The Issue Whether Petitioner was wrongfully terminated from her position as a hostess with Respondent because of her handicap, in violation of Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, a 47-year-old female, was hired by Respondent on or about July 15, 2003, as a part-time hostess at Respondent's restaurant in Cocoa Beach, Florida. The understanding at that time was that she would be called in to work three to four hours a day, three to four days a week, as a leased, at-will employee from SkilStaf. SkilStaf would be the employer of record for wage and payroll reporting purposes. Respondent, BB & D of Cocoa Beach, Inc., is a franchisee of Perkins Restaurant and Bakery and is an employer under the provisions of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2003). Petitioner first reported for work on July 17, 2003, and received training as a hostess/cashier by Debra Russell, associate manager, and received the same information about the job requirements, duties, and benefits given to all new hires. During her training, Petitioner was advised that in addition to seating guests and operating the cash register, a hostess would be required to bus tables when the restaurant was busy and the other staff was in need of help, although this requirement was not listed on the printed job description. Petitioner did advise Respondent that she had a disability and that she required a reasonable accommodation in order to perform her job. She stated that several years before she had undergone back surgery as a result of an injury that was not job related and could not perform a job that required heavy lifting. Petitioner advised Russell that she could not bus tables because it would require heavy lifting. Russell asked Petitioner to provide Respondent with a doctor's note advising them of the nature of her disability and what accommodations she required. Petitioner continued to work as a hostess at the Perkins Restaurant through July 22, 2003, and performed the job satisfactorily. She was not asked to bus tables during this period. Petitioner was not called back to work as a hostess after July 22, 2003, and did not receive any notification that she was terminated. Petitioner obtained a note from her physician dated July 28, 2003, which indicated that she was capable of working four to five hours a day as a hostess. This evidence is hearsay. In addition, it is not convincing that Petitioner turned in a copy of the note to management anytime after that date. She tried to talk to management about her status, but was unsuccessful. Although Petitioner did not prove that she is a disabled person, she was perceived to be disabled by her employer. Petitioner testified that she talked to Russell some time in early August. Petitioner claimed that Russell said that she had talked to the owner who said that he did not think Petitioner should be working as a hostess, but should get a desk job sitting down. Russell denied making such a statement. No other evidence was offered to support this statement. Therefore, said statement is uncorroborated hearsay and unreliable, and will not be relied upon as a finding of fact. Petitioner presented evidence that since July 2003, she has been unemployed, in spite of her making reasonable efforts to obtain suitable part-time employment. Respondent demonstrated that Petitioner sought to have several days in a row off after working only three days. Petitioner worked six shifts total during her employment with Respondent. Respondent needed two other part-time hostesses for the other shifts because the restaurant was open seven days a week, 24 hours a day, for a total of 21 shifts per week. Respondent demonstrated that the summer business that year was slower than projected and never picked up. The restaurant business is labor-intensive and accounts for 30 to 40 percent of overhead costs. In order for management to control costs, it must cut back on employees. Petitioner was involuntarily terminated because sales were underperforming projections and labor costs were being controlled by a reduction in force. Petitioner was unable to prove that her termination was the result of her disability or perceived disability and that Respondent's proffered reason for her termination was pretextual.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Shahrooz Banapoor BB & D of Cocoa Beach, Inc. 5590 North Atlantic Avenue Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931 Anne E. Dorfler 700 North Courtney Parkway Apartment 524 Merritt Island, Florida 32953 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 26, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Teresa Urbana, began employment with Sanmar Corporation (Sanmar) in August 2008 as a seasonal employee and worked there until November 2008. She was rehired in July 2009 in a Re-stocker position. She was promoted to Order Processor and was made a full-time regular employee later that year. Sanmar is a distributor of promotional apparel and accessories to companies that sell promotional apparel. The Jacksonville location is one of seven distribution centers (DC) throughout the country. The Jacksonville DC fulfills customer orders by receiving, picking, checking, packing and shipping them. Respondent is an employer as contemplated by chapter 760, Florida Statutes. An Order Processor is responsible for picking and checking the order, and then packing the order for distribution to Sanmar's customers. The position description for Order Processor includes the following: PHYSICAL DEMANDS: While performing the duties of this job, the employee is constantly required to walk and stand. The employee is frequently required to reach with hands and arms, handle or feel product, to pull/push cart with product, grasp and perform repetitive hand, wrist and arm motions. The employee is frequently required to climb, kneel/squat, bend and carry. The employee occasionally lifts and/or moves up to 40 pounds, and seldom lifts and/or moves up to 50 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, color vision, peripheral vision, depth perception and ability to adjust focus. WORK ENVIRONMENT: Work environment is moderately noisy. The employee is occasionally required to work near conveyor systems. There is exposure to dust and changes in weather conditions. Employee must be able to handle stress that is involved in meeting strenuous customer deadlines, working in high volume areas, and be flexible and able to interact with employees at all times. Paul Rhodes is the Distribution Manager and Alice Torres is Human Resources Manager for Sanmar's Jacksonville DC. Ms. Torres reports to Olivia Thurmond, Senior Manager of Human Resources. Ms. Thurmond is in the corporate headquarters for Sanmar, which is located in Issaquah, Washington. Sanmar's Employee Handbook includes an Equal Employment Opportunity Policy, an Anti-Harassment and Non-Discrimination Policy, and a Reasonable Accommodation Policy. Petitioner received a copy of the Employee Handbook. Allegations Related to Disability On April 21, 2011, Petitioner approached Ms. Torres to inform her of pain Petitioner was having in her wrists and hands. Petitioner informed Ms. Torres that she believed that this condition was work-related. With the help of Ms. Torres' assistant, Yadira Batlle, Petitioner completed an Accident/Incident Report. Ms. Batlle actually completed the form based on information provided by Petitioner, because Petitioner is not fluent in English, as her primary language is Spanish. The Accident/Incident Report was signed by Petitioner and references carpel-tunnel in both hands as the description of the injury. On that same day, Sanmar provided Petitioner with contact information for Solantic Baptist Occupational Health (Solantic) so she could receive evaluation and treatment for her injury which Petitioner claimed was work related. While there was some dispute as to whether Petitioner's condition was work related and covered by workers' compensation, it is undisputed that Sanmar reported the injury to its workers' compensation carrier and Petitioner did receive benefits and medical treatment through workers' compensation. On April 22, 2011, Petitioner was evaluated at Solantic. As a result of her evaluation, Petitioner was released to return to work with a work restriction of wearing wrist braces. Petitioner continued to perform her Order Processor job duties wearing wrist braces. Petitioner also was evaluated by her personal physician, Dr. Esquivia-Munoz, who provided a note dated June 1, 2011, which stated as follows: This patient has bilateral moderate carpal tunnell [sic] syndrome worse at right wrist, which is interfering with her regular duties and regular activities for which she will need surgical decompression in the future. When Ms. Torres received this doctor's note, she explained to Petitioner that the note did not include any specifics as to any work restrictions. As a result, Ms. Torres advised Petitioner she could not allow her to return to work until the company received work restrictions from her doctor. Therefore, Sanmar placed Petitioner on a leave of absence under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). On June 2, 2012, Ms. Torres sent a fax to Dr. Esquivia-Munoz with a request that he complete an attached certification of Petitioner's health condition. He completed the form, but the information he provided essentially repeated what he wrote on the June 2, 2011, note, and did not provide specific working restrictions which Sanmar requested and needed to be able to provide appropriate and safe working restrictions for Petitioner. Ms. Torres forwarded these documents to Christy Hammond, Sanmar's Leave Supervisor, who is located in the Washington office. On June 3, 2012, Lori Shutter, Sanmar's Benefits Manager, faxed a request to Dr. Esquivia-Munoz, requesting that he complete an enclosed "release to return to work" form identifying work restrictions. She also attached a position description for the Order Processor position. Sanmar did not receive a completed form or further specific work restrictions from Dr. Esquivia-Munoz despite this request. Petitioner went back to Concentra, the workers' compensation medical provider, for further evaluation. Concentra identified her activity status as "modified activity" and identified her work restrictions as no pushing, pulling or lifting over zero pounds, and referred her to a hand surgeon. The facsimile shows that this information was faxed to Sanmar on June 13, 2011. Ms. Torres forwarded this information to Ms. Hammond in the corporate office, and discussed it with Mr. Rhodes. The Order Processor position involved frequent reaching, pushing, grasping, and performing repetitive hand motions. Pushing, pulling, and lifting are essential functions of the Order Processor job. Accordingly, the work restrictions received from Concentra prevented Petitioner from performing essential functions of the job of Order Processor, with or without reasonable accommodations. Sanmar found light-duty work that Petitioner could do within the work restrictions as set forth by Concentra. She was assigned to do "go-backs," which is part of the order processing job, but not the entire job. Go-backs are items, such as hats or t-shirts, found in the wrong bins. The go-back work required Petitioner to use a computer to find the product's correct location, write down that location, and carry the product to the correct location. There is no regular go-back position at Sanmar. This was a temporary assignment created to accommodate Petitioner by eliminating many of the regular functions of the Order Processor position, including pushing, pulling, picking, and packing items to fill customer orders. On June 13, 2011, Ms. Torres called Petitioner to advise her that Sanmar had light-duty work within Petitioner's work restrictions. Petitioner returned to work on June 15, 2011, performing go-backs at her regular rate of pay, i.e., as when she could perform all functions of the Order Processor position. On June 17, 2011, Petitioner submitted a Leave of Absence Request Form, requesting to commence leave on June 20, 2011. Ms. Torres then provided a Notice of Eligibility and Rights and Responsibilities for leave under FMLA to her. This document notified Petitioner that she was eligible to receive FMLA leave, and further notified her that she needed to provide sufficient certification to support her request for FMLA leave by July 1, 2011. On June 20, 2011, Petitioner clocked in at work at approximately 12:24 p.m., after an appointment with Petitioner's hand specialist, Dr. Greider. Petitioner immediately went to the Human Resources office and provided a note from Dr. Greider which confirmed that she had an appointment with him that morning, and left his office at 11:30. Petitioner also provided a doctor's note from Dr. Greider detailing Petitioner's work restrictions. She gave the note to Ms. Batlle, because Ms. Torres was out of the office at that time. The note reads as follows: LIGHT DUTY WORK RESTRICTIONS No repetitive gripping and pinching. No repetitive pulling and pushing. No lifting greater than 5 pounds. No production keying (until further notice) Frequent rest breaks- 5 minutes per hour. Effective until pending surgery. Ms. Batlle left copies of these doctor's notes for Ms. Torres, along with a handwritten note stating that Petitioner was going home for the day. Ms. Thurmond happened to be visiting the Jacksonville DC on June 20, 2011. Ms. Torres, Ms. Thurmond, and Mr. Rhodes, along with Ms. Hammond by telephone, discussed Petitioner's new work restrictions and concluded that, because processing go- backs required keyboarding, gripping and pinching, Petitioner could no longer perform that light-duty work.2/ Accordingly, Sanmar approved Petitioner's request for FMLA leave. Beginning June 21, 2011, Petitioner began taking the FMLA leave she had requested. During this leave, Petitioner had surgery on her right hand on July 21, 2011. Petitioner remained on FMLA leave until September 13, 2011, at which point she had exhausted her FMLA leave entitlement and had still not been released to work. Rather than terminating Petitioner's employment at that time, Sanmar provided additional leave until the company was able to determine whether Petitioner would be able to return to work. Sanmar provided Petitioner an FMLA Designation Notice which informed her that her absence from September 14 through September 25 would be provided to her "as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA)." On September 16, 2011, Ms. Hammond prepared a letter to Dr. Greider outlining the modified work description in doing go-backs, and asking him to advise whether or not she would be able to perform those duties. Dr. Greider faxed a reply to Ms. Hammond on September 20, 2011, advising that the activities described in Ms. Hammond's letter would be acceptable. Ms. Torres and Ms. Hammond prepared a letter to Petitioner dated September 22, 2011, advising her that Sanmar had received a written confirmation from Dr. Greider that she had been approved to return to work with the modified duties (performing go-backs). The letter further notified Petitioner that she was expected to return to work on September 26, 2011, which she did. Ms. Torres did not receive any complaints from Petitioner during the September to November timeframe regarding her ability to perform the go-backs duty. On November 2, 2011, Petitioner provided Ms. Torres with a note from Dr. Grieder confirming Petitioner would be out of work for surgery on her left hand from November 7 through 10, 2011. The note states the following: Patient is scheduled for hand surgery on 11/7/11 and may remain out of work from date of surgery until 11/10/11 at which point patient may return to work with no use of the left hand until follow up appointment on 11/21/11. Ms. Torres and Petitioner had a discussion regarding Dr. Greider's note during which Petitioner expressed doubt that she would be able to return to work November 10 as she still had restrictions on the use of her right hand and did not know what kind of work she would be able to perform after surgery on her left hand. Ms. Torres than contacted Ms. Hammond via e-mail requesting her assistance in confirming the work restrictions, if any, on Petitioner's use of her right hand. On November 8, 2011, Ms. Hammond, through the company's workers' compensation carrier, received confirmation from Dr. Greider's office that she was released from work restrictions with regard to her right hand as of October 17, 2011.3/ On November 9 and 10, Petitioner left voice mail messages for Ms. Torres and her assistant regarding her inability to work. On November 11, 2011, Petitioner did not report to work. Because this was the date that had been indicated by Dr. Greider as the date she was released to return to work (regarding her right hand), and after receiving guidance from Ms. Hammond and input from the workers' compensation carrier, Ms. Torres called Petitioner and informed her that Sanmar had not received any additional information from Dr. Grieder and advised Petitioner that it was Petitioner's responsibility to obtain a new note from her doctor if she could not work. Ms. Torres reminded Petitioner that she needed to come in to discuss her restrictions and possible light-duty work. Ms. Torres received another call from Petitioner on November 14, 2011. Ms. Torres reiterated to Petitioner that she needed to report to work with her restrictions so Sanmar could attempt to accommodate her appropriately. Petitioner reported to work later that same day. She met with Mr. Rhodes and Ms. Torres to discuss her ability to work and what accommodations would be necessary. Mr. Rhodes first advised Petitioner that she would be doing go-backs which could be performed without the use of her left hand. When Petitioner expressed concern about her ability to perform that task, Mr. Rhodes agreed to assign her a temporary light-duty position auditing the restock until they could review the matter further. Petitioner agreed to perform the restock work. Also on November 14, 2011, Ms. Torres received a fax from Dr. Grieder's office which attached the same November 2, 2011, note regarding Petitioner's restrictions. Nothing in the November 14, 2011, fax from Dr. Grieder's office changed Petitioner's work restrictions. Auditing the restock is not a regular position at Sanmar, but is one part of the many duties of the inventory department. In offering this temporary work to Petitioner, Sanmar eliminated many of the essential functions of the Order Processor job. Petitioner left the November 14 meeting with Ms. Torres and Mr. Rhodes and worked for about two hours. After about two hours, Petitioner apparently fainted and left work in an ambulance which transported her to the hospital. That was the last day Petitioner worked for Sanmar. Petitioner received notes from Dr. Greider dated November 21, 2011, and December 9, 2011, listing the same light duty restrictions (i.e., no repetitive gripping and pinching, no repetitive pulling and pushing, no lifting greater than five pounds, no production keying, and frequent rest breaks), valid for the left hand only. Petitioner also received a note from Dr. Greider dated January 23, 2012, indicating that she may continue previous restrictions until February 6, 2012, at which time the patient may return to work full duty. However, Ms. Hammond, Ms. Thurmond, and Ms. Torres, all testified that they did not receive this note. Petitioner was seen by an orthopedic doctor in August 2012. The doctor's note indicates that she has a permanent work restriction which precludes her from lifting more than 10 to 15 pounds. Facts regarding disciplinary action Through an employee loan program, Sanmar approves loans to employees under certain circumstances. In late December 2010, an incident arose involving Petitioner and her request for an employee loan. On December 28, 2010, Ms. Torres heard Petitioner speaking in a loud voice outside of Ms. Torres' office. She heard Petitioner accusing her assistant at that time, Sandra Colindres, of refusing to help her with papers required for such a loan. Petitioner spoke in a tone of voice that Ms. Torres felt was not appropriate for the office. She then asked Petitioner to meet with her in her office. While in Ms. Torres' office, Petitioner complained that Ms. Colindres was unwilling to help her with the loan paperwork. Petitioner had not been scheduled to work that day. Ms. Torres informed Petitioner that the loan process had very recently been changed, and that the loan would need to be approved by Human Resources if it were determined that there was a critical need. Ms. Torres considered Petitioner's tone of voice during this conversation in her office to be disrespectful, demanding and rude. At the end of this meeting, Ms. Torres told Ms. Colindres to give Petitioner the employee loan form. When Petitioner left Ms. Torres' office, Petitioner approached a co- worker who was also in the office and began talking in a loud voice about what had just happened. Ms. Torres overheard Petitioner talking about their meeting to another employee and asked Petitioner to discuss the issue in her office. Ms. Torres told Petitioner that her conduct was disruptive, unprofessional, and unacceptable. She told Petitioner that she had caused a disturbance in the workplace, that Ms. Torres would be informing the DC manager about this incident, and that Petitioner would likely be receiving corrective action.4/ Shortly thereafter, Ms. Torres accompanied a pest control representative to the break room. When they arrived in the break room, Ms. Torres observed Petitioner telling a group of employees her version of the events in her office. The employees dispersed when they saw Ms. Torres enter the break room. When Ms. Torres turned to leave the break room, she saw Petitioner complaining to yet another group of employees about the incident. Ms. Torres considered this behavior to be extremely disruptive. Ms. Torres then asked a supervisor, Tasha Porter, to instruct Petitioner to leave the premises. Ms. Torres was relatively new to the company, and she consulted with Paul Rhodes and Olivia Thurmond to determine appropriate disciplinary action that would be consistent with the company's response to similar instances of conduct. Mr. Rhodes was out of the office from December 27, 2010, through January 2, 2011. On January 3, 2011, Mr. Rhodes and Petitioner met to discuss the December 28, 2010, incident. Tasha Porter also attended the meeting and supervisor Daniel Serrano attended the meeting as an interpreter. Mr. Rhodes also spoke to and received written statements from Alice Torres, Sandra Colindres and Tasha Porter regarding the incident. After reviewing the matter, a decision was made to give Petitioner a final Written Warning for unprofessional conduct and disruptive behavior which had taken place on December 28, 2010. Petitioner refused to sign the final Written Warning, did not acknowledge that she committed the actions described, but acknowledged that the conduct described would be unacceptable and that a person engaging in such conduct could be terminated. The final Written Warning was given to Petitioner on January 10, 2011, by Mr. Serrano, who also speaks Spanish. Prior to receiving this final Written Warning, Petitioner had not reported a disability to anyone at Sanmar. There is nothing in the record to establish or suggest that any one at Sanmar knew, perceived or regarded Petitioner as having a disability at that time. On the evening of April 18, 2011, Group Lead Terri Andrews was supervising the employees on the lo-bay floor. Employees were working overtime to get all customer orders shipped by the end of the day. Ms. Andrews was at the print station, as Petitioner approached her. Ms. Andrews directed Petitioner to report to the pack line. Petitioner told Ms. Andrews that she wanted to go home. Ms. Andrews told Petitioner again to report to the pack line and Petitioner left the floor. Ms. Andrews described Petitioner as appearing agitated. Petitioner arrived at the pack line where Becquer Rosado, another Group Lead, was directing employees where they were needed the most. Mr. Becquer saw Petitioner approaching and before he could direct her to a position, she put her hand up in the air, walked past him, and told him that she would only take instructions from Patricia Alonso and not from him. This was done in front of other employees. Patricia Alonso was a Department Lead for the pack line. A Group Lead is superior to a Department Lead because Group Leads oversee several functions, while Department Leads only supervise a single function. Employees are expected to follow the directions of both Group and Department Leads. Mr. Rosado reported this incident to his supervisor, Lori Pritchard, and completed an Employee Concern form the following day. Ms. Andrews also reported Petitioner's behavior to Ms. Pritchard, and completed an Employee Concern form on April 21, 2011. It was that day that Petitioner approached Ms. Torres to talk about pain that Petitioner was having in her wrists and hands as more fully discussed in paragraph 6 above. Petitioner was not at work from April 21 until April 26, 2011. After reviewing the Employee Concern forms, Ms. Torres met with Petitioner regarding the April 18, 2011, incident. During this meeting, Petitioner denied being disrespectful to Ms. Andrews and Mr. Rosado. After speaking to Petitioner on April 26, 2011, Ms. Torres recommended that Petitioner be terminated for her actions of April 18, 2011, because Petitioner had just received a final Written Warning for her behavior on January 10, 2011. However, Mr. Rhodes decided to give Petitioner another chance and, instead of terminating Petitioner, decided that Sanmar would issue a Final Warning Follow Up Discussion Memo to Petitioner, which was done on May 5, 2011. This Discussion Memo reiterated that any future violation of company policy by Petitioner would result in further corrective action up to and including termination of employment. During May and June 2011, and pursuant to Sanmar's Voluntary Time Out (VTO) procedure, Petitioner volunteered on several occasions to go home when production was slow and Sanmar asked for volunteers. Employees interested in VTO simply had to write their names on the "Go Home Early Sheet." Sanmar then selected employees for VTO in the order in which the employees volunteered to go home early. Petitioner's name appears on the VTO sheets in evidence, and her name is near the top of the list on most days. She was not sent home early on days that she had not signed up for VTO on the Go Home Early sheet. On June 20, 2011, after leaving the doctor's notes referenced in paragraph 18 through 20 with Ms. Battle, Petitioner proceeded to the break room where Tasha Porter, a supervisor, found her engaged in a conversation with co-workers while on the clock and not on a break. When Ms. Porter asked Petitioner why she was in the break room while clocked in, Petitioner replied that she taking her break. Ms. Porter reported this to Ms. Torres. Afterwards, Petitioner returned to work processing go-backs, although another employee was doing the keyboarding, as further explained above. As discussed in paragraph 21 above, Ms. Thurmond was visiting the Jacksonville DC on June 20, 2011. Ms. Torres, Ms. Thurmond, and Mr. Rhodes discussed the incident in the break room and decided to issue a final Written Warning to Petitioner for falsification of time records for this incident of being "on the clock" while in the break room. This was the same meeting in which they discussed Petitioner's June 20, 2011, work restrictions. Ms. Torres and Ms. Thurmond issued a final Written Warning to Petitioner at the same meeting in which they notified her that Sanmar had approved Petitioner's request for FMLA leave. The weight of the evidence shows that this took place on June 21, 2011. On or around November 3, 2011, prior to Petitioner going on leave for her second hand surgery, Ms. Torres learned of an incident involving Petitioner and her son, Manuel Sanchez, who also worked for Sanmar. Specifically, Ms. Torres learned that Mr. Sanchez may have forged Petitioner's signature on a time-off request which asked for permission to be off work on October 28, 2011. After discussing this with Mr. Sanchez, Ms. Torres concluded that he had forged his mother's name on the time-off request at her request. Sanmar considered this to be falsification of company records. This is an offense for which Sanmar has disciplined employees in the past.5/ On Friday November 4, 2011, which was Petitioner's last day at work before taking leave for her second hand surgery, Ms. Torres discussed the forged time off request with Petitioner. Petitioner admitted that she had asked her son to fill out the request and sign her name. At the end of their conversation, Ms. Torres told Petitioner not to discuss their meeting or the situation with anyone, not even Petitioner's son, because the company was continuing to investigate the matter. Despite this instruction, Lori Pritchard, a supervisor, reported to Ms. Torres that Petitioner went directly to her son and had a heated discussion with him at the print station. Although Ms. Pritchard was unable to fully understand their conversation because it was in Spanish, Ms. Pritchard advised Ms. Torres that she believed they were discussing Ms. Torres' meeting with Petitioner. Following this incident, Ms. Torres met again with Mr. Sanchez and Mr. Sanchez admitted he and Petitioner were discussing the forged time off request at the print station on November 4. Ms. Torres, however, was unable to speak to Petitioner about this incident until November 14, 2011, when Petitioner returned to work after her November 7 (second) surgery. During the meeting with Petitioner upon her return to work on November 14, 2011, (see paragraph 30), Mr. Torres and Mr. Rhodes told Petitioner the company was still reviewing the incident regarding the forged time-off request. They advised Petitioner that they had confirmation she and Mr. Sanchez discussed the forged time off request at the print station. While Petitioner denied this, she admitted she talked about the incident with her son at home, where Mr. Sanchez also resided. Ms. Torres and Mr. Rhodes believed Petitioner should be terminated for the November 4 incident, because it involved an incident of insubordination, following the previous warnings of unprofessional conduct issued In January and May 2011. However, they wanted to discuss their recommendation with Ms. Thurmond and Marty Rask, Operations Manager, in keeping with the company's normal practice. Although they planned to talk to Ms. Thurmond and Mr. Rask and, with their concurrence, terminate Petitioner later during the day on November 14, they were not able to do so because of Petitioner unexpectedly became ill on that day. This began a lengthy leave of absence from which she never returned. Mr. Rhodes and Ms. Torres recommended that Sanmar terminate Petitioner for her insubordination on November 4, when she discussed the document falsification issue with her son in violation of Ms. Torres' instructions, as well as her dishonest and evasive response on November 14, when Mr. Rhodes and Ms. Torres spoke to her about the incident. The final decision to terminate Petitioner was made on November 30, 2011. However, Sanmar did not communicate the termination decision to Petitioner until January 24, 2012. This delay resulted from circumstances related to Petitioner's medical leave and on-going workers' compensation proceedings.6/ Sanmar decided to move forward with its November 30, 2011, termination decision. Sanmar's usual practice of communicating employee termination is to inform the employee in person. However, Christy Hammond had been communicating with Petitioner and respected Petitioner's request that she not be required to come to the workplace only to be fired. Therefore, Sanmar decided to issue the termination letter via mail. Accordingly, on January 24, 2012, Sanmar sent Petitioner a termination letter signed by Olivia Thurmond. Enclosed with the letter was a documentation form explaining the reasons for Petitioner's termination, i.e., Petitioner's insubordination on November 4 and her dishonest and evasive behavior on November 14, combined with her prior discipline.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner, Teresa Urbina. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 30th day of November, 2012.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Norma J. Nolan, was discriminated against by Respondent, K.D.P., Inc. d/b/a Western Sizzlin Steak House, in violation of the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, on the basis of handicap, constituting an unlawful employment practice. Whether Petitioner has established a basis for, or entitlement to, an award of damages if, in fact, the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: K. D. P., Inc., operated a restaurant known as Western Sizzlin Steak House in Bradenton, Florida, which business was established prior to the alleged incident of July 1990. This business has continued in operation to the current time under the same management and with many of the same employees, although the restaurant has subsequently become known as Cattle Company Cafe. The Respondent, K. D. P., Inc., d/b/a Western Sizzlin Steak House, now known as Cattle Company Cafe (KDP), owned by Jack Parrish, has been managed by Kevin Wreford for approximately twelve years. Parrish relies on Wreford for the day-to-day operation of the business, hiring and firing decisions, and supervisory responsibility. The Petitioner was employed from December 1989 through February 1990 by Upjohn Health Care on a part-time basis as a respite worker. While she was physically able to do that job, Petitioner chose to leave that employment as it had little work available for her with that agency and Petitioner wished to work at a location closer to her home. Petitioner applied for employment with KDP by way of written application on August 2, 1990. Petitioner's employment application did not indicate any physical handicap, disability or limitation. Wreford interviewed Petitioner for the position of part-time cashier in early 1991. During the interview, Wreford discussed with the Petitioner the duties of the position for which she had applied. Those duties included taking payment from customers at the cashier's stand, overseeing the salad and sundae bar, checking the women's restroom, cleaning glass in the area of cashier's stand and watching for walkouts (walkouts being customers who walk out without paying for their meals). Petitioner advised Wreford that she was capable of performing these duties but was concerned about her lack of experience in working with cash and making change. Wreford hired Petitioner as a temporary, part-time cashier, and Petitioner began work in that capacity for Respondent on February 3, 1991. Petitioner continued in the employment of the Respondent in the capacity of part-time cashier through July 17, 1991. At the time Petitioner was hired by Respondent on February 3, 1991 there was a large wooden bar stool located behind the counter where the cashier took payments for meals. All cashiers working for the Respondent, including Petitioner, were allowed to sit on this stool at times when they were not waiting on customers (cashiers were required to stand while waiting on customers) or performing other assigned duties as set out in Finding of Fact 6. Sometime around July 1, 1991, Wreford discussed with the cashiers, including Petitioner, his concerns about the cashiers not performing their other assigned duties when they were not waiting on customers. Performing other assigned duties required the cashiers to be away from the cashier's area. At this time, Petitioner made Wreford aware of her knee problem and advised him that she may have difficulty standing for long periods of time. There had been no mention of this problem previously nor had Petitioner experienced any problem with her knee previously. Likewise, Petitioner did not experience any problems with her knee in carrying out her assigned duties during the next two weeks. In fact, both Wreford and Parrish were pleased with Petitioner's performance during this period. On or about July 12, 1991, Parrish's wife who had become involved in the management of the restaurant advised Parrish that the stool needed to be removed from the cashier area because: (a) the stool was showing its wear and tear and was aesthetically unpleasing; (b) the stool was taking up too much room resulting in the cashiers not being able to perform their duties properly, particularly looking for walkouts and; (c) to prevent a certain cashier (not Petitioner) from abusing the privilege of the stool by sitting on the stool for extended periods of time and not performing her other assigned duties. On or about July 12, 1991, Parrish removed the stool from the caahier's area and placed it in his office where it remains today because the stool has a sentimental value in that Parrish used the stool in his first restaurant. On or about July 13, 1991, when Petitioner arrived for work and noticed the stool had been removed she met with Parrish and Wreford and advised them that she could not work without the stool because of her knee. Parrish and Wreford offered to accommodate her problem by allowing Petitioner to sit at a table adjacent to the cashier area when she was not waiting on customers or performing her other assigned duties. Petitioner advised Parrish and Wreford that she could not work under those conditions but that she would stay on until a replacement was found. Parrish and Wreford accepted Petitioner's resignation but encouraged Petitioner to continue her employment until she could determine if the accommodation would be satisfactory. Petitioner continued to work for Respondent until July 17, 1991, and was able to function without any problems with her knee under the accommodations provided by Respondent. However, after Petitioner resigned she never asked to be reinstated even though she was able to function under the accommodations provided by Respondent. Although Petitioner alleged that she had a physical disability/handicap because of problems she had related to an alleged right knee replacement done some years earlier, there was no medical evidence or other documentation establishing any physical handicap or restrictions/limitations in her ability to work. There were other cashiers employed by Respondent who had conditions similar to Petitioner's conditions who were able to function with the same accommodation offered Petitioner. One of those was the person hired by Respondent to take Petitioner's position. Petitioner collected unemployment compensation after leaving Respondent's employment, as well as other forms of assistance, such as food stamps and housing assistance. Additionally, after leaving Respondent's employment Petitioner developed "female problems" and is not seeking employment even though she attended computer school. There was no evidence as to the amount of damages suffered by Petitioner. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that Petitioner was discriminated against on the basis of a handicap by Respondent or that any unlawful employment practice occurred. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish facts to show that there were legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons for the action taken by Respondent in removing the stool and providing other accommodations for the cashiers, including Petitioner. There was insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that the Respondent's articulated reasons for its action were pretextual.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a Final Order finding that the Petitioner, Norma J. Nolan, was not discharged due to her handicap in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, and that the Petition For Relief be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of June, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-3903 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed Findings of Fact 1 through 13 have been adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order, except where they may be subordinate, cumulative, unnecessary, irrelevant, immaterial or a restatement of testimony rather than presented as a finding of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed Findings of Fact 1 through 32 have been adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order, except where they may be subordinate, cumulative, unnecessary, irrelevant, immaterial or a restatement of testimony rather than presented as a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Norma J. Nolan, Pro Se 1109 Harvard Avenue Bradenton, Florida 34207 Donna L. Derfoot, Esquire Post Office Box 3979 Sarasota, Florida 34230 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahasse, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issues in this case are whether, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment on the basis of her race, or retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity; and whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. ("CSK"), is a law firm having offices throughout the state of Florida. Petitioner Latasha McCleary ("McCleary"), an African-American woman, worked for CSK in its Orlando office as a legal assistant from August 7, 2017, through July 31, 2018. However, because McCleary began taking medical leave on June 6, 2018, and never returned to work, her last day in the office was June 5, 2018. Thus, the period of time in which McCleary actually functioned as a regular CSK employee was ten months. During her tenure with the firm, McCleary provided secretarial and administrative support to several attorneys, including partner Bartley Vickers and associates Jeremy Beasley and Shawn Gibbons. McCleary's direct supervisor was the then office manager, Lilliam Hernandez. CSK regarded McCleary as a valued and high-performing employee. Although, as will be discussed, McCleary complains that she was subjected to unfair criticism during the last weeks of her time in CSK's Orlando office, she was never reprimanded, disciplined, or subjected to an adverse employment action. For the first nine months of her employment, McCleary got along well with the attorneys for whom she worked, including Mr. Vickers, and she has no complaints about their treatment of her during this period. The only noteworthy incident or incidents of relevance to have occurred in this time frame are a secretary's use, on one or perhaps more occasions, of the "n- word" in McCleary's presence. An employee's use of this racial epithet in the workplace is, of course, extremely offensive and inflammatory, to say the least, and, if unchecked, could create a hostile work environment. That did not happen here, however. The legal assistant who made the offensive remark (apparently in the presence of peers only, not supervisors or managers) apologized to McCleary when the latter expressed her discomfort. McCleary never reported the incident(s) in writing to the firm's management, as the Employee Handbook required——a fact from which the undersigned infers that she accepted her co-worker's apology——and the bad behavior stopped. The upshot is that this upsetting incident was resolved informally among the affected employees without initiating an investigation by the firm, and a nascent problem was nipped in the bud. The watershed moment in this case occurred on May 7, 2018, at the beginning of McCleary's tenth month with CSK. An expert witness retained by CSK was scheduled to conduct an on- site inspection that day but failed to appear, forcing a last- minute cancelation which caused opposing counsel to incur travel expenses that CSK had to reimburse. McCleary mistakenly had failed, on the previous business day, to confirm the expert's availability, as the firm's routine required, and thus, she bore some responsibility for the unwanted results. That said, there is no evidence that this situation was other than a relatively minor inconvenience that could be fixed, learned from, and forgotten. When the problem came to light on May 7, 2018, Ms. Hernandez, the office manager, sent an email to McCleary reminding her that the inspection "should have been confirmed" beforehand to avoid a "waste[] [of] time and money." McCleary apologized for making a "human error" and promised it would not happen again. On May 9, 2018, Mr. Vickers, the partner, sent an email to McCleary and Mr. Gibbons, the associate, telling them that "some form of confirmation is needed" "for confirming inspection dates." He added: "This is a mistake that I imagine will not happen again, and I am glad we can move past it and look to the future without these types of issues again." The only thing remarkable about these emails is how unremarkable they are. Two points of interest will be mentioned. First, as just suggested, the tone of each message was neither derogatory nor personal, but measured and professional. There was a touch of criticism, to be sure, as would be expected, but the criticism was constructive in nature, not harsh or angry in tone. Second, McCleary was not the only one called to account. Mr. Vickers's email was directed as much to the associate attorney as to McCleary. The next day, Thursday, May 10, 2018, Mr. Vickers conducted a training meeting for the legal assistants in his group, which McCleary attended. There were a number of topics on the agenda, covering a range of administrative tasks that CSK expected its litigation support staff to carry out. Although Mr. Vickers brought up that week's scheduling snafu as an example of miscommunication-driven consequences, no evidence suggests that McCleary's mistake had prompted the meeting. Further, McCleary was not identified in the meeting as having been at fault or involved in the incident. McCleary, however, complains that she was "singled out" during the meeting, "80% [of which, she maintains,] covered what happened with [her] in regards to the May 7th re-inspection." The greater weight of the evidence does not support her characterization of the training session. According to McCleary, Mr. Vickers, who had been a good boss for the previous nine months, suddenly turned into a tyrant around May 10, 2018. McCleary alleged in an email written a few weeks later, on June 1, 2018, that soon after the canceled inspection, Mr. Vickers had begun asking her "idiotic questions to be sure [she knew] her job," and been constantly micromanaging [her] with multiple emails" accusing her of making numerous mistakes. Yet, although this entire period spans just 18 business days, McCleary produced none of Mr. Vickers's alleged, accusatory emails. The greater weight of the evidence does not support McCleary's allegations concerning Mr. Vickers's treatment of her during the month of May 2018. Sometime near the end of May, McCleary sent out notices of taking deposition duces tecum that did not have the document requests attached. McCleary was not solely to blame for this oversight; the attorney handling the case should have reviewed the papers to make sure that everything was in order before service. Still, as the legal assistant, McCleary should have spotted the omission and brought it to the attorney's attention. On the morning of May 31, 2018, after the problem had been discovered, Mr. Vickers sent an email to McCleary and Mr. Beasley, the associate, admonishing them to "stay focused" when preparing deposition notices for service. Similar to the canceled inspection earlier in the month, the incomplete deposition notices were a problem that CSK obviously would rather have avoided; inattention to detail, moreover, is something any reasonable employer should want to correct. There is no evidence, however, that CSK generally, or Mr. Vickers in particular, made a big deal about this incident. Mr. Vickers told McCleary and the associate that he hoped "it would not happen again"——and that, it seems, would be that. Except it wasn't. Later that day, May 31, 2018, McCleary spoke to the office administrator, Johnson Thomas. During this conversation, McCleary complained about working for Mr. Vickers and asked to be transferred to a different group of attorneys. On Friday, June 1, 2018, McCleary again contacted Mr. Thomas, sending him the email mentioned above. This email was the first written notice that CSK received from McCleary concerning her complaints about Mr. Vickers. In the email, McCleary did not allege racial discrimination, per se, but she did include some language which clearly indicated that such a charge might be forthcoming: "I refuse to subject myself to further retaliation, oppression and disrespect from Mr. Vickers. He is creating a hostile working relationship between us. I cannot concentrate on work and am in need of immediate transfer." (emphasis added). The following Tuesday, June 5, 2018, CSK approved McCleary's request to be transferred, assigning her to the work group headed by partner Melissa Crowley. When the announcement was made, Ms. Crowley sent an email to McCleary stating, "Welcome Latasha! I look forward to working with you." McCleary never reported for duty under Ms. Crowley. Instead, she took a sick day on June 6, 2018, and applied for unpaid medical leave. Despite McCleary's having presented somewhat nonspecific reasons, such as heart palpitations and anxiety, the firm granted McCleary's application and placed her on medical leave through July 11, 2018. In mid-July, McCleary provided CSK with a note from her mental health counselor in support of a request to extend the unpaid medical leave until September 5, 2018. On July 12, 2018, the firm informed McCleary that it would not be able to keep her position open that long without hiring a replacement, but agreed to let her remain on leave until July 31, 2018. CSK made it clear to McCleary that she needed to return to work on August 1, 2018, or face dismissal on grounds of abandonment. McCleary did not return to work on August 1, 2018, and the firm terminated her employment. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no persuasive evidence that CSK took any actions against McCleary motivated by discriminatory animus, or created (or acquiesced to the creation of) a hostile work environment. Indeed, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of unlawful racial discrimination could be made. There is no persuasive evidence that CSK took any retaliatory action against McCleary for having opposed or sought redress for an unlawful employment practice. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that CSK did not discriminate unlawfully against McCleary on any basis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding CSK not liable for race discrimination, retaliation, or creating a hostile work environment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 20th day of December, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Reshad Favors, Esquire Mosaic Law Firm Tenth Floor 1875 Connecticut Avenue Northwest Washington, DC 20009 (eServed) Robert Alden Swift, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Tower Place, Suite 750 1900 Summit Tower Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32810 (eServed) Barry A. Postman, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Second Floor 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Cheyanne M. Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent, the Orange County Convention Center, discriminated against Petitioner, Norman H. Siales, on the basis of a handicap within the meaning of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was first employed by Respondent in October 2000 as a set-up worker on an on-call basis. In June 2001, Respondent hired Petitioner in a regular full-time position as a set-up worker. Throughout his employment with Respondent, Petitioner's supervisors considered him a good employee who always performed his job properly and did assigned tasks to the best of his ability. Petitioner was incarcerated on or about July 8, 2004. Shortly after his incarceration, Petitioner called Steve Miller, one of the assistant supervisors in the Event Set-Up Department, and informed him that he was in the county jail. Petitioner was then told that he should keep Respondent updated on his situation. On or about July 9, 2004, Mr. Miller advised Mr. Schildgen, his supervisor, that Petitioner had called and reported that he was incarcerated. After first learning that Petitioner was incarcerated, Mr. Schildgen never heard from Petitioner. Moreover, Mr. Schildgen asked the two shift supervisors if they had heard from Petitioner, and they indicated they had not. Mr. Schildgen considered Petitioner a good employee and wanted him to return to work. However, in late July or early August 2004, after not hearing from Petitioner for about three weeks, Mr. Schildgen, in consultation with the manager of the Event Set-Up Department, determined that Petitioner's continued absence from the workplace, without notice, was a violation of the Orange County policy. According to the policy, employees could be terminated from employment if they were absent from the workplace for three consecutive days without notice to the employer. At or near the time Petitioner was employed by Respondent, he received a copy of the Orange County Government Employee Handbook (on June 11, 2001). He also received training on the Orange County Policy Manual. Petitioner signed an Employee Acknowledgement (March 30, 2004) form stating that he had received the training. The Employee Acknowledgement form, signed by Petitioner, further stated "I understand that I am responsible for complying with all Policies, Operational Regulations, Departmental Operating Procedures, and Departmental Guidelines, and that the failure to do so may be grounds for corrective action, up to and including termination." As a result of the training described in paragraph 6, Petitioner was aware of the Orange County policy that authorized employees to be terminated if they were absent from work three consecutive days and did not notify Respondent. Based on Petitioner's extended absence from the workplace and his failure to communicate with his supervisors regarding the absences, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment. By letter dated August 26, 2004, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment with the Event Set-Up Department. The reason for Petitioner's termination was that he had not communicated with Respondent since July 8, 2004. The letter also stated, "while we understand there were some extenuating circumstances involving the Orange County Sheriff's Office, we can no longer wait to address this violation of . . . policy." According to the termination letter, the applicable policy provides the following: "Failure to work for three (3) or more consecutive working days without proper authorization shall be considered job abandonment and result in immediate termination, unless the employee presents written proof that he/she was unable to make appropriate notifications through no fault of his/her own." When he was first incarcerated, Petitioner thought he would be held for 24 to 48 hours. However, he was not released until December 3, 2004. After Petitioner was released from jail, he went to his employer and asked if he could return to work, but was told that he could not return due to his excessive and consecutive absences without notifying his employer. Petitioner had a psychological evaluation when he was incarcerated, and a psychological report dated October 11, 2004, was generated as a result of that evaluation. Petitioner did not offer the evaluation into evidence, but testified that the evaluation indicated he had a mental illness. However, this report and the findings and conclusions therein have no bearing on this case as the report was prepared after Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment. Respondent was unaware of the psychological evaluation or report until the final hearing. During his employment with Respondent, Petitioner never advised his supervisor that he had a disability. Petitioner testified that in 2002 or 2003, he asked his three supervisors to help him "with the grievances." At hearing, Petitioner explained that when he used the term "grievances" he meant the mental, psyche, and physiological abuses he was suffering. In early 2002, while employed with Respondent, Petitioner sent a letter to Mr. Schildgen. According to Petitioner, the letter was about "psychological and physiological experimentations of science and technology." Mr. Schildgen found the letter described in paragraph 17 to be somewhat "strange," but nothing in the letter stated that Petitioner had a handicap or disability. After receiving the letter, Mr. Schildgen and two other supervisors met with Petitioner and asked him about the letter. During the meeting with his supervisors, Petitioner broke out in a cold sweat and rather than talking about the letter, started talking about subjects such as "Sigmund Freud and other stuff [Mr. Schildger and the other two supervisors] and we didn't quite understand where it was going." At no time during the meeting did Petitioner state or indicate that he had a disability. Moreover, there was nothing in Petitioner's personnel file that indicated he had a disability. At no time during his employment with Respondent did Petitioner advise anyone there that he had a handicap or disability. Also, Respondent never knew or considered Petitioner to be handicapped or disabled. The sole basis for Petitioner's termination was his violation of Orange County's "absentee policy."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner, Norman H. Siales', Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2006, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 Norman H. Siales Post Office Box 1772 Orlando, Florida 32802 P. Andrea DeLoach, Esquire Orange County Attorney's Office 435 North Orange Avenue, Suite 300 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment action by discriminating against Petitioner based on her race contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2005).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as defined in Section 760.027, Florida Statutes (2005). Petitioner is an African-American female. At all times relevant here, Petitioner worked full-time as a floor technician (floor tech) at Respondent's nursing home facility. As a floor tech, Petitioner was responsible for dusting, mopping and buffing the floors. At all relevant times, Cheryl Johnson was Respondent's facility administrator. Ms. Johnson has held that position since December 2002. In May 2003, Petitioner asked Ms. Johnson if she could receive her paycheck early. Petitioner was aware that Ms. Johnson had given an early paycheck to a nurse. The record does not reveal the nurse's race. Ms. Johnson refused to give Petitioner the early paycheck. Ms. Johnson admitted that she had made a mistake in giving the nurse an early paycheck. Ms. Johnson stated that she would not violate Respondent's policy against early paychecks again. Petitioner filed a grievance, claiming that Ms. Johnson was not being fair. Sometime thereafter, Ms. Johnson gave an early paycheck to a dietary employee. The dietary employee was an African- American. With regard to early paychecks, there is no evidence that Ms. Johnson ever gave preferential treatment to employees who were not members of a protected group. In October 2003, Sue Goldfarb was Petitioner's supervisor. Ms. Goldfarb criticized Petitioner because Petitioner was spending too much time in the Activities Room. Petitioner complained to Ms. Johnson and filed two grievances, claiming that she was being treated unfairly. According to Petitioner, Ms. Goldfarb and a medical records clerk, Pam Brock, did not get into trouble for spending time in the Activities Room. Ms. Johnson explained that Petitioner could assist in the Activities Room, but only after she completed her floor tech duties. There is no evidence that Respondent ever allowed employees to assist in the Activities Room before they completed their regularly assigned duties. Petitioner did not suffer any adverse consequences as a result of Ms. Goldfarb's criticism. At some point in time, Respondent informed all housekeepers, including Petitioner, that their hours were being cut from seven-and-a-half hours per day to six-and-a-half hours per day. Respondent also informed the housekeepers that they would not be eligible for overtime hours. Respondent took these actions because the facility's "census" (number of residents) was low. In February 2004, Ms. Johnson decided to redecorate the Activity Room as a special weekend project. Ms. Johnson requested Gary Brock, Pam Brock's husband and a maintenance man for the facility, to work over the weekend to complete project. Ms. Johnson also requested Ms. Brock to assist with the project because Ms. Brock recently had been short on hours. Thereafter, Petitioner impermissibly reviewed a document on a supervisor's desk. The document indicated that Ms. Brock, the medical records clerk, received three hours of overtime on the weekend of the special project. Petitioner copied the document and returned the original to the supervisor's desk. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she was not supposed to be looking at documents on the supervisor's desk. In February 2004, Petitioner filed a grievance, complaining that Ms. Brock had received overtime. Petitioner thought it was unfair for Ms. Brock, a medical records clerk, to receive overtime hours, while the housekeepers had their hours reduced. There is no evidence that Petitioner was treated any differently than any other housekeeper. At some point in time, Petitioner complained to Ms. Johnson and filed a grievance that Ms. Goldfarb was not doing her job. After receiving Petitioner's complaint, Ms. Johnson decided to obtain a statement from each housekeeper as to whether they had any concerns regarding Ms. Goldfarb. In March 2004, Ms. Johnson temporarily held all of the housekeepers' paychecks. She requested the housekeepers to visit her office, render their opinions about the housekeeping supervisor, and collect their checks. Petitioner, like all of the housekeepers had to visit Ms. Johnson's office to pick up her paycheck. While she was there, Petitioner signed a statement, indicating that Ms. Goldfarb did not treat her fairly. Subsequently, Petitioner filed a grievance, complaining, in part, because Ms. Johnson held the paychecks for the entire housekeeping department. There is no evidence that Petitioner was treated any differently than any other housekeeper. At the end of March 2004, Petitioner had a confrontation with a co-worker, Robert Goldfarb. Mr. Goldfarb was Sue Goldfarb's husband. The altercation occurred after Mr. Goldfarb walked across a wet floor that Petitioner had just mopped. Mr. Goldfarb had to walk across the wet floor to get to the restroom. Petitioner and Mr. Goldfarb cursed at each other and engaged in a shouting match. Petitioner filed a grievance about the incident. Respondent did not discipline Petitioner or Mr. Goldfarb for getting into the argument. Petitioner and Mr. Goldfarb have not had a similar exchange since the March 2004 incident. In September 2004, Petitioner and her supervisor, Ms. Goldfarb, engaged in an argument outside Ms. Johnson's office. Ms. Johnson suspended both employees for three days. After an investigation, Ms. Johnson reinstated Petitioner and Ms. Goldfarb and gave them back pay to make them whole. Since September 2004, Petitioner has received pay raises. She has not received any write-ups, reprimands, or any other type of discipline. She has not filed any grievances since September 2004. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Goldfarb was still Petitioner's supervisor. Petitioner was serving as Respondent's Chairperson of the Safety Committee, a position of special trust and responsibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorina Smith 1160 East Mays Street Monticello, Florida 32344 Alvin J. Taylor Delta Health Group 2 North Palafox Street Pensacola, Florida 32502 Mark E. Levitt, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Suite 225 Tampa, Florida 33606 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
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 for determination is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment act by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of age and retaliating against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Meikle is an African-American male. At hearing, Mr. Meikle withdrew his claim of age discrimination. Mr. Meikle is only pursuing the claim of retaliation. Mr. Meikle was employed with the Radisson Hotel (Radisson), which was owned by Hotels Unlimited. Mr. Meikle’s supervisor at the Radisson was Harland McPhun, who was the Assistant General Manager. Mr. McPhun’s supervisor at the Radisson was Diane Gray, who was the General Manager. During his employment at the Radisson, Mr. Meikle was promoted from a cook to the Kitchen Director. He was very proud of being in the position of Kitchen Director. Mr. McPhun had not encountered any problems with Mr. Meikle being on time for work or being a “no-show” for work as scheduled. However, Mr. McPhun had encountered problems with Mr. Meikle in other areas, such as Mr. Meikle's providing his sister, who was employed at the front desk of the Radisson, with larger portions of food than the other employees; and being in places other than the kitchen area talking, i.e., at or near the front desk. Mr. McPhun gave Mr. Meikle verbal warnings, regarding the incidents, but never documented any of the verbal warnings. At some point in time, Hotels Unlimited decided to convert the Radisson to a Double Tree Hotel (Double Tree). The Double Tree’s structure required the position of a Food and Beverage Manager, who would supervise the food and beverage personnel, kitchen staff, and restaurant servers. Gerald Brown was hired as the Food and Beverage Manager in January 2008. Mr. Brown began his employment before the completion of the conversion from the Radisson to the Double Tree. On February 14, 2008, Mr. Brown held his first staff meeting with the entire staff over whom he had supervision. Mr. Meikle was late for the staff meeting. On February 16, 2008, Mr. Brown issued a “Disciplinary Document” indicating that he was giving Mr. Meikle his first written warning for being late at the meeting. Mr. Meikle admits that he was late for the meeting. The Disciplinary Document was signed by Mr. Meikle (the date of the signature was not completed), by Mr. Brown, as the Manager (the date of the signature was not completed), and by Ms. Gray, as the General Manager, on February 18, 2008. Additionally, on February 16, 2008, Mr. Brown issued another Disciplinary Document indicating that he was giving Mr. Meikle his first written warning for failing to follow rules and direction involving four different matters about which Mr. Brown had repeatedly counseled Mr. Meikle on several occasions, but were not being adhered to by Mr. Meikle. The Disciplinary Document was signed by Mr. Meikle (the date of the signature was not completed), by Mr. Brown, as the Manager, on February 16, 2008, and by Ms. Gray, as the General Manager, on February 18, 2008. On February 25, 2008, Mr. Brown issued a Disciplinary Document for an incident that occurred on February 23, 2008, a Saturday night. Mr. Meikle was scheduled to work, but he departed the kitchen and the hotel property without informing and obtaining permission from the manager. Hotels Unlimited’s policy required the informing of the manager in order for the manager to take appropriate steps to make adjustments to accommodate the absence. Mr. Meikle was entitled to a break, but he failed to notify the manager of his absence in accordance with the policy. The Disciplinary Document included a statement that “Disciplinary Action to be decided by the General Manager.” The Disciplinary Document was signed by Mr. Meikle on February 26, 2008, by Mr. Brown, as the Manager, on February 25, 2008, and by Ms. Gray, as the General Manager, on February 26, 2008. Regarding Mr. Meikle’s absence from work on Saturday evening, February 23, 2008, he was working an 18-hour shift, without anyone to relieve him, which meant that he was unable to take a break. He was exhausted and needed to take a break. Before Mr. Brown was hired, Mr. Meikle was working the 18-hour shift, and after Mr. Brown was hired, Mr. Meikle agreed to continue working the 18-hour shift. Mr. Brown did not wish to disrupt what was already in place, so he agreed to allow Mr. Meikle to keep the 18-hour shift. It was not unreasonable for Mr. Brown to maintain Mr. Meikle on the 18-hour shift, as Mr. Meikle requested. On that same day, February 25, 2008, Mr. Brown issued a Disciplinary Document for an incident that occurred on February 25, 2008. Mr. Meikle raised his voice and became very loud, resulting in guests being disturbed. As Mr. Meikle had been absent from work on Saturday evening, February 23, 2008, Mr. Brown was inquiring of Mr. Meikle the reason for his (Mr. Meikle’s) absence. Further, during the conversation, Mr. Brown raised several other concerns. Mr. Meikle raised his voice and became very loud, which Mr. Brown determined was disturbing the guests. Mr. Brown requested Mr. Meikle to remove himself from the dining area. The Disciplinary Document was signed by Mr. Brown on February 26, 2008. Mr. Meikle refused to sign the Disciplinary Document where the employee’s signature is indicated; but, he (Mr. Meikle) noted on it, “Refuse to sign because I did what I was told,” and signed his name under the statement. Each Disciplinary Document indicated that Mr. Meikle’s termination was effective “2/29/08.” Mr. Brown did not indicate a date for termination on any Disciplinary Document and could offer no explanation as to why or how each Disciplinary Document contained such information. Furthermore, no testimony was presented as to why or how each Disciplinary Document contained such notation. Mr. Brown contacted Ms. Gray, recommending the termination of Mr. Meikle. Ms. Gray did not approve the recommendation; she wanted to continue to work with Mr. Meikle. On February 25, 2008, a letter, bearing the same date, from Mr. Meikle was faxed to Hotels Unlimited’s Human Resources. Among other things, Mr. Meikle notified Human Resources that he was working in a hostile work environment created by Mr. McPhun, providing examples of what he considered inappropriate action and conduct by Mr. McPhun; that Mr. McPhun “strongly dislike[s]” him “for whatever the reason”; that Mr. McPhun was taking food from the hotel and that he (Mr. Meikle) had reported it to the general manager; that all of his (Mr. Meikle’s) current problems at work stemmed from Mr. McPhun, providing examples of the problems that he (Mr. Meikle) had encountered2; that Mr. McPhun was the cause of all of his problems at work; that he (Mr. Meikle) had no one to ask for help; that Mr. McPhun was out to get him (Mr. Meikle) fired; that everyone was biased against him (Mr. Meikle) because of Mr. McPhun; and that a copy of the letter would be forwarded to the EEOC and the FCHR. Ms. Gray was notified by her superior that Human Resources had received a letter from Mr. Meikle, but she was not notified of the content of the letter nor did she receive or view a copy of the letter. Her superior told her to talk with Mr. Meikle and resolve the problem. Hotels Unlimited’s Employee Handbook, Employment Policies & Practices section, provides in pertinent part: Equal Employment * * * If you suspect discriminatory or harassing actions on the part of the Company or any other employee, you should immediately notify your General Manager or Corporate Department Head, as applicable, or, if you prefer, a Company Officer. Such notification will be held in confidence to the extent possible. Discriminatory behavior or action by any employee is cause for discharge. * * * Sexual and Other Forms of Harassment Policy Statement: Hotels Unlimited, Inc. is committed to a work environment in which all employees are treated with respect and dignity. It is the policy of Hotels Unlimited, Inc. to provide a work environment that is free from discrimination and harassment. Action, words or comments based on an individual’s sex, race, color, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, age, disability, marital status, citizenship or any other characteristic protected by law – either overt or subtle – are demeaning to another person and undermine the integrity of the employment relationship. . . . * * * Harassment on the basis of any other protected characteristic is also strictly prohibited. Such harassment is defined as verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility toward an individual because of his/her race, color religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, disability, marital status, citizenship or any other characteristic protected by law, and that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment; has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance; or otherwise adversely affects an individual’s employment opportunity. * * * Administration of Policy: * * * It is unlawful to retaliate in any way against anyone who has complained about harassment. Any incident of retaliation should be reported in the same manner as an incident of harassment. Any employee who engages in such retaliation will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including discharge. All allegations of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation will be subject to prompt, thorough and confidential investigation. All investigations will be designed to protect the privacy of, and minimize suspicion toward, all parties involved. . . . The Employee Handbook provided protection against employment practices for statuses beyond those set forth by law.3 In the early morning hours of February 29, 2008, Mr. Meikle was awoken by a telephone call from a co-worker inquiring as to why he (Mr. Meikle) was not at work. Mr. Meikle informed his co-worker that he was off that day, but his co- worker advised that he (Mr. Meikle) was scheduled to work. Mr. Meikle telephoned Mr. Brown, who informed Mr. Meikle to be at work. Mr. Meikle reported to work, but failed to report for his shift as scheduled. Regarding Mr. Meikle’s failure to report to work on time for his scheduled shift, all work schedules for Food and Beverage, during Mr. Brown’s tenure, were typed and posted, one week in advance. The work week for Food and Beverage was Monday through Sunday. The posted work schedule for the week of February 25, 2008, was prepared, typed, and posted by Mr. Brown and indicated that Mr. Meikle was required to work on Monday, February 25, 2008, and Tuesday, February 26, 2008; was not required to work on Wednesday, February 27, 2008, and Thursday, February 28, 2008; but, was required to work on Friday, February 29, 2008, specifically, from 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Mr. Meikle reviewed a work schedule for the week of February 25, 2008, that was typed and hand-written. The work schedule indicated that it was prepared by Mr. McPhun and that he (Mr. Meikle) was not required to work on Friday, February 29, 2008. Based on that work schedule, Mr. Meikle did not believe that he had to report to work on February 29, 2008. However, Mr. Meikle was required to report to work on February 29, 2008, and work from 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. He failed to report to work for his shift as scheduled.4 No dispute exists that, at no time previously, had Mr. Meikle failed to report to work for his shift as scheduled. On February 29, 2008, Mr. Meikle was terminated for failing “to be at work on time for [his] schedule [sic] shift.” A Termination Report dated February 29, 2008, was signed by Mr. Brown, by Mr. Meikle, and Ms. Gray. Mr. Brown made the determination to terminate the employment of Mr. Meikle, and Ms. Gray agreed. Mr. McPhun did not participate with Mr. Brown and Ms. Gray in the determination to terminate the employment of Mr. Meikle. At the time of Mr. Meikle’s termination, Mr. Brown was not aware of Mr. Meikle’s letter to Hotels Unlimited’s Human Resources.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Hotels Unlimited/Double Tree did not retaliate against Marshall Meikle in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended and dismissing his petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent has engaged in an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, by discriminating against Petitioner based on his disability.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been employed as a correctional officer by Respondent at all times pertinent to this proceeding at Tomoka Correctional Institution (TCI) in Volusia County, Florida. The prison houses adult male inmates. Staff at TCI has the primary mission of providing for the public safety through the care, custody and control of the inmates housed in that facility. In early 1998, Petitioner was diagnosed with Non- Hodgkin's Lymphoma and began treatment for the disease. He was granted leave as needed for treatment and continued otherwise to work. Petitioner requested and was eventually granted the privilege of working a double shift only in those situations where he could take the next day off. In December of 2000, he requested that he be assigned to a perimeter post half of the time, and that he not be assigned to the chow hall or to guard sick inmates. Since Petitioner did not provide sufficient medical information to support the requested accommodation, it was denied. Respondent assigned Petitioner to be a "roving perimeter officer" on June 18, 2001. These officers observe the secure perimeter of the facility to ensure that no unauthorized entry into or out of the facility takes place. Each officer on this assignment is issued a shotgun, revolver and a motor vehicle. Each officer has a specific part of the perimeter fence to guard. Petitioner, as a result of medication he takes for his condition, experienced an urgent need to defecate, and left his post after calling for a replacement. As a consequence, Petitioner was thereafter assigned duty only where he would have immediate access to bathroom facilities. Petitioner provided documentation from his health care provider to Respondent indicating that Petitioner could work any post in the facility subject to certain qualifications. He should be given 16 hours' advance notice of the assignment to permit him to plan his medication schedule if he were assigned to the perimeter or other station where bathrooms were not readily available. Additionally, Petitioner was to be relieved within nine minutes of requesting a needed bathroom break. Petitioner also needed to have constant access to cold water and not be subjected to temperatures in excess of 90 degrees for more than an hour. As a result of his special needs, Petitioner remained assigned mainly to inside posts. He meets all requirements to work in the TCI observation towers, which have bathroom facilities and are climate controlled. He is assigned to such a tower one day per week. Respondent will not provide Petitioner 16 hours' notification of a future assignment so as to permit him to schedule his medication in such a way as to avoid urgent bathroom usage. Further, Respondent will not provide relief within nine minutes so that Petitioner can use the restrooms when necessary. Petitioner is generally assigned by Respondent to dormitory duty with the exception of tower duty one day per week. The dormitory is air-conditioned, but such assignment is stressful, fatiguing, and could adversely affect Petitioner's physical condition of lymphoma which is presently in remission.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 22nd day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ernest L. Reddick, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Lawrence A. Lopenski 2482 Barbarossa Avenue Deltona, Florida 32524 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are whether the Respondents committed unlawful employment practices against Petitioner, and if so, to what relief is she entitled.
Findings Of Fact In the spring of 1994, Respondent CSD began operating a residential detention program for juvenile offenders pursuant to a contract with the Department of Juvenile Justice. The purpose of the program, commonly known as Hamilton House, was to provide redirection to the lives of its youthful residents/clients. Hamilton House had 48 beds divided between two dormitories. Respondent CSD assigned each resident to the appropriate dormitory, level six or level eight, depending on the type of security and rehabilitative services required. The program included an educational program as well as facilities for vocational and recreational activities. Respondent CSD employed Petitioner, a 51 year-old white female, as a resident advisor at Hamilton House from March 24, 1994 through June 30, 1996. Petitioner initially worked the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift in the level six dormitory. At times she served as the acting shift supervisor though she was not paid a supervisor's wages. When Petitioner began working for Respondent CSD, she lived with her elderly mother, Lotus Musgrove, whose colon cancer was in remission. At that time, Mrs. Musgrove was able to live independently and did not need a caretaker. On April 24, 1994, some of the clients managed to gain access to a bottle containing an alcoholic beverage. Petitioner and other employees received a verbal warning for failing to adequately monitor the behavior and movement of the clients. A training letter was placed in each employee's personnel file. In May of 1995, Respondent CSD hired Bobby Williams, Sr., as a resident advisor in the level eight dormitory. Mr. Williams is a black male. He eventually assumed the position of shift supervisor for the entire facility. There is no evidence that Petitioner sought this full-time position or a similar supervisory position at any time during her employment with Respondent CSD. In October of 1995, some of the clients accused Petitioner and another staff member of inappropriate conduct including, but not limited to, furnishing them with prohibited magazines and movies. As a result of the allegations, Respondent CSD suspended Petitioner and her co-worker without pay on October 18, 1995. By letter dated October 20, 1995, Respondent CSD advised Petitioner in writing that there was insufficient evidence of misconduct to warrant termination of her employment. However, the letter stated that Petitioner had violated company policy and procedure by allowing a youth to leave his room for extended periods after curfew. Respondent CSD paid Petitioner and her co- worker for the time they were suspended during the internal investigation. Respondent CSD subsequently reassigned Petitioner and her co-worker to work in a different dormitory and on a different shift. The change in time and location of their work shift was necessary to ensure there was no contact between them and the clients who had accused them of improper conduct. Petitioner was assigned to work the 3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. shift in the level eight dormitory. In a written statement dated October 23, 1995, Petitioner objected to the change in her shift. She preferred to continue working the 11:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. shift. She asserted that, during the day, she took care of her 78 year-old mother who had cancer. Respondent CSD did not immediately honor Petitioner's request. On or about November 24, 1995, Petitioner voluntarily purchased some supplies in the amount of $20.98 from a retail store. The supplies included the following: hand sprayers, cotton swabs, hydrogen peroxide, rubbing alcohol, highlighters, marker, Sharpies, and other miscellaneous items. Petitioner requested reimbursement from Respondent CSD because she intended to use the supplies at work. Respondent CSD declined to reimburse Petitioner for the supplies. There is no evidence that Respondent CSD ever authorized the purchase of the supplies. On December 11, 1995, a resident in the level eight dormitory attempted to discard a container of contraband tobacco. Petitioner detected his effort and responded appropriately. She received a letter of commendation for exemplary action which was placed in her personnel file. On January 23, 1996, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Juvenile Justice made a formal and final determination that "[i]t is inconclusive that staff members Julie Toughton and Alice Musgrove engaged in improper conduct with clients." On or about February 1, 1996, Petitioner took a box of pens and pencils from a client's desk. The client became upset and exhibited inappropriate behavior toward Petitioner. As a result of the client's tantrum, Petitioner took token-economy points from the client. Petitioner filed a written complaint dated February 4, 1996, with Respondent CSD after learning that one of her supervisors, Mike Myers, changed the client's point sheet. Petitioner's February 4, 1996, statement also asserted that Supervisor Myers was mishandling clients' mail. She complained that he was logging clients' mail and making the clients read their personnel mail to him. According to Petitioner, handling client mail was the responsibility of "line staff." On one occasion in February 1996, Petitioner was 30 minutes late reporting to her assigned duty station in the dormitory. She spent that time in the administration building because she refused to work with one of her co-workers. Supervisor Myers was responsible for changing Petitioner's time sheet to reflect a 30-minute deduction in regular time. On another occasion in February 1996, Petitioner and other employees worked two hours of overtime due to a crisis situation with one of the clients. Petitioner elected to "bank" the overtime rather than receive time-and-one-half of overtime pay. The other employees chose to receive overtime pay. Petitioner was off from work on February 22-23, 1996. When Petitioner arrived at work on February 24, 1996, her time sheet was not with the time sheets of other employees. Petitioner's time sheet was locked in a supervisor's office until February 26, 1996, because the supervisor was not at work. There is no indication in the record whether Petitioner's time sheet was locked up inadvertently or due to a dispute over Petitioner's wages. On March 1, 1996, Petitioner filed a written grievance with Respondent CSD regarding her pay. She claimed that Supervisor Myers was harassing her and discriminating against her by changing her time sheet without her knowledge. Specifically, Petitioner complained that Mr. Myers cheated her out of 30 minutes of regular time on one occasion and two hours of overtime on another occasion. She complained that her time sheet was locked in a supervisor's office for four days. On March 4, 1996, the Program Director, Dale Edwards, agreed that Petitioner should not be penalized for one-half hour of regular pay because she was in the administration building during the disputed time. Additionally, Mr. Edwards directed Supervisor Myers not to change an employee's time sheet without prior approval. He also requested that Petitioner furnish documentation that the company owed her for the two hours of overtime. Mr. Edwards was under the mistaken impression that the dispute over Petitioner's time sheet had been resolved. In March of 1996, Petitioner was working the midnight shift in dormitory eight consistent with her written request dated October 23, 1995. On March 18, 1996 and March 27, 1996, Petitioner made written requests for a change to the 7:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. shift. Petitioner specifically wanted to replace a Ms. Aikens on the morning shift. Respondent CSD did not honor Petitioner's request. However, there is no evidence showing that Ms. Aiken's position was ever filled, and if so, whether Respondent CSD selected a person of a different race or a younger to file the position. Petitioner was absent from work between April 8, 1996, and April 16, 1996, on April 22, 1996, and on April 29, 1996, due to illness and/or medical appointments. While she was absent, her inner-office mail box became so full that the mail had to be removed. The administrative manager gave Petitioner's mail to her supervisor. On April 23, 1996, Supervisor Myers completed Petitioner's annual performance appraisal for the period March 14, 1995 through March 14, 1996. Petitioner disagreed with the determination that she had difficulty communicating with others. Petitioner's mental health counselor, Christine Clark, sent Mr. Edwards an unsolicited letter dated April 23, 1996. According to the letter, Ms. Clark was treating Petitioner for family/employment related stress reduction. The letter states as follows in pertinent part: Due to the demands of her home environment, caretaking of her elderly mother who is dying from colon cancer, I am recommending that Ms. Musgrove be reassigned new working hours, namely a day schedule of approximately 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM in order to effectively and efficiently facilitate the evening and night care of her mother. In addition, Ms. Musgrove appears to have unresolved issues regarding her personnel file and salary still due to her for 30 minutes or .5 hour pay as well as two hours uncompensated work from several weeks ago. I personally read your approval for this compensation but apparently this has still not yet been indicated on her pay check. There also remain the allegations of her misconduct charges that appears not to be fully resolved. As an employee she does have the legal right to have these fully addressed and challenged. From my understanding that although the misconduct charges have been dropped, there are still areas that compromise Ms. Musgrove's reputation as a resident advisor. Mr. Edwards did not disclose the contents of Ms. Clark's letter to any employee of Respondent CSD other than his superiors, who advised him to get a release from Petitioner before responding to the letter. After receiving Ms. Clark's letter, Mr. Edwards had a telephone conversation with Petitioner's mother because Petitioner was not at work or at home. During the conversation, Mr. Edwards inquired about the mother's health. Mr. Edwards learned that Mrs. Musgrove's cancer had been in remission since 1993 and that she no longer required assistance with daily living activities. Mr. Edwards did not disclose any information regarding Petitioner's employment status, medical condition, or personal business to Mrs. Musgrove. Petitioner's sister placed an unsolicited telephone call to Mr. Edwards several days after he talked to Mrs. Musgrove. The purpose of the call was to thank Mr. Edwards for his concern over Mrs. Musgrove's health. During the telephone call, Mr. Edwards and Petitioner's sister did not exchange any information relating to Petitioner's employment, medical condition, or personal business. On April 29, 1996, all staff at Hamilton House received a memorandum advising them as follows, in pertinent part: As a result of the recent competitive bid conducted by District 3, Department of Juvenile Justice, Gator Human Services has been awarded the contract to operate the Hamilton County Youth Treatment Complex starting July 1, 1996. The memorandum also included information regarding the transfer of operations to the new service provider. Respondent CSD advised employees that, if requested, it would supply Gator Human Services the name, position title, hire date, and current salary of each employee of record. Respondent CSD stated that no other information would be given to the new organization without the consent of the employee. On May 1, 1996, Mr. Edwards wrote two memoranda regarding Petitioner's pay. First, Mr. Edwards directed the administrative manager to pay Petitioner for .5 hours of regular wages out of the company's petty cash fund and to get a receipt for the payment. Second, he directed the resident life manager to allow Petitioner to leave work two hours early (with pay) at a time of her choosing within the next work week. Petitioner could not "bank" the time indefinitely because Respondent CSD's contract was scheduled to expire on June 30, 1996. Mr. Edwards phoned Petitioner at home on May 2, 1996, to request a written release so that he could respond to Ms. Clark's letter. Petitioner wrote that release on May 3, 1996. The release gave Mr. Edwards permission to disclose confidential information to Ms. Clark. On May 3, 1996, Petitioner signed a written acknowledgment that receipt of $4.06 in payment for .5 regular hours would end the issue of the .5 regular hours owed to her. On May 10, 1996, Respondent Gator informed the staff at Hamilton House of the procedure for handling applications for employment with Respondent Gator's new program, Tiger Success Center. Applications were due on or before May 28, 1996. Interviews were to be scheduled between May 28, 1996, and June 7, 1996. Applicants would be advised of the final selections and employment offers by June 14, 1996. Respondent Gator requested that each applicant take a copy of their most recent performance appraisal to their employment interview. By letter dated May 13, 1996, Mr. Edwards responded to Ms. Clark's inquiry. First, he explained that questions regarding Petitioner's compensation had been resolved. Second, he stated that letters from the Department of Juvenile Justice and from the Office of the Inspector General had been added to Petitioner's personnel file, clearing her of all misconduct allegations. Third, he explained that the day shift would be the least desirable shift in terms of stress reduction because the activity level of the residents is highest during the day. Mr. Edwards also revealed that Petitioner's mother was treated successfully for cancer in 1993 and that her current health failed to support the need for a change in Petitioner's shift. Finally, Mr. Edwards noted that he had to consider the needs of the residents and other staff. A copy of Ms. Clark's inquiry and Mr. Edwards' response were placed in Petitioner's personnel file. Neither of the documents were disclosed to unauthorized persons. On May 22, 1996, the employees at Hamilton House received another memorandum advising them that after June 30, 1996, Respondent CSD would no longer operate the facility. The employees were encouraged to apply for employment with the new organization. Petitioner was scheduled for an employment interview on May 30, 1996. However, the interview was rescheduled because she was unable to keep the appointment. Petitioner's application for employment with Respondent Gator is dated May 31, 1996. She also furnished Respondent Gator with copies of three performance appraisals. Petitioner's signature on the application authorized Respondent Gator to make inquiries of references and former employers regarding her general character and past performance. There is no evidence that Respondent Gator ever made any such inquiries about Petitioner. A panel of three people representing Respondent Gator interviewed Petitioner. The panel asked her the same questions that they asked other applicants. Petitioner was very negative and critical of the existing program and Respondent CSD during her interview. After the interview, each member of the interview panel tallied their score sheets independently. All three agreed that Petitioner should not be given further consideration for employment with Respondent Gator because of her negative attitude and low interview scores. On June 13, 1996, Petitioner received a memorandum from Respondent Gator stating that the company was unable to offer her a position of employment. That same day, Respondent Gator offered employment to every other Hamilton House staff applicant except one black male, Mr. Humphrey. Respondent Gator hired a black female, Latasha Bristol, who worked in the level eight dormitory with Petitioner. Ms. Bristol is younger than Petitioner. However, she was not hired to replace Petitioner. Respondent Gator hired Ms. Bristol to work in the level six dormitory. Respondent Gator offered an employment position to a white female, Lucy Oxendine. Ms. Oxendine was over 60 years old at the time. She declined to accept a job with Respondent Gator for personal reasons. Mr. Edwards was hired by Respondent Gator to continue as program director after July 1, 1996. However, neither he nor any other employee of Respondent CSD shared any information about Petitioner with Respondent Gator or had any input into Respondent Gator's decision not to hire Petitioner. Respondent Gator based its decision not to employ Petitioner solely on the results of her interview which was very negative. On June 14, 1996, the staff at Hamilton House received a memorandum stating that anyone interested in accepting employment with Respondent Gator must sign up on June 19, 1996. On June 14, 1996, Petitioner's doctor faxed a medical excuse to Respondent CSD stating that Petitioner could not return to work for an undetermined period of time. The document indicates that Petitioner's diagnosis involved anxiety, depression, and work-related stress. The doctor commented that Petitioner was the primary caretaker of her mother who was terminally ill with cancer. The doctor's June 14, 1996, fax was received by Respondent CSD in the administrative manager's office. It was on her desk for a brief period of time before it was delivered to Mr. Edwards. There is no credible evidence that any employee of Respondent CSD disclosed the contents of the fax to unauthorized persons. Petitioner's doctor did not give her permission to return to work until after July 1, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that FCHR enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's Charges of Discrimination against both Respondent CSD and Respondent Gator. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: H. B. Stivers, Esquire Levine and Stivers 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Faye Musgrove Post Office Box 657 Live Oak, Florida 32064 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
