The Issue Whether or not Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner and received by the Florida Commission on Human Relations on November 20, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony of Petitioner and the evidence he presented, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner was employed by Respondent in approximately 1990. Then or shortly thereafter he became a houseman at the Respondent's Grand Floridian Resort Hotel. His assigned duties included some strenuous lifting and other strenuous physical activity. In 1995, Petitioner seriously injured his lower back and one hand in an off-the-job incident involving his jumping from the second story of his apartment to avoid a fire in the apartment. As a result, Respondent gave him a leave of absence for about five months from his employment. After returning to work, in early 1996 Petitioner incurred what he contended was a work-related injury to his lower back. A medical record introduced by Petitioner, casts doubt on the extent to which that injury contributed to the condition from which he thereafter suffered and which interfered with and ultimately ended his ability to work. Petitioner had major back surgery in 1996. He consequently received and took additional leave from work. Petitioner testified on several occasions that at no time after the 1995 injury was he able to perform the strenuous aspects of the assigned duties of his position, houseman. Based on Petitioner's testimony, this finding of fact is confirmed, i.e., Petitioner is unable to perform the assigned duties of a houseman. Petitioner was placed on light duty for a period of time. Petitioner was sent to a department of Respondent called "Re-Casting" in an effort to place him in duties he could perform. As a result of his initial contact with Re-Casting, he was transferred from the Grand Floridian Resort Hotel to the Contemporary Resort Hotel, but he was unable to perform his assigned duties and accordingly was transferred back to the Grand Floridian Resort Hotel. The transfer and return took place in March and April 1997. Petitioner subsequently returned to Re-Casting, and took a test to determine his qualifications for an open position as a cashier. Petitioner failed the test. Petitioner last worked for Respondent in May 1997. Petitioner has not held any employment since then, and he testified that he has not applied for employment since then. He admits that the reason for not having held any employment and not applying for it is his physical inability to work. Petitioner testified unequivocally that he has, since May 1997, been unable to do any kind of work. Based on Petitioner's testimony, this finding of fact is confirmed, i.e., that since May 1997, Petitioner has been unable to do any kind of work. Petitioner has applied for disability benefits with the Social Security Administration. His disability claim indicates a continuing disability on his part.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations find that Petitioner, Thelemaque Coleus, has failed to present a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the FCRA, and that, accordingly, the case is dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Thelemaque Coleus Post Office Box 550776 Orlando, Florida 32855 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Charles Robinson Fawsett, Esquire Shutts & Bowen, LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 4956 Orlando, Florida 32802-4956 Christie Sutherland Walt Disney World Post Office Box 10000 Lake Buena Vista, Florida 32830 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practices alleged in Petitioner's charge of discrimination and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is now, and has been since June 2008, employed as a "per diem" switchboard operator at Holy Cross Hospital. She was employed as a part-time switchboard (PBX) operator in University's PBX Department from July 25, 2005, until she resigned on October 26, 2008.6 As a University switchboard operator, Petitioner was responsible for answering and appropriately handling and routing, with dispatch, incoming calls (including "codes," which are emergency calls) to University's switchboard during her shift. The manager of University's PBX Department when Petitioner was hired was Eleanor Dingus. At no time did Ms. Dingus have occasion to discipline Petitioner, nor did Ms. Dingus ever receive any complaints from other operators about Petitioner's "performance on the switchboard." Gloria Gonzalez replaced Ms. Dingus as the PBX manager in July 2006, and has held that position ever since. At all times material to the instant case, directly under Ms. Gonzalez in the chain of command in University's PBX Department was Cathy Hudson, the PBX supervisor. Reporting to Ms. Hudson were three switchboard operators who served as "team leaders," one of whom was Miriam Reyes. At the bottom of the chain of command were Petitioner and approximately three other non-"team leader" switchboard operators. The PBX Department provided switchboard services on a 24-hour per day, seven-days a week, basis. At all times, there was either one operator or two operators (each using separate "consoles") taking calls. When there were two operators on duty, one operator's not picking up calls, or "staying on a call for an unusually long amount of time," would result in the other operator's having "more calls to pick up." Petitioner primarily worked the evening shift. "Sometimes she worked alone," and sometimes she worked a shift with another operator. In August 2007, Petitioner received a merit pay increase to $11.90 per hour (from $11.55 per hour) based upon an annual performance appraisal Ms. Gonzalez had completed on July 10, 2007. The appraisal contained the following "Evaluation Summary": Evaluation Summary Strengths/accomplishments: Gladys is a good operator. Very responsible and always on time. Areas for growth: Gladys needs to [acc]ept our Departmental changes in a much more positive manner and not get caught up with the small stuff or negativity in our Dept. This was the last annual performance appraisal that Petitioner received prior to her resignation on October 26, 2008, notwithstanding that, pursuant to written University policy, University employees were supposed to "receive an evaluation at least annually, normally twelve months from their anniversary date (date of hire) or last change of position date (promotion, lateral move, and demotion) . . . in order . . . to monitor adherence to performance standards to manage, develop and motivate individual performance." Prior to her 2007 annual evaluation of Petitioner, Ms. Gonzalez had started receiving complaints about Petitioner's performance from operators who had shared shifts with Petitioner. Over time, the complaints became more numerous. According to what the operators had told Ms. Gonzalez, Petitioner had been "slow answering [calls]"; kept "the switchboard on busy"; "take[n] her time getting to the switchboard at times"; and on occasion, "stay[ed] [on] too long with a caller." These were things that Ms. Gonzalez herself had personally observed. Initially, Ms. Gonzalez just verbally counseled Petitioner about these issues. Petitioner "would sometimes get upset" during these counseling sessions. In November 2007, Petitioner was formally disciplined for "unsatisfactory performance regarding receiving calls." The discipline she received was in the form of a "written warning" contained in a Notice of Corrective Action prepared by Ms. Hudson (the PBX supervisor and Ms. Gonzalez's second-in- command) and approved by Ms. Gonzalez. Petitioner was given a 30-day (probationary) period to improve her performance. The decision to place Petitioner on probation was made jointly by Ms. Gonzalez and Jennifer Lindsey, University's human resources operations manager. Ms. Gonzalez monitored Petitioner's performance on the switchboard during her probationary period and determined that it had improved sufficiently to warrant Petitioner's return to non-probationary status, without the imposition of any further disciplinary action. Unfortunately, Petitioner's performance deficiencies subsequently "resurfaced." On May 20, 2008, after receiving a complaint about Petitioner from Ms. Reyes (one of Ms. Gonzalez's three "team leaders"), Ms. Gonzalez prepared and gave to Petitioner a Notice of Corrective Action, reflecting that she was issuing Petitioner a "verbal warning" for "[n]ot responding to the switchboard in a timely manner." The following "details of the . . . infraction" were given in the notice: Gladys was informed that she would take over the switchboard at 4 pm on 5/12/2008 for a department meeting. She did not turn her switchboard on at that time and calls started to accumulate. Miriam asked Gladys to take over the switchboard and Gladys did not do so with a sense of urgency. The expectation going forward is that Gladys will answer the switchboard as soon as it buzzes. The notice also contained the following "Corrective Action Plan": [On] 11/21/07 [Petitioner] was given 30 days for performance improvement and although the plan was completed on 1/9/08, previous performance concerns have resurfaced with the timely answering of the switchboard. It is our expectation that within 30 days we will be able to review her performance with answering calls and be able to notice significant improvement. When presented with the notice, Petitioner wrote on it, under "Employee Comments," the following: "This was one incident on our meeting day. I do remember when it occurred." The notice had been presented to Petitioner by Ms. Gonzalez at a meeting between the two at which Ms. Lindsey had also been present. As University's human resources operations manager, it was Ms. Lindsey's responsibility to make sure that employees met the physical requirements of their position and were otherwise fit for duty. One of the physical requirements of the position Petitioner held was to "[h]ear alarm, telephone/tape recorder/normal speaking voices." During the May 20, 2008, meeting at which Petitioner was presented with the Notice of Corrective Action, Ms. Lindsey "asked [Petitioner] if [Petitioner had] heard the switchboard." Petitioner "perceived th[is] as a statement of age discrimination by Ms. Lindsey"7 (albeit one that did not "affect [her] job"). Despite what Petitioner may have believed, in making such an inquiry, Ms. Lindsey was simply seeking to find out if the reason for Petitioner's not "timely answering . . . the switchboard" was that she had a hearing problem. Petitioner responded to Ms Lindsey's question by telling Ms. Lindsey that "she did hear the calls, but that . . . the calls pile up all the time." Ms. Lindsey required Petitioner to review a Position Minimum Requirement[s] Checklist. After reviewing the document, Petitioner signed it, indicating that she believed that she met all of the requirements of her position. Some time after the May 20, 2008, meeting, Ms. Gonzalez heard from Ms. Hudson that Ms. Reyes had reported being asked by Petitioner, in a confrontational manner, whether it was Ms. Reyes who had complained about Petitioner's "[n]ot responding to the switchboard in a timely manner" on May 12, 2008. Ms. Gonzalez thereafter personally contacted Ms. Reyes to find out what had happened during this post-May 20, 2008, incident involving Ms. Reyes and Petitioner. Ms. Reyes, when contacted, told Ms. Gonzalez that Petitioner had "threatened" her. The matter was brought to the attention to Ms. Lindsey, who made the decision to suspend Petitioner for three days. The suspension was "for the purpose of conducting a fact-finding investigation" to determine whether Petitioner, in her dealings with Ms. Reyes, had violated University's Workplace Violence Policy (HR-2000-009), which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: POLICY University Hospital and Medical Center is committed to providing a safe workplace for all employees, patients, physicians and visitors. Workplace violence of any type committed by or against employees, patients, physicians or visitors will not be tolerated. PROCEDURE A. To ensure safe and efficient operations, University Hospital and Medical Center expects and requires all employees to display common courtesy and engage in safe and appropriate behavior at all times. * * * The following list of behaviors, while not all inclusive, provides examples of conduct that is prohibited. * * * Making threatening remarks; Aggressive or hostile behavior that creates a reasonable fear of injury to another person or subjects another individual to emotional distress; * * * Reporting Procedures Any potentially dangerous situation must be reported to a Supervisor, Security Department or Human Resources. Reports can be made anonymously and all reported incidents will be investigated. Reports or incidents warranting confidentiality will be handled appropriately and information will be disclosed to others on a need-to-know basis only. All parties involved in a situation will be counseled and the results of the investigation will be discussed with them. Employees are expected to exercise good judgment and to inform Security and/or Human Resources if any employee, patient or visitor exhibits behavior which could be a sign of a potentially dangerous situation. Such behaviors include but are not limited to: * * * Displaying overt signs of extreme anger, hostility, resentment or stress; Making threatening remarks; * * * e. Display of irrational or inappropriate behavior. * * * During the investigation, Petitioner submitted to Ms. Lindsey a "rebuttal" statement, dated May 29, 2008, which read as follows: This serves as notification that I am in complete disagreement with any claims made about my work performance as stated by Gigi Gonzalez. Gigi stated on 5/20/08, with Jennifer Lindsey in HR as witness, that a team leader Miriam Reyes said there were two calls backed up on the switchboard when we were changing shifts on Monday 5/12/08. She had already signed off and was abruptly leaving the office without checking if I was logged in before she signed off. Both calls were answered without problem or complaint by the callers. It is a normal occurrence when more than one call comes in at once for them to be what she referred to as "backed up." Miriam signed off the switchboard before checking if I was signed on. I received a 30 day probation disciplinary action and she did not. Per our work instruction, an operator is not to leave the position before a relief operator is available. I find the comment made by Jennifer "can you still hear the phone" a discriminatory reference to my age of 76-years-old. Furthermore, I was called at home by Jennifer Lindsey on 5/29/08 [and] put on involuntary suspension without pay for 3 days. Jennifer claimed that since I asked Miriam what she said about the incident that it was inappropriate. I was not asked about the situation. Rather I was interrogated. I have a right to know what is causing a disciplinary action . . . on my record. I also have the right to dispute or state my complaints without retaliation. Unpaid suspension without a proper investigation was undue hardship and a measure of retaliation. Since I was told I must sign the probation notice whether I agree with it or not, I request this to be in my personnel file and sign[ed] as received and reviewed by my supervisor as previously stated orally in the said meeting on May 20, 2008. This claim is unwarranted and causes undue financial hardship. Following the completion of her investigation, Ms. Lindsey determined that there was "insufficient evidence" to conclude that Petitioner had violated University's Workplace Violence Policy. Petitioner was put back on her normal work schedule and paid for the three days she had been suspended (and had not worked). Ms. Lindsey's "insufficien[cy]" determination was set forth in the following written statement Petitioner was given (and which she signed) on June 5, 2008: After an investigation was conducted on the incident that occurred on May 23, 2008, it is concluded that a discussion between Gladys and a co-worker did take place regarding Gladys' verbal warning for performance on May 20th. Gladys does admit to questioning her co-worker regarding information she may have provided to the manager of PBX regarding her performance. There is insufficient evidence to support that Gladys threatened her co-worker or that she was verbally abusive in any way. In the future Gladys will restrict her conversations with Miriam to business- related activities. This means only communication that must take place for her to perform the functions of her job. Any unnecessary communications or interactions may result in disciplinary action. In the future it is expected that Gladys will follow the Employment Dispute Resolution policy HR 2006-416 to express any disputes or state any complaints that she may have. A copy of this policy is being presented to Gladys today for reference. Gladys will be paid for the days that she was suspended in order to conduct this investigation. In late June 2008, in accordance with the "Corrective Action Plan" set forth in the Notice of Corrective Action she had given Petitioner, Ms. Gonzalez reviewed Petitioner's performance in the area of "answering calls." Ms. Gonzalez, in a document that she prepared and presented to Petitioner on or about July 18, 2008, described the "results" of that review as follows: Operator Gladys Norris has completed her performance improvement plan as of Sunday 6/29/08. In the course of the 30 days, I have been able to observe Gladys on the switchboard. Gladys has improved greatly. She has answered the board much more quickly. She did not let the board pile up. She put the callers on hold and then came back to the calls. I am confident that Gladys understands and is taking seriously her switchboard duties. She is very much aware that whenever possible, we should not let the calls pile up as emergency codes come through the switchboard. At around this same time (mid-July 2008), Petitioner learned that she needed to have emergency vascular surgery, and she so informed Ms. Gonzalez via an e-mail message, sent the evening of July 17, 2008, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * . . . . But last week I had to have some tests done rather quickly and unfortunately have to have an unexpected urgent surgery performed (vascular nature). The doctor called me late this afternoon and said he has scheduled me for next Wednesday July 23rd. At this writing I cannot say how long I will be out from work but he did say at least three or four weeks for recovery. I will keep you apprised of my situation. You may have me on medical leave also. I will not be working anywhere during my recovery period so I cannot list any hours right now. Petitioner was granted leave for this "unexpected urgent surgery," as well as for her "recovery period." When she returned to work from leave, Petitioner was given her work schedule for September, which had her working the hours and days she "usually worked." Her schedule for September, however, was subsequently changed and, to her displeasure, she had to work three "overnight," Saturday night/Sunday morning shifts (from 11:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.) that month. She had never before, as a University employee, worked an "overnight" shift. When Petitioner asked Ms. Hudson why she had to work these "overnight" shifts, Ms. Hudson responded, "That's just the way it is." Up until September 18, 2008, throughout her employment at University, Petitioner had used a University-provided headset when working at the switchboard. On September 18, 2008, her headset and those of the other employees in the PBX Department were taken away in anticipation of their being replaced by new headsets (from Verizon). That same day, Petitioner and the other switchboard operators received the following e-mail from Ms. Gonzalez, informing them that they would soon be experiencing an uptick in call volume: Subject: Pavilion[8] Calls Ladies, Please note that starting Tuesday morning, we will be getting all the Pavilion[']s calls. There will be more Ext: 2221. Please make sure that you go over all Ext and Pavilion info. Keep in mind that call volume is going to increase. So do not spend a long time on any one call. Remember the time allowed for each call is 24 seconds per call. The Hospital wants a live person to answer at all time[s]. Also make sure that you know how to page all Pavilion calls over head. So ladies, when you clock in, and enter the PBX office, you must be ready to log in and start to work immediately. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Due to delays, it was not until November (approximately two months later) that all of the old headsets were replaced by new ones. The first new headsets came in a group of three.9 They arrived in the first half of October and were given to Ms. Gonzalez (the PBX manager), Ms. Hudson (the PBX supervisor), and Ms. Reyes (one of the three "team leaders"). On October 15, 2008, Ms. Gonzalez held a departmental meeting at which she discussed "what was going on with the headsets." Petitioner was at the meeting. From September 18, 2008, until her resignation on October 26, 2008, Petitioner had to use a "hand-held phone," instead of a headset, to answer calls coming in to University's switchboard. Approximately two weeks after she had started using the "hand-held phone," Petitioner began experiencing pain in her wrists, arms, shoulders, neck, and lower back. She visited her primary care physician, Greg Sherman, M.D., for treatment of the pain. The pain went away five or six weeks after she had stopped working at University. All told, the pain lasted no more than ten weeks. Based on what she had been told by Dr. Sherman,10 Petitioner attributed the pain she was experiencing during this period to her using a "hand-held phone" when working the switchboard at University. Despite the onset of the pain, Petitioner continued to work and perform her job duties at University for approximately three or four weeks until she felt she could do so no longer and resigned. During this period, she made her supervisors aware that she was in pain. On the morning of October 2, 2008, during a telephone conversation, she told Ms. Hudson that her "wrist, arms and neck hurt." Ms. Hudson did not ask Petitioner for any further details, and Petitioner did not provide any. Two weeks later, on October 16, 2008, at 10:34 p.m., Petitioner sent Ms. Hudson the following e-mail: Dear Cathy, Regarding my PTO [Paid Time Off] request for Nov 13, 14, 15, 16 (Thurs, Fri, Sat, Sun) I am wondering when I will know if it has been approved. Also do you know when my headset will arrive? I went to the doctor yesterday because I have had pain for a week now in my shoulders and wrists. I explained that I have been working without my headset for the past four weekends. He stated that that was likely the cause of the strain. I do hope the headset will arrive soon. A week having passed without Petitioner's having received a reply from Ms. Hudson, Petitioner, at 9:34 p.m. on October 23, 2008, sent the following e-mail to Ms. Gonzalez, to which Ms. Gonzalez never replied: Re: Waiting for an e-mail answer Hello Gigi, I sent an e-mail to Cathy regarding the headsets on Oct 14th.[11] I have not received a reply as of today. I understand a few operators have already received their headsets. Shouldn't we all have them as we work the same consoles? Working without my headset for the past 4 weekends has caused problem[s] in my wrists and shoulder/neck which I had to see a doctor [about] last week. After taking off earlier in the week because of the pain she was experiencing, Petitioner "tried to come in" to work at University on October 26, 2008, but she did not stay her entire shift. Because she did not know when she "was going to get a headset" and she had experienced "a lot of pain" working without one, Petitioner decided to resign her position at University. At 11:05 a.m. on October 26, 2008, she gave notice of her resignation by sending Ms. Lindsey the following e-mail: I hereby give notice that today, Sunday October 26, 2008 will be my last day at University Hospital. I have used a headset since the first day of employment in July 2005 when on PBX. Over the past five weeks I have been forced to work without my headset. My physical condition has been aggravated to the point I am forced to resign. Management has been uncooperative in this problem as well as many others I have addressed that have gone unanswered. Despite the pain she was experiencing at the time, Petitioner continued working, without interruption, as a switchboard operator at Holy Cross Hospital, where she had the use of a headset. To date, University has not filled the position from which Petitioner resigned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order finding University not guilty of the unlawful employment practices alleged by Petitioner in her charge of discrimination and dismissing the charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 2010.
The Issue The issue 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 issue is whether Petitioner has been subjected to an unlawful employment practice, namely, discrimination on the basis of her age, gender, religion, or disability.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Esther Kay Gibbs, is a resident of Ocala, Florida, whose date of birth is January 31, 1956. Petitioner has many years of experience in a variety of clerical positions. Petitioner applied for the position of Court Clerk I with the Marion County Clerk of the Court’s Office on September 20, 1999. Petitioner’s application for employment stated that she has the ability to type at the rate of 35-40 words per minute. The Marion County Clerk’s Office employs approximately 200 persons in approximately 14 different departments. Petitioner initially interviewed for the position of Court Clerk I with Mr. Jack Seese, Chief Deputy Clerk for Administrative Services; and Ms. Maribeth Hudson, Chief Deputy Clerk for Court Services. During the interviews, Petitioner was explained the varied duties of a Court Clerk I, which included typing at the rate of 45 words per minute. At the time of the interview, Petitioner was aware that typing was an essential job function. The interview notes of Mr. Seese and Ms. Hudson showed Petitioner to be an “above average” candidate for the position. Mr. Ellspermann interviewed Petitioner and hired her effective October 14, 1999. Mr. Ellspermann reviewed Petitioner’s employment application and was aware that she listed her typing speed at 35-40 words per minute. Petitioner was never told she would be placed in a particular department or division of the Clerk’s Office. All of the Clerk I positions required typing. Petitioner was hired as a Court Clerk I in the traffic division and remained in that position until her resignation on August 23, 2001. Petitioner suffers from scleroderma, the symptoms of which include pain in her fingers, extreme sensitivity to cold temperatures, difficulty swallowing, loss of sleep, and the inability to garden or use her hands for any fine motor work. The Social Security Administration issued Petitioner a determination of disability in 1989. Petitioner concealed her medical condition from Respondent. Petitioner told Respondent’s officials during her interviews that she was able to type. Respondent had no way of knowing that Petitioner had a disability or a problem with typing at the time of the interviews. Respondent hired Petitioner with the knowledge that she was able to type only 35-40 words per minute. Throughout her employment with Respondent, Petitioner’s supervisors were Ms. Kudary or Ms. Rodgers. As her supervisors, Ms. Kudary and Ms. Rodgers counseled Petitioner on numerous occasions about mis-keyed citations and other performance issues. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning her claim of gender discrimination. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning her claim of age discrimination. Petitioner claimed that a non-supervisory co-worker made a derogatory remark about her religious beliefs. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning her claim of religious discrimination. Petitioner made an effort to be a cooperative employee and to fit into office culture by volunteering to work comp time and overtime. Petitioner published recipes for and cooked meats at the request of her fellow co-workers and supervisors, even though she is a vegan. Petitioner wrote a complimentary e-mail to her supervisor, Karen Rodgers. On November 9, 2000, Mr. Ellspermann approved a two percent pay increase for Petitioner. In his memo to Petitioner, Mr. Ellspermann noted that “Your evaluation reflects your interest and commitment in providing the citizens of Marion County with an effective Clerk’s Office. I thank you for your hard work and continued dedication. Congratulations on a job well done." Also, on November 9, 2000, Mr. Ellspermann directed Respondent’s payroll department to provide eight hours of incentive time to Petitioner’s annual leave. Mr. Ellspermann wrote to Petitioner, “I want to take this opportunity to recognize and thank you for the special effort you have taken not to use sick time throughout the year.” The letter noted that he took this action because Petitioner was “blessed with good health and displayed a commitment of service to Marion County and the Clerk’s Office.” All employees in the Marion County Clerk’s Office are required to attend annual harassment/discrimination training seminars. Petitioner attended a harassment/discrimination training seminar on the morning of August 22, 2001. Petitioner and the other attendees at the seminar were encouraged to report incidents of harassment to their supervisors. During a break in the training, Petitioner approached Ms. Hudson and told her she believed that her supervisor, Ms. Rodgers, was harassing her. Ms. Hudson agreed to arrange a meeting with the Deputy Clerk, Mr. Seese. At a meeting with Mr. Seese and Ms. Hudson, Petitioner stated that Ms. Rodgers was mean and belittling to her and everyone else in the traffic and misdemeanor divisions. Petitioner stated that the alleged harassment by Ms. Rodgers had nothing to do with her race, color, religion, national origin, age, or marital status. Mr. Seese and Ms. Hudson concluded that Ms. Rodgers' alleged acts toward Petitioner had nothing to do with harassment within the interpretation of the law and the Clerk’s Office Anti-Harassment Policy. Mr. Seese concluded his investigation at this point. Petitioner made multiple data entry errors as a Court Clerk I. Petitioner had previously had a dispute with Ms. Rodgers over errors she had made in entering citations into the system. On the afternoon of August 22, 2001, Mr. Ellspermann summoned Petitioner to his office to meet with Ms. Hudson and him concerning Petitioner’s data entry errors. At the August 22 meeting, Mr. Ellspermann discussed Petitioner’s errors in keying-in citations with her. In response to Mr. Ellspermann’s concerns regarding Petitioner’s performance, Petitioner threw her hands in the air, and for the first time since she had become employed with the Clerk’s Office, stated that she could not do her job because she could not type. Mr. Ellspermann and Ms. Hudson were surprised by Petitioner’s revelation concerning her inability to type. Mr. Ellspermann informed Petitioner that he would see if any positions were available at the Clerk’s Office that did not require typing. Mr. Ellspermann made a good faith effort to find Petitioner a position that did not require typing. No positions existed at the Clerk’s Office for Petitioner that did not require typing. Petitioner told Mr. Ellspermann that she could neither type nor remain in a position that required typing. Earlier in 2001, Petitioner had submitted a form to the Department of Health in which she stated “I can’t work in the cold; I can’t type anymore.” Petitioner did not ask for an accommodation from Respondent other than asking for a position that required no typing. Mr. Ellspermann and Ms. Hudson met again with Petitioner on August 23, 2001, at which time Mr. Ellspermann reported that Respondent had no positions available into which she could transfer that required no typing. Petitioner was informed that she could either resign or be terminated since she was unable to work at a position that required typing, and no positions were available that did not require typing as an essential part of the job. Petitioner resigned from her employment with Respondent due to her “health problems.” Since her resignation from the Marion County Clerk’s Office, Petitioner has not been able to secure employment at a comparable salary to what she previously earned as a Court Clerk I.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss Petitioner’s charge of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2004, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Attas-Kaplan, Esquire Fisher & Phillips, LLP 450 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Esther Kay Gibbs 3415 Northeast 17th Terrace Ocala, Florida 34479 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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, Superior Construction Company Southeast, LLC (Superior), wrongfully terminated Petitioner, James Walker, and refused to rehire him based on his disability in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA).
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner was hired as a laborer by Superior in March 2016. During his tenure with Superior, Petitioner also worked as a flagger and a roller machine operator (roller operator). Superior is a construction company specializing in roadway and highway improvement projects. Superior was Petitioner’s employer as defined by the FCRA. § 760.02(7), Fla. Stat. During the relevant time period, Petitioner worked for Superior on a construction assignment known as “15901 Wekiva Project” (Wekiva Project). Oscar Matson, Superior’s superintendent at the relevant time, was Petitioner’s ultimate supervisor and made day-to-day decisions regarding equipment and staffing. Mr. Matson made all employment decisions with regard to Petitioner, including his hiring and job assignments. Jose Gomez, the project manager at the relevant time, oversaw the administrative side of Wekiva Project and supervised the engineering staff. Mr. Matson consulted with Mr. Gomez regarding the construction staff, and Mr. Gomez was familiar with all of the employees working on this project, including Petitioner. The parties stipulated Petitioner suffers from a disability. Relevant Policies Although Superior offered evidence of its Equal Opportunity Policy (EOP), there is no evidence it provides protections for applicants or employees with disabilities. The EOP states in relevant part: Statement of Policy To further the provisions of equal employment opportunity to all persons without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and to promote the full realization of equal opportunity through a positive continuing program[,] it is the policy of Superior Construction Company to assure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, religion, sex, color or national origin. * * * N. Handicapped Relative to direct federal contracts, we shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of a physical or mental handicap in regard to any position of which the employee or applicant for employment is qualified. There was no evidence whether the Wekiva Project was federally funded or part of a federal contract. Although there was no evidence of a written policy, there was testimony that Superior had a reasonable accommodation process that allows an employee who requires an accommodation to request one through his or her supervisor or through a Human Resources hotline. This process was followed by Petitioner. Petitioner’s Accommodations Petitioner began working for Superior as a laborer with the primary duties of shoveling dirt and cleaning roads. The laborer position was physically demanding and required standing, climbing, crawling, and lifting up to 40 pounds. The position also required constant walking and moving within the project site. Petitioner worked ten-hour shifts on weekdays and eight-hour shifts on weekend days. In April 2016, approximately a month after he was hired, Petitioner was hospitalized for a toe injury incurred at work. Although he was injured on the job and knew he was obligated to report the injury to his supervisors, Petitioner did not. He failed to report the incident to Mr. Matson or anyone else because he did not want “a workman’s comp” issue. On or around April 19, 2016, Petitioner brought medical documentation titled “Work/School Status” to Superior indicating that his work duties should be modified until May 10, 2016. The medical documentation indicated Petitioner should be limited to “light duty.” It also indicated Petitioner could perform the following activities: “Limit[ed] standing/walking” and “Light weight activity.” As a result, Mr. Matson initially placed him in a “flagger” position. This position involved directing traffic in one place, and was considered “light duty” because it did not involve heavy lifting or continuous walking. Although the timing is unclear, Mr. Matson later placed Petitioner in the position of roller operator, where he operated a large piece of equipment. As a roller operator, Petitioner was not required to stand, walk or lift. There was no evidence Petitioner complained to Mr. Matson regarding the assignment to either the flagger or roller operator position, nor did he request further accommodation. The undersigned finds Superior accommodated Petitioner’s request for “light duty.” Petitioner had no attendance, disciplinary, or other issues from April 2016 through the summer of 2016 in the flagger or roller operator position. On August 12, 2016, Petitioner was admitted into a medical facility and was out of work. Upon his return on or about August 18, 2016, Petitioner gave Mr. Matson medical documentation titled “Disability Certificate.” That document certified that Petitioner was “unable to return to work” and was “not able to work until further notice.” As a result of the August 18, 2016, meeting, Mr. Matson prepared Petitioner’s termination paperwork. What triggered the termination paperwork on August 18, 2016, is in dispute. Petitioner asserts when he returned to Superior, Mr. Matson told him he was concerned about his health and fired him. Superior counters that Petitioner informed Mr. Matson he had to quit because he was unable to work due to his medical condition, and Superior advised Petitioner to reapply when he was ready. For the reasons below, the undersigned finds Superior’s version of the facts is more consistent with the credible evidence and testimony. First, Superior’s version of events is corroborated by Petitioner’s own sworn statements made in his Charge and Amended Charge of Discrimination, in which he states Superior “advised me to come back to work when I was ready.” Second, Mr. Matson’s testimony that Petitioner told him he was unable to work is consistent with the Disability Certificate provided by Petitioner and with Mr. Matson’s work notes made on August 18, 2016. Those notes indicate Petitioner “said he had to quit because he has austioprosis [sic]. We filled out a termination paper for him.” Although Petitioner challenges the reliability of these notes because he actually had “osteomyelitis,” it is plausible that Mr. Matson mislabeled or misspelled the illness given his unfamiliarity with it and the phonetic similarity between the two terms. Third, Petitioner’s assertion that he was fired is inconsistent with statements he made on subsequent applications when asked the “reason for leaving” Superior. In one application he answers “no work”; in another he lists “medical reasons.” Nowhere does he disclose or state that he was fired or terminated. Finally, based on Petitioner’s demeanor and the inaccuracies and inconsistencies between his testimony and the other evidence, the undersigned finds Petitioner’s testimony less credible than that of Mr. Gomez and Mr. Matson. Petitioner was unable to recall specific dates or details about alleged conversations or his work/medical status. Petitioner admitted he lied to Superior about the injury causing him to go out on leave in April 2016. He blamed discrepancies between his hearing testimony and sworn statements in the documents submitted to the Commission on his attorney; he blamed inconsistencies in the statements made in his disability benefits paperwork on the insurance company; and he explained misleading statements in subsequent job applications as necessary white lies. The undersigned finds Superior’s explanation that it processed Petitioner’s termination after it was clear he could not work and there was no date certain as to when he could return, and its version of facts surrounding Petitioner’s separation more credible. Regardless, however, of whether he quit or was fired, Petitioner was not qualified to work on August 18, 2016. He offered no evidence, nor is there anything in the record, indicating that his inability to work had ever changed, or that the restrictions and limitations set forth in the Disability Certificate were ever lifted. As such, the undersigned finds Petitioner could not perform his job duties and could not work as of August 18, 2016. Petitioner’s Reapplication Petitioner claims he reapplied for a position with Superior numerous times after August 2016. Other than a July 2017 application, it is unclear how often or what other times he reapplied. Petitioner claims Superior did not rehire him because of his disability. As proof, he states Mr. Matson and Mr. Gomez made comments inquiring about his health. The undersigned finds these comments were innocuous and were expressions of concern for his well-being, rather than related to his specific disability. Petitioner’s attempt at reemployment with Superior is also suspect. There was no admissible evidence to prove that Superior was actually hiring in July 2017. In fact, there was evidence Petitioner only reapplied for work at Superior to better his legal position for future litigation; Petitioner admitted he reapplied for a position at Superior “because my attorney said to reapply to see how they would react.” Petitioner also made statements in disability insurance applications that he was unable to work at the time he reapplied for work at Superior. Specifically, as of July 17, 2017, the date of Petitioner’s Social Security Application for Disability Insurance, Petitioner indicated he could not work and had been unable to work since September 1, 2016. Irrespective of Petitioner’s motives, Superior asserts it did not consider his disability when Petitioner reapplied, but rather that it did not rehire Petitioner because it had no vacancies. Mr. Matson credibly testified that in July 2017, the Wekiva Project was coming to an end and he was struggling to keep the staff occupied until the next assignment. Mr. Matson explained, “we were long on help at that time.” Mr. Gomez also met with Petitioner in July 2017 regarding his reapplication. At the time Superior was working on another project, Project 16903. Mr. Gomez told Petitioner that he would be eligible for the next project, Project 17904, but that project was not starting until late 2017 or early 2018. This is consistent with Petitioner’s application dated July 5, 2017, which has a handwritten notation: “Consider Rehire for 16903 per Jose G. till 17904 Ready.” Mr. Gomez was not responsible for Project 17904, nor was there any evidence that the person hiring for Project 17904 was aware of Petitioner’s disability. Superior never rehired Petitioner. The undersigned finds Superior did not consider Petitioner’s disability, but rather, based its decision not to rehire Petitioner on the fact it did not have any vacancies.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Petitioner, James Walker, did not prove that Respondent, Superior Construction Company Southeast, LLC, committed an unlawful employment practice against him; and dismissing his Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of January, 2019.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to discrimination in the work environment by the Department of Corrections (DOC) due to Petitioner's race, sex, and handicap in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Thaise Hampton, is a female African- American. On January 20, 1995, Hampton was hired by the Correctional Educational School Authority (CESA) to work as a teacher at DOC's Apalachee Correctional Institution (ACI). Hampton had not worked before that time. During the 1995 legislative session, CESA was abolished by the State of Florida Legislature. CESA’s education and job training program functions were transferred to DOC along with most positions, inclusive of Hampton’s. Hampton was placed on probationary status as a DOC employee, effective July 1, 1996. On April 12, 1996, Hampton had an on-the-job injury when she slipped and fell in the cafeteria of the institution. The State of Florida's Division of Risk Management (Risk Management) administered the workers’ compensation case for the State of Florida. Hampton was treated by a physician and excused from work because of the injury. Hampton was evaluated by Michael W. Reed, M.D., an authorized treating physician for Hampton’s work-related injury, on July 15, 1996. By correspondence dated July 22, 1996, Dr. Reed reported his evaluation of Hampton. Dr. Reed found that Hampton suffered from lumbar degenerative disc disease. He recommended physical therapy and light duty work restrictions on lifting objects greater than 20 pounds. On August 29, 1996, DOC received further correspondence forwarded by Risk Management from Dr. Reed. In that correspondence dated August 28, 1996, Dr. Reed stated that Hampton could return to work full duty and that she had reached Maximum Medical Improvement, with a 0 percent permanent impairment rating. He did not indicate that there were any work restrictions. Hampton reported to work on September 3, 1996. At that time, she was utilizing a walker to ambulate around the compound. Joseph Thompson, the Warden at ACI, and the hiring/firing authority over Hampton at that time, expressed security concerns that Hampton was utilizing a walker. He asked the personnel manager, Derida McMillian, to inquire into the situation. As a result, McMillian contacted Paul Bohac, Hampton’s supervisor, and requested that both he and Hampton come to her office. She then informed Hampton that she was not authorized to utilize a walker unless a physician had prescribed one for her use. She told Hampton that she was in receipt of a letter from Dr. Reed that indicated she could return to work on regular duty with no restrictions and that a walker represents such a restriction. McMillian then told Hampton that she could not use a walker at work until she produced a medical report indicating a need for same. She also told Hampton that a physician’s statement would be needed or her leave would not be authorized. Hampton stated that she understood and would provide the appropriate medical reports on September 5, 1996. McMillian relayed Hampton’s statements that she would provide documentation by September 5, 1996, to Margaret Forehand, a personnel technician who was a liaison with the Division of Risk Management at that time. Because no such documentation was received by September 5, 1996, Forehand called Hampton at home on September 9, 1996. Hampton advised her that she would get her attorney to obtain a doctor’s statement. On September 10, 1996, Hampton called Forehand and said that her lawyer would obtain a doctor’s statement and send it to DOC. On September 17, 1996, Hampton contacted Forehand with questions regarding her paycheck received on September 13, 1996. Forehand advised that DOC had not received the physician’s statement that was to have been provided on September 5, 1996. Forehand reiterated at that time that Hampton needed to provide a doctor’s note as to her status. Hampton told Forehand that her attorney would be taking care of the matter. On September 18, 1996, Forehand spoke with Alice Taylor at the Division of Risk Management and was advised that Risk Management had received a letter from a Dr. Ayala regarding Hampton’s condition. Taylor told Forehand that Ayala's letter did not change anything--Hampton had not been removed from work or prescribed a walker. Neither McMillian nor Forehand was aware of any prescription for a walker by a Dr. Randall dated June 3, 1996, until March 11, 1997, when they were shown the prescription. Additionally, Forehand had no record indicating that Dr. Randall was approved by the Division of Risk Management as a treating physician. On September 19, 1996, Hampton appeared at the personnel office. She did not have a prescription for a walker at that time. Thus, Hampton was considered to be on unauthorized leave status since September 5, 1996. Warden Thompson terminated Hampton’s employment on September 19, 2001, for excessive unauthorized absences. Hampton alleged that several white male employees and an inmate were allowed accommodations: Mr. Ammons; Paul Bohac; and inmate John Peavy. Warden Thompson testified that he approved a request for Mr. Ammons to use a wheelchair after receiving a request from the CESA Personnel Office. He was informed that Mr. Ammons would be retiring in 30 days. Mr. Ammons was not a DOC employee. Warden Thompson stated that he was not aware that Paul Bohac had worn a back brace into the office or that he had brought an ergonomic chair into the office. If he had known that he was using special medical equipment, he would have requested a prescription for the devices. Paul Bohac was not utilizing a walker. Warden Thompson was not aware that inmate John Peavy was issued a walking stick; however, inmates were allowed to utilize assistive walking devices if the medical department authorized it. Warden Thompson approved Hampton’s termination because of her unauthorized absences. She refused to work at full duty or provide a physician’s statement documenting any work restrictions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marva A. Davis, Esquire 121 South Madison Street Post Office Box 551 Quincy, Florida 32353-0551 Gary L. Grant, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent 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 The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a healthcare facility that provides in- patient nursing care to patients after their surgery. As a healthcare facility, Respondent employs an ethnically diverse staff of nurses, including several black nurses. Petitioner is a black female. As such, Petitioner is a protected person under chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Additionally, Petitioner is a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). She received her nursing license in 2002 and has worked in the nursing field since that time. Currently, she is completing her education to become a Registered Nurse. In March 2011, Petitioner was employed by Respondent as an LPN on its skilled medical surgical unit in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner was supervised by the Director of Nursing (DON), Michelle, who was, in turn, supervised by Heritage's administrator, Brenda. Both the DON and administrator are white. An important part of Respondent's service is the administration of prescribed medications to its patients in accordance with the medication's prescribed dosage and schedule. As an LPN at Heritage, Petitioner was responsible for the proper administration of medications to patients under her care. At some point, two patients accused Petitioner of giving them their medications earlier than they were supposed to receive them. Although the evidence is unclear, these accusations may have been reported to the administration of Heritage by another nurse who worked the same unit as Petitioner and who Petitioner believed was jealous of her because the patients preferred Petitioner's care to that of the other nurse. Additionally, Petitioner testified that one of the patients told her that she was bribed with a package of cigarettes by the other nurse to make the allegations. However, neither of these patients testified at the hearing. As a consequence, such patient statements constitute uncorroborated hearsay and cannot be considered in this proceeding. Petitioner denies that she ever gave these two patients medication earlier than the prescribed time. Sometime around April 1, 2011, Petitioner was called into a meeting with the administrator and the DON for a "number 2 write-up." There was no evidence that demonstrated the nature of such a disciplinary action or the action that would be taken for such a write-up. The write-up was based on the allegations of the two patients referenced above. However, there was no evidence that Respondent did not investigate or follow its policy on employee discipline. Indeed there was no evidence regarding any of Respondent's policies. Likewise, there was no evidence that other similarly-situated, non-protected employees had received less discipline for similarly alleged infractions. Petitioner tried to explain what the patient had told her about being bribed and making her allegation up. Petitioner also asked the administrator to explain what a "number 2 write- up" was since she did not know, and did not know at the hearing, what such a write-up was. The administrator said she did not have to explain anything, slammed her hand down on her desk, and loudly said "you people make me sick." The administrator also referenced something about lying and trying to cover things up instead of admitting mistakes. There was no substantive evidence that the administrator’s very subjective statement was a reference to Petitioner's race or was intended as a racial epithet. Indeed, viewed objectively, the statement appears to be, at worst, abusive or rude. Ultimately, there was insufficient evidence upon which to base a finding (or to infer) that these remarks were anything but an administrator venting her exasperation at staff. Without more, such language is not the sort of language that anti-discrimination laws are designed to reach. Petitioner was told to sign the write-up or be terminated. She was understandably offended by the administrator's behavior, refused to sign "something that was untrue,” wished the administrator "Jehovah's blessing" and left. Petitioner never returned to the facility and her paycheck was mailed to her. However, as indicated, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner was the victim of racial discrimination. The Petition for Relief should, therefore, be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 2nd day of March, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Kareen Anita Gantt 1340 Mount Hosea Church Road Quincy, Florida 32352 Michael McKelvaine Heritage Health Care 1815 Ginger Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner was terminated from her position with Respondent as a picker/stock keeper on or about September 26, 2001, on the basis of her race (African-American) and/or gender (female), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as that term is defined under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a temporary employee to perform the job of picker/stock keeper at its Parts Distribution Center in Orlando, Florida, during the time period from September 12, 2001, to September 26, 2001, the date she was terminated. Petitioner worked a total of 14 days for Respondent. Petitioner is an African-American female, a member of a protected class. The Parts Distribution Center for Respondent in Orlando, Florida, is a facility that holds automotive parts that are then shipped to dealerships. All temporary employees at Respondent are at-will employees. Temporary employees are told during their orientation that they are at-will employees who can be terminated at any time, for any reason. Temporary employees at Respondent are only eligible to work 119 days. Most temporary employees are not offered full time permanent employment. There is no guarantee that a temporary employee will receive an offer to work as a permanent employee. Petitioner was hired to perform the job of picker/stock keeper. A picker/stock keeper takes parts off of shelves to be shipped to dealerships. Petitioner participated in an orientation, and Petitioner received the same training as every other temporary employee. Petitioner worked the night shift. Respondent maintains written Standards of Conduct to which all employees must adhere. The Standards of Conduct apply to both temporary and permanent employees. The Standards of Conduct were in effect in September 2001, when Petitioner worked as a temporary employee. All employees are given a copy of the Standards of Conduct when they are hired. Petitioner received a copy of the Standards of Conduct when she was hired, and the Standards of Conduct are posted throughout the plant. The Standards of Conduct provide that an employee's "[f]ailure or refusal to follow the instructions of supervision" is grounds for "disciplinary action up to and including discharge." The supervisors who worked at Respondent's Distribution Center during Petitioner's employment were Richard Alvarez ("Alvarez") (Hispanic male), Lenier Sweeting ("Sweeting") (Black male), and Joe Bromley (White male). Alvarez was temporary supervisor for the night shift from June 2001 until December 2001. Alvarez was Petitioner's direct supervisor. Sweeting was a supervisor in September 2001. Sweeting was chosen to become a supervisor by Hal McDougle, a Black male. Sweeting was the supervisor on the day shift when Petitioner worked at the Distribution Center. His shift ended at 3:30 p.m. but he stayed in the building to help with the transition to the night shift. Alvarez would normally walk Sweeting to the front door to discuss what had occurred during the day shift. On September 25, 2001, Sweeting was walking past the bathroom with Alvarez and heard two women talking and laughing in the bathroom. Alvarez recognized one of the voices to be that of Petitioner. Alvarez had heard rumors that Petitioner had been taking a lot of extended breaks and told Sweeting about the complaints he had been receiving. Alvarez received at least two complaints, and possibly four or five, from Petitioner's co- workers that she was taking extended breaks and not on the floor working. Alvarez wanted to wait and see how long Petitioner remained in the bathroom. Sweeting and Alvarez waited outside the bathroom until they saw Petitioner exit the bathroom with Maria Dejesus. Alvarez believes that he and Sweeting waited outside the bathroom for approximately ten to 15 minutes. Alvarez told Petitioner that she had been taking an extensive break and needed to go back to work. Sweeting witnessed Alvarez tell Petitioner to go back to work in a professional tone. Alvarez also told Petitioner that he had heard rumors that she was taking extended breaks. He told her that since he saw it first hand, he wanted to mention it to her and let her know it would not be tolerated. Petitioner asked Alvarez which bathroom she could use in a very sarcastic tone. Sweeting observed Petitioner ask this question. Alvarez told Petitioner that he did not care which bathroom she used, as long as she did not abuse the break period. Petitioner proceeded to ask Alvarez in a sarcastic tone which bathroom she could use several times throughout the night. Despite Petitioner's sarcastic tone, Alvarez answered her questions professionally. Alvarez never asked Petitioner how old she was, whether she was married or how many children she had. Sweeting asked Maria Dejesus to go back to work as well. Sweeting and Alvarez have told other employees to go back to work when they have observed employees taking extended breaks. They have spoken to employees of both genders and all racial groups. On September 26, 2001, Alvarez assigned Petitioner to the "fast rack" area. Petitioner had never previously worked in the fast rack area. Alvarez personally instructed Petitioner in how to perform the assignment. Alvarez told Petitioner to pick the parts and put them on a rack float. After Alvarez gave Petitioner her instructions, Petitioner began her assignment. Petitioner never asked Alvarez any questions about her assignment or expressed that she was having difficulty with the job. Wanda Carithers ("Carithers") saw Petitioner using the wrong equipment to complete her assignment. Petitioner was using a bin cart instead of a float to pick the items. Alvarez noticed that Petitioner's assignment was running late. Alvarez walked over to the fast rack area and asked Petitioner two questions. Alvarez asked Petitioner whether she was going to be able to pick the whole assignment using the bin cart that she was using. Petitioner did not respond to or acknowledge Alvarez. Alvarez then asked Petitioner if she was almost done with her assignment. Petitioner rolled her eyes and said, "Your first question, yes, second question, no." Alvarez was very uncomfortable with Petitioner's response and demeanor. Alvarez told Petitioner that perhaps they had gotten off on the wrong foot. Petitioner asked Alvarez something about her union rights. Alvarez saw Petitioner's co-worker, Carithers, who was a union representative, driving by. Alvarez asked Carithers to explain to Petitioner her union rights as a temporary employee. During this conversation, Alvarez tried repeatedly to talk to Petitioner and on each occasion, Petitioner cut Alvarez off and would not let him speak. When Alvarez realized that he was not making any progress with Petitioner, he asked her to go to the warehouse office so that they could talk to a senior supervisor, Al White ("White") (Black male). Alvarez hoped that they could work out their differences with White's help. Alvarez started to walk approximately ten steps. He turned back and realized that Petitioner was not moving towards the office. Alvarez walked back to Petitioner and asked her a second time to go to the office. Once again, Petitioner did not move. Alvarez told Petitioner, "This is your last chance; go to the warehouse office." Once again, Petitioner did not move. Alvarez, after asking Petitioner to go to the office three times with no response, told Petitioner that her services were no longer needed, that she should gather up her things, and that she was terminated. Alvarez terminated Petitioner for her failure to follow a direct order of her supervisor in violation of Respondent's Standards of Conduct No. 6. Petitioner refused to move even after she was terminated. Petitioner asked Alvarez to reconsider, and he said that he had made up his mind. Alvarez started to walk away. When he saw that Petitioner was still not moving, he told her that he could call law enforcement to escort Petitioner off the property. Alvarez, and ultimately Petitioner, walked to the office. White asked Petitioner if she knew why she was terminated. Petitioner never asked to have someone from the union with her in the office until after she was terminated. At that time, Alvarez and White complied with her request and paged Rodney Witt, a union official, to come to the office. Carithers observed Petitioner fail to follow Alvarez's instruction to go to the office. Carithers recalls that Petitioner told Alvarez that Petitioner did not have to listen to Alvarez. Amber McPherson heard Alvarez call Petitioner to the office several times. Petitioner did not respond to Alvarez's requests. Sweeting has never experienced discrimination from management while working for Respondent for over seven years. Sweeting has never heard Alvarez make any gender or race-related comments or slurs. Sweeting has never heard any management employee at Respondent make a gender or race related comment or slur. Alvarez did not consider Petitioner's gender or race when he made the decision to terminate Petitioner. In addition, Petitioner lied on her application to Respondent and failed to indicate that she had been terminated from a prior employment. Petitioner had been terminated from Walt Disney World Company for theft. If Respondent had known that Petitioner had lied on her application or had been terminated for theft from a prior employer, it would not have hired her. Had Respondent learned that she had lied on her application after she was hired, she would have been terminated. Petitioner had no idea why she thinks she was treated differently based upon her gender or race. She just had a "feeling" or a "hunch." Petitioner had no evidence or information that her termination was based on her gender or race. Petitioner had no idea why she was terminated. She did not believe that it was because she failed to follow a command. Petitioner had no idea whether her supervisor, Alvarez, considered her gender or race when he terminated her employment with Respondent. Petitioner bases her claims that Respondent discriminated against her on the fact that there is general racism and sexism in society. Petitioner checked the "sex" and "race" box on her FCHR Charge of Discrimination simply because she is female and African-American. Petitioner felt as though she was harassed but cannot articulate a reason for it.
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 8th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 8th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie L. Adler, Esquire Susan K. McKenna, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP 390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1285 Orlando, Florida 32801 Dorothy J. McCrimmon 5361 Commander Drive Number 304 Orlando, Florida 32822 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
