner answered the phone and greeted the caller. The caller identified herself as "Tamaris" from Osceola County.5 Ms. Morales then informed Petitioner that she was calling to set up an interview for the Analyst Position. Petitioner initially expressed to Ms. Morales that her call was "great" news. He then explained that he was running out the door to a medical appointment. Therefore, he asked if she would email him details about the interview, and he would respond to her as soon as he returned home. Ms. Morales informed Petitioner that the interviews would take place the next day (Friday). Petitioner was alarmed at the short notice. He explained to Ms. Morales that he was currently at home in New York state and could not travel to Florida for an in person interview the next day. Ms. Morales replied that she could arrange a telephone interview. Petitioner then asked Ms. Morales when the interview on Friday was scheduled. Ms. Morales relayed that she would email him the specific information when she obtained the time from her manager. Petitioner stated that he would "clear my schedule tomorrow for that interview." Petitioner then signed off saying, "Thank you. I do have to run. Sorry." Ms. Morales hung up the phone first. The conversation lasted 1 minute and 30 seconds. As Petitioner left for his doctor's appointment, he was under the impression that Ms. Morales would email him imminently regarding available times for the Friday telephone interview. The Phone Call According to Ms. Morales At the final hearing, Ms. Morales described a vastly different conversation with Petitioner. As further discussed below, Ms. Morales's 5 At the final hearing, Petitioner testified that he heard Damaris Morales state her name as "Tamaris." initial impressions of Petitioner from that phone call ultimately led the OMB to decide not to interview Petitioner for the Analyst Position. When Petitioner answered the phone, Ms. Morales testified that Petitioner's "aggressive" tone quite startled her. In a "loud" voice, Petitioner declared, "Yeah. What do you want? I don't have time to talk right now. I've got to be somewhere." Ms. Morales was not expecting such an abrupt and jarring reception. After a few seconds of stunned silence, Ms. Morales explained to Petitioner that she was calling about his application for the Analyst Position. Continuing in his harsh tone, Petitioner replied, "I have somewhere I need to be right now. Send me all the information via email. I am in Niagara Falls, New York." Petitioner then hung up the phone first without providing Ms. Morales his availability for a Friday interview. The whole conversation took less than 30 seconds. At the final hearing, in response to Ms. Morales's testimony, Petitioner suggested that she may have overheard an exchange between him and his son, Stewart, with whom he lives. Petitioner explained that, as he was leaving his apartment, his son called out from his bedroom asking whether the bathroom was free. Petitioner yelled back, "What do you want, Stewart? I am leaving." Petitioner explained that his phone may have malfunctioned and engaged Ms. Morales' call without him actually picking up the receiver. Petitioner strongly denied that he directed the comment "what do you want?" at Ms. Morales. Petitioner also theorized that if he spoke in a loud tone with Ms. Morales, it may have been due to his disability. As indicated above, Petitioner testified that he is deaf in one ear. Petitioner explained that Ms. Morales was talking very fast during their phone call. In responding to her questions, Petitioner was not trying to be abrupt or argumentative. However, he was in a rush to reach his appointment and was frustrated at the delay. Continuing with Petitioner's story, after the phone call, as Thursday morning progressed into Thursday afternoon, Petitioner did not receive an email back from Ms. Morales. Therefore, around 2:15 p.m., Petitioner called the County to speak with her. He was forwarded to her office phone, where he left a voicemail. In his message, Petitioner expressed that he was available for an interview any time the next day (Friday). He also left his Skype contact information. Time continued to pass on Thursday. With no response over the next two hours, at 4:14 p.m., Petitioner again called for Ms. Morales. This time, he was able to reach her. Petitioner inquired about his interview time for Friday. Ms. Morales momentarily demurred, telling Petitioner that she had to check with her manager. After several minutes, Ms. Morales came back on the line. She then told Petitioner that the Friday interviews were "full up." When Petitioner asked about an interview on another day, Petitioner claims that Ms. Morales promptly "slammed the phone down in my ear." Ms. Morales, on the other hand, testified that after she informed Petitioner that no interview times were available on Friday, Petitioner got angry and threatened her with a "legal matter." Petitioner then hung up on her. Petitioner was not content to let the matter drop. Therefore, on Friday morning at 9:47 a.m., he emailed the County Manager, Don Fisher, to complain about the County's Human Resources Department and the OMB. In his email, Petitioner summarized the events from the previous day. Petitioner focused on the fact that Ms. Morales told him that she would provide him an interview time. Then, when he contacted her Thursday afternoon, Ms. Morales informed him that the interviews were "full up," and he would not be offered an opportunity to interview for the Analyst Position. Petitioner sent Mr. Fisher follow-up emails at 10:01 a.m. and 10:03 a.m. In the first follow-up email, Petitioner stated: I am disabled and covered under the ADA Act. I make this request for accommodation under the ADA Act. At 10:10 a.m., Petitioner sent an email to another County employee, Maria Colon, the Director of the Human Resources Department and the County's Americans with Disability Act ("ADA") coordinator. In this email, Petitioner stated: You are the designated ADA Act Coordinator, but you are discriminating against me and denying my ADA rights to accommodation under the ACT and Title VII. I formally ask for this interview to be rescheduled and Oscola [sic] County to stop this discrimination. Attached to this email, Petitioner included a copy of his Ontario Disability Support Program Certificate of Disability ("ODSP Certificate"). At the final hearing, Petitioner explained that the ODSP Certificate, which was determined in 2013, is proof of his disability. Petitioner's certificate states: Your file with the Disability Adjudication Unit has been adjudicated and you have been found to be a person with a disability as defined in the Ontario Disability Support Program Act. 1997. At the final hearing, Petitioner expounded on the reasons for his request, explaining that he sought an accommodation to enable him to conduct a telephonic interview because his disability prevented him from driving from Canada to Florida to interview in person. Furthermore, as a disabled person, he needed more time to prepare and participate in the recruitment process. The specific accommodation he desired was to be allowed to interview by telephone on Monday, October 28, 2019. Not hearing a response from Ms. Colon by Friday afternoon, at 3:03 p.m., Petitioner dispatched another email to her. He again attached his ODSP Certificate. In this email, Petitioner wrote that "your staff member Tamaris" refused to schedule an interview and then "hung up the phone on me." Petitioner also repeated that he was "requesting reasonable accommodation for the Budget Analyst II position." Ms. Colon called Petitioner shortly after his second email. During this call, Petitioner informed Ms. Colon that he was disabled, and he needed a telephone interview for the County job opening. Petitioner added that he was located out of state, and he could not travel to Florida in time for an in-person interview. Petitioner further declared that the County was discriminating against him because of his disability and his national origin. Ms. Colon advised Petitioner that she would look into his concerns and get back to him. Petitioner claims that Ms. Colon ended this conversation by slamming the phone in his ear. During this call, despite Ms. Colon's request, Petitioner refused to identify his specific disability. At the final hearing, Petitioner asserted that the law protects those with disabilities from having to disclose their actual medical conditions. He said that, to safeguard their privacy, the disabled do not have to reveal their disability, except to the limited extent necessary to relate the disability to the requested accommodation. At 6:01 p.m. on Friday evening, Ms. Colon emailed Petitioner stating, "Per our phone conversation, I will look into your concerns and get back with you on Monday." By late Monday morning, October 28, 2019, however, Petitioner had not heard from Ms. Colon. Therefore, he sent her two emails. At 11:43 a.m., Petitioner wrote, "When is my interview? I am not available tomorrow." With no response to this first email, at 3:48 p.m., Petitioner wrote, "As per your reply above, you indicated my accommodation request under the ADA and interview time would be dealt with today. It is 4 pm EST. Please respond." Petitioner then signed off, "I am available for an interview 10am to 11 am tomorrow and then on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday." Petitioner received a response from Ms. Colon at 6:10 p.m., Monday evening. In her email, Ms. Colon wrote: I had the opportunity to look into your concerns. To be honest, customer service is very important in the Budget Analyst II role, and we're assessing those skills in every contact with candidates. The OMB Department had concerns about the way you handled the call and treated the employee that contacted you on October 24th for the purpose of scheduling an interview. Therefore, the Department has moved forward with other candidates. Petitioner was most displeased at Ms. Colon's email, and at 6:54 p.m., he responded: I did nothing except indicate I was available for an interview. Regardless none of this over-rides the ADA and my rights to employment and accommodation. I will be discussing your actions, the "OMB" in denying my constitutional and ADA rights, my Title VII rights with [a County attorney] tomorrow. If they fail to resolve this, then I will be suing you personally, Tamaris, the OMB and the County on a substantial indemnity basis for well in excess of $500g. Petitioner ended the email with "See you soon in court." Six minutes later, at 7:01 p.m., Petitioner sent another email to Ms. Colon. In this message, Petitioner stated: I must commend you for trying to deflect the egregious violation of my rights through trying to claim my rights to an interview are somehow superceded [sic] by this department withdrawing an interview based on race, geography, nationality and disability … in a call in which this Tamaris said and I quote – "we are full up" … . I asked her to leave my interview time through an email. If that qualifies as "poor customer service" then you have a very BIG legal problem using that as a diversion for blantant [sic] discrimination based on race, color, nationality, and disability. Petitioner ended this email with, "I will be happy to take you to Federal Court not the Courthouse right across the street. See you soon in court." Petitioner wrote Ms. Colon once more at 7:03 p.m. In this email, Petitioner accused Ms. Colon of "a blatant discrimination of interest in applying the ACT. Your superiors told you to deny me my rights under the ADA and you did so." Petitioner then declared that he was going to "sue you personally. … Trust me on that." After Monday, October 28, 2019, Petitioner never heard back from Ms. Morales or Ms. Colon regarding his application for the Analyst Position. Consequently, Petitioner claims that the County, by refusing to respond to his request for a telephone interview, denied him his rights under the FCRA and the ADA. At the final hearing, Petitioner vehemently denied that he was rude to Ms. Morales or during his call with Ms. Colon. Petitioner professed that he was perfectly polite to Ms. Morales. In addition, he asserted that Ms. Morales's testimony that he hung up the phone on her is totally false. Petitioner also contended that he did not threaten Ms. Colon with legal action as a means of intimidation. He was just exercising his rights as a disabled person. Petitioner further charged that the County's excuse for removing him from consideration was based on a misconstrued comment overheard during a brief phone call. Petitioner insists that his single utterance, "What do you want (Stewart)," cannot and should not justify the County's discriminatory action. The County ultimately hired Lizette Rivera for the Analyst Position. Petitioner alleges that the decision to hire Ms. Rivera is evidence of the County's female employees working together to eliminate white, male candidates. Petitioner maintains that Ms. Morales, a Hispanic female, favored another Hispanic (nondisabled) female (Ms. Rivera) for the Analyst Position. Consequently, Petitioner claims that Ms. Morales rigged the process and discriminated against Petitioner. At the final hearing, the County did not dispute that, while the OMB initially considered Petitioner for the Analyst Position, it quickly decided not to interview him for the job. The County also confirmed that the OMB did interview, and ultimately hire, Ms. Rivera to fill the Analyst Position. Regarding the County's decision not to interview Petitioner, after the initial phone call, Ms. Morales testified that she was quite startled by Petitioner's rude and unprofessional conduct. She immediately reported the conversation to her supervisor, Sharon Chauharjasingh, who is the Director of the OMB. Ms. Morales expressed to Ms. Chauharjasingh how shocked she was by Petitioner's behavior. Ms. Morales further relayed that because Petitioner was "in a rush," he did not provide her his availability for a telephone interview. Consequently, she had no information which would allow her to schedule him for an interview on Friday. Ms. Morales's testimony describing the telephone interaction with Petitioner was credible and is credited. Petitioner admitted to parts of Ms. Morales's versions, including that fact that he was in a rush and that he yelled, "what do you want?" Other than the two phone calls with Petitioner on Thursday, October 24, 2019, Ms. Morales was not involved in the OMB's decision not to interview Petitioner or to hire Ms. Rivera. (Those decisions belonged to Ms. Chauharjasingh.) Ms. Morales did not participate on the interview panel for either Ms. Rivera or Mr. Lower. Ms. Morales further testified that at no time during her phone calls with Petitioner did he inform her that he had a disability, or that he needed an accommodation to participate in the interview process. Ms. Chauharjasingh also testified at the final hearing. Ms. Chauharjasingh initially explained that the OMB is tasked with preparing the County's annual budget of approximately $1 billion. The person who fills the Analyst Position will work in the OMB. The duties of the Analyst Position include reviewing the budgets of the different County departments, as well as assisting those departments with budget questions and preparation related tasks. The Analyst Position will also review budgetary impacts and projections, and be prepared to personally discuss these issues with County representatives. In addition, the Analyst Position will interact daily with other staff members and occasionally contact outside companies and the public. Regarding the hiring of Ms. Rivera, Ms. Chauharjasingh disclosed that, because she oversees the OMB, she was responsible for selecting the person to fill the Analyst Position. For this opening, Ms. Chauharjasingh was the individual who narrowed down the applicants to the shortlist of three individuals including Petitioner, Ms. Rivera, and Mr. Lower. In selecting these candidates, Ms. Chauharjasingh looked at each applicant's past experience as a budget analyst, as well as their aptitude to efficiently assume the job duties. Based on their resumes, Ms. Chauharjasingh believed that each finalist was qualified for the Analyst Position. After selecting the three candidates, Ms. Chauharjasingh asked her assistant, Ms. Morales, to call each applicant and set up an interview. Ms. Chauharjasingh asked Ms. Morales to schedule the interviews for either Friday, October 25, 2019, or Monday, October 28, 2019. At the final hearing, Ms. Chauharjasingh represented that the County routinely interviews job applicants by telephone. Ms. Chauharjasingh further testified that the decision not to continue the interview process with Petitioner was hers. Ms. Chauharjasingh recounted that on Thursday morning, October 24, 2019, Ms. Morales came into her office looking "shaken up." Ms. Morales reported that she had just spoken to Petitioner, and he yelled at her and was rude and unprofessional. Ms. Chauharjasingh had never heard of a job candidate reacting the way Ms. Morales described. Ms. Morales has never complained to her about any other applicant. Based on Ms. Morales's interaction with Petitioner, Ms. Chauharjasingh immediately decided to remove Petitioner from consideration for the Analyst Position. She therefore directed Ms. Morales to "move on" from Petitioner and not to communicate with him any further. Instead, Ms. Morales was to only schedule interviews with the other two candidates (Ms. Rivera and Mr. Lower). The County's panel of five interviewers, which included Ms. Chauharjasingh, conducted an in-person interview of Ms. Rivera on Friday, October 25, 2019, at 11:30 a.m. Mr. Lower was interviewed, in person, on Monday morning, October 28, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. Following the interviews, the panel ranked the candidates, and then sent the list to Ms. Chauharjasingh. Ms. Chauharjasingh extended the offer of employment to Ms. Rivera, who was the top-ranked candidate. Ms. Chauharjasingh concluded her testimony by asserting that Petitioner's disability played no role in her decision not to interview him. Ms. Chauharjasingh explained that, at the time she decided to terminate the interview process with him, neither she nor Ms. Morales had any knowledge or information regarding Petitioner's disability. Instead, the sole basis for removing Petitioner from the shortlist was Ms. Morales' interaction with him during her initial phone call. Ms. Chauharjasingh testified that, based on the specific responsibilities of the Analyst Position, personal traits such as good communication skills, decorum, and telephone etiquette are very important. For example, the Detailed Job Posting for the Analyst Position includes a Physical Demand Requirement of "Expressing or exchanging ideas by spoken word or perceiving sound by ear." Consequently, upon hearing Ms. Morales's description of Petitioner's attitude and behavior during the telephone call, Ms. Chauharjasingh decided that the County did not need to consider Petitioner's application any further. In her testimony, Ms. Colon expressed that she had no part in the OMB's decision not to interview Petitioner. She became involved in this matter only after she received Petitioner's email, addressed to her as the County's ADA coordinator, on Friday morning, October 25, 2019. Ms. Colon stated that after she read Petitioner's email, she did not immediately respond because she first wanted to determine what exactly had transpired between Petitioner and Ms. Morales the previous day. Ms. Colon spoke with both Ms. Morales and Ms. Chauharjasingh on Friday. From these conversations, Ms. Colon heard that Petitioner was "rude" during Ms. Morales's first telephone call. Further, Petitioner was so "abrupt" that Ms. Morales was not able to offer him an interview time. Ms. Morales also informed Ms. Colon that Petitioner did not mention a disability or request an accommodation during either of their calls. Regarding her own phone call with Petitioner on Friday afternoon, Ms. Colon described an experience very similar to Ms. Morales's. Ms. Colon testified that the conversation was "not pleasant." As with Ms. Morales, Ms. Colon recounted that Petitioner was "agitated," loud," and "extremely unprofessional." During the exchange, Petitioner also threatened to sue her and the County. Regarding her email to Petitioner on Monday evening, October 28, 2019, in which she wrote that, "The OMB Department had concerns about the way you handled the call and treated the employee that contacted you on October 24th," Ms. Colon stated that the decision not to schedule Petitioner for an interview was made on October 24, 2019. Specifically, after talking with Ms. Morales and Ms. Chauharjasingh, Ms. Colon learned that Ms. Chauharjasingh had decided not to interview Petitioner immediately after Ms. Morales reported to her regarding Petitioner's rude and unprofessional interaction with her during their first phone call. As a final witness, Ms. Fatima Lozano testified regarding her participation on the interview panel for the Analyst Position. Ms. Lozano described herself as a Human Resources "generalist" with the County. Ms. Lozano has taken part in a number of interviews of applicants for County employment. She relayed that the County routinely conducts telephonic interviews. Ms. Lozano repeated that, when hiring employees, the department responsible for the position sets up the interviews and selects the winner. For the Analyst Position, the OMB selected the applicants who would interview for the job. Regarding scheduling the interviews for the Analyst Position, Ms. Lozano testified that, on October 21, 2019, she received a calendar invite requesting her availability. The interviews then took place on Friday, October 25, 2019, at 11:30 a.m. and Monday, October 28, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. While the above findings chronical the key aspects of Petitioner's discrimination claim, Petitioner also raised several other complaints against the County. Petitioner was exceedingly frustrated by the County's failure to schedule his interview through the www.governmentjobs.com website. At the final hearing, Petitioner elicited testimony from several County employees that, although the County pays a hefty annual fee to recruit employees through governmentjobs.com, the County only uses the website to solicit applications. Petitioner was "shocked" to learn that the County did not take advantage of the website's functions to schedule interviews with candidates. Petitioner was also "stunned" at the County's attempt to schedule his interview with less than one day's notice. Petitioner found the practice unprofessional and unacceptable. Petitioner represented that the standard process used by governmentjobs.com is to email a notification to the job applicant at least four to seven days prior to the agreed interview time. Based on the competent substantial evidence in the record, the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the County discriminated against Petitioner based on his disability (handicap), race, or national origin. Instead, the credible evidence establishes that the decision not to interview Petitioner was made without knowledge of his disability prior to his request for an accommodation, and without regard to his race or national origin. The decision to not interview Petitioner was based solely on his own behavior, considered rude and unprofessional, effectively disqualifying him from the job. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving that the County committed an unlawful employment practice against him in violation of the FCRA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Petitioner, Robert F. Cameron, did not prove that Respondent, Osceola County, committed an unlawful employment practice against him, and dismissing his Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 12th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Robert Finley Cameron 1 Churchill Street, Apartment 10 St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L25 2-P3 C (eServed) Frank M. Townsend, Esquire Osceola County Attorney's Office 1 Courthouse Square, Suite 4700 Kissimmee, Florida 34741 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Petitioner was terminated from his position with Respondent as a warehouse supervisor on or about August 9, 2002, on the basis of his race (African-American), in violation of Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following Findings of Fact are determined: Respondent, Heritage Paper Company, Inc. (Respondent), is an employer as that term is defined under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA). Respondent is a wholesale distributor of paper and plastic products. Petitioner, Alonzo C. Brown, is an African-American male and is a member of a protected class. Petitioner was employed in the warehouse at Respondent's Orlando facility from 1998 until he was terminated on or about August 9, 2002. Dan Patterson ("Patterson"), who was the general manager at the Orlando facility during the relevant time period, supervised Petitioner throughout his employment with Respondent. Patterson made the decision to hire Petitioner, made the decision to promote Petitioner to warehouse supervisor, and made the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment. In November 1999, Petitioner was officially promoted from warehouseman to warehouse supervisor. Petitioner's job duties as warehouse supervisor included supervising the drivers, receiving inventory, putting away inventory, pulling orders, and ensuring that the trucks were loaded. Petitioner was responsible for assigning work to his assistants, ensuring that the runs were pulled, and ensuring that the merchandise ordered by customers was actually on the trucks for delivery. He was also responsible for the overall condition of the warehouse. Petitioner's performance deteriorated during approximately the last five months of his employment. When Petitioner got behind in the warehouse, Patterson assisted him and even hired an assistant to help Petitioner in the warehouse with inventory control and other assistance, where necessary. At the final hearing, Petitioner testified that he was discriminated against based on his race in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim and for disagreeing with his supervisor's instruction to put matches on a truck during a fire inspection. Petitioner was responsible for ensuring that the trucks left on time in the morning and for pulling the runs the previous afternoon. Even though an assistant was hired to help Petitioner in the warehouse at times, Petitioner refused to assign tasks to his assistant. Patterson wrote a note to Petitioner on May 1, 2002, telling Petitioner that he could not send items to the customer, NSC Northport, without matching up purchase order numbers. NCS Northport had very strict delivery requirements and would refuse delivery if Respondent did not comply with their delivery procedures. The evidence demonstrates that Patterson notified Petitioner on May 1, 2002, that Respondent's procedure with regard to NSC Northport was not followed. Although Petitioner introduced testimony that he did not write the information on the NSC Northport invoice, Patterson reasonably believed that it was Petitioner's handwriting and testified that Petitioner never informed him that he did not write the information on that invoice. Further, Marissa Moore, Petitioner's own witness, identified the handwriting as Petitioner's. When problems in the warehouse first arose, Patterson spoke with Petitioner regarding Respondent's policies and procedures for the warehouse. Patterson wrote another note to Petitioner on May 13, 2002, regarding excessive overtime and the importance of having runs pulled the previous afternoon to prevent overtime. Patterson wrote a third note to Petitioner and his assistant, Keynon Turner, on June 27, 2002, reiterating the importance of having the runs pulled in the afternoon and reminding them that the runs must be pulled by 4:00 p.m. Petitioner's explanation for the overall condition of the warehouse from May through August 2002 is not credible. Bob Purser, Sr., Respondent's chairman, CEO, and founder testified that in a conversation with Patterson, he told him that if Petitioner was unable to keep the warehouse organized, minimize the overtime, and get the trucks out on time, then they would have to get someone in the warehouse who would be able to do so. When Purser found out that incorrect merchandise was delivered to customers, he told Patterson to personally review the orders before the trucks were loaded. Purser visited the warehouse where Petitioner was employed prior to his termination and found that the warehouse was in disarray. He observed the aisles were blocked with merchandise and that the forklifts were unable to move up and down the aisles. Denis Nieves, the current warehouse supervisor for Respondent's Orlando facility, was hired on August 12, 2002, three days after Petitioner's employment was terminated. When he was hired, the warehouse was disorganized and cluttered, inventory blocked some of the aisles, the bay doors, and the exits and that it was sometimes difficult to locate inventory. It took him approximately six to eight weeks to reorganize the warehouse, unblock the aisles, put the inventory on racks, and unblock the bay doors and the exits. Respondent's Equal Employment Opportunity policy states that Respondent will provide equal employment opportunity to all qualified employees and applicants for employment regardless of race, color, sex, age, religion, national origin, handicap, marital status, and status as a disabled veteran or veterans of the Vietnam era. This policy was in effect when Petitioner was hired, and he received a copy of Respondent's employee handbook at the time of his hire, which contained the Equal Employment Opportunity policy prohibiting all types of unlawful discrimination. Petitioner knew of Respondent's Equal Employment Opportunity policy. He was aware of the procedures for mailing a complaint about racial discrimination and/or harassment. Respondent also maintained an open-door policy where employees could speak with Purser regarding any perceived problems. Petitioner was aware of this open-door policy. Other employees took advantage of Respondent's open-door policy to address their concerns with Patterson and/or Purser. Petitioner never complained to Purser about Patterson's alleged discriminatory treatment. Purser confirmed that Petitioner never addressed any concerns about race discrimination or any retaliatory actions by Patterson with him. Petitioner testified that he did not feel that he was ever discriminated against at any time during his employment with Respondent, except when Patterson terminated his employment. Although Petitioner raised various instances of perceived unfairness throughout his employment with Respondent, such as being paged to the front office and having his uniform "stripped" from him, he testified that the only point he believed he was discriminated against because of his race was when Patterson terminated his employment. Petitioner's witnesses, Ralph McDaniel and Ricky Vaughn, admitted that they never noticed any discriminatory acts or racial inequalities against anyone while they were employed with Respondent. Moore testified that she never heard any discriminatory comments about Petitioner. Andrew Mitchell testified that he never noticed any discriminatory acts during his employment with Respondent. Petitioner's only other witness, Kenyon Turner, testified that the only perceived discriminatory actions he experienced while employed at Respondent was Patterson's "getting mad and cursing [him] out every once in a while." When asked if Patterson cursed at others as well, Turner answered affirmatively stating, "[o]f course he cursed out the other people that was there," meaning all employees, regardless of race. This does not constitute evidence of racial discrimination. Purser testified that his company does not discriminate against its employees on the basis of race and Patterson testified that he did not consider Petitioner's race in making the decision to terminate his employment. Through Mitchell's testimony, Petitioner attempted to establish that he was a "good employee" and that he was a "capable and knowledgeable" warehouse supervisor, but offered no additional evidence demonstrating that he was doing a good job. The greater weight of evidence supports the fact that Patterson made the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment based on the continuing problems in the warehouse and a load factor decline of approximately 22 percent. The load factor is a percentage used to determine how many customer orders are being accurately filled. At the time of Petitioner's termination, he was earning $11.72 per hour. Petitioner testified that he did not begin looking for work until the first part of 2003. Petitioner worked sporadically for Florida Courier and that he earned approximately $11,000.00 in 2003. Petitioner did not work many hours and did not seek alternative employment during the summer months. Petitioner is also a full-time pastor, and his church pays his mortgage payment, which is approximately $1,000.00 per month. Petitioner testified that he has submitted "a couple of applications" to prospective employers, but has not really been interested in working for someone else.
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 which DENIES the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 19th day of January, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alonzo C. Brown 7230 Plantain Drive Orlando, Florida 32818 Robert T. Devine, Esquire Alva L. Cross, Esquire Coffman, Coleman, Andrews & Grogan, P.A. Post Office Box 40089 Jacksonville, Florida 32203 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Parkland Rehabilitation and Nursing Center (Parkland), committed an unlawful employment practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, when it terminated the employment of Petitioner, Ardel Hannah, and whether it subjected Petitioner to disparate treatment on the basis of his national origin.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Parkland is a rehabilitation and nursing center located at 1000 Southwest 16th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. It is an employer as that term is defined in Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a black male of American national origin. Although his actual date of employment is not of record, the evidence reflects that Petitioner had been employed by Parkland's maintenance department for more than ninety days when he was suspended on August 24, 2007, and then formally terminated by letter dated September 7, 2007. His primary job assignment was to repaint residents' rooms at the facility after the rooms were vacated. Petitioner's supervisor was Arthur Ellesten, Director of Maintenance, who is originally from Jamaica but is now a United States citizen. Although Mr. Ellesten has authority to hire employees in that department, he does not have authority to terminate employees. Two other workers on the maintenance staff, including Vichaun Palmer, were of Jamaican national origin. Michael Rau was the Administrator of the facility and its most senior employee. Mr. Rau has the authority to hire and terminate employees. He is of American national origin. On August 21, 2007, Mr. Ellesten verbally counseled Petitioner based on his unsatisfactory job performance. Petitioner became hostile towards Mr. Ellesten during this counseling session and swore at Mr. Ellesten. Petitioner was informed that he would be formally written up if his performance did not improve. Prior to August 24, 2007, Mr. Rau verbally counseled Petitioner on at least two occasions for his poor job performance, based on his slow progress at assigned tasks and fraternizing with female staff members for long periods of time during regular working hours. An incident occurred on August 24, 2007, which, when coupled with his prior unsatisfactory job performance, culminated in Petitioner's suspension and termination. Although the testimony regarding the incident is conflicting in many respects, the following facts are found to be the most credible. On that date, Petitioner arrived at work around 8:00 a.m. and confronted Mr. Ellesten in the courtyard of the facility. Petitioner requested Paid Time Off (PTO) for that day, which is paid leave accrued by full-time employees. Petitioner was told that he would have to request a form from Mr. Rau. Believing that Mr. Ellesten had provided PTO forms to the other Jamaican maintenance workers, Petitioner became angry and began swearing at his supervisor. Seeking to avoid a physical confrontation, Mr. Ellesten left the courtyard to return to his office on the second floor. Petitioner followed Mr. Ellesten up the stairs to the office where Petitioner verbally threatened to kill him. After Petitioner refused to leave the office, Mr. Ellesten called security, who telephoned the police department. Mr. Ellesten then departed his office, and as he was walking down the stairs, Petitioner pushed him. However, he was not injured. Petitioner left the premises a few minutes later and returned to an apartment complex where he lived. After security contacted the police department, Officer Moore was dispatched to Parkland. Mr. Ellesten requested that Officer Moore not file criminal charges against Petitioner but only give him a trespass warning. Officer Moore then went to Petitioner's apartment and issued a verbal trespass warning. This is evidenced by an Incident/Investigation Report prepared by Officer Moore. Petitioner later returned to Parkland the same day where he met with Mr. Rau to discuss the incident. During their conversation, Petitioner alleged that Mr. Ellesten had physically attacked him that morning. After Officer Moore arrived a few minutes later and joined the two, Petitioner did not repeat the allegation. Pending a further investigation of the matter, Mr. Rau suspended Petitioner. Petitioner never filed a complaint with the police department against Mr. Ellesten, and he never filed a complaint or grievance with anyone at Parkland alleging that Mr. Ellesten had attacked him, as alleged in his Petition for Relief. Also, he never informed Mr. Rau that he was treated different or unfairly by Mr. Ellesten, other members of the maintenance department, or other employees of Parkland. Finally, he never complained that the other two workers in the maintenance department were treated more favorably than he. Violence against a co-worker or supervisor is considered unacceptable conduct and by itself is a basis for termination by Mr. Rau and Parkland. As a part of his investigation, Mr. Rau questioned Mr. Ellesten about the events on August 24, 2007, obtained a written statement from Mr. Ellesten, spoke with Petitioner on August 24, 2007, and reviewed the Incident/Investigation Report prepared by Officer Moore. On September 7, 2007, Mr. Rau sent Petitioner a letter formally terminating his employment with Parkland based on the August 24, 2007, incident and "past issues related to [his] performance and conduct." There is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, that national origin was considered at any point during Petitioner's employment or that national origin played a part in his termination. Further, no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, was submitted to show that he was otherwise subjected to disparate treatment because he was an American.
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 finding that Parkland did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4857 Ardel Hannah 996 Southwest 16th Avenue Apartment 904 Gainesville, Florida 32601-8483 Lauren M. Levy, Esquire Levy & Levy, LLC 4230 South MacDill Avenue, Suite 230 Tampa, Florida 33611-1901 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4857
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Marlowe D. Robinson ("Petitioner"), was unlawfully discriminated against by Respondent, Broward County School District ("BCSD"), his employer, based on his disability and in retaliation for complaining about discrimination, in violation of chapter 760 of the Florida Statutes, the Florida Civil Rights Act; and, if so, what is the appropriate remedy.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner worked for BCSD for approximately 20 years prior to the termination of his employment on May 8, 2018. Petitioner is a disabled veteran. At the time of his termination, Petitioner was employed as the Head Facility Serviceperson at BCSD's office in the Katherine C. Wright Building ("KCW"). On February 5, 2016, Richard Volpi began working at KCW as the Manager of Administrative Support and as Petitioner's immediate supervisor. During Mr. Volpi's third day on the job, Petitioner told him that he was not happy that Mr. Volpi was at KCW and that KCW was "his house." He also told Mr. Volpi that he did not work because he "delegated to his crew." On February 18, 2016, Petitioner filed two internal labor grievances. In the first, he asked to have his job title changed to "Building Operations Supervisor." In the second grievance, Petitioner alleged that Mr. Volpi and Jeff Moquin, Chief of Staff, created a hostile and unclean work environment. Mr. Volpi processed the grievances by having a meeting with Petitioner on February 25, 2016. Finding no basis for the grievances in the collective bargaining agreement, Mr. Volpi denied them. On October 10, 2016, Mr. Volpi met with Petitioner to discuss a significant pattern of Petitioner coming in late, failing to notify BCSD when arriving late, staying after his scheduled shift to make up time without authorization, failing to call in as required for sick days, and failing to have pre- authorization for using accumulated leave. After the meeting, Mr. Volpi issued a written "Meeting Summary," which included counseling, based on Petitioner having come in late 24 days since August 1, 2016, and only notifying Mr. Volpi's assistant of the tardiness on three of those 24 days. The "Meeting Summary" was not considered discipline and stated, "If for any reason you need to change your shift hours to assist you in getting to work on time, please let me know." On October 19, 2016, Petitioner filed his third internal labor grievance after Mr. Volpi became his supervisor. The third labor grievance made numerous allegations against Mr. Volpi, including, but not limited to, sexual harassment, unspecified Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") violations, and retaliation for filing prior grievances. On October 26, 2016, Petitioner submitted a request for intermittent leave pursuant to FMLA. The next day, Petitioner was notified that his FMLA leave request was incomplete, and was therefore denied. Petitioner was later granted intermittent FMLA leave with the agreement that he was to provide advance notification of his anticipated absences. On November 9, 2016, Petitioner was notified in writing to appear at Mr. Volpi's office on November 16, 2016, for a pre- disciplinary conference to discuss Petitioner's failure to adhere to the directive of October 10, 2016, to notify Mr. Volpi if he was going to be late, out for the day, or working outside his scheduled hours. The letter specified that Petitioner was late October 11, 13, and 17, 2016, without notifying Mr. Volpi, and that Petitioner was late and worked past his regular scheduled hours on October 21, 25, and November 7, 2016. The letter also specified that Petitioner "called out" (took time off) without notifying Mr. Volpi on October 31 and November 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8, 2016. In response, Petitioner filed a fourth grievance against Mr. Volpi alleging retaliation, bullying, and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and various policies of BCSD. On November 16, 2016, Mr. Volpi memorialized in writing that Petitioner failed to show up for the November 16, 2016, pre-disciplinary meeting. On November 21, 2016, Petitioner was notified in writing that he was to appear at Mr. Volpi's office on November 30, 2016, for a pre-disciplinary meeting to replace the original meeting scheduled for November 16, 2016. Petitioner was not disciplined for not showing up to the November 16, 2016, meeting. The meeting on November 30, 2016, went forward as scheduled and Petitioner was issued a verbal reprimand on December 5, 2016, his first discipline from Mr. Volpi, for Petitioner's ignoring the prior directive to contact his supervisor if he was going to be late, absent, or wanted to work beyond his scheduled shift. He was again reminded that he had to make such notifications and have permission in advance of working hours other than his regular shift. On January 12, 2017, Petitioner was granted a reasonable accommodation pursuant to the ADA. The accommodation granted permitted Petitioner to report to work within one hour of his scheduled work time and leave within one hour of his scheduled end time ("flex time"). Additionally, Petitioner was required to notify his supervisor in advance of using flex time. Mr. Volpi assisted Petitioner in the accommodation process. Mr. Volpi provided Petitioner the accommodation paperwork and advocated for Petitioner to be granted an accommodation. On January 26, 2017, Petitioner again came in late without providing Mr. Volpi advance notice of intent to use his flex time. On January 27, 2017, Mr. Volpi sent an email to Petitioner reminding Petitioner that he was required to notify him if he is going to be late. This was not considered discipline. On March 21, 2017, Petitioner was notified in writing that he was to appear at Mr. Volpi's office on March 27, 2017, for a pre-disciplinary meeting regarding ongoing excessive tardiness and failure to adhere to his work schedule. On March 23, 2017, Petitioner filed his fifth internal labor grievance, again alleging harassment (among other claims) against Mr. Volpi. On March 28, 2017, Petitioner filed his sixth internal labor grievance, again making harassment allegations against Mr. Volpi. On April 6, 2017, Petitioner was issued a Written Reprimand by Mr. Volpi for his nine days of tardiness in February and March and his failure to notify Mr. Volpi in advance. On April 7, 2017, Petitioner appealed the Written Reprimand. Petitioner also filed his seventh and eighth internal labor grievances alleging discrimination on the basis of disability and retaliation. Petitioner filed his Charge with the FCHR on April 13, 2017. Mr. Volpi conducted a first-step grievance hearing on April 27, 2017, and as a result of the discussion with Petitioner, who agreed to notify Mr. Volpi in advance of his inability to arrive at work as scheduled, the April 6, 2017, Written Reprimand was reduced to a verbal warning. The FCHR dismissed Petitioner's Charge with a No Reasonable Cause Determination on October 10, 2017. Between January 1 and February 15, 2018, Petitioner came to work late 14 days without providing prior notice, was absent without leave two days, and worked overtime one day without prior authorization. As a result, BCSD issued a three- day suspension on February 21, 2018. On February 22, 2018, Mr. Volpi met again with Petitioner to go over the expectations and provided a reminder memo not to work unauthorized hours without prior approval. On March 13, 2018, Mr. Volpi asked BCSD to issue a ten-day suspension to Petitioner for his ongoing failure to report to work at assigned times, unauthorized overtime, and absences without leave. In response, Petitioner filed yet another labor grievance. BCSD approved the ten-day suspension on April 10, 2018. Despite the ADA accommodation, increasing discipline, multiple counseling meetings and reminders, Petitioner continued his pattern of tardiness, unauthorized overtime, and absences. Accordingly, BCSD terminated Petitioner's employment on May 8, 2018. Petitioner's discipline and ultimate termination were not performance based, but rather, related solely to ongoing attendance issues.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing FCHR Petition 201700954. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 6th day of December, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Sea World of Florida, Inc. (SWF), subjected Petitioner, Mario Molina, to disparate treatment and terminated his employment because of his national origin (Puerto Rican) and/or alleged disability in violation of Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer, as that term is defined, under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) of 1992. Petitioner is a male of Puerto Rican descent and is a member of a protected class. Petitioner claims he is disabled due to the pain and limitations following corrective surgery for a lumbar degenerative disc problem in 2003. Petitioner began employment with SWF in 1995 as a warehouse worker in the receiving department. The warehouse worker position required Petitioner to receive and move shipments of merchandise, equipment, and supplies coming into the Warehouse. Petitioner needed to be able to lift up to 50 pounds and assist in lifting up to 100 pounds to shoulder height in order to perform the essential functions of the warehouse worker position. Petitioner had surgery on his back on September 26, 2003, to correct a lumbar degenerative disc problem. Dr. Stephen Goll performed the surgery and provided after-care for Petitioner. SWF granted Petitioner a paid leave of absence from September 26, 2003, until March 19, 2004, in order to allow him to recuperate from his surgery. Petitioner returned to work on March 19, 2004, with restrictions of sedentary work only and no lifting of more than ten pounds. Petitioner's restrictions varied after his surgery, but he was never cleared to lift more than 20 pounds. Petitioner never requested an accommodation that would allow him to lift up to 50 pounds. SWF provided Petitioner with light-duty work, in accordance with his restrictions as defined by Dr. Goll, from his return to work on March 19, 2004, until November of 2004. Specifically, Warehouse Manager Mark S. Wren assigned Petitioner to the pricing table where he was not required to lift more than ten pounds. On November 1, 2004, Dr. Goll examined Petitioner and determined that he had reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) with a three percent impairment rating. He put in place a permanent restriction of no lifting of more than ten pounds. Accordingly, Petitioner could not perform the essential functions of his warehouse worker position, which required lifting up to 50 pounds. Further, there were no permanent light-duty positions available in the Warehouse. Therefore, on November 29, 2004, Warehouse Manager Wren, Human Resources Manager Christine Runnels, and Human Resources Director Teri Robertson met with Petitioner to explain that SWF had no permanent work in the Warehouse that he could perform within his restrictions. During his meeting, SWF offered Petitioner the opportunity either to be assigned to SWF's internal temporary worker pool, known as Workforce, and work as a temporary employee as needed, or to take a six-month personal leave of absence to look for a position at SWF which met his medical restrictions. Petitioner, who complained of continued back pain, elected to take a six-month personal leave of absence from December 4, 2004, through June 4, 2005. He could retain his health benefits during this period. Despite being unable to perform the essential functions of the warehouse worker position, Petitioner was capable of working in a broad range of jobs offered by SWF within his medical restrictions. During Petitioner's six-month personal leave of absence, SWF had 417 positions open. Nevertheless, Petitioner only inquired about two positions during his six-month leave period -- one in the Call Center and one as a horticulturist. Petitioner was not selected for a position in the Call Center because he was unwilling to work the required hours. Petitioner admitted he did not have the required degree to work as a horticulturist. Petitioner never submitted a transfer request for any of the 415 other positions available at SWF during his six-month personal leave of absence. Nevertheless, Petitioner sought to have his leave extended to six months after his leave expired on June 4, 2005. SWF's vice president of Human Resources reviewed Petitioner's request for a leave extension, as well as his personnel file pertaining to the reason for his leave of absence. Christine E. O'Neal discovered that Petitioner had permanent lifting restrictions, preventing him from performing the essential functions of his former position in the Warehouse. O'Neal further learned that despite granting Petitioner six months to find another position, he had done little in furtherance of that goal. In fact, O'Neal determined that Petitioner had only applied for two positions during the entire six months of his leave. Therefore, O'Neal made the decision to deny Petitioner's request for a leave extension, effectively terminating Petitioner's employment on June 4, 2005. Petitioner presented no evidence indicating that SWF terminated his employment because of his alleged disability or national origin. Further, each of the three witnesses who testified at the hearing stated that employment decisions affecting Petitioner were not related to his national origin or alleged disability, and this testimony is credible. SWF submitted legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for Petitioner's termination. Specifically, SWF terminated Petitioner's employment because he had a permanent lifting restriction prohibiting him from performing the essential functions of his position as a warehouse worker, and he failed to actively seek another position during his leave period. Petitioner submitted no evidence establishing that SWF discriminated against him because of his national origin, or that he was handicapped under the FCRA, or that SWF's non- discriminatory reasons for terminating Petitioner was a pretext for unlawful discrimination.
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 which DENIES the Petition for Relief and dismisses Petitioner's claim. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 2nd day of November, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mario Molina 116 Coconut Grove Way Kissimmee, Florida 34758 Thomas R. Brice, Esquire McGuireWoods, LLP 50 North Laura Street, Suite 3300 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice, specifically whether Respondent failed to accommodate Petitioner's alleged disability.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was hired by Dollar General in December 2006 as the second shift Human Resources (HR) Representative I for Dollar General's Alachua Distribution Center. As the second shift HR Representative I, part of Petitioner's responsibilities was to interact with the employees who worked on the second shift. Petitioner's immediate supervisor throughout her employment was Donna Myers, Senior Human Resource Manager. Ms. Myers interviewed and hired Petitioner. Petitioner's job as a HR Representative required her to conduct interviews, drug tests, participate in committees, interact with employees, transfer employees, and other employee- related duties. Petitioner was qualified for the position as HR Representative, having a master's degree in human resources management. Some concern existed among management as to whether Petitioner could be as effective in her job if she were to use a golf cart. The concern was whether she would be less approachable by employees when driving around rather than walking up to the areas where they worked. Since there was an "open door" policy for employees to approach Petitioner, she could always meet them in her office if they had enough time during a break. Company policy dictates that at least 10 percent of the HR Representative's time should be spent "walking the floor." Petitioner understood the walking requirement to be at least an hour per shift. Dollar General maintains and enforces an Anti- Discrimination and Harassment Policy, which prohibits, among other things, discrimination based on an employee's disability. Dollar General's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy also contains a provision which provides, in pertinent part, that it intends to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act by providing reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities. Dollar General's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy includes a procedure that allows and urges any employee who believes that that he or she is the subject of or has been the subject of discrimination to report the alleged discrimination by contacting a toll-free number. Ms. McIntosh was an employee of Dollar General, was aware of Dollar General's policy prohibiting discrimination and harassment in the workplace based on disability, and acknowledged receipt of Dollar General's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy. Dollar General's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy applies to all employees. As an employee, Dollar General's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy applied to Ms. McIntosh. All of Dollar General's management team, who testified at hearing, were aware of the company's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy. Dollar General's Anti-Discrimination and Harassment Policy instructs employees to speak with their supervisor or to call the Employee Response Center to request an accommodation or report any type of discrimination. Ms. McIntosh took medical leave in October 2007. In the October 25, 2007, certification for her medical leave, Ms. McIntosh's treating physician estimated that the probable duration of her condition was one to two weeks. Further, in the November 15, 2007, recertification, Ms. McIntosh's physician estimated that the probable duration of her condition was two to three months. Effective November 24, 2007, Ms. McIntosh's physician released her to return to work without any restrictions. The release does not indicate that Ms. McIntosh was unable to climb stairs or walk for extended periods of time. Ms. McIntosh was physically able to do her job when she returned from medical leave. Ms. McIntosh identified the disabilities for which she requested accommodations as arthritis in hips and knees, a dislocated disk, and a pinched nerve. Ms. McIntosh claims that her disabilities limited her ability to walk, stand, and climb stairs. Petitioner recalls making her first request for an accommodation to her direct supervisor, Donna Myers, to use the golf cart to tour the million-square-foot facility, and to be excused from climbing in September 2007 after being diagnosed with arthritis in her hips and knees. Petitioner reports being told that the golf carts were no longer allowed for use by HR personnel. Ms. Myers denied this exchange taking place, and testified that the golf cart was available for Petitioner's use at any time. Robert Barnes, the distribution center manager, confirmed Petitioner's understanding that the designated HR golf cart was no longer used in HR. Petitioner also reported her October 2007 injury to Ms. Myers. Petitioner was even seen at the emergency room by Mr. Barnes. The medical leave paperwork was submitted to Ms. Myers by Petitioner. Dollar General had knowledge of Petitioner's injuries and medical condition. Upon her return to work in December 2007, Petitioner again asked Ms. Myers about using the golf cart and decreasing the amount of time she was required to spend on the floor of the distribution center. This request was denied. Again, Ms. Myers denied that this exchange took place between Petitioner and her. Petitioner began to use a cane or walking stick to help her get around the distribution center. Ms. Myers acknowledged seeing Petitioner walking with aid of the stick. Petitioner is firm in her testimony that she informed her supervisor and others up the chain of command of her condition and her need for an accommodation. Nevertheless, Ms. Myers denies that Ms. McIntosh asked to use a golf cart, to be relieved of her responsibility to walk the facility to interact with employees, or to be excused from walking up and down the stairs to meet with employees. A series of correspondence and emails supports Petitioner's claim that Dollar General's management was aware on some level of the seriousness of her physical limitations. Medical records that were submitted to Ms. Myers in October 2007 by Petitioner describe her knee pain and inability to walk up stairs. Those records estimate two weeks before Petitioner's return to work. The October medical report led to a November 9, 2007, letter from Ms. Myers to Petitioner requesting an updated medical certification. Petitioner complied and provided a medical certification showing the knee injury to be more serious than first thought and accompanied by a herniated disc. This report evidenced a return to work time of two to three months after physical therapy and additional diagnostic procedures. Finally, Dollar General received a Fitness for Duty form from Petitioner's health care provider stating a return to work date of November 24, 2007. Petitioner convinced her physician to clear her for work under the belief she had to be qualified at 100 percent in order to return. Prior to raising the issue of her medical condition, Petitioner had a stormy relationship, at times, with her supervisor, Ms. Myers. An exchange of emails occurred in March and April of 2007 between Petitioner and Mr. Harbison detailing Petitioner's issues with Ms. Myers. Petitioner did not ask Mr. Harbison, who was in her direct chain of command, to modify the responsibilities of her job in any way, nor did she mention -– until her suspension in March 2008 -– that she allegedly requested and was denied a reasonable accommodation. Petitioner did not call Dollar General's Employee Response Center to request an accommodation for her medical condition. Petitioner believed that hotline to be only for hourly employees, although Dollar General's written policies did not dictate any such restriction. When Petitioner returned to work in December 2007 after receiving treatment for her knee and back injuries, she experienced difficulties in standing for extended periods, in walking, and in climbing stairs. The pain she experienced was intense when engaging in any of these activities. She was able, despite the pain, to perform tasks of daily living, such as bathing and dressing herself, which allowed her to go to work. In addition to not being permitted to use the golf cart to perform her job, Petitioner had a broken chair in her office which made it more difficult for her to get relief when she was not walking the distribution center floor. She was first able to get a chair from the office next door to hers, and then Mr. Arrendell allowed her to bring in a chair from the conference room. Petitioner recalls many instances of interaction with her supervisors and managers about her physical limitations, including discussions about her inability to walk in a Christmas parade and her inability to stand up without leaning against a wall during a staff presentation she made. Dollar General's witnesses were not able to recall the substance of these interactions, except for remembering that Petitioner had an issue of some sort regarding the parade. Petitioner was suspended in early March 2008, pending an investigation, and her employment was ultimately terminated on March 11, 2008, for conduct unbecoming of an HR professional. No evidence was produced at hearing as to the circumstances leading to her dismissal. Petitioner did not have surgery related to her back or knee conditions until after she left the employ of Dollar General. She received pain management until she had surgery on her back. She received a consultation for her knee injury, but never had surgery performed. Upon leaving her employment, she had no insurance to cover her medical bills. The medical bills amounted to approximately $200,000, with the hospital bill for her surgery being $106,000 by itself. Petitioner has suffered financial losses which led her to borrow money for food, for her electric bill, losing her truck, losing her home insurance, and becoming three months behind on her mortgage. Petitioner has suffered emotionally as well. She suffers anxiety attacks and has had suicidal thoughts. Petitioner tried to return to work after leaving Dollar General. She secured a manager's job with Cato, a women's fashion store. The job did not require any heavy lifting or climbing of stairs. Her salary there was approximately half of her $43,000 salary at Dollar General. She worked at Cato for less than six months, earning gross pay of $11,600. She left when she suffered pain that required a trip to the emergency room which resulted in her having her back surgery. She did not return to work at Cato. Petitioner's only other earnings after leaving Dollar General were unemployment compensation benefits of $498 every two weeks, plus a $25 bonus from the federal stimulus package. Petitioner could have performed the essential functions of her employment if a reasonable accommodation had been made for her physical limitations. Dollar General has made accommodations for employees with physical limitations in the past, generally in the context of a workers' compensation injury.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that an unlawful employment practice occurred; that Respondent should have provided a reasonable accommodation for Petitioner's disability; awarding attorney's fees to Petitioner in accordance with a Title VII action and costs; and such other relief as the Commission shall deem appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Melanie A. Mucario, Esquire Mucario, McHugh & Dowdel, PLLC Post Office Box 781847 Orlando, Florida 32878-1847 Alva Cross Hughes, Esquire Fisher & Phillips LLP 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2525 Tampa, Florida 33602 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, as a covered employer under the Florida Civil Rights Act, Sections 760.01 through , Florida Statutes (2008),1 committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent is a constitutional officer and employer subject to the jurisdiction of the Florida Civil Rights Act. On or about July 2, 2001, Respondent, upon the recommendation of Tom Kay, then director of Respondent's Information Technology ("IT") Department, hired Petitioner as a desktop support analyst in the IT Department. The desktop support analyst position, like all positions with Respondent, is an at-will position. Petitioner was 64 years of age when he was hired by Respondent. During his initial years of employment with Respondent, until about late 2005, Petitioner reported to and was supervised by Mr. Kay. After Mr. Kay resigned in November or December 2005, Petitioner reported to Greg Brock, the IT director. Throughout his employment as an IT desktop support analyst, Petitioner was knowledgeable regarding computer applications and his employer's policies regarding use of computers. The essential functions of the desktop analyst position included adhering to and following the principles of the Clerk's Office, and complying with and supporting the mission of the Clerk's Office and the goals and objectives of the IT Department. The Policies and Guidelines Respondent established detailed Information Security Policy Guidelines regarding the use of network resources. Section 5.6 of the Security Guidelines prohibits employees from using network resources for "obscene or suggestive messages or offensive graphical images." Additionally, Section 5.7 of the Guidelines prohibits employees from deliberately downloading or uploading certain materials, including materials of a "sexually explicit nature" or "material which adversely affects the employee's or user's ability to do his or her job or . . . the [Clerk's] office's ability to carry out its assigned mission." Respondent developed and approved a Personnel Handbook which governs, among other matters, employee use of various types of equipment. Section 1.16 addresses the "Care and Use of Equipment," including computers, Internet access and email, which are the property of the Clerk's Office. The policy prohibits employees from using those computers for personal purposes and, specifically, prohibits the use of such equipment in ways "that may be disruptive, offensive, or harmful to morale." Section 1.16 further provides that Respondent's objective with regard to this policy is "to maintain a workplace free from harassment and sensitive to the diversity of its employees." IT Team Building Exercises While IT director, Mr. Kay instituted sports-based office games for team-building. Mr. Kay believed that these activities would boost morale, promote camaraderie, and facilitate communication among staff in the office. Mr. Kay considered the team-building activities to be an effective tool in leading a group of IT people, who typically are introverted by nature, prone to going to their "corners," and not interacting very much. JeanMarie Walsh, then assistant to Mr. Kay, coordinated some of the team-building activities, including the fantasy football game. While serving in that capacity, Ms. Walsh prepared football pool ballots at lunchtime on Friday for Monday morning bragging rights and temporary use of a team hat. She also occasionally used the office computer for email reminders and did so at the direction of Mr. Kay, believing it was not inconsistent with the Clerk's Office policies. The sports "picks" were done primarily during off-duty times and involved only incidental (five to ten minutes a day) use of staff time or the Clerk's Office equipment. This incidental use of equipment in connection with authorized team-building activities did not constitute unauthorized personal use of Respondent's equipment. Mr. Kay opined that the team building activities and use of staff and equipment in connection with those activities were within his rights as IT director. The Chief Deputy Clerk, Janet Cantees ("Chief Deputy Cantees"), knew that the IT Department employees participated in the sports-based team-building exercises initiated and implemented by Mr. Kay. Furthermore, at no time were these team-building activities proscribed by the employer. Respondent was generally aware of the team-building exercises in the IT Department and cautioned Mr. Kay to make sure no money was involved in the activities. She also advised him that employee participation in the team-building exercises was to be on a purely voluntary basis. In accordance with Respondent's instructions, no money was exchanged in regard to these sports team-building activities, and no IT employee was required to participate in the sports activities. The team-building sports activities in the IT Department concluded prior to July 2007. The use of team-building exercises is not unique to the IT Department, but is used with other employees in the Clerk's Office. For example, Chief Deputy Cantees had developed and used other team-building exercises for managers and staff who worked in different locations in the county. Some IT employees also participated in a "Clerk Shirt Everyday" activity, which was to encourage employees to wear their official "clerk shirts." The person who wore a "clerk shirt" that was a color not worn by anyone else that day was the winner of the activity. The winner was given one or two dollars by each participating employee to buy donuts the next day for the work group. Policy Violation Related to Use of Computers In or about early July 2007, Ms. Walsh, an employee in the IT Department telephoned Petitioner from her office. After he did not answer his phone, Ms. Walsh went to Petitioner's work area where she observed him on the computer in the Miami Hurricane football chat rooms. Ms. Walsh then reported to IT Director Brock that Petitioner was not answering his phone and told him what she had observed. On or about July 5, 2007, after Ms. Walsh reported seeing Petitioner in the Miami Hurricane chat rooms, Mr. Brock had Petitioner come to his office. Mr. Brock then told Petitioner that he should not be visiting what Brock believed to be the Miami Hurricanes football web chat rooms on Respondent's computer. During this meeting, Petitioner denied that he had visited such chat room as had been reported. On or about July 25, 2007, while in the area in which Petitioner worked, Ms. Walsh observed Petitioner at his computer. At that time, Ms. Walsh saw an inappropriate image on Petitioner's 24-inch computer screen. The inappropriate image was in clear view of Ms. Walsh and any other employee present in the adjacent working area. When Ms. Walsh saw the inappropriate image, she was concerned that a female vendor working nearby might be exposed to the explicit image. Ms. Walsh was embarrassed and shocked by the image she saw on Petitioner's computer screen and, thus, said nothing to Petitioner. Instead, Ms. Walsh immediately reported what she had witnessed to Mr. Brock. When Ms. Walsh initially told Mr. Brock about the image she had witnessed on Petitioner's computer screen, she described it as "offensive" to "a woman." During their brief conversation about the image on Petitioner's screen, Ms. Walsh was uncomfortable and embarrassed talking about the image. As a result, neither Mr. Brock, nor Ms. Walsh discussed the image in any detail other than confirming it was of a sexual nature. On July 25, 2007, after Ms. Walsh complained about the inappropriate image on Petitioner's computer screen, Mr. Brock conducted an inspection of Petitioner's computer. As a result of that inspection, Mr. Brock found on the hard drive two offensive photos, referenced as "Jugsy.jpg" and "cheappussy.jpg." The "Jugsy.jpg" photo found in Petitioner's computer depicts a young woman, mouth open, clad in a bra or bikini top, clutching her breasts, most of which were exposed, and pushing them together. The "cheappussy.jpg" photo found in Petitioner's computer depicts a man holding or dangling a hairless cat, which appears to be dead, in the air by its head. The offensive photos were found among other photos depicting Petitioner and his friends, and/or acquaintances of his, engaged in social or sports activities, including the University of Miami Hurricane events. The offensive photos found by Mr. Brock were located in a place on Petitioner's computer associated with his user name/login and were copied to the computer into Petitioner's profile or personal directory. Furthermore, based on Mr. Brock's inspection, there was no indication that the offensive pictures had been tampered with or modified by anyone else. At all times relevant hereto, there were ten or eleven employees in the IT Department, all of whom had administrative passwords that allowed them to access any of the Clerk's Office computers. The IT employees needed this access in order to perform their authorized job responsibilities. Because the IT employees had access to all computers, it is possible that any IT employee could have accessed Petitioner's computer. However, there is no evidence that this ever occurred. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Brock had the experience and expertise to run a report of computer activity and to conduct a forensic analysis of Petitioner's computer to determine the history of the images. However, based on the findings of Mr. Brock's initial investigation of Petitioner's computer, he determined that such analysis or report was not necessary. On July 26, 2007, Mr. Brock showed Ms. Walsh the images he found saved in Petitioner's computer. At that time, Ms. Walsh identified the picture labeled "Jugsy.jpg" as the offensive image she had seen on Petitioner's computer. At this proceeding, Ms. Walsh testified that the image she saw on Petitioner's computer screen in July 2007 was a topless female in partially unzipped jean shorts. Undoubtedly, there is a difference in the image Ms. Walsh described in her testimony, which was two years after the incident, and the "Jugsy.jpg" photo she identified the day after she saw the image. This difference or discrepancy may be attributed to several factors including the following: (1) the lapse of time, two years, between Ms. Walsh's seeing the image and testifying at this proceeding; (2) the brief time that Ms. Walsh actually saw the image on Petitioner's screen; and/or (3) the brief time she looked at the "Jugsy.jpg" photo when it was shown to her by Mr. Brock. Notwithstanding the foregoing difference in Ms. Walsh's description of the image she saw on Petitioner's computer screen and the photo she identified as that image, Ms. Walsh's testimony that she saw an offensive image of a woman on Petitioner's computer screen is found to be credible. Significantly, Ms. Walsh's complaint led to an investigation, which found that there were offensive photos stored in Petitioner's computer (the one provided to him by the Clerk's Office). Decision to Terminate Petitioner's Employment In personnel matters regarding employment termination, the process begins with the unit manager or director discussing and reviewing the situation with Edith Peacher, manager of Human Resources ("HR"). After the matter is reviewed, the director or manager typically makes a recommendation in consultation with HR Manager Peacher. That recommendation is then conveyed to Chief Deputy Cantees, a key decision maker, who reviews the matter and then communicates her decision/recommendation to Respondent. Ultimately, Respondent has "veto authority" over the recommendation and/or decision of the chief deputy clerk. Consistent with Respondent's personnel practices, after Ms. Walsh identified the picture that she believed she saw on Petitioner's computer screen, Mr. Brock conferred with the HR manager. During the meeting with HR Manager Peacher, Mr. Brock advised her of Ms. Walsh's complaint, his investigation, and the photos he had retrieved from Petitioner's computer. Mr. Brock also told HR Manager Peacher that a few weeks before, he had spoken to Petitioner about using his computer to go to chat rooms. HR Manager Peacher, with input from Mr. Brock, drafted a Termination Notice dated July 26, 2007, for violations of the Clerk's Office's policies, procedures and professional conduct and standards. HR Manager Peacher then recommended to Chief Deputy Cantees that Petitioner's employment be involuntarily dismissed from the Clerk's employ. The July 26, 2007, Notice of Termination cited the prior disciplinary action; the July 5, 2007 verbal counseling; and references the two photos/images described in paragraphs 24 and 25 as deliberate and inappropriate use by an IT employee of the Clerk's Office computer equipment, justifying termination of employment. Section 4.02 of the Clerk's Personnel Handbook provides that "[e]mployment with the Clerk . . . is on at will basis," but states that "the Clerk may utilize progressive discipline in an effort to work with the employee." Under this provision, the option of using progressive discipline is discretionary, not mandatory. In the instant case, HR Manager Peacher believed that the display of offensive images on Petitioner's computer screen was an "egregious" situation and one which warranted immediate termination. On July 26, 2007, Mr. Brock and HR Manager Peacher met with Petitioner and reviewed the Notice of Termination and the pending recommendation for dismissal with Petitioner. When confronted with the allegation regarding the offensive images found in his computer, Petitioner stated "matter of factly" that someone "may" have placed the photos on his computer. However, he offered no reason for his implication that someone else "may" have tampered with his computer. Nonetheless, HR Manager Peacher told Petitioner that Respondent could investigate and find out if someone else had placed the images in his computer, but Petitioner did not request further investigation. At the July 26, 2007, meeting, Petitioner signed the Notice of Termination and indicated that he "read the Notice but did not agree with it in any way, shape or form." HR Manager Peacher conveyed to Chief Deputy Cantees the substance of the meeting with Petitioner and her belief that no errors of fact had occurred. After listening to HR Manager Peacher's presentation of the facts, Chief Deputy Cantees asked HR Manager Peacher and Mr. Brock several follow-up questions about the incident (i.e., the validity of the complaint, if and how Petitioner's computer had been checked, etc.). Chief Deputy Cantees was satisfied with the information HR Manager Peacher provided to her, as well as the responses to her questions that were provided by HR Manager Peacher and Mr. Brock. Both HR Manager Peacher and the Chief Deputy Cantees relied on Mr. Brock's experience and expertise in computer forensics in determining the origin of the offensive images found on Petitioner's computer. Based on her discussions with HR Manager Peacher and Mr. Brock and her review of the record, Chief Deputy Cantees concurred with the recommendation of termination and the Clerk gave final approval. Petitioner was 71 years old when he was terminated from his employment with Respondent. The person hired to replace Petitioner was an individual estimated to be in the mid-40 to mid-50 range. Prior to the incident involving Petitioner, neither Respondent, nor the HR manager had received reports of, or knew of incidents of, employees having inappropriate (sexual) images on their computers. Therefore, no employees in the Clerk's Office have ever been disciplined for that offense. Medical Condition of Petitioner In 2002, Petitioner was diagnosed with a melanoma that required office surgery and other pre-cancerous lesions that also required treatment. The surgery and all other treatments were performed in the doctor's office and required no hospitalization. Between 2002, when he was first diagnosed with a melanoma and through July 2007, Petitioner has continued to be treated for skin cancer. During this five-year period, Petitioner's condition and his treatments for that condition have not significantly affected or, otherwise, limited Petitioner's ability to work or to engage in most activities. During the five-year period since he was diagnosed with skin cancer, Petitioner had regular check-ups, some of which may have resulted in his doctor's performing certain in-office medical procedures. Other than those in-office procedures, Petitioner's treatment for his condition consists of applying various salves, creams, and/or lotions to his skin. Finally, as a result of his medical condition, Petitioner had been directed to stay out of the sun. Because Petitioner must now stay out of the sun, he is no longer able to participate in daytime activities that he previously enjoyed doing and/or had been able to do (i.e., going to the beach and to his grandson's soccer and softball games). During his employment with the Clerk's IT Department, Petitioner never requested leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. Moreover, there is no indication that his medical condition affected his attendance at work. In fact, between January and July 2007, Petitioner saw his physician only about six times. Petitioner never notified Respondent, Mr. Brock, or Chief Deputy Cantees that he had skin cancer. Furthermore, none of them knew or suspected that Petitioner had skin cancer or any other medical condition. Finally, Petitioner's co-workers were unaware of his medical condition. While employed in the IT Department, Petitioner had several conversations with HR Manager Peacher. Petitioner recalled that during one of those conversations, HR Manager Peacher referred him to a dermatologist or assisted him with a medical referral. At this proceeding, HR Manager Peacher did not recall giving Petitioner the name of a dermatologist, but acknowledged that she may have done so. HR Manager Peacher explained that she speaks to numerous employees throughout the workday about various personnel-related matters and provides them with such assistance when requested to do so. Despite having several discussions with Petitioner during his employment with the Clerk's Office, HR Manager Peacher was unaware of his medical condition. Alleged Disability Discrimination Respondent conducted general meetings with employees every other month. During those meetings, Respondent covers a variety of topics with employees, all of which are on a printed agenda and later sent to employees by e-mail. The Agenda for the June 22, 2007, employee meeting included a three-page overview of the employee compensation package offered to Respondent's employees that included the following introductory statement: "Part of offering a competitive benefits plan is being proactive in maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Each of us must take the responsibility to live healthy lives, and, in return, our insurance costs will be minimized." During that meeting, Respondent read that language verbatim. In reading the above-quoted language, Respondent's intent was to encourage employees to address "preventable issues," such as smoking, overeating, and not exercising. However, in the charging document, Petitioner alleges that the above-quoted language meant Respondent wanted to hire only "healthy employees." Petitioner's interpretation distorts and misconstrues the above-quoted comments made by Respondent. Further, there is no evidence to support Petitioner's allegation that Respondent wanted to hire only healthy employees. Also, those comments do not, in any way, relate or refer to employees with disabilities and cannot reasonably be construed to do so. Claim of Age Discrimination Petitioner received such inquiries periodically and complained about the practice from time to time. For example, in a June 8, 2007, email to HR Manager Peacher, Petitioner complained about a phone call from ACS Recovery Service ("ACS"), a third-party health benefits coordinator. Petitioner perceived the ACS inquiries regarding Medicare eligibility as age discrimination. Sarasota County Government Benefits Manager Steve Marcinko testified credibly that ACS provides coordination of benefits services for Aetna, Sarasota County Government's third-party administrator. To carry out its responsibility, ACS is authorized to contact the employees to determine whether alternate insurance coverage, including Medicare, may be available to cover a claim that is otherwise the responsibility of the Sarasota County Government. Among those contacted by ACS are group health plan participants who are "post-65 and Medicare-eligible." The purpose of these contacts is to verify whether the participants are "active" or "retired" employees. Such verification assists in determining whether the group health plan or Medicare has primary or secondary responsibility for the benefits of those individuals. The inquiries by ACS are not age-based, except as they relate to an individual's Medicare eligibility, and are not conducted at the direction of the Clerk. When conducting these inquiries, ACS does not copy the individual's employer or former employer about such inquiries.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner, Michael L. Coyle's, Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 24th day of February, 2010.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Sylvester Brown, was subject to discrimination in employment for the reasons alleged in the Petition.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Sylvester Brown, was terminated from his position as Laborer, position number 51343, within the Facilities Operation and Maintenance Department of Florida State University (FSU) on October 7, 1999, for violation of a Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave. The Petitioner had been employed by FSU for 24 years. Petitioner's Disciplinary Violations Leading to Termination Attendance is a critical element of the Laborer's job because departmental productivity depends on the reliable availability of employees. The Petitioner received a copy of Rule 6C2-4.070, Guidelines for Disciplinary Action, Rules of the Florida State University Administrative Code on January 29, 1988, which provided notice to the Petitioner of FSU's standard of conduct and the associated penalties for violation. The Petitioner was cited for numerous disciplinary infractions prior to his dismissal. The Petitioner's work history documents a consistent trend of absences which grew progressively worse over time. A list of documentation in evidence, exhibiting disciplinary action taken by FSU against the Petitioner includes: A three day suspension for Absence Without Authorized Leave (AWOL) and Excessive Absences, dated January 3, 1997. A written reprimand for Excessive Absences and AWOL, dated August 6, 1996. An oral reprimand for excessive absences, dated April 26, 1996. 1996. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated February 29, A written reprimand for AWOL, dated August 14, 1991. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated June 5, 1989. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated February 22, 1989. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated July 8, 1988. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated May 25, 1988. The Petitioner was cited for excessive tardiness in an official written reprimand dated July 8, 1988, and the Petitioner was again reminded that his performance hindered the department's ability to perform its function. An oral reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated January 28, 1988. An oral reprimand for misuse of state property and equipment, dated July 11, 1985. A written reprimand for misuse of state property and equipment dated March 21, 1984. A written reprimand for excessive absences, dated February 7, 1984. A written reprimand for AWOL and misuse of state property and equipment dated, January 25, 1983. A three day suspension for AWOL, dated July 27, 1981. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated July 13, 1981. The Petitioner was directed in an August 14, 1991, written reprimand to phone his supervisor as close to 8:00 a.m. as possible on days he would be unable to report to work. The Petitioner was reminded in the February 29, 1996, written reprimand of the policy requiring employees to provide supervisors with advanced notice or documentation for leave to be authorized. The Petitioner was informed on April 26, 1996, that his absences, both excused and unexcused, exceeded established attendance and leave standards. Specifically, from January through April, the Petitioner used 33 hours of annual leave, 31 hours of sick leave, and 29 hours of leave without pay. FSU notified the Petitioner that his absences and sick leave totaling 33 hours during the period from April 26, 1996 to August 6, 1996, were deemed excessive and in contravention of departmental standards. The Petitioner was also cited for six hours of being absent without authorized leave. The Petitioner's chronic absenteeism did not improve. The period from August 6, 1996 through January 3, 1997, witnessed 46 hours of sick leave or unauthorized leave on the Petitioner's part. An inventory of the Petitioner's absences following his suspension from January 7-9, 1997 until August 22, 1997, catalogued 56 hours of sick leave, 16 hours of leave without pay and two hours of absence without authorized leave. This amount of leave was "considered to be excessive and completely unacceptable." [Id.] Further, the university did not receive any medical excuses for the Petitioner's use of sick leave during this period. [Id.] Counseling was provided to the Petitioner by FSU regarding the use of sick leave on August 17, 1998. An examination of the Petitioner's attendance revealed that he used 63 hours of sick leave from February 20, 1998 through August 6, 1998. [Id.] The university's standard for the same period of time was 33 hours of sick leave. [Id.] The Petitioner was further advised by FSU that he would not be compensated for three consecutive absences or three absences within a 30-day period without proper medical documentation. FSU assessed the Petitioner's attendance from January 8, 1998 through August 6, 1998, by comparing the standard allocated for sick leave to the Petitioner's actual use of sick leave. The sick leave standard for employees for the period under review was 44.16 hours whereas the Petitioner expended 67 hours of sick leave. [Id.] The record establishes that the Petitioner was warned 17 times in writing through reprimands, memorandums, and counseling notices dating back to 1981 that absenteeism was punishable under university employee disciplinary standards. Tardiness and absenteeism are, in fact, grounds for dismissal under the FSU Handbook for Employees. The Petitioner was warned twice in writing that failure to rectify his recurring absenteeism could result in his dismissal. Petitioner's Termination The FSU's Guidelines for Disciplinary Action are based on the concepts of progressive and cumulative discipline. The Disciplinary Guidelines outline standards to apply for punishable offenses to ensure similar treatment. Ms. Susannah Miller, Manager of Employees Relations at FSU, testified that the Petitioner's personnel file revealed the worst case of absenteeism she has seen at FSU. Excessive absences is defined in the Guideline for Disciplinary Action as "an attendance record of recurring absences, even though all or a majority of the absences were necessary and excused." Dismissal is allowed as proper punishment for an employee's fourth violation of the excessive absence rule. FSU notified the Petitioner of its intention to terminate him for excessive absences, effective on or shortly after October 12, 1998. In lieu of firing the Petitioner, FSU elected to allow the Petitioner to enter into a "Last Chance Agreement" (LCA) with FSU to avoid dismissal. Ms. Miller stated that Last Chance Agreements allow a final opportunity for employees to improve their performance. Ms. Miller further testified that to her knowledge FSU has never retained any employee that violated a Last Chance Agreement. The Last Chance Agreement required the Petitioner to (1) obtain prior written approval of requests for annual leave or leave without pay; (2) follow departmental policy and call-in between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. and speak personally with his supervisor or proper designee if he was sick and unable to report to work; and (3) agree that violation of any LCA provision would result in immediate termination for cause. The Petitioner violated the Last Chance Agreement when he did not report for work on August 27, 1999, because he neither obtained prior approval for the absence nor followed the call-in procedure. The Petitioner also failed to provide any documentation justifying his absence. The Petitioner was in violation of the Last Chance Agreement on August 31, 1999, when he was tardy without permission and failed to follow the call-in procedure. The Petitioner's breach of the Last Chance Agreement is even more egregious because he collected his paycheck prior to work and could have easily informed his supervisor or the designee that he needed leave that day. In addition to violating the terms of the Last Chance Agreement, the Petitioner was also AWOL on August 27 and August 31, 1999. AWOL is "failure to obtain approval prior to any absence from work" and is punishable by dismissal for the third occurrence. The Petitioner admitted that he violated the Last Chance Agreement. On September 15, 1999, FSU informed the Petitioner of its decision to terminate him for violating the Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave. The Petitioner was dismissed on October 7, 1999. Petitioner's Step One Grievance was denied on December 13, 1999. FSU's decision to terminate the Petitioner for violation of the Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave was upheld by the State University System of Florida in its Step Two Grievance decision. Petitioner's Injury The Petitioner's Position Description reveals that lifting is an integral part of a laborer's duties. The Petitioner's 1995 Position Description allocates 85 percent of the job's essential function to lifting, moving and arranging university property and requires that the laborer be able to lift 30 pounds. The Petitioner sustained a back injury at work on September 4, 1997. The Petitioner's job duties changed as a result of the injury and he was tasked with inspecting fire extinguishers from September 10 through November 12, 1997. A physical capacity assessment performed on the Petitioner indicated that he was capable of performing at a medium demand level. The Department of Labor defined medium demand as capable of lifting 50 pounds and pushing and pulling 50 pounds. The Petitioner was temporarily re-assigned to the Grounds Section of the Facilities, Operations and Maintenance Department on December 23, 1997. The Petitioner testified that his job function involved re-cycling. The Petitioner's assignment in the Grounds Section was light duty and he was informed that his job duties could be modified after his physician reviewed the physical capacity assessment. Dr. Alexander, the Petitioner's physician, declared the Petitioner fit for medium demand duty with a 35-pound lifting limit on March 24, 1998. Robert Pullen, American Disabilities Act Coordinator at FSU, was directed by Carolyn Shackleford, under the University's Reasonable Accommodation Policy, to ensure that the Petitioner's job activities with the Grounds Section did not exceed the 35p-pound lifting threshold. The Petitioner never contacted Mr. Pullen's office regarding reasonable accommodation. Mr. Pullen determined that the Petitioner's duties did not violate the lifting restriction and were in full compliance with the accommodation policy. The Petitioner testified that he could lift 35 pounds repetitively. The record reflects no evidence of age discrimination committed by the Respondent against the Petitioner. The record indicates no evidence that the Petitioner was terminated due to his race. The Petitioner presented no evidence or testimony regarding retaliation by FSU.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore,
