Findings Of Fact The Respondent was employed by the School Board of Volusia County from September 1, 1981 until November 14, 1989 as a painter or painter mechanic. T- II-39,40. The terms and conditions of the Respondent's employment was governed by the contract between the Petitioner and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 79, Local 850. This contract provides that employees can be disciplined, to include discharge for just cause. Joint Exhibit 1. The Respondent was employed as a painter within the Board's facilities support operations department. This department employs approximately 130 craftsmen and 20 clerical and supervisory staff. T-I-38. The Respondent's immediate superior was foreman of the painters, Joe Isaac, who has held that position for the past 18 years. T-I-38,64 The chain-of-command from the top of the facilities support department is Charles Lambeth, who is Director of Facilities Operation; Terry Ellis, who is Assistant Director in charge of the crafts area; and Clifton Robertson, who is the Director of Facilities Support Operations or the personnel administrator for the facilities support department. Clifton Robertson investigated the allegations against the Respondent, counseled with the Respondent, and issued the disciplinary letters and reprimands given to the Respondent. On October 24, 1989, Mr. Florio engaged in a loud, profane, and inappropriate shouting match with a coworker, Larry Brazil, while on the job scraping paint outside a classroom at Seville School. Their conduct was such that a teacher left her classroom, outside of which they were working, and cautioned them about the disturbance they were causing. The acting foreman, Don Jenkins, overheard the exchange between the Respondent and Brazil in which the Respondent used obscene or profane language. The acting foreman did not hear Brazil use such language, and other witnesses testified that they had never heard Brazil use such language on the job. On October 25, 1989, the Respondent got into another argument with another coworker, Ken Griswold. During this argument, the Respondent threw his paint scraper at Griswold, who had made no threat to the Respondent. With only the verbal provocation, the Respondent threw the scraper at Griswold and would have struck him had Griswold not jumped back out of the way. There was dissatisfaction among the Respondent's coworkers about the way he did his job. The Respondent had been injured in 1987 and was restricted from working on ladders over six feet tall, lifting regular ladders, and spray painting. Sometime later, the Respondent's restrictions were altered to permit him to work on a six-foot aluminum ladder. His refusal to do any type of work which was covered by his medical restrictions was a source of contention with his coworkers. In addition, he had a history of not following regulations and requirements which the other men were required to follow. On October 24 and 25, 1989, the Respondent was assigned to a team of painters to scrape and paint the exterior of a school. On both days, arguments between the Respondent and coworkers arose over the Respondent's refusal to scrape paint from the ladder. On October 24, 1990, this led to a shouting match with Larry Brazil and to the Respondent throwing a paint scraper at Ken Griswold on October 25, 1990. On March 21, 1989, the Respondent was directed at 7:00 a.m. to report to work at Seabreeze Senior High School by his foreman, Joe Isaac. The Respondent did not do so and stayed at the main maintenance facility until 8:45 a.m., when he was discovered by the Assistant Maintenance Director, Terry Ellis, who instructed him to report to the high school. The Respondent again refused to go and remained at the main maintenance facility until 8:54 a.m., when the Maintenance Director, Charles Lambeth, arrived. The Respondent had asked his foreman, Joe Isaac, to see Lambeth; and Isaac had told Florio to report to work at the high school and if Lambeth wanted him, Lambeth would send word through Isaac for Florio to report to Lambeth. When confronted by Ellis, the Respondent told Ellis he wanted to see Lambeth. Ellis also told Florio to report to the school immediately. Florio remained at the maintenance headquarters until Lambeth arrived. Lambeth asked Florio why he was there, and Florio stated that he had been told Lambeth wanted to see him. Lambeth told Florio that he had not wanted to see him, and Florio blamed the incident on the men lying to him. Florio did not report until told to do so by Lambeth. The Respondent had his pay docked for two hours and received a letter of reprimand for failure to follow direct instructions. The letter of reprimand described the Respondent's actions as malingering and insubordination. Painters reported each day to the maintenance headquarters, after which they took School Board vehicles to the job sites. Similarly, after being released at the job site, the painters were supposed to return to the main maintenance facility, where employees were dismissed for the day. On September 11, 12, 13 and 14, 1989, the Respondent drove his private automobile to the school at which the paint team was working. Although the Respondent had been given permission to drive his car on Monday of that week because his stomach had been giving him problems, he took his car the rest of the week and left directly from the school, not returning to the maintenance headquarters, as required on the dates indicated above. The Respondent received written notice that he was being docked 160 minutes. On or about September 21, 1989, the Respondent told a coworker that he refused to drive. The Respondent did not deny telling the coworker that he would not drive but asserted that he had been kidding. On September 22, 1989, the Respondent slammed open the door of a School Board truck striking another School Board truck in the door and damaging both trucks. The property damage was $121.63. The Respondent had slammed the door open because he was angered by the remarks of a coworker who chided him about driving. The letter of reprimand which the Respondent received for his conduct on September 21 and 22 indicated that the Respondent had been encouraged to enter the Employee Assistance Program. The Respondent did not avail himself of the program. The Respondent frequently complained to his supervisors about what he described as "harassment" and "kidding" by his coworkers although the Respondent engaged in similar behavior with his coworkers. As a result of his complaints, his superiors counseled his coworkers not to tease, harass, or kid the Respondent. The Respondent is a malingerer. He developed a pattern of avoiding work by failing to report when he was supposed to report; by refusing to perform duties within his ability as requested by his fellow workers; and by asserting he was ill. The Respondent was ill-tempered and acted out inappropriately with increasing frequency and violence. The Respondent refused to acknowledge that there was a problem, that the problem was him, and to seek assistance for it. The employer counseled with the Respondent and used progressive discipline to attempt to modify the Respondent's behavior to no avail. The employer had just cause to discharge the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore recommended that the Respondent be discharged. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of August, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-6360 The parties filed proposed findings of fact which were read and considered. The following is a listing by party of the findings which were adopted and those which were rejected and why: Petitioner's findings by paragraph number which began with paragraph 7: Paragraph 7 Adopted Paragraph 8 Adopted Paragraph 9 Adopted and rewritten Paragraph 10 Rejected; restates exhibit Paragraph 11 1st sentence adopted; remainder irrelevant Paragraph 12,13,14 Adopted and rewritten Paragraph 15(a) Irrelevant Paragraph 15(b) Rejected; restates exhibit Paragraph 16-20 Adopted and rewritten Paragraph 21 Irrelevant Paragraph 22-29 Adopted and rewritten Respondent's findings by paragraph number beginning with paragraph 1: Paragraph 1-4 Adopted and rewritten Paragraph 5 Irrelevant Paragraph 6-10 Adopted and rewritten Paragraph 11 Whether Brazil was disciplined is unknown Paragraph 12 Rejected as contrary to fact Paragraph 13-14 Adopted and rewritten Paragraph 15 Rejected that Florio did not throw the scraper at Griswold; remainder adopted and rewritten Paragraph 16 Adopted and rewritten Paragraph 17 Evidence was received that coworkers were counseled on several occasions; however, it is also irrelevant because the disciplinary records of the other employees were not introduced. Evidence was received that; at least one other employee was discharged for similar types of behavior. Paragraph 18 Adopted and rewritten Paragraph 19-24 Irrelevant Paragraph 25 The statement is true, but gives the erroneous impression that Florio was discharged because he did not participate in the program. The employer's reference of the employee to this program was relevant because it shows the employer had such a program and it was available. The employee's rejection was relevant because it indicates how confused the employee is about his situation and condition. Paragraph 26 Rejected as contrary to fact COPIES FURNISHED: Harrison C. Thompson, Esq. THOMPSON, SIZEMORE & GONZALEZ P.O. Box 639 Tampa, FL 33601 Ben Patterson, Esq. P.O. Box 4289 Tallahassee, FL 32315 Dr. Jame D. Surratt, Superintendent Volusia County School Board P.O. Box 2118 Deland, FL 32720 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner Debbie Smith (“Ms. Smith”) based on her age, disability, race, and/or religion.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Parties Ms. Smith is African American and was 61 years old at the time of the final hearing. Ms. Smith is blind in her right eye and has low vision in her left eye. She has been receiving disability benefits since March of 2018. Ms. Smith is Baptist. Ms. Smith has an associate’s degree in medical office administration and a bachelor’s degree in health care administration. At the time of the final hearing, she was pursuing a master’s degree in criminal justice from the University of West Florida and was expecting to graduate in 2019. In addition to her educational pursuits, Ms. Smith participates in a supported work program sponsored by the National Caucus for Black Age (“the NCBA”). The NCBA is a training organization that places seniors in nonprofit organizations so they can obtain experience that will lead to a permanent job. Participants in the NCBA’s training program must conduct at least two job searches a week and graduate from the program when they obtain a permanent job. Prior to the events at issue in this proceeding, the NCBA had placed Ms. Smith with Big Brothers and Big Sisters, and she was working as an administrative assistant and being trained to be a case worker. ECC is a federally funded health center that serves the uninsured and underinsured through approximately 15 different locations in Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties.1/ Ms. Smith lacks health care insurance and has received treatment at ECC for 20 years. The Events Leading to Ms. Smith’s Discharge from ECC At some point during the first quarter of 2017, Ms. Smith learned that ECC was hiring in order to staff four or five new offices in Escambia County. On March 13, 2017, Ms. Smith interviewed for a patient access representative (“PAR”) position with ECC. A PAR works the front desk at an ECC facility by greeting patients, placing their demographic information into a computer system, collecting co- pays, and registering patients to see a physician. The first two weeks of a PAR’s employment are devoted to training. ECC prefers for PARs to work 40 hours a week during that training period. However, that amount of work is not guaranteed. The number of hours depends on how much training a new PAR needs and whether an experienced PAR is available to provide training. After the training period, PARs work on an “as needed” or “PRN” basis. If a full-time position at ECC becomes available, then a PAR is eligible to apply for that position. Teresa Cline supervised ECC’s PARs at the time relevant to the instant case and hired Ms. Smith to fill a PAR position on a PRN basis. Ms. Smith was under the mistaken impression that she would be on PRN status for the two-week training period and then working full-time. Ms. Smith reported to an ECC clinic for her first day of work on the morning of April 3, 2017. Ms. Smith began her workday by training with two women who were working as PARs that morning, one of whom was Alexis Pineda. After observing the duties of a PAR for 30 to 40 minutes, Ms. Smith received an employee handbook, was photographed for an identification badge, and toured the facility. While Ms. Smith was touring the facility, Ms. Pineda told Ms. Cline that she had concerns about working with Ms. Smith. According to Ms. Pineda, Ms. Smith had visited ECC as a patient at some point in the months preceding April 3, 2017, and had been very disruptive in the presence of other patients. Nevertheless, Ms. Pineda ultimately told Ms. Cline that she was willing to work with Ms. Smith. Ms. Cline and Cathy O’Sullivan, ECC’s employment and benefits manager at the time, met with Ms. Smith and notified her about the concerns regarding the aforementioned incident. Ms. Cline and Ms. O’Sullivan assured Ms. Smith that any issues would be resolved in a professional manner. Ms. Smith rigorously denied that she was the person who caused the disruption.2/ Ms. Smith also learned during the meeting with Ms. Cline and Ms. O’Sullivan that she would only be working 12 hours a week during her training period and that she would be on PRN status after her training was complete. This news was very upsetting to Ms. Smith because she was unsure that she could survive on the income generated from 12 hours of work, per week. Therefore, Ms. Smith asked Ms. Cline at approximately noon, on April 3, 2017, if she could contact her former supervisor at the NCBA about re-entering that program. Ms. Cline granted her request and walked Ms. Smith to the back door of the ECC facility. Ms. Smith got into her car and left the ECC facility. Ms. Smith did communicate with her former supervisor at the NCBA but did not return to the ECC on April 3, 2017. Ms. Smith believed that she had permission from Ms. Cline to make direct physical contact with her former supervisor and that Ms. Cline was not expecting her to return to ECC that day.3/ However, Ms. Cline was under the impression that Ms. Smith was going to simply call her former supervisor from the ECC facility and then return to her PAR training. After waiting 10 to 15 minutes for Ms. Smith to return, Ms. Cline walked outside the ECC facility and was unable to find Ms. Smith. Ms. Cline then conferred with Cathy O’Sullivan, ECC’s director of training. Because Ms. Cline had not intended to give Ms. Smith permission to leave ECC for the rest of the day, Ms. Cline and Ms. O’Sullivan concluded that Ms. Smith should be discharged for abandoning her job. ECC’s handbook provides that “[e]mployees who stop and/or leave work before their scheduled end of shift without authorization of their supervisor will be regarded as abandoning their job and are subject to disciplinary action.” The Events Following Ms. Smith’s Discharge Ms. Smith reported to work at ECC on the morning of April 4, 2017, and went to Ms. Cline’s office to reiterate that she was not the patient who Ms. Pineda accused of being disruptive. Ms. Smith then learned from Ms. Cline and Ms. O’Sullivan that she had been discharged for leaving without permission the previous day. After demanding to speak with someone in a higher position at ECC, Ms. Smith met with Sunny Notimoh, the head of ECC’s Human Resources Department. Ms. Smith thought ECC had no grounds for discharging her, but Ms. Notimoh responded by stating that leaving without permission was unacceptable.4/ ECC did not rescind its decision to discharge Ms. Smith. Ms. Smith was able to re-enter the work program sponsored by the NCBA the week after her discharge from ECC.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 15th day of February, 2019.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by subjecting Petitioner to gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Southgate is a student housing and dining facility located in Tallahassee, Florida, near the campuses of Florida State University, Florida A&M University, and Tallahassee Community College. On September 16, 2004, Southgate hired Petitioner Devon Rozier as a dishwasher in the cafeteria dish room. The cafeteria is open seven days a week and currently employs approximately 34 employees, some part-time and some full-time. Petitioner had just turned 16 years old when Ken Mills hired him based upon a long-standing relationship with Petitioner's father, who had worked at Southgate for many years and was an exemplary employee. Petitioner worked as a part-time employee on the night shift, 3:30 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., for a total of 20-25 hours per week. Petitioner later received a promotion out of the dish room to the grill, and also worked other positions such as attendant and greeter. Petitioner also worked in various positions to assist as needed, as did other employees in the cafeteria. At the beginning of his employment, Petitioner exhibited good performance. As time progressed, Petitioner's performance began to decline, and he openly disrespected management. Various disciplinary techniques were employed by his supervisors in efforts to improve his performance, but the improvements always proved to be short-lived. On April 30, 2009, Petitioner and his supervisor, Rasheik Campbell, had an altercation, and Petitioner left the facility. Mr. Campbell warned Petitioner before he left the facility that such action would constitute job abandonment. Despite Mr. Campbell's warning, Petitioner left the facility. Mr. Campbell took the position that Petitioner abandoned his employment with Southgate. Petitioner was no longer placed on the schedule. On May 4, 2009, Southgate sent Petitioner a letter confirming his resignation. As months passed, Petitioner made attempts to regain his position with Southgate by calling his supervisors Mr. Campbell and Mr. Jason McClung. When his attempts were met with resistance by his supervisors, Petitioner bypassed them and went directly to Ken Mills, Southgate's General Manager and Petitioner's former supervisor. Petitioner presented his case to Mr. Mills in July and August 2009, regarding his desire to return to work. Mr. Mills had previously intervened on Petitioner's behalf, out of respect for Petitioner's father, to help him keep his job when difficulties with management had arisen. This time, Mr. Mills instructed Petitioner that Mr. McClung and Mr. Campbell were his direct supervisors and that they had ultimate responsibility regarding his desired return to work at Southgate. In August 2009, at the request of Mr. Mills, once again doing a favor for Petitioner based upon the long-standing work history of Petitioner's father at Southgate, Mr. Mills, Mr. McClung, and Mr. Campbell met with Petitioner and his mother, Jennifer Rozier. At the meeting, they discussed Petitioner's request to return to work at Southgate. During the meeting, Mr. McClung and Mr. Campbell did not feel that Petitioner exhibited any improvement in his behavior and respect for authority. As a result, Mr. McClung and Mr. Campbell chose not to re-hire Petitioner. Petitioner claims the following conduct he witnessed while working at Southgate was discriminatory: a) females were allowed to sit down at tables and eat while on the clock; b) females were allowed to use the computer while on the clock; and c) Petitioner was required to perform the females' work when they failed to show up or wanted to leave early. Petitioner further claims that his firing was retaliatory based upon one complaint he made to Mr. Campbell in February 2009 about having to perform the tasks of others who failed to come to work. Other employees, including Jodece Yant, Petitioner's girlfriend, and Darnell Rozier, Petitioner's own brother, testified that both males and females could be seen eating or using the computer while on the clock, and all were told to perform others' tasks when they failed to come to work or left early. Petitioner conceded that on occasion he engaged in the same behaviors he alleges to be discriminatory. Petitioner obtained a full-time job at Hobbit American Grill on January 21, 2010, and, as of the date of the hearing, continued to work there. His rate of pay at Hobbit American Grill is currently $7.25 per hour, and he testified he is better off there than at his former employer, Southgate. Petitioner is currently earning the same hourly wage ($7.25) as he was earning when employed at Southgate. Southgate had policies and procedures in force that prohibited, among other things, discrimination on the basis of gender or any other protected characteristics. Southgate's policies and procedures also prohibited retaliation. Petitioner received a copy of the employee handbook, which contained Southgate's anti-discrimination policies and was aware that Southgate had such policies in place.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Desiree C. Hill-Henderson, Esquire Littler Mendelson, P.C. 111 North Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1250 Orlando, Florida 32801 Micah Knight, Esquire 123 North Seventh Avenue Durant, Oklahoma 74701 Devon A. Rozier 7361 Fieldcrest Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32305 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Business of Respondent The complaint alleges the Respondent admits and I find that the Respondent is a public employer within the meaning of Section 447.203, Florida Statutes. The Labor Organization Involved The Respondent disputes the complaint allegation that the Charging Party is an employee organization with the meaning of Section 447.203(10) of the Act. Evidence adduced during the course of the hearing establishes that the Charging Party is an organizational faculty at Brevard Community College which desires the betterment of teaching conditions at the college. It seeks to represent public employees for purposes of collective bargaining and in other matters relating to their employment relationship with the college. The Charging Party is registered with PERC and has petitioned PERC to determine its status as a bargaining representative. Testimony also indicates that employees are permitted to participate in the organizational affairs and a representation election was held on March 3, 1976, which Involved the Charging Party. Based on this undisputed testimony, I find that the Charging Party is an employee organization within the meaning of Section 447.203(10) of the Act. The Alleged Unfair Labor Practices Background Patrick D. Smith, is employed by Respondent as Director of College Relations and he also serves as the editor of a college communications organ called the Intercom. Smith's immediate superior is Dr. King, the College's President who has the final authority for determining the Intercom's content. The Intercom is distributed to faculty and staff members in their college mailboxes and is published weekly during the school year. The Intercom is printed in and distributed from Smith's office on campus. On January 21, 1976, Lewis Cresse (then the Charging Party's President and a BCC faculty member) called Smith at his office and advised that he (Cresse) would like to announce a meeting that the Charging Party would be having in the Intercom. Approximately one week later, Cresse met President King in the college's parking lot and specifically asked that the BCCFT (the Charging Party) be allowed to use the Intercom. King indicated that he had no intention of allowing the Charging Party to use the Intercom and it suffices to say that Smith denied Cresse the use of it for announcing a meeting that the Charging Party would soon be holding in the Intercom. It is by these acts, that the General Counsel issued his complaint alleging that the Respondent discriminatorily denied the Charging Party the use of the Intercom and the college bulletin boards as a means of communicating the Charging Party's announcements and meetings. In attempting to establish that the above acts constitute violations of Sections 447.501 and 447.301 of the Act, the General Counsel introduced testimony to the effect that the Brevard Vocational Association, an organization whose purpose is to maintain communications for the benefit of all vocational, industrial education instructors in Brevard County had been permitted useage of the Intercom. Evidence also established that individuals were allowed to advertise personal items which they desired to sell in the Intercom and that such useage included advertisements regarding rummage and garage sales and that the Brevard Chapter of Common Cause, an organization which seeks to improve the workings of government by making it more accountable to the citizenry had frequently utilized the college's bulletin system. The Respondent bases its defense on its position that including in the Intercom, a meeting notice for the Charging Party which not only gave the time and place of the meeting but also urged faculty members to attend would have possibly violated the Act, by giving illegal assistance to the union; and that in any event, the college was not required to run the employee organization's notice in a publication such as the Intercom. Smith informed Cresse of Respondent's decision not to permit the employee organization to use the Intercom as a communications organ and thereafter, no other requests to use Intercom was made by the employee organization. Based on Smith's undisputed testimony that he raised the issue with Dr. King, college President, whether the employee organization's request would be granted, and that he (King) raised the question with the college's attorney, I find that the Respondent's denial is an act which is properly chargeable to Respondent. In support of its position that the Respondent discriminatorily denied the Charging Party to utilize the Intercom, the General Counsel introduced the February 19, 1976 issue of Intercom which contained a statement to the effect that Lewis Cresse, a professor at the college, would be speaker at a monthly meeting of the Brevard Vocational Association. Another item included in the Intercom was a meeting notice for the American Welding Society wherein it was announced that Sam Reed was Granted permission to announce a meeting for the society. In both examples, it was noted that the Brevard Vocational Association and the American Welding Society are organizations which the Respondent's administration encouraged faculty and staff members to participate in and for which the college reimbursed employees for expenses resulting from out-of-town meetings. Respondent's position is that it works closely with the society in that it fulfills its educational mission by preparing instructors which ultimately fulfills the college's mission. The remaining complaint allegations concerns the issue of a discriminatory denial to the employee organization of access to the college's bulletin Boards. Evidence reveals that the college has a well established procedure for the approval of documents to be posted on the college's bulletin boards and that such procedures are enforced. Prior to posting, they must be approved by Mike Merchant, Manager of the Student's Center and that approval takes the form of either a rubber stamp which indicates approval which is thereafter initialed by Mr. Merchant, or he writes the work "approved" on the document with his initials and the date. The facts relative to this allegation stems from a request by the Charging Party to post campaign materials on bulletin boards throughout the campus. Dr. Kosiba, provost of the Cocoa Campus informed Mr. Merchant that this request should be denied and it was. This request was also denied based on Respondent's position that it was not obliged to honor union requests to post union meeting notices on its bulletin boards and further that the items requested were "promotional materials" which were in truth "highly controversial campaign literature intended to gain support for the union in the then upcoming election." The items introduced were (1) a bumper sticker which encouraged employees to vote for the union and (2) a red, white and blue document covered with banner, stars and an eagle entitled "working draft of proposed agreement." To sustain the complaint allegations, it must be shown that (1) the Charging Party made a request to use the Respondent's communication facilities which in this case involved the Intercom and its bulletin boards and a denial of such request, (2) that similar requests had been approved of a similar nature and (3) that other alternative means of access were not available to the Charging Party. As to the first point, there is no question but that the Charging Party requested and was denied permission to use the Respondent's bulletin boards and its communications organ, the Intercom. However, the record evidence fails to establish that the Respondent had honored similar requests by other organizations in the past. In fact, all of the evidence tends to establish that with respect to the items here in dispute, Respondent vigorously opposed unionization, as was its right, and to have permitted the Charging Party to use the bulletin boards and its communications organ here would have been tantamount to a passive approval of the very ideas to which it had vigorously objected to. Furthermore, records evidence established that the union had abundant opportunity and did in fact communicate extensively with the employees. Among these other alternative means were: The college permitted the Charging Party to hold campus wide meetings for the faculty and staff on campus during daylight hours. The college provided a bulk distribution table conveniently located near the post office which was regularly visited by faculty and staff members. The college had an established policy which would have permitted the Charging Party to designate a single bulletin board for the posting of announcements. The employee organization was able to communicate extensively with faculty and staff by the circulation of numerous documents that were delivered to staff offices. (See Public Employer's Exhibits #3 - #24). Via the "faculty and staff directory", the employee organization had access to all names, home addresses and phone numbers of all members of the bargaining unit. (See Public Employer's Exhibit #26). The employee organization had available the campus newspaper THE CAPSULE, for meeting notices, announcements, etc. Local newspapers disseminated in the Brevard County area reported extensively on the union's campaign and activities. (See Public Employer's Exhibit #24(a) through (t)). Based thereon, I find that the Charging Party had numerous alternative means to communicate with the employees and the record is void of any circumstantial evidence that the rights of employees were interfered with, restrained or otherwise coerced by the Respondent's conduct as set forth above. I shall therefore recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety.
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioners based on their race in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2006) ("Florida Civil Rights Act").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: All Petitioners are African-American males; all were employed by Respondent. Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West were discharged on September 20, 2006. Petitioner Cole was laid off on August 25, 2006. Respondent, Solid Wall Systems, Inc., is an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act; it constructs cast-in- place solid concrete wall structures for the production home industry. This construction methodology is typically employed in large residential developments, and the construction "critical path" requires timely completion of each construction progression. For example, if walls are not timely completed, roof truss installation will be delayed, erection equipment will be idle, follow-up subcontractors are delayed, and money is lost. Petitioner, Ralph Alexander, was employed by Respondent in July 2004, as a laborer, being paid $9.00 per hour. He received pay raises and a promotion to leadman during the next several years. At his discharge, he was a leadman being paid $14.00 per hour. Petitioner, Stevie Daniels, was employed by Respondent in March 2004, as a laborer, being paid $9.00 per hour. He received pay raises and a promotion to leadman during the next several years. At his discharge, he was a leadman being paid $13.00 per hour. Petitioner, Ernest West, Jr., was employed by Respondent in October 2004, as a laborer and paid $9.00 per hour. He received pay raises during the next several years. At his discharge, he was being paid $11.00 per hour. Petitioner, Carlos Cole, was hired in September 2003, as a yard helper with Space Coast Truss, a subsidiary of Respondent's corporate owner, being paid $6.50 per hour. In October 2003, he was transferred to Respondent and received $9.00 per hour. He received pay raises and a promotion to leadman during the next several years. At his discharge, on August 25, 2006, he had been promoted to leadman and was being paid $15.00 per hour, but was working as a laborer. On September 11, 15 and 19, 2006, Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West were "written-up." That is, they were disciplined for failing to follow the specific instructions of supervisors. On September 11, 2006, Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West were on a "stripping" crew working at Wedgefield in East Orange County. Alexander was advised that the job had to be completed that day, because trusses were scheduled to be installed the following day. Notwithstanding direction to the contrary, the crew left the job without completing the stripping. The time cards of Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West indicate that these Petitioners "clocked-out" at between 5:24 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. It is between 30 and 45 minutes from the job site and Respondent's yard. Petitioners would have spent several additional minutes cleaning up before "clocking- out." Not only did Petitioners fail to complete the job, they left the job site early. Petitioner Ernest West, Jr., had a part-time job working for Space Coast Cleaning, a janitorial service, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday, Wednesday and Friday. The job was located in Viera approximately 15 to 20 minutes from Respondent's yard. September 11, 2006, was a Monday and a work day for West's part-time job. Petitioner West told Respondent's operations manager that they left the job site so that he could get to his part-time job on time. On September 15, 2006, Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West were assigned to strip a multi-unit job site in Titusville. The crew was told to complete the stripping before they left the job site. Time cards indicate that Petitioners "clocked-out" between 3:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Petitioners left the job unfinished, because they thought they would be unable to complete the job that day. On September 19, 2006, Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West were assigned to strip a building at Viera High School. After a building is stripped, crews have standing orders not to leave any "cap" forms on the job site. This is a particular type of form that crews are specifically instructed to return to the main yard immediately after use and re-stock in bins for use on subsequent projects. On this day, Petitioner Alexander called Roy Brock, a field manager, and inquired regarding the "cap" forms. He was instructed to bring all forms to the yard. Brock visited the Viera High School job site after the stripping crew had returned to the yard and found several caps that had been left at the site. He loaded them on his truck and returned them to the yard. As a result of these three incidents, which were deemed acts of insubordination, Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West were terminated on September 20, 2006. In May, June, and July 2006, the housing construction market suffered a significant decline. This was reflected by Respondent having a profit of $10,000 in May, a profit of $2,000 to $3,000 in June, and a $60,000 loss in July. In August, there was literally "no work." Respondent's employees were being sent home every day because there was no work. As a result of the decline in construction, Vince Heuser, Respondent's operations manager, was directed to lay off employees. Petitioner Cole was among five employees laid off on August 25, 2006. Of the five, three were African-American, one was Caucasian, and one was Hispanic. Seven Hispanic laborers were hired on July 5 and 6, 2006. Respondent had taken over the cast-in-place wall construction portion of two large projects from a subcontractor named "JR." The general contractor/developer, Welch Construction, requested that these seven Hispanic individuals, who had been "JR" employees, and had done all the stripping on these two Welch Construction jobs, be hired to complete the jobs. Hiring these seven individuals to continue to work on the jobs was part of the take-over agreement. In September 2006, three Hispanic laborers were hired. Two were hired to work on "amenity walls" which require a totally different forming process than does the standard solid- wall construction. The third was hired to work on the Welch jobs as he had worked with the "JR" crew previously.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter final orders dismissing the Petitions for Relief for Petitioners Ralph Alexander, Stevie Daniels, Ernest West, Jr., and Carlos Cole. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Adrienne E. Trent, Esquire Enrique, Smith and Trent, P.L. 836 Executive Lane, Suite 120 Rockledge, Florida 32955 Chelsie J. Roberts, Esquire Ford & Harrison, LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1300 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against the Petitioner on the basis of race and by retaliating against her, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Sections 760.10 et seq., Florida Statutes (2006).1
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Outreach Center is an organization serving the homeless in Broward County, Florida. It is associated with the Miami Rescue Mission and operates two centers in Broward County, one in Pompano Beach, Florida, and one in Hollywood, Florida. It provides shelter, emergency services, and comprehensive services to its clients, and receives its funding from private donations, in-kind gifts, contracts with governmental entities, and partnerships with local communities. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, the staff of Outreach Center's Hollywood center was multi-ethnic; approximately 50 percent of its employees were African-American, including two supervisors, and the rest of the staff consisted of Hispanics, whites and persons of other ethnic origins. At the times material to this proceeding, Ronald Brummitt was the Executive Director of the Miami Rescue Mission/Broward Outreach Center; Scott Hall was the Director of the Hollywood center of the Outreach Center and reported to Mr. Brummitt; and Martha Ayerdis was the Director of Human Relations for the Outreach Center. Mr. Brummitt and Mr. Hall are both white men. Ms. Chester, who is an African-American woman, began working for the Outreach Center in early 2005 as a case manager in its Pompano Beach center. During part of the time she worked in the Pompano Beach center, Mr. Hall was the social services supervisor and supervised Ms. Chester. Mr. Hall and Ms. Chester had a very good working relationship when they worked together in Pompano Beach. Later in 2005, Ms. Chester transferred to the Hollywood, Florida, center of the Outreach Center. Prior to her transfer, Mr. Hall became the Director of the Outreach Center's Hollywood center. Francesca Fraser, an African-American woman whom Ms. Chester had known when they both worked as case managers in the Pompano Beach center, was the social services supervisor at the Hollywood center when Ms. Chester began working there. Ms. Fraser began working with the Outreach Center in Pompano Beach in 2004; she was offered the social services supervisor position in Hollywood about a year and a half later. As the social services supervisor, Ms. Fraser supervised Ms. Chester. Mr. Hall and Ms. Fraser both thought very highly of Ms. Chester, and they recommended to Mr. Brummitt that Ms. Chester be promoted to lead case manager. Mr. Brummitt, who, as the Executive Director of the Outreach Center, had the power to hire, fire, and promote employees, approved Ms. Chester's promotion. The social services supervisor was a key person at the Outreach Center because, in addition to managing the case managers, the social services supervisor was responsible for ensuring that the required data were input into the Outreach Center's client-tracking database system and for extracting this data and preparing the monthly reports that were sent to the Miami Rescue Mission, the Outreach Center's parent organization. The data in the monthly reports were relied on to prepare the quarterly reports and the annual reports. During the times pertinent to these proceedings, Mr. Hall prepared the quarterly and annual reports, which were provided to Broward County as a condition of the Outreach Center's receiving funding from the county. Ms. Fraser liked her work at the Hollywood center of the Outreach Center. She felt, however, that her interaction with management, specifically, with Mr. Hall, was stressful and uncomfortable and became increasingly so. For Mr. Hall's part, he felt that, any time he questioned Ms. Fraser or tried to instruct her, she became defensive and gave him the impression that she felt insulted. Mr. Hall considered Ms. Fraser a very capable person, but their working relationship began to deteriorate because of the lack of communication between them. After a time, Ms. Fraser decided that she had no alternative but to resign her position with the Outreach Center. She was experiencing a great deal of stress as a result of her dissatisfaction with her working relationship with Mr. Hall, and she became ill. Ms. Fraser missed a great deal of work because of her illness, and, during Ms. Fraser's absences, Ms. Chester stepped in and helped Mr. Hall complete Ms. Fraser's work. Ms. Chester was a tremendous help to Mr. Hall during this time. After Ms. Fraser resigned, Ms. Chester acted as the de facto social services supervisor, and Mr. Hall worked with Ms. Chester on the client-tracking database and worked with her to complete the monthly report due June 30, 2006. Ms. Chester was promoted to social services supervisor at the Hollywood center effective July 1, 2006. Mr. Hall assumed that, when Ms. Chester was promoted to lead case manager, Ms. Fraser taught her how to use the client-tracking database system and how to supervise the case managers and had requested her assistance in the preparation of reports. He, therefore, did not provide Ms. Chester with any formal training with regard to the duties of the social services supervisor. He was, however, available to answer questions and work with her whenever she needed assistance, and he met with her regularly regarding various matters. Ms. Fraser left behind a great deal of unfinished work when she resigned, and Ms. Chester had a lot to do to get the work current. At the same time that she was trying to learn the job of social services supervisor, Ms. Chester was also handling the cases that she had when she was the lead case manager, and she had also advised Mr. Hall of her intention to take college courses to further her education. Mr. Hall was concerned that Ms. Chester was overwhelmed, and he urged her to transfer her case files to one of the case managers and to concentrate on her administrative and supervisory responsibilities. In Ms. Chester's opinion, the case managers under her supervision had heavy caseloads, and Ms. Chester continued to work with clients. When Ms. Chester was promoted to social services supervisor on July 1, 2006, Barbara Law was an intake case manager and was under the supervision of Ms. Chester. Ms. Law was promoted to resident services supervisor in August 2006. Ms. Chester believed that Ms. Law was given preferential treatment by Mr. Hall. For example, Ms. Law brought her daughter into the office on occasion, when she had an emergency; on one occasion, the lead family case manager, who was under Ms. Chester's supervision, had to tell Ms. Law's daughter not to run around the building with the children of clients. Ms. Chester believed that Mr. Hall was showing favoritism to Ms. Law by permitting her to bring her child to the office, but this was not a privilege extended only to Ms. Law. Other employees were routinely allowed to bring their children to the office. Ms. Chester felt that Ms. Law's family concerns were accommodated by Mr. Hall by allowing Ms. Law to bring her daughter to the office during work hours, but that Mr. Hall did not accommodate her family concerns. Ms. Chester referred to an incident that occurred during the first week of December 2006. Ms. Chester telephoned Mr. Hall on Monday, December 3, 2006, to advise him that she had a family medical emergency and would not be at work that day. Ms. Chester told Mr. Hall that she would not take leave because she intended to make up the time by working on the following Saturday. Mr. Hall told Ms. Chester that this was fine. On Saturday, Mr. Hall received a call from one of the case managers asking for help with an emergency. Mr. Hall told the case manager to report the problem to Ms. Chester, but he was told that Ms. Chester was not at the Outreach Center. Mr. Hall telephoned Ms. Chester on Sunday to ask if she reported to work on Saturday, and she confirmed that she had not but gave no explanation. When she submitted her timesheet for the week, she reported that she had worked a 40- hour week. Mr. Hall wrote this incident up in a Disciplinary Action Report dated December 14, 2006, which was later amended on December 21, 2006. On another occasion, when Mr. Hall was out of the office on vacation, Ms. Law told the case managers, including those who were supervised by Ms. Chester, to report any problems to Ms. Law in Mr. Hall's absence. Because of this instruction, case managers who were under Ms. Chester's supervision reported to Ms. Law rather than to Ms. Chester. In the opinion of one case manager, Ms. Law did well while she was in charge. In addition to Ms. Chester's specific concerns related to Ms. Law, related above, Ms. Chester had ongoing concerns related to Ms. Law job performance. Before Ms. Law was promoted to residential services supervisor, Ms. Chester was her supervisor. Ms. Chester complained to Mr. Hall about what she perceived as Ms. Law's insubordination, but, in her opinion, Mr. Hall did not take her concerns seriously. Ms. Chester also felt that Ms. Law was given preferential treatment because Ms. Law received Mr. Hall's approval to place two families in one accommodation, while she was criticized by Mr. Hall for placing two families together. As a general rule, placing two families in the same accommodations was a serious breach of the Outreach Center's rules. Mr. Hall approved Ms. Law's placing a new mother and her infant in accommodations with a family that the new mother had grown close to, so the family could help the new mother with her infant. In an e-mail sent from Mr. Hall to Ms. Chester on August 30, 2006, Mr. Hall asked Ms. Chester to meet with him to discuss complaints he had received from clients that there were substantial delays in meeting their case managers. Mr. Hall considered this a very serious matter that was causing discontent among the Outreach Center's clients, and he approached Ms. Chester about the problem because she was the social services supervisor. In an undated response to Mr. Hall's e-mail, Ms. Chester stated that she was getting complaints that Ms. Law was not meeting the needs of her clients, apparently because Ms. Law had been involved in training other employees. She expressed confidence that, once Ms. Law resumed her regular case management duties, the situation would be resolved, but she alluded to divisions among the Outreach Center's staff. Ms. Chester was very concerned that Ms. Law was not serving her clients appropriately, and Ms. Chester felt obligated to work with Ms. Law's clients. Ms. Chester was, therefore, trying to manage a caseload at the same time she had administrative and supervisory responsibilities. This caused a great deal of stress for Ms. Chester, and she was seen crying in the office on several occasions by one of the case managers she supervised. On or about September 25, 2008, Mr. Hall, Ms. Chester, and Ms. Law met to discuss the problems that had been identified by Mr. Hall in the August 30, 2006, e-mail. The immediate problem between Ms. Chester and Ms. Law was resolved, and Ms. Law left the meeting. Mr. Hall asked Ms. Chester to remain behind because he wanted to discuss a complaint that he had received about her using profanity in the workplace. One of Ms. Chester's case managers went to another supervisor and complained because the case manager did not want to get in trouble. The supervisor reported the complaint to Mr. Hall. When Mr. Hall told Ms. Chester about the complaint, Ms. Chester denied using profanity. Mr. Hall assured her that this was not a disciplinary matter and that, if she did not use profanity, he should forget about the complaint. Ms. Chester insisted on an investigation and on confronting the person who had lodged the complaint. Eventually, the supervisor who had received the complaint in confidence and reported it to Mr. Hall, a woman named Lolita Suarez, came forward, and Ms. Suarez and Ms. Chester discussed the matter and came to a resolution. On September 26, 2006, however, the day after the meeting, Ms. Chester wrote an e-mail to Mr. Brummitt in which she stated that she considered the complaint a personal attack, made without justification, because she "had concerns with a certain employee," apparently referring to Ms. Law. Ms. Chester described the complaint as "'tit for tat'" behavior, and she described the work environment as one that interfered with her ability to carry out her responsibilities. Ms. Chester further stated that Mr. Hall refused to divulge the name of the person complaining about her use of profanity, and she requested Mr. Brummitt's intervention to "provide clarity with this situation."2 Ms. Chester sent a copy of the e-mail to Mr. Brummitt to Mr. Hall. In an e-mail dated October 16, 2006, Mr. Hall wrote to Ms. Chester that he had just discovered the e-mail to Mr. Brummitt. Mr. Hall stated that the e-mail to Mr. Brummitt was inappropriate because it broke the "chain of command" set out in Section 2.1 of the Employee Handbook and that, if Ms. Chester wanted a meeting with Mr. Brummitt, she was to request it through him, Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall emphasized that Ms. Chester had not been disciplined as a result of the complaint, nor had there been any other consequences. Mr. Hall further stated that Ms. Chester's circumvention of the chain of command created a problem for Ms. Chester and Mr. Hall and that it would be necessary for them to meet to resolve the matter and, possibly, to include Mr. Brummitt. Ms. Chester wanted to meet with Mr. Brummitt to discuss the manner in which Mr. Hall talked to and related to employees. She also wanted to speak with Mr. Brummitt because she had brought problems and issues to Mr. Hall's attention, but, in her opinion, Mr. Hall refused to address the problems or deal with them because, Ms. Chester surmised, he was uncomfortable with the matters she brought to his attention. Ms. Chester wanted Mr. Brummitt to intervene and resolve the growing tension between her and Mr. Hall. Ms. Chester made several requests to meet with Mr. Brummitt on her own. Although Mr. Brummitt did not respond directly to Ms. Chester's requests for a meeting, he talked with her at one point and told her to follow the procedures in the employees manual and go through the system if she had any complaints or concerns. According to the Employee's Manual, an employee was to go first to his or her immediate supervisor to resolve a problem; if the employee was not satisfied with the response of his or her immediate supervisor, the employee was to go to the Human Relations Director, Ms. Ayerdis, and she would discuss the problem and request a meeting with the Executive Director, Mr. Brummitt, if appropriate. By October 2006, Mr. Hall had observed a number of problems with the case management and the team supervised by Ms. Chester. He was also receiving verbal complaints about Ms. Chester from other supervisors. He became concerned and asked Ms. Chester to meet with him to discuss a number of issues. Among other things, Mr. Hall intended to ask Ms. Chester to transfer any cases she was managing at the time and spend her time doing the administrative duties required of the social services supervisor. He believed that Ms. Chester was overwhelmed and experiencing a lot of stress on the job, and he wanted to make it easier for her to perform her managerial and administrative responsibilities. Mr. Hall and Ms. Chester met on or about October 15, 2006. Mr. Hall felt that Ms. Chester had become increasingly defensive whenever he brought any issues to her attention, and, at the October 15, 2006, meeting she become noticeably upset and then somewhat belligerent. As the meeting progressed, Ms. Chester become increasingly belligerent, and Mr. Hall became angry and told Ms. Chester to leave his office. Mr. Hall did not give Ms. Chester any indication that her employment was terminated and took no action to terminate her. Nonetheless, when Mr. Hall told Ms. Chester to leave his office, she left the Outreach Center's office and filed an unemployment compensation claim effective October 15, 2006. Ms. Chester did not report for work on October 16, 2006, but she subsequently continued working, and Mr. Hall was not aware that she had filed an unemployment compensation claim until Ms. Ayerdis told him that she had received notice that the claim had been filed. The claim was denied on November 6, 2006, on the grounds that Ms. Chester was fully employed and not eligible for unemployment benefits. After Ms. Chester's promotion on July 1, 2006, Mr. Hall continued to prepare the quarterly reports, and he trained her to prepare these reports. Ms. Chester's only responsibility with regard to the quarterly reports was to ensure that the required data from client files and the persons- served worksheet was entered into the client-tracking database system so that Mr. Hall could pull this information to include in the quarterly reports. Ms. Chester submitted the July 2006, August 2006, and September 2006 monthly reports on time. Mr. Hall wrote e-mails complimenting her and thanking her for getting the September 2006 in early. Mr. Hall did not check the data and documentation backing-up the July and August reports, but, when he began to prepare the quarterly report that was due on October 15, 2006, he noticed that the data in the client- tracking database system did not match the information Ms. Chester had included in the monthly reports. The monthly report was basically spreadsheet containing the accumulated data that had been entered into the client-tracking database system throughout the month, and the information in the database should have been reflected in each monthly report. The missing data related to intakes, discharges, and referrals to transitional housing, and the discrepancies between the data in the database and the data included in the monthly reports prepared by Ms. Chester were significant. It was very important that the reports submitted to Broward County were accurate because the Outreach Center's funding was dependent on the information included in the reports. Mr. Hall sent Ms. Chester several e-mails on October 16 and 18, 2006, advising Ms. Chester of the missing data and asking that she provide the backup documentation for her monthly reports and account for the discrepancies. Mr. Hall suspected that Ms. Chester was pulling the data for the monthly reports from the client files themselves and that she was not inputting the data into the client-tracking database system. All of the information included in the monthly reports had to go into the database so that reports could be generated from the database, and Ms. Chester had been trained by Mr. Hall on inputting the data into the database. Ms. Chester never responded to the e-mails Mr. Hall sent on October 16 and 18, 2006, and she did not provide him with the backup documentation that he had requested. Ms. Chester's 90-day review of her performance was due on or about October 1, 2006. Because of what he perceived as problems with Ms. Chester's job performance, especially after the September 25, 2006, meeting when he brought up the complaint about her use of profanity, Mr. Hall decided to delay the review for 30 days to allow Ms. Chester additional time to improve her performance. Mr. Hall completed the review, and it was not favorable to Ms. Chester. Mr. Hall rated Ms. Chester below average in a number of categories, including quality of work, quantity of work, dependability, and customer contact. He rated Ms. Chester both below average and average on cooperation, noting that this had improved slightly. Mr. Hall rated Ms. Chester above average in attitude and average in ability to learn new duties. In the narrative portion of the review, Mr. Hall noted Ms. Chester's strengths as building strong and trusting relationships with the case managers she supervises, strong communication skills, and genuine compassion toward the homeless and dedication to helping them. Mr. Hall also observed that Ms. Chester was well-like by some of her coworkers and fellow supervisors. Mr. Hall made the following assessments of the weak points in Ms. Chester's job performance: In the areas of performance and follow-through, Mr. Hall stated that Ms. Chester had difficulties getting along with supervisors of other departments; was "visibly and emotionally very defensive" when concerns were brought to her attention and when she was given constructive criticism and correction of her performance; did not follow through with instructions or respond to e-mails; failed to respond to e-mails sent in October 2006 asking about missing data; failed to provide requested back-up documentation for data included in her monthly reports; despite having been reminded several times, failed to devise a work schedule for case managers so that all shifts during the week were covered; and failed to conduct regular crisis assessment team meetings. In the area of program outcomes, Mr. Hall stated that the data missing from the client-tracking database caused the Outreach Center to fall short of the outcomes required by its contract with the county; that the quarterly satisfaction survey of the Outreach Center's clients reflected the lowest percentage of satisfaction with case management services since the Outreach Center had been open; that, when Ms. Chester was told of the low survey results and asked how it could be improved, she stated that nothing could be done that had not been done already; and that Ms. Chester did not work out solutions for transfer of clients in emergency shelter to transitional shelter or independent living arrangements but offered extension of time to the clients, which had a negative effect on the outcomes required by the county. In the area of interviews, Mr. Hall stated that Ms. Chester was not able to build a solid and professional staff of case managers because she was unable to assess the strengths and weaknesses of persons interviewing for jobs. In Mr. Hall's view, Ms. Chester made decisions based on her emotions rather than on the candidate's qualifications and experience. In the area of decision-making and judgment calls, Mr. Hall stated that some of Ms. Chester's decisions put the Outreach Center and its clients at risk. He specifically noted that Ms. Chester had agreed to allow a single woman client to take another family's children to a medical appointment; had placed two families in one family unit; and had placed a single father with two sons, 16 and 13 years of age, in the women and children's center. Mr. Hall stated that Ms. Chester went outside the chain of command by sending an e-mail to Mr. Brummitt without Mr. Hall's approval and without notifying him, as required by the employee handbook; that she enabled poor performance by the case managers under her supervision; and that her excessive absences had placed the Outreach Center and the case management team in a difficult position. Finally, Mr. Hall stated that he had attempted to help Ms. Chester improve her job performance by meeting with her weekly and sometimes daily to provide instruction on the particulars of her job. He stated, however, that communication between him and Ms. Chester had broken down "on her end" shortly after the meeting in which he had spoken with her about the complaint that she had used profanity in the workplace.3 Mr. Hall arranged to meet with Ms. Chester on November 3, 2006, to discuss the 90-day review. Prior to the meeting, Mr. Hall gave Ms. Chester the review and told her to read it over. He knew she would have problems with the review because of the negative assessment of her performance, and he anticipated that their meeting would be lengthy because there were a great many concerns to discuss. In addition to discussing Ms. Chester's weaknesses, Mr. Hall also expected to discuss the adjustments that could be made to improve her performance and help her move into her administrative role. Ms. Chester did not show up for the meeting with Mr. Hall. Instead, she refused to discuss the review with Mr. Hall and requested a meeting with Mr. Brummitt. The meeting was scheduled for November 7, 2006. In spite of the negative 90-day review he had given Ms. Chester, Mr. Hall considered her an excellent candidate for a supervisor's position even though they no longer had the close working relationship they once shared. Mr. Hall was concerned, however, about Ms. Chester's ability to transition from being a case manager to being a supervisor because she seemed unable to supervise the members of the case management team. In addition, from Mr. Hall's perspective, Ms. Chester was communicating with him less and less frequently, and he found that she was becoming more and more resistant to instruction. Mr. Hall did not doubt Ms. Chester's ability to do the job of social services supervisor, but he took into consideration the fact that Ms. Chester was handling a client caseload and taking classes to further her education at the same time that she was learning to be a social services supervisor. Mr. Hall believed that Ms. Chester was overwhelmed in the position of social services supervisor, and she appeared to be stressed all of the time. Mr. Hall became convinced that Ms. Chester needed to work closely with a supervisor before she could successfully function as a supervisor, and he intended to remove her from the supervisory position for her own benefit and phase her back into that position. Prior to the November 7, 2006, meeting, Mr. Brummitt, Mr. Hall, and Ms. Ayerdis discussed the situation with Ms. Chester. After receiving input from Mr. Hall, Mr. Brummitt concluded that Ms. Chester was a valuable employee that he wanted to retain, and he decided to offer Ms. Chester the choice of remaining in the social services supervisor position or of returning to her former position as lead case manager, but at the same salary she was receiving as social services supervisor. At the meeting held on November 7, 2006, which was attended by Mr. Brummitt, Mr. Hall, and Ms. Ayerdis, Mr. Brummitt made his offer to Ms. Chester. Ms. Chester became upset because she considered the offer to return to her former position of lead case manager to be a demotion and to be disrespectful to her. Ms. Chester also took the offer to return to her former position at the same salary to be an indication that she was being underpaid as a supervisor. Ms. Chester attributed the poor 90-day performance review to retaliation by Mr. Hall for her e-mail and request to meet with Mr. Brummitt in September 2006. In Ms. Chester's view, her performance had been satisfactory and any problems she had were the result of lack of support from Mr. Hall and lack of training. Ms. Chester believed that black supervisors were not given the same level of support, training, and assistance that was given to white supervisors. Ms. Chester rejected Mr. Brummitt's offer to return to her former position as lead case manager, and she chose to remain in the position of social services supervisor and gave Mr. Brummitt and Mr. Hall assurances that she could do the job. Mr. Brummitt warned Ms. Chester that the offer to return to her former position was a one-time offer and that her performance as social services supervisor must improve or she would be terminated from her employment with the Outreach Center. Ms. Chester indicated that she understood. Communication between Mr. Hall and Ms. Chester improved for a few weeks after the November 7, 2006, meeting, but Ms. Chester's job performance did not improve, in Mr. Hall's estimation: Ms. Chester failed to register the case managers under her supervision for a scheduled training session. She nonetheless took them to the training location, where they were turned away and had to return to the Outreach Center. When Ms. Chester turned over her client case files after the November 7, 2006, meeting, Mr. Hall found that there was a great deal of information missing from the files, especially care plans for the clients, which Mr. Hall considered an extremely serious offense that impacted the Outreach Center's ability to serve its clients. On November 14, 2006, Mr. Hall asked Ms. Chester to attend a mandatory meeting regarding referrals to a Broward County agency that assisted the chronically homeless to obtain permanent housing. This was a very important meeting, but Ms. Chester forgot about the meeting and did not attend, with the result that the Outreach Center did not have a representative at the meeting. On November 24, 2006, Mr. Hall wrote an e-mail to Ms. Chester discussing the failure of one of the case managers under her supervision to write case notes and place them in clients' files. This case manager had not prepared any case notes for approximately a year, and Mr. Hall considered this a very serious offense that jeopardized the Outreach Center's county funding. Mr. Hall told Ms. Chester to write a Disciplinary Action Report on this case manager, but she resisted doing so. On December 7, 2006, Mr. Hall wrote an e- mail to Ms. Chester directing her to prepare the report, and she did so on December 8. 2006. She noted, however, that Mr. Hall had not allowed her to write a Disciplinary Action Report on Ms. Law. Ms. Chester was absent on Monday, December 3, 2006, because of a family emergency. As noted above, she advised Mr. Hall that she would work the following Saturday, but she did not do so. At a Crisis Assessment Team meeting led by Ms. Chester on or about December 6, 2006, Roberta Geist, the Outreach Center's lead therapist/counselor, was discussing the repeated failure of the case management team, which was multi-ethnic, to follow procedures with regard to clients who had relapsed. Ms. Geist was frustrated at the lack of compliance with procedures and, intending to address the entire case management team, she referred to "you people." Paulette Williams Shepherd, a case manager who had been hired by Ms. Chester in mid- November 2006, took offense, construing the comment as referring to the African-Americans who were attending the meeting, and she immediately left the meeting. Persons who attended the meeting reported to Mr. Hall that Ms. Chester became irate and also left the meeting, although she returned a few minutes later, acting as though nothing had happened. Ms. Chester contacted the Human Relations Department about the incident, and she also told Mr. Hall that she intended to file a formal complaint against Ms. Geist with her supervisor. In a Disciplinary Action Report dated December 14, 2006, Mr. Hall charged Ms. Chester with violations related to attendance, carelessness, and work quality. In the body of the report, he discussed three specific offenses: Ms. Chester's failure to include the proper documentation in the case files she had handled prior to November 7, 2006; her failure to attend the November 27, 2006, meeting; and her failure to report for work on Saturday, December 8, 2006, as promised, and to complete documentation for staff files for an audit conducted Monday, December 10, 2006.4 Mr. Hall wrote the Disciplinary Action Report in lieu of writing a review of Ms. Chester's performance subsequent to the her 90-day performance review, and he recommended that Ms. Chester be demoted to case manager effective December 18, 2006, or that she be terminated if she rejected the demotion. A meeting was arranged for December 18, 2006, with Mr. Hall, Ms. Ayerdis, and Ms. Chester. Mr. Hall anticipated that they would discuss the contents of the Disciplinary Action Report, including performance issues; Ms. Chester's falsification of her timesheet for the week of December 2, 2006; and Ms. Geist's remark at the December 6, 2006, Crisis Assessment Team meeting, as well as Ms. Chester's response to the remark. The meeting lasted less than five minutes, however. Mr. Hall began the meeting by asking Ms. Chester about the December 2, 2006, timesheet; Ms. Chester immediately accused Mr. Hall of being a racist and demanded an investigation into his discriminatory conduct towards her. Ms. Ayerdis agreed that she would conduct an investigation into Ms. Chester's allegation of discrimination against Mr. Hall. She told Ms. Chester to take a leave of absence with pay during the investigation. Ms. Ayerdis then closed the meeting. Ms. Ayerdis scheduled a meeting with Ms. Chester on December 21, 2006. She had completed the investigation into Ms. Chester's allegation of racism and found no evidence that Mr. Hall had discriminated against Ms. Chester on the basis of her race. A revised Disciplinary Action Report was prepared and dated December 21, 2006, in which Mr. Hall recommended that Ms. Chester's employment be terminated effective December 21, 2006. Mr. Hall based his recommendation that Ms. Chester be terminated on her failure to perform up to expectations and her failure to correct the performance deficiencies identified in the 90-day performance review. Mr. Brummitt, who had the ultimate authority to terminate employees at the Outreach Center, and Ms. Ayerdis concurred with Mr. Hall's recommendation, and, at the December 21, 2006, meeting, Ms. Ayerdis advised Ms. Chester that the investigation of Ms. Chester's discrimination claims against Mr. Hall turned up no evidence to support her allegation that he was a racist. Finally, Ms. Ayerdis notified Ms. Chester that her employment with the Outreach Center was terminated, effective immediately. Mr. Brummitt was aware that Ms. Chester and Ms. Ayerdis were meeting on December 21, 2006, and that Ms. Ayerdis would advise Ms. Chester of her termination at the meeting. It was close to Christmas, when the Outreach Center's employees received their bonuses, and Mr. Brummitt was concerned about Ms. Chester's not receiving her bonus. Mr. Brummitt decided that it was not fair to deny Ms. Chester the bonus, and he telephoned Ms. Ayerdis several times during her meeting with Ms. Chester to tell Ms. Ayerdis that Ms. Chester would receive the bonus and to confirm the amount of the bonus. Summary of factual findings The evidence presented by Ms. Chester is not sufficient to establish that she was the subject of unlawful discrimination or that she was terminated in retaliation for protected conduct. It is uncontroverted that Ms. Chester is a member of a protected class of persons, but she did not present sufficient persuasive evidence to establish that any similarly- situated employee of the Outreach Center was treated more favorably in any respect than Ms. Chester was treated. Ms. Chester failed to produce any evidence establishing that Ms. Law received more training or support from Mr. Hall than he provided Ms. Chester, nor does the evidence establish that Mr. Hall failed to discipline Ms. Law for the same or similar conduct for which Ms. Chester was disciplined. Rather, the evidence affirmatively establishes that Ms. Chester was terminated because of her unsatisfactory performance of the responsibilities of a social services supervisor. Ms. Chester likewise failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that she was discriminated against in the form of a hostile work environment. Although she alleged that she was subjected to constant harassment because of her race, that she was intimidated by the work environment at the Outreach Center, and that she was ridiculed for problems that she did not create, Ms. Chester failed to present any persuasive evidence to support these allegations. In addition, Ms. Chester did not present sufficient persuasive evidence to establish that she was terminated in retaliation for engaging in protected conduct. Ms. Chester did not present any evidence that she filed a discrimination complaint on account of Ms. Geist's reference to "you people," either with the Human Relations Department or with Ms. Geist's supervisor. Furthermore, the evidence affirmatively establishes that Mr. Brummitt warned Ms. Chester on November 7, 2006, when she refused to accept his offer to return to her position as lead case management, that she would be terminated if her job performance did not improve, and the proximity in time of her discrimination complaint against Mr. Hall and her termination is not sufficient to establish that her termination was in retaliation for the complaint. Ms. Chester likewise failed to present any evidence beyond her conclusory statements to support her allegations that her difficulties with Mr. Hall arose as a result of her attempts to meet with Mr. Brummitt and that she was ultimately terminated in retaliation for telling the truth about what she considered bad working conditions and "things that were not right."5
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief filed by Peggy Chester against the Broward Outreach Center/Miami Rescue Mission be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 31st day of March, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed unlawful employment practices contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2008),1 by discriminating against Petitioner based on his national origin (Hispanic), by limiting, segregating, or classifying employees in a discriminatory fashion, or by retaliating against Petitioner for his opposition to unlawful employment practices.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as that term is defined in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Respondent is a family owned company based in Winter Park that installs residential and commercial insulation and acoustical ceilings and tiles. The company is divided into two divisions. The Insulation Division is headed by William Aldrich. The Acoustic/Ceiling Division is headed by Dale Aldrich, Jr., who was Petitioner's ultimate supervisor. Subsequent references to "Mr. Aldrich" are to Dale Aldrich, Jr. Petitioner, a Hispanic male originally from the U.S. Virgin Islands, was hired by Respondent in February 2006 to work in the Acoustic/Ceiling Division. He was hired as a tile installer, the entry-level position in the Acoustic/Ceiling Division. A tile installer drops ceiling tiles into the gridwork installed by a ceiling mechanic. With experience, a tile installer may work his way up to ceiling mechanic. "Ceiling mechanic" is not a licensed position, and there is no formal progression through which an employee works his way up to this more skilled, higher paid position. Advancement depends on management's recognition that an employee's skills have advanced to the point at which he can be entrusted with the mechanic's duties. Three to four years' experience is generally required to advance from tile installer to ceiling mechanic. By all accounts, including those of the ceiling mechanics who supervised him at job sites and that of Mr. Aldrich, Petitioner was more than competent as to his actual job skills. During the approximately thirteen months he worked for Respondent, Petitioner received four pay raises. He was making $14.00 per hour at the time of his termination in August 2007. The evidence produced at the hearing demonstrated that Petitioner had problems controlling his temper on the job. He was generally negative and quick to take offense at perceived slights, especially when he inferred they were due to his national origin. During his employment with Respondent, Petitioner was involved in at least three altercations with fellow employees and/or general contractors for whom Respondent worked as a subcontractor. The earliest incident occurred in October 2006. Petitioner was working on a job site at which Respondent was a subcontractor for Harkins Development Corporation. Petitioner testified that a Harkins supervisor named Harley was "commanding" him to perform tasks on the job site. Petitioner was affronted, because he was not Harley's employee and because Harley, who was white, did not appear to be giving commands to the white employees of Respondent. After lunch, Harley feigned that he was about to throw a soft drink at Petitioner. In fact, the Wendy's cup in Harley's hand was empty, though a drop or two of condensation from the outside of the cup may have landed on Petitioner. In Petitioner's version of the story, Petitioner then stood up and asked Harley if he would enjoy being on the receiving end of such treatment. Petitioner then phoned Mr. Aldrich and asked to be sent to a different job site. Mr. Aldrich refused, and instead scolded Petitioner. Petitioner believed that Mr. Aldrich was retaliating for his complaint. Petitioner walked off the job site for the rest of the day, and worked at a different site the next day. Petitioner entered into evidence the written statement of his co-worker, Eddy Abud. Mr. Abud is Hispanic, with a national origin in the Dominican Republic. Mr. Abud witnessed the confrontation between Petitioner and Harley. Mr. Abud stated that Harley shook his cup and a "couple drops" of water splashed on Petitioner, who "went ballistic." Petitioner used obscenities against Harley and invited him to fight. Harley threw Petitioner off the job, an action with which Mr. Abud agreed. Petitioner entered into evidence the written statement of his co-worker, Robert "Pappy" Amey. Mr. Amey is white, and wrote that Petitioner "acted like a man all the time" except for the incident with Harley. Mr. Amey's statement reads as follows, in relevant part: Harley had a big drink cup and he turned around and flipped it, playing, nothing came out. Justo lit up [and] called him a mother fucker a dozen times. He said if I find you on the street, I'll kill you. I leaned to him and I said, "Justo, shut up." He did not, he cussed Harley out the door. It was Harley's job. This was unprofessional behavior by Justo. It was just horseplay and it was empty. No reason to act like that. Despite his overall respect for Petitioner, Mr. Amey stated that Petitioner should have been fired for his actions. Mr. Aldrich testified that Harley called him and told him that Petitioner had threatened him. Petitioner told Harley that he would not do anything on the job, but would "kick his ass" if he saw him away from the job. Mr. Aldrich stated that Harkins was one of Respondent's largest, longest-standing accounts, and that he knew Harley as a "stand up guy" who would have no reason to lie about such an incident. The second incident occurred later in the same month, on October 31, 2006. Petitioner was working for Respondent on a project at the University of Central Florida. A ceiling mechanic named Adam Sorkness was in charge of the project. Petitioner testified that Mr. Sorkness had already angered him in September 2006 by making racial jokes about black employees, and that Mr. Aldrich had separated Petitioner from Mr. Sorkness on subsequent jobs up to October 31, 2006. At first, there were no problems on the University of Central Florida job. Petitioner accepted his assignment from Mr. Sorkness. On this day, every man on the job was installing ceiling tile, which involved wearing stilts. According to Petitioner, two white employees arrived later in the morning and decided to work together, leaving Petitioner to work with Isaiah Fields, a black employee whom Petitioner alleged was the butt of Mr. Sorkness' earlier racial jokes. Petitioner became agitated because it appeared the two white employees were doing no work. Mr. Fields testified that he and Petitioner were working around a corner from Mr. Sorkness. They heard loud laughter from around the corner. Mr. Fields said that the laughter was not directed at him or Petitioner, but that it appeared to anger Petitioner, who said, "Wait a minute," and headed around the corner on his stilts. Mr. Fields stayed put and thus did not see the subsequent altercation. Petitioner approached Mr. Sorkness, who was also on stilts. Petitioner complained about the job assignments. Mr. Sorkness replied that everyone was doing the same job and that Petitioner could leave if he didn't like it. Petitioner became more incensed, calling Mr. Sorkness a "sorry white faggot." Petitioner took off his stilts, then confronted Mr. Sorkness at very close range. Mr. Sorkness pushed Petitioner away. Petitioner then charged Mr. Sorkness and they engaged in a brief fight. Ben Davis, a white ceiling mechanic who witnessed the altercation, called it a "scuffle."3 Mr. Aldrich investigated the matter and determined that Petitioner was the instigator of the fight. He suspended Petitioner for three days, and gave Mr. Sorkness a verbal warning. Mr. Aldrich issued a "written warning" to Petitioner cautioning him that he was subject to termination. Mr. Aldrich wrote the following comments: "Justo has been given 3 days off without pay. Normally an employee would be fired for this action. Justo has NO MORE chances. Next offense will result in immediate termination of employment with Energy Savings Systems." The document was signed by Mr. Aldrich and Petitioner.4 Petitioner claimed that Mr. Aldrich cut his hours in retaliation for the UCF incident, and it took several months for his hours to come back up to 40 per week. The time sheets submitted by Petitioner showed fluctuations in his work hours before and after the incident, which is consistent with Mr. Aldrich's testimony that he only cuts hours when work is slow for the company. The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner's hours were reduced at times because he would refuse to take certain jobs, either because of their location or because Petitioner did not want to work with certain people, such as Mr. Sorkness. The third and final incident occurred on August 20, 2007. Petitioner was working on a job for which Respondent was a subcontractor to Alexander-Whitt Enterprises, a general contractor. Alexander-Whitt's superintendent on the job was Dan Alexander. Mr. Alexander asked Petitioner to clean up. Petitioner resented either the order itself or Mr. Alexander's method of delivering it, in light of a brief altercation between the two men on the job site three days earlier. Petitioner threatened to slap Mr. Alexander. Mr. Aldrich testified that he received several calls from Mr. Alexander complaining about Petitioner over the course of this job. Petitioner had an "attitude" about Mr. Alexander's instructing him on the job. Mr. Aldrich apologized. After Petitioner's threat, Mr. Alexander called yet again and told Mr. Aldrich that he wanted Petitioner off the job. After this call, Mr. Aldrich fired Petitioner. Aside from his own suspicions and resentments, Petitioner offered no evidence that his termination had anything to do with his national origin or was retaliation for his complaints about the company's discriminatory practices. In fact, Petitioner never made a formal complaint while he was employed by Respondent. His only "complaints" were to certain co-workers that he was being discriminated against because he was Hispanic. Andy Weatherby, a ceiling mechanic who at times was Petitioner's field superintendent, recalled Petitioner telling him that he felt disadvantaged on the job for being Hispanic, but that Petitioner described no specific incidents of discrimination. Julio Oliva, a junior ceiling mechanic with Respondent, is of Puerto Rican descent. Mr. Oliva testified that he saw no discrimination at the company. He worked often with Petitioner, whom he described as having a negative attitude. Mr. Oliva testified that it was difficult to merely pass the time in conversation with Petitioner, because Petitioner always had something negative to say. Edgar Mullenhoff, also Puerto Rican, has worked for Respondent since 1982 and is the field superintendent for the insulation side of the company. Mr. Mullenhoff described the company as "like a family" and stated that he never felt a victim of discrimination. Mr. Abud's written statement attests that he has had no problems working for Respondent, and that "we have great bosses." Petitioner noted what he termed a discriminatory pattern in the ethnic diversity of the Insulation Division versus the Acoustic/Ceiling Division. While conceding that most of Respondent's employees are Hispanic, Petitioner notes that the great majority of the Hispanics work in the lower paying, less skilled Insulation Division. Petitioner further argued that those few Hispanics hired in the Acoustic/Ceiling Division are given no opportunity to advance to the position of ceiling mechanic. William Aldrich, the head of the Insulation Division, testified that there is a much higher turnover in insulation, and that for the last four years or so the only applicants for the positions have been Hispanic. He credibly testified that he hires anyone who appears capable of doing the job. As to Petitioner's lack of advancement, it must be noted that he worked for Respondent for just a little over one year. Mr. Oliva testified that he has worked for Respondent for five and one-half years. He spent the first two years performing menial tasks and learning on the job. Mr. Oliva stated that Respondent's ceiling mechanics were helpful to him in learning the trade, and he felt no barriers due to his national origin. Mr. Sorkness testified that it took him between four and five years to become a mechanic. Mr. Davis testified that it took him between three and four years to work his way up to ceiling mechanic. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Petitioner was terminated from his position with Respondent due to misconduct on the job. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent has not discriminated against Petitioner or any other employee based on national origin.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Energy Savings Systems of Central Florida, Inc. did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Gulf Coast Enterprise (GCE), discriminated against Petitioner, Terry R. Douglas, based on his race--African-American--or his disability-- hearing impairment.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Terry R. Douglas (Douglas) is an African- American male. He is hard of hearing and uses hearing aids (when he can afford the batteries) and relies upon interpretive sign language when it is available.1/ At all times relevant hereto, Douglas worked as a food line server under the employ of GCE, which is a division of Lakeview Center, Inc., an affiliate of Baptist Health Care. The stated purpose of GCE is "to operate a successful business which will provide meaningful employment to persons with disabilities in accordance with the requirements of the AbilityOne Program." AbilityOne is a program that creates jobs and training opportunities for people who are blind or who have other severe disabilities, empowering them to lead more productive and independent lives. GCE is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, marital status, disability, or any other category protected by law. Douglas had been previously employed by GCE in 2010 as a custodian but voluntarily resigned to pursue employment elsewhere. He briefly took a job in the Orlando area, then went to Memphis for about one year. When he returned to Pensacola he took a position with GCE commencing May 9, 2013, in the food service division. He was hired to work the night shift, from 7:00 p.m., until approximately 1:30 a.m. As part of being hired anew by GCE, Douglas filled out an "Employee Self-Identification Form" in order to advise GCE of his status within a protected class. Douglas identified himself as an individual with a disability but stated that there were no accommodations which GCE needed to provide in order to improve his ability to perform his job. When Douglas recommenced employment with GCE in May 2013, he went through employee orientation. He received copies of the Employee Handbook and various written policies addressing issues such as discrimination, harassment, drug-free workplace, etc. He was also provided training on the GCE Code of Conduct and Respect in the Workplace policies. Douglas' job entailed preparing and/or serving food at the cafeteria in Building 3900 at the Pensacola Naval Air Station (NAS). He was by all accounts a good employee, a hard worker, and gained the respect of his supervisor, Prospero Pastoral (called "Mr. Pete" by most employees). In fact, when Mr. Pete was going to take an extended vacation to visit his home in the Philippines, Douglas was selected as one of the individuals to take over some of Mr. Pete's duties in his absence. Douglas got along well with his fellow employees and co-workers. Douglas' supervisors were Mr. Pete and Paul Markham, the assistant building manager of Building 3900. Douglas had a good relationship with Markham when he first started working in food service, but (according to Douglas) they did not get along so well later on. There did not appear to be any overt animosity between the two men during the final hearing. In November 2013, Markham was advised by the kitchen manager that some food items (including several hams) were missing from the kitchen inventory. It was suspected that some night shift employees may have been stealing the food items. Markham was asked to investigate and see if there was any suspicious behavior by any employees. On the evening of November 22, 2013, Markham changed from his work uniform into civilian clothes just prior to midnight. He then drove to a parking lot just behind Building 3900 and sat inside his darkened vehicle. He had driven his wife's car to work that day so that his pickup truck (which employees would recognize) would not alert others to his presence. At around midnight, he saw two employees (Gerry Riddleberger and Andy Bartlett) sitting outside Building 3900 talking. He could see Douglas in the building through the window. A few minutes later, Douglas exited the building carrying a large black garbage bag. Markham got out of his car and walked toward Douglas. As he approached, Markham began to "chat" with Douglas about trivial things. He asked how he was doing; he asked where Ira (another employee) was; he made small talk.2/ Finally, Markham asked Douglas what was in the bag. Douglas responded that "these are tough times" and that "I have to take care of my family." He then opened the bag and showed Markham the contents therein. The bag contained numerous bags of potato chips and snacks, some bananas, packets of coffee creamer, and other small items. Markham asked Douglas to hand over the bag and he did so. He then asked Douglas for his badge and access key. When Douglas handed those over, Markham told him to leave the NAS and he would be hearing from the GCE human resources/employee relations department (HR). Douglas left the base and Markham waited around a while to see if any other employees were carrying suspicious items. Not observing any other suspect behavior, Markham concluded his investigation for that evening. The next day, Markham handed over the bag and Douglas' badges to HR. It was determined by HR that Douglas' attempted theft of the property constituted just cause for termination of his employment with GCE. The HR office notified Douglas of the decision to terminate his employment. Douglas thereafter visited the HR office to ask that the decision be reconsidered. Douglas was told that the process for reconsideration was to submit, in writing, his statement of the reasons and whether there were mitigating factors to be considered. Douglas submitted a four-page request for reconsideration to Kahiapo, director of employee relations, dated December 2, 2013. In the letter, Douglas admitted to the theft but rationalized that other employees were stealing food as well. He said he had seen Markham taking boxes out of storage and putting them in his truck, but did not know what the boxes contained. He said a blonde worker on the food line ate food from the serving line, but had no details about the allegation. He complained that other workers had been caught stealing but had not been terminated from employment. He alleged that a worker (Jeanette) stole a bag of bacon and only got suspended. Markham had no support or independent verification of the allegations. GCE had one of its employee relations specialists, Alan Harbin, review Douglas' reconsideration letter and investigate the allegations found therein. All of the allegations were deemed to be unfounded. There was a worker named Jeanette who had been suspended for eating an egg off the serving line, but this did not comport with Douglas' allegation. When Harbin's findings were reported to HR, Kahiapo notified Douglas via letter dated December 18, 2013, that his request for reconsideration was being denied. The termination of employment letter was not rescinded. The decision by HR was in large part due to the zero tolerance policy against theft adhered to by GCE. The GCE Employee Handbook contains the following: In accordance with the general "at will" nature of employment with GCE, generally, employees may be discharged at any time, and for any reason. * * * An employee may be discharged on a first offense and without prior disciplinary action if the violation so warrants. * * * Conduct that may result in immediate termination of employment includes, but is not limited to: * * * [12] Theft, pilfering, fraud or other forms of dishonesty. It is clear--and Douglas admits--that Douglas was guilty of theft. He attempted to steal a bag of food items from the building in which he worked. During his term of employment, Douglas never made any claim concerning discrimination against him or anyone else due to his race, African-American. He was never mistreated or treated differently than any other employee by his supervisors. Douglas did not have any problem doing his job. His disability, being hard of hearing, did not adversely affect his employment. He never asked for any accommodation to do his job or suggested to anyone that his disability interfered with his ability to perform his duties. There are simply no facts in this case upon which a claim of discrimination could reasonably be based.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations, upholding its determination that no cause exists for a finding of discrimination against Petitioner, Terry R. Douglas, by Respondent, Gulf Coast Enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 27th day of August, 2014.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be terminated from employment for the reasons stated in the Final Disposition - Notice of Dismissal (Notice), dated October 11, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Background The College is a public institution of higher education charged with the responsibility of providing post-secondary education. Currently, there are approximately 33,000 students enrolled at the College. It has eight campuses, including the Tarpon Springs Campus. Seven of the campuses have Provosts, who report to the Senior Vice President of Student Services. The College is overseen by a five-member Board of Trustees (Board), each Trustee appointed by the Governor. In this contentious dispute, the College seeks to terminate Respondent from his position as Provost of the Tarpon Springs Campus, a position he has held since 2014 under an annual Contract for Employment for Administrative Personnel of Community Colleges. The contract has been renewed three times, most recently for a term beginning on July 1, 2017, and ending June 30, 2018. The College, however, can decline to renew his contract for no cause at the end of each term. The annual contract provides that "the Board may suspend or dismiss the Administrator [Provost] for cause pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Florida Statutes and the Board of Trustees' Rules and Colleges Procedures." Also, under Board Rule 6Hx23-2.2012 (rule 23-2.2012), the College can terminate contractual employees for "immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, drunkenness or conviction of any crime involving moral turpitude." In this case, the College relies upon misconduct in office as the ground for dismissal. The contract requires Respondent to comply with all relevant statutes and rules of the State Board of Education, the State Board of Community Colleges, and the Board of Trustees. He also is required to comply with the terms of any College internal policies and procedures in effect at the time that his first contract became effective, and continuing throughout his term of employment. The position of Provost is a very high-ranking administrative position. The Provost is responsible for overseeing all aspects of student services, which includes student complaints of harassment and discrimination, as well as working in partnership with Academic Deans and the faculty. It is a highly visible position with the College and in the community. The College characterized the position as the "face" of the campus and the Tarpon Springs community. The Provost also serves on various community boards and organizations to represent the views of the College. At the time of Respondent's hire in 2014, the President was Dr. William Law, while Dr. Tonjua Williams served as Senior Vice President, Student Services. Dr. Williams is now the President and the one responsible for making the decision to terminate Respondent's employment, subject to confirmation by a majority of the Trustees. Shortly after his hire in 2014, the College became aware of allegations at his prior employment in Virginia, which involved an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate female employee. Dr. Law directed Dr. Williams to speak with Respondent about the allegations. Respondent acknowledged to her that the allegation was true, and, as a consequence, he was moved from a position on campus to a district office position. Dr. Law decided to give Respondent the opportunity to continue to serve at the College, but the expectations of the College with regard to his personal conduct were made very clear in a memorandum to Respondent from Dr. Williams. It stated in part that "it all boils down to exercising good judgment. Modeling good judgment is highly valued at [the College] and has a significant impact on staff morale, leadership effectiveness and student success." Respondent acknowledged in writing that he received the memorandum. According to the President, this established the expectation that he would always use good judgment in matters concerning the College. During his tenure at the College, Dr. Williams and Respondent had what she characterized as a "great relationship," "a very close working relationship," and one that was "open and transparent." She added "[t]here were no problems with us reaching each other when we needed to speak and talk." The Incident Around 1:30 a.m. on August 21, 2017, a physical altercation between Respondent and a female occurred at her apartment in New Port Richey. Although Respondent is married, the two had been involved in an affair for around two years. The female was not a student or employee of the College. On Thursday, August 31, 2017, Respondent was served with papers requiring him to appear for a hearing in circuit court on a domestic violence injunction involving the female. While attending the hearing on Friday, September 1, 2017, Respondent was arrested by the Pasco County Sheriff's Office and charged with two felonies, one for Burglary - Occupied Dwelling Unarmed (§ 810.02(3)(a), Fla. Stat.), and another for Battery - Commit Domestic Battery by Strangulation (§ 784.041(2)(a), Fla. Stat). Both charges related to the incident that occurred on August 21, 2017. After spending the night in jail, Respondent bonded out on Saturday, September 2, 2017. On October 26, 2017, the charges were dismissed by the State Attorney after he declined to prosecute the matter. Events After the Arrest The College was closed officially for Labor Day weekend on September 2, 3, and 4, 2017. On Tuesday morning, September 5, 2017, Respondent texted Dr. Williams asking, "can we talk privately tomorrow I have a home life situation but I need to converse with you." Respondent knew that Dr. Williams planned to attend a conference at the Tarpon Springs Campus the following day, and he intended to speak with her at that time. Dr. Williams responded "absolutely." Nothing in the text suggests the "home life situation" was related to a legal matter or criminal arrest or that there was any urgency in meeting with her. Nor did it suggest that the subject of the meeting involved something that could potentially affect the College's reputation or his continued employment. In fact, Dr. Williams assumed he wanted to discuss "a personal matter." Due to the threat of Hurricane Irma, then in the Gulf of Mexico and headed towards the state, Dr. Williams did not attend the conference the next day. Also, the College closed officially on September 6, 2017, due to the hurricane and did not reopen officially until September 18, 2017. With the approval of his supervisor, Dr. Rinard, Respondent flew to Maryland, where his wife and children reside. He did not return to Florida until September 13, 2017. During this intervening period, he did not attempt to contact his supervisor or the President regarding his arrest. Even though the College was closed for the hurricane, administrators continued to perform duties and responsibilities related to the safety and security of the College. Dr. Williams conducted at least two conference calls per day via telephone or Skype, where as many as 60 administrators would join in the call to discuss situations on the campuses. Although he was in Maryland much of the time, Respondent joined in the conferences on most, if not all, of those occasions. In fact, on Monday, September 11, 2017, he texted Dr. Williams regarding the situation on the Tarpon Springs campus, which had been conveyed to him by his staff. On September 12, 2017, Respondent texted Dr. Williams and advised he was returning from Maryland. The text stated in part: "I need to speak to you regarding a personal/family matter. I will discuss all in detail with you." Again, it made no reference to his arrest. After he returned to Florida the next day, Respondent and Dr. Williams agreed to meet on September 14, 2017, at a local restaurant. However, the President later informed Respondent that she was unable to make the meeting and needed to reschedule. She attempted to reach him later that day by telephone to reschedule the meeting but was unsuccessful. At that point, she assumed Respondent wished to discuss a personal family matter that did not involve the College. The two exchanged texts again on Sunday, September 17, 2017, but Respondent chose not to mention his arrest. Around noon on September 18, 2017, or 17 days after his arrest, Respondent telephoned Dr. Williams, and, in a 15-minute conversation, he advised her that he had been arrested on September 1, 2017, he was innocent of the charges, and he had retained counsel. He also told Dr. Williams that he was involved in a relationship with a woman that went awry, and the incident was not work-related. Respondent added that he had gone to court on September 1, 2017, to file a restraining order against the female, and he believed he was being scammed.1/ During the call, Dr. Williams told Respondent she needed more details. She specifically asked that he provide a police report with the details of the incident and the name of the victim to verify she was not a student. Dr. Williams also told Respondent that he needed to contact Dr. Rinard, his immediate supervisor, and tell him what had happened. Had Respondent been unable to reach Dr. Williams by telephone on September 18, 2017, his belated efforts to notify the President would be further delayed, as Respondent's first choice was to speak to her one-on-one, or if this was not possible, to discuss the incident by telephone. His actions also raise an inference that he always intended to speak with the President, and not his direct supervisor. Later that same day, September 18, 2017, Respondent spoke with Dr. Rinard by telephone. According to Dr. Rinard, Respondent "informed [him] that he had had an affair, that the woman he had an affair with had pressed charges, he was arrested, that these were all lies, that she was a thief, she had stolen property, [and he] admitted that he was wrong to have had an affair." Dr. Rinard asked Respondent if the incident involved a student or employee or occurred on College property. He was told it did not. He did not provide Dr. Rinard with the name of the victim. The following day, the two again spoke briefly while attending a Board meeting. Respondent asked if he needed anything more in reference to their conversation the previous day and Dr. Rinard answered "no." While at the Board meeting, Respondent spoke privately with a Board member, Trustee Gibbons, and disclosed that he had been arrested. On the evening of September 18, 2017, the President telephoned Respondent and commented that she was looking at the charges on a website. She said she needed more information regarding the incident, but Respondent told her he had no documentation regarding the arrest. During the call, Respondent asked the President to speak with his attorney who could provide any details that she wanted concerning the charges. Although Dr. Williams testified there was no agreement to speak with the attorney, Respondent's criminal attorney, Mr. Theophilopoulos, testified that he understood Dr. Williams had agreed to a conference call around 5:30 p.m. on September 20, 2017, so that he (the attorney) could answer any questions she had. Dr. Williams denies that a conference call was scheduled. Respondent contends otherwise and says he went to his attorney's office and waited for her to call at the scheduled time, and when she did not, they both attempted to call her from his office but were unsuccessful.2/ Whether or not such a call was scheduled, it is undisputed that it never took place. However, Dr. Williams telephoned Respondent around 6:11 p.m. on September 20, 2017, while he was driving home from his attorney's office. The Vice President of Administrative/Business Services & Information Technology, Mr. Miles, participated in the call. Mr. Miles has oversight of the Human Resources Department. During the call, Dr. Williams informed Respondent that he was being placed on administrative leave, with pay and benefits, effective that date. Again, she requested a copy of the police report or details of the incident, as the College needed more information so that it could properly assess the situation. Respondent replied that he had no written reports but his attorney had "new information" regarding the charges. Respondent was told to have his attorney contact the College General Counsel, Ms. Gardner. A few hours after the phone call, Respondent received a memorandum from Dr. Williams via email confirming that he was being placed on administrative leave, with pay and benefits, until further notice. According to Dr. Williams, this would give the College more time to thoroughly review the situation before deciding what action to take. At that time, the College still lacked the name of the victim and detailed information regarding the arrest. On September 20, 2017, Dr. Williams notified three of the five Trustees about the incident and shared with them the information she had gathered up to that point. She also told them she was still "working" on what action to take. Respondent decided to return to Maryland the same evening he was placed on administrative leave. He testified that while driving to Maryland, he received a call from Trustee Gibbons, who told him the Board had voted to not terminate him if he was cleared of the charges. This assertion was not corroborated, and there is no record of any Board meeting at which a vote would have taken place. The Termination Process On September 21, 2017, Dr. Rinard advised Tarpon Springs faculty and staff that Respondent had been placed on administrative leave and that an interim Provost had been appointed. That evening, Dr. Williams and Mr. Miles spoke with Respondent by telephone. They informed him that the College had not yet received information regarding the arrest and instructed Respondent to return his keys. Mr. Miles offered to meet with him to pick up the keys. However, Respondent, who by then was in Maryland, told them he had already mailed his keys to his attorney. The following day, September 22, 2017, through its own investigation, the College was able to obtain a copy of the Pasco County Complaint Affidavit providing additional details regarding the arrest. On Saturday, September 23, 2017, Mr. Miles left a voicemail for Respondent and reminded him that he wanted to meet with him to obtain the keys to College property. Mr. Miles also sent a text, which stated, "Dr. Williams asked me to obtain your work keys so I'm coming today," meaning that he (Mr. Miles) would drive to Respondent's home in Palm Harbor or the campus that day to retrieve the items. In response to Mr. Miles' request, Respondent replied by email that the keys had been sent to his attorney via Federal Express from Maryland. He added that if the College had any further questions, his attorney should be contacted. As of Monday, September 25, 2017, the College had not received any additional information from Respondent or his attorney regarding the arrest, and it had not received Respondent's keys or swipe card. On September 25, 2017, Dr. Williams determined that termination proceedings should begin. The same day, Dr. Rinard issued a memorandum recommending that Respondent be dismissed from employment. The basis for the recommendation was as follows: You have engaged in misconduct by not timely disclosing to the College your arrest and the charges pending against you. You have also engaged in misconduct by not providing the College with documentation related to your arrest and not returning the College's property upon request. You have also engaged in misconduct by not being truthful and forthcoming about the details of your arrest. The memorandum was actually prepared for Dr. Rinard's signature by Mr. Miles, who oversees the Human Resources Department and is also an attorney. According to the memorandum, Respondent's actions violated rule 23-2.2012, which authorizes the College to terminate an administrator for the offense of "misconduct in office." The recommendation also referred to rule 6Hx23-2.19, which outlines the procedure the College must follow when it proposes to terminate an employee. The following day, September 26, 2017, Respondent's attorney emailed the General Counsel asking for directions on where to return the keys and swipe card that were in his possession. She replied that all College property, including any electronic devices or computers, should be delivered to the security desk lobby of the district office in St. Petersburg. On September 28, 2017, five days after Dr. Williams' directive, the keys and swipe card were delivered and secured by the College. The College did not receive Respondent's college- owned laptop and other electronic devices until October 11, 2017. The Predetermination Hearing and Termination After the recommendation to terminate was issued, Respondent requested a predetermination hearing, which is afforded an employee before a decision is made regarding termination. On October 5, 2017, a hearing was conducted by the Senior Vice President of Instructional & Academic Programs, Dr. Anne Cooper, who had the authority to affirm, modify, or reject Dr. Rinard's recommendation. Respondent was accompanied by his attorney at the hearing. At the hearing, Respondent was provided a timeline of events. In response, Respondent presented his own timeline for reporting the arrest, as well as a written statement from the alleged victim in the incident which resulted in his arrest. On October 9, 2017, Dr. Cooper issued a recommendation to the President that Dr. Rinard's decision to terminate Respondent's employment be upheld. The recommendation is found in Petitioner's Exhibit 11. By letter dated October 11, 2017, the President advised Respondent that she was upholding the recommendation for dismissal because Respondent: Failed to timely advise supervisor and college administration of the arrest and nature of the charges; Failed to provide the college with information and requested documentation regarding the arrest and allegations; and Failed to immediately return college property as requested. These grounds differed slightly from those in the memorandum signed by Dr. Rinard on September 25, 2017. Whereas Dr. Rinard's memorandum stated that Respondent had failed to timely inform the College of his arrest and pending charges, Dr. Williams' Notice stated that Respondent had "[f]ailed to timely advise supervisor and college administration of the arrest and nature of the charges." Whereas the memorandum stated that Respondent had failed to provide the college with "documentation related to [his] arrest," the Notice stated that he had "[f]ailed to provide the college with information and requested documentation regarding the arrest and allegations." Finally, whereas the memorandum stated that Respondent had not returned the College's property upon request, the Notice stated that Respondent had "[f]ailed to immediately return college property as requested." Although Respondent contends he is prejudiced because the original charges were modified, the allegations in the memorandum and Notice are substantially the same, and Respondent did not demonstrate how he was prejudiced by the minor changes. No matter which set of charges apply, the College has established that the allegations are true. The College Regulations and Policies Both parties agree there is no specific College regulation that requires employees to immediately notify their supervisor or other College officials after they are arrested and charged with a crime. However, Dr. Williams stated there is an expectation that a high-ranking employee, such as a Provost, should immediately notify his supervisor, within one or two working days, given the repercussions to the College that might arise if and when the charges became public.3/ The College relies on rule 23-2.2012 as the "principal ground for prosecution in this case." That rule allows the College to dismiss an employee under written contract for "misconduct in office." The term is not further defined by rule or statute that is applicable to the College. Because Respondent is not a career service employee, the College cannot rely on procedures applicable to that category of employees. Analysis of Respondent's Conduct At hearing, Respondent characterized the incident as "a personal and private matter" that was unrelated to the College. However, he agreed he had an obligation to tell the President and Dr. Rinard about the incident so that the College would not be blind-sided if the incident became public. He contends he made good-faith efforts to contact Dr. Williams by texting her on several occasions to request a meeting. But none of the texts stated, or even suggested, that he needed to speak with her about a work-related matter or that he had been arrested for two felony charges. Moreover, these efforts evidence the fact that he knew he had an obligation to timely, completely, and candidly report anything that could impact his effectiveness as a Provost or the reputation of the College. He failed to fulfill this obligation. Respondent does not dispute the fact that he made no effort to notify his immediate supervisor, Dr. Rinard, regarding his arrest until Dr. Williams instructed him to do so on September 18, 2017. More than likely, this was because he had very little contact with Dr. Rinard, who had assumed his position in July 2017. On the other hand, he had a much closer relationship with the President, and she is the individual who makes the final decision. According to Respondent, it was important that he discuss the matter one-on-one with the President due to the "nature of the sensitivity of the situation itself, my accuracy of understanding the accusations and the false accusations, which were also racially motivated." After Respondent was unsuccessful in personally speaking with the President on September 6, 2017, he should have immediately disclosed his arrest by telephone. The record shows that he had ample opportunity to report the incident to the President by telephone beginning on the day after he was arrested. His failure to do so exhibits a lack of good judgment and trustworthiness. The delay in reporting the arrest from September 1 until September 18, 2017, was unreasonable in light of all circumstances. As Dr. Williams noted, "there is an expectation of good judgment for Provost and campus leaders, Deans, and others in that role. And you always expect your leaders, you know, [to] protect the Institution and make sure they are aware of what is going on." In the same vein, Mr. Miles pointed out that the College ended up having "to get the information ourselves" after Respondent failed to provide additional information regarding the arrest. This led him to ask whether he could "trust Dr. Bright to give me what I need to do the job that I need to do." He added that it was imperative that the College know "what exposure" it might have and how to "react to the situation" should the incident become public. Dr. Cooper, who conducted the predetermination meeting and is the chief academic officer of the College, testified that the Provost is a high-profile position and the face of the campus in the community. She noted that even though the College was closed for a hurricane, "there were multiple opportunities to report the incident to his direct supervisor, Dr. Rinard, and he failed to do so." She also testified that the incident could have blind-sided the President and Board of Trustees and put "the College in a very poor light in regard to the community." She added that "there was potential for multiple issues associated with not reporting it sooner," and "someone in that high-profile leadership position would know that." She summed it up by saying that even if there was not a specific written policy requiring Respondent to promptly report the incident to his superiors, an obligation to do so "is leadership 101." Besides failing to report the incident for 17 days, the evidence as a whole shows that, once the incident was reported, Respondent was non-responsive, uncooperative, and somewhat evasive in responding to Dr. Williams' direction to provide her additional information regarding the arrest and the name of the victim. The President had legitimate reasons for requesting additional information. Without this information, the College was at risk of having its reputation and credibility damaged. As the President pointed out, she asked for information, and when she did not receive it, this forced her to "go dig [herself] to find information" from another source. This should not be the job of the President. Finally, as previously found, Respondent did not promptly turn in all College keys and equipment, despite being told to do so on numerous occasions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that St. Petersburg College enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as Provost at the Tarpon Springs Campus. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 2018.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by terminating the Petitioner’s employment on the basis of handicap.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, John Tadlock, (Tadlock) is a white male, age 46, and a resident of Panama City, Bay County, Florida. The Respondent, Westinghouse Electric Company, d/b/a Bay County Energy Systems, Inc. (Energy Systems), was and is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida. Energy Systems maintains a facility that collects garbage and burns it as fuel. The operation serves two basic functions. First, it disposes of unwanted garbage. Second, it produces energy by creating steam that in turn drives a turbine and produces electricity. From January, 1987, until September, 1993, Tadlock was employed by Energy Systems. Tadlock began as a B-class maintenance mechanic and advanced to the position of A-class maintenance mechanic. Subsequently, Tadlock moved to the operations portion of the company where he worked on boilers. Tadlock testified that he suffered injuries while at work during the years 1987, 1991, and 1993. Tadlock further testified that after each injury he recovered fully and resumed work at Energy Systems. As a result of the injuries sustained in his accidents at Energy System, Tadlock never testified that he was informed by any physician that he would have any permanent restrictions. In addition, at no time did Tadlock inform his employer, Energy Systems, that he suffered from any disability or restrictions relating to his ability to perform his job. During the period from October, 1991 through September, 1993, Tadlock had been cited for numerous violations of company policy and provided written warnings or reprimands. The first such violation occurred on October 24, 1991, when Tadlock was cited for violating company policy by failing to wear appropriate safety gear. Specifically, Tadlock failed to wear his indirect venting goggles. The memorandum memorializing the complaint noted that just two days prior to the complaint, Tadlock had received emergency training and, in response to a direct question raised by Tadlock, was informed that he must wear venting goggles. On September 17, 1992, Tadlock was cited for a safety violation for failing to wear appropriate hearing protection devices. As a result of this violation, Tadlock was given an oral warning. On June 3, 1993, Tadlock was cited for failing to wear gloves while on the floor of the facility. As a result of this violation of safety procedure, Tadlock was orally counseled on the correct policy and informed that such departure from set safety procedures would not be acceptable. On June 14, 1993, Tadlock was cited for failing to wear a personal respirator while in specific areas of the facility in violation of published safety procedures. On June 25, 1993, Tadlock received a written warning regarding his “unsatisfactory” safety record. Specifically, Tadlock was informed that he had a total of eleven accidents since his employment and that five of them were reportable to OSHA. The memorandum warned Tadlock that if he failed to show “immediate and sustained” improvement in his accident rate that he would be subject to disciplinary action. On July 30, 1993, Tadlock was verbally warned for failing to properly replace “pig pans” under an air dryer that resulted in oil running into a water drain. On August 31, 1993, Tadlock was verbally warned for failing perform his duties as an outside operator by failing to properly read his turnover log. As a result of his lack of action, Tadlock placed 55 gallons of bleach into a drainage basin. On September 19, 1993, Tadlock was informed, for a second time, that his safety record continued to be unsatisfactory. The letter referenced two accidents that occurred in August, 1993, that could have been avoided by practicing proper safety measures. As a result of those accidents and for his many past safety violations, Tadlock was suspended for three working days. Tadlock was offered employee assistance to help him perform his work in a more satisfactory and safe manner. On September 28, 1993, Tadlock was cited for a safety violation for failing to wear the appropriate shields on his prescription glasses. On October 10, 1993, Tadlock was cited for failing to properly maintain a boiler operator sheet log. This was the second time that Tadlock had been cited for improper maintenance of a log. Tadlock was also informed that if this type of action happened again, it would result in discipline. On October 15, 1993, Tadlock was observed urinating on the Boiler Room floor of the facility. Tadlock was cited for violating several rules of company conduct. A result of violating this company policy, coupled with the countless verbal and written warnings he had received, Tadlock was dismissed for cause. At the hearing, Tadlock admitted that he urinated on the floor of the facility but countered that he had no choice because Energy Systems failed to properly maintain its restroom. Tadlock was unable to support his assertion that there were no operating restroom facilities. First, in spite of every witness called by Tadlock, there was no testimony, even from Tadlock himself, that any of the bathrooms were not in working order.4 Energy Systems maintained that it had operational restroom facilities throughout its facilities. In addition, no competent evidence was presented that indicated that any of the restroom facilities were inoperable thus requiring someone to urinate in the middle of the facility. After being fired for the numerous safety violations and for violating company policy, Tadlock filed a complaint with the Commission on Human Relations alleging that he was discriminated against because of his handicap. Specifically, Tadlock asserted that he had suffered several on-the-job injuries that rendered him disabled and that he was discriminated because of the type injury or the lack of adequate medical treatment that he received. Such allegations were never proven and appear irrelevant to these proceedings. Specifically, any issues relating to his medical treatment and his injuries are more appropriately resolved in a worker’s compensation forum. At no time during his employment with Energy Systems did Tadlock inform his employer that he suffered from a handicap. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Energy Systems was aware that Tadlock suffered a disability or handicap. For example, Mr. James M. Leddy, the plant manager for Energy Systems testified that he was not aware of any condition which prevented Tadlock from functioning in a normal manner. The record is void of any evidence by a physician to indicate that Tadlock was considered disabled or handicapped. Mr. Dale J. McKeand, Manager of Plant Operations for Energy Systems, stated that Tadlock was not disabled and never asked for any accommodation for his “condition.” In addition, Mr. Richard S. Brookins, an industrial hygiene, safety and environmental coordinator for Energy Systems, stated that Tadlock worked full-time with no medical or duty restrictions and that he was terminated for his safety violations including urinating on the boiler room floor. Assuming that Tadlock could prove that he was handicapped, his actions after he was dismissed do not indicate a person with a handicap. Specifically, immediately after Tadlock’s dismissal, Tadlock opened a skinning shop for the purpose of skinning wild game (alligators, etc.). Skinning is a very physical job and it requires an individual to handle large game animals for the purpose of skinning hides from the carcasses of the animals. For the reasons stated above, there is no evidence to support that Tadlock was dismissed for any reason other than cause.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that this matter be dismissed with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of March, 1997, at Tallahassee, Florida. ` WILLIAM A. BUZZETT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1997.
