The Issue Whether the Petitioner timely filed her Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice with the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("Commission").
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 Commission is the state agency charged with investigating and acting upon complaints filed under Florida's Civil Rights Act, Sections 760.01-760.11, Florida Statutes (2006).1 § 760.06, Fla. Stat. On August 14, 2006, the Commission issued a Right to Sue notice, in which it informed Ms. Williams, among other things, that the FCHR hereby issues this Right to Sue. Since it has been more than 180 days since your complaint was filed, and since no determination was made within 180 days, you are entitled to pursue the case as if the FCHR issued a Determination of Reasonable Cause. . . . (Citation omitted). You may pursue this case in the Division of Administrative Hearings by filing a Petition for Relief with the FCHR within 35 days from the date of this Right to Sue letter, or you may file a lawsuit in a circuit court of the State of Florida anytime within one year from the date of this Right to Sue letter, provided such time period is not more than four years from the date the alleged violation occurred. Pursuant to the terms of this notice, Ms. Williams was required to file her Petition for Relief with the FCHR no later than 35 days from the date of the August 14, 2006, notice, that is, no later than September 18, 2006. Ms. Williams completed and signed a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice on September 14, 2006. A receipt from the USPS establishes that, on September 17, 2006, the USPS accepted a letter from Ms. Williams addressed to the Commission; that the letter was sent via express mail; that neither next-day nor second-day delivery was selected; that a third option for delivery, "Add Del Day," was selected. The scheduled date of delivery stated on the receipt was September 20, 2006. Ms. Williams's Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice was received by the Commission on September 19, 2006. The USPS tracking website shows that the letter assigned number EQ 628681913 US was delivered on September 19, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice filed by Teesha Williams. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 21st day of November, 2006.
The Issue Whether respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice as alleged by petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: This discrimination case involves an allegation by petitioner, David Coleman, that he was denied employment by respondent, City of Jacksonville (City), because of his handicap. The City denies this allegation. A preliminary investigation by the Commission on Human Relations (Commission) found no probable cause that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. By way of background, petitioner has been employed by the City on four separate occasions, the last time as an employee in the mosquito control department in 1984. He was "released" the same year for "unacceptable leave." Since 1990, he has applied for at least twenty separate positions with the City. In conjunction with those and earlier efforts to obtain a job with the City, he has filed several job applications, including one in December 1987 and another in June 1992. Such applications are valid for a period of two years after they are signed and filed with the City. Therefore, if petitioner applied for a position with the City in March 1991, he did not have a valid job application on file. The petition for relief filed by Coleman describes the unlawful employment practice allegedly committed by the City as follows: unlawful hired or employment practice: with veteran preference that I have, and a handicap, which is alleged. The petition for relief does not describe the handicap. At hearing, however, petitioner contended he suffers from paranoia schizophrenia. Petitioner says that he applied for a job as a "traffic checker" with the City's engineering department in March 1991. City records reveal, however, that it has no such position called "traffic checker," and thus it hired no one for that job in 1991. It does have a position called "parking enforcement specialist," but since no description of the functions of that job is of record, it is unknown if the two positions are the same. Even so, City records do not show that petitioner made application for that position in March 1991. Notwithstanding this shortcoming, petitioner says that he interviewed for the position with an unidentified "supervisor," and he was told to prepare a resume, which he later gave to the interviewer's secretary. Thereafter, he made inquiry with the City's affirmative action office and learned that a veteran, not disabled, had been hired to fill the slot. Petitioner then brought this action charging the City with an unlawful employment practice. It is noted he has subsequently filed a second discrimination claim pertaining to another job application with the City. At hearing, petitioner contended that he suffers from paranoia schizophrenia. Other than his own assertion, however, no evidence was produced to confirm this disability, and as to this issue it is found that insufficient credible evidence exists to support a finding in petitioner's favor. The City admits that in one of petitioner's job applications filed with the City, petitioner attached a copy of a DD214 form reflecting that he was honorably discharged from the military. Also, the City acknowledges that in one of the applications is found a statement that petitioner had a 30 percent service related disability but the type of disability is not described. Whether the service related disability was still valid in March 1991 is not of record. Finally, petitioner's exhibit 1 is a copy of what purports to be a "statement of patient's treatment" from a VA outpatient clinic prepared in February 1985, but this document is hearsay, and in any event, is so dated as to have no probative value in this case. The more credible evidence shows that petitioner did not apply for the position of "traffic checker" or parking enforcement specialist in 1991. Moreover, petitioner had no valid application on file at that time, and there is no credible evidence as to who, if anyone, was hired to fill the position or what were the qualifications of the person hired. Even if one assumes an application was filed, the record is silent as to why petitioner's application may have been denied or, assuming he had a handicap, whether he could adequately perform the essential functions of the job. Given these considerations, and the lack of evidence to establish that petitioner is disabled with a handicap, it is found that the City did not commit an unlawful employment practice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order denying the petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 9th day of May, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5926 Respondent: Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Note - Where a proposed finding of fact has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commissioin Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Mr. David Coleman 1071 Ontario Street Jacksonville, FL 32205 Brian M. Flaherty, Esquire 600 City Hall 220 East Bay Street Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice as defined in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 10, 1989, Petitioner, Mark Cleveland, a male, applied through Job Service of Florida, for employment as a telemarketer with Respondent, Sears Roebuck and Company at the Sears store located in Pensacola, Florida. Petitioner had several years of sales experience with at least six months of experience in telemarketing. He also had a good speaking voice as evidenced by the fact that he is currently employed as a disc jockey at a local radio station. Clearly, Respondent was qualified for the telemarketing position. The telemarketer position would enable Petitioner to earn approximately $85.00 a week or $365.50 a month. The telemarketing section at the Pensacola Sears store consisted of virtually all women with perhaps three or four rare male telemarketers. Petitioner had two separate interviews with two different Sears employees responsible for filling the telemarketing positions. During the Petitioner's interviews with the two Sears employees, Petitioner was repeatedly questioned on whether he could work with all women or mostly all women and be supervised by women. Petitioner assured his interviewers that he could since he grew up with six sisters and in general liked working with women. Petitioner left the interview with the information that he would be hired after another supervisor reviewed the applications and that he would be called once the supervisor's review was complete. After several days, Petitioner, being excited about what he thought was going to be his new job, called one of the two women who interviewed him. He was informed that the telemarketing positions had been filled. Later that same day Petitioner discovered that the positions had, in fact, not been filled and that he had been told an untruth. The telemarketing positions were eventually filled by women. Petitioner remained out of work for approximately four months before he was hired as a telemarketer by the Pensacola News Journal. A Notice of Assignment and Order was issued on August 27, 1991, giving the parties an opportunity to provide the undersigned with suggested dates and a suggested place for the formal hearing. The information was to be provided within ten days of the date of the Notice. This Notice was sent by United States mail to the Respondent at the address listed in the Petition for Relief. Respondent did not respond to the Notice. On October 10, 1991, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting the formal hearing for 11:00 a.m., September 11, 1990. The location of the hearing was listed in the Notice. The Notice of Hearing was sent by United States mail to the Respondent at the address listed in the Petition for Relief. Respondent's address and acknowledgment of this litigation was confirmed when Respondent filed its answer to the Petition for Relief with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Even though Respondent received adequate notice of the hearing in this matter, the Respondent did not appear at the place set for the formal hearing at the date and time specified on the Notice of Hearing. The Petitioner was present at the hearing. The Respondent did not request a continuance of the formal hearing or notify the undersigned that it would not be able to appear at the formal hearing. After waiting fifteen minutes for the Respondent to appear, the hearing was commenced. As a consequence of Respondent's failure to appear, no evidence rebutting Petitioner's facts were introduced into evidence at the hearing and specifically no evidence of a nondiscriminatory purpose was introduced at the hearing. 1/ Petitioner has established a prima facie case of discrimination based on his sex, given the fact that Sears tried to mislead him into believing the telemarketing positions had been filled when they had not, the positions were all eventually filled by women and Sears' clear concern over Petitioner's ability to work with women. Such facts lead to the reasonable inference that Sears was engaging in an unlawful employment practice based on Respondent being a male, a protected class, in order to preserve a female work force in telemarketing. Such discrimination based on sex is prohibited under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and Petitioner is entitled to relief from that discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a final order finding Petitioner was the subject of an illegal employment practice and awarding Petitioner $1,462.00 in backpay plus reasonable costs of $100.95 and an attorney's fee of $2,550.00. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 30th day of April, 1992.
The Issue The issue is whether this case should be dismissed based on Petitioner's failure to appear at the hearing.
Findings Of Fact The Notice of Hearing in this case was issued on January 12, 2011, setting the hearing for March 30 and 31, 2011, in Tavares, Florida. The hearing was scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on March 30, 2011. Also on January 12, 2011, an Order of Pre-hearing Instructions was entered. Neither the Notice of Hearing nor the Order of Pre- hearing Instructions was returned as undeliverable to Petitioner. On March 23, 2011, Petitioner filed a letter at the Division of Administrative Hearings stating that she would be unable to attend the hearing on March 30, 2011, for unexplained medical reasons. This letter indicated that Petitioner was aware of the scheduled hearing dates. At the hearing on March 30, 2011, counsel for Respondent stated that Petitioner did not serve a copy of this letter to Respondent. On March 29, 2011, Petitioner filed a second letter at the Division of Administrative Hearings that declined to request a continuance of the hearing and proposed that the hearing proceed based on hearsay documents that Petitioner had previously filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the hearing on March 30, 2011, counsel for Respondent stated that Petitioner did not serve a copy of this letter to Respondent. At 9:00 a.m. on March 30, 2011, counsel and witnesses for Respondent were present and prepared to go forward with the hearing. Petitioner was not present. The undersigned delayed the commencement of the hearing by fifteen minutes, but Petitioner still did not appear. The hearing was called to order at 9:15 a.m. Counsel for Respondent entered his appearance and requested the entry of a recommended order of dismissal. As noted above, Respondent had received no notice that Petitioner did not intend to appear at the hearing or that continuance was under consideration. Respondent's counsel had flown to Florida from Tennessee to appear at the hearing. One of Respondent's witnesses was a former employee whom Respondent had flown to Florida from Wisconsin at Respondent's expense. Respondent vigorously opposed any continuance of the scheduled proceeding. The undersigned declined on the record to continue the hearing. The hearing was then adjourned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2011, 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 4th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Leebron Grand Court Tavares 111 Westwood Place, Suite 200 Brentwood, Tennessee 37027 Ann L. Brunette Post Office Box 304 Fruitland Park, Florida 34731 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner was wrongfully terminated from his position as a janitor with Respondent because of his handicap, in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lee, was hired by Respondent in August 1994 as a custodial worker at the Tallahassee Mall in Tallahassee, Florida. As a janitor Petitioner's duties included bending, stooping, and lifting. He was assigned to zone 3 in the Mall. Up until 1996, when Petitioner was injured, Petitioner received good evaluations on his job performance. Indeed Petitioner was very proud of the quality of his work and took special care to do his job well. Sometime prior to May 20, 1996, Petitioner, while at work and in the scope of his employment, stepped on a set of stairs which were not properly attached to a stage in the Tallahassee Mall. The steps slipped causing Petitioner's feet to come out from under him. Petitioner fell flat on his back. As a consequence Petitioner suffered a permanent back injury for which he received workers' compensation. The injury impairs his ability to work and therefore is a handicap. Around May 20, 1996, Petitioner was released by his doctor and was given orders for light duty with no bending, stooping, or heavy lifting. Petitioner gave these orders to his supervisor, Mr. Navin, when he returned to work on May 20, 1996. Respondent had light duty work available which Petitioner was qualified to perform. However, Respondent did not assign Petitioner to light duty work, but changed his work area from zone 3 to zone 1. Zone 1 is located at the front entrance to the mall and requires more work to maintain. Petitioner attempted to perform his duties but could only work for 3 1/2 hours before being overcome by pain from his injury. Petitioner could not work the next four working days because of the aggravation of his injury. On May 28, 1996, after returning to work, Petitioner was again given full duty work. Petitioner attempted to perform his custodial duties for about 2 weeks. However, the pain from his injury was so severe he again requested light duty work. Petitioner's supervisor asked Petitioner to bring him another notice from his doctor. Petitioner's doctor faxed the supervisor a second notice and Petitioner was placed on light duty work. Once Petitioner was placed on light duty work, the mall manager, Mr. Renninger, followed Petitioner around the mall watching him all the time while he worked. On July 8, 1996, prior to the mall opening for business, Petitioner was helping one of the mall store owners with a problem. Such aid was part of Petitioner's job. The mall manager walked up to Petitioner and began to yell at him in a very rude and disrespectful manner. The manager would not listen to Petitioner's explanation of the event. The manager gave Petitioner a written disciplinary notice for his aid to the mall store owner. The manager continued to follow Petitioner around the mall while he worked. Sometime around August 15, 1996, the mall manager advised the mall's employees that they should take their respective vacations prior to October. Petitioner thought it would be a good time for him to take the 4-day vacation time he had accumulated during his employment with the mall. He could use the time to allow his back to heal more. On August 15, 1996, Petitioner requested vacation leave and vacation pay for the period beginning September 3, 1996 and ending September 9, 1996. Initially, the request was denied. Petitioner's supervisor felt he had missed too much work and been late too often. However, Petitioner had only been absent or late in relation to his back injury. Petitioner explained that fact to his supervisor. His supervisor agreed and approved Petitioner's vacation. Petitioner returned to work on August 10, 1996. An argument with the administrative assistant occurred when she refused to recognize that Petitioner was entitled to be paid for his vacation time. She was not going to turn in any time for him so that Petitioner could get paid while on vacation. Getting a paycheck was a serious matter to Petitioner, and Petitioner, understandably, became gruff with the administrative assistant. Petitioner only raised his voice at the administrative assistant. He was not abusive and did not curse at her. In fact, the administrative assistant yelled at Petitioner when he raised the subject of his pay "Now, before you start bitching." Petitioner called the headquarters of Respondent and confirmed he had vacation time and pay accrued. After this incident Petitioner was fired ostensibly for mistreating the administrative assistant. The administrative assistant, who was incorrect, was not terminated. The reason appears to be a pretext. Petitioner's pay was $5.35 per hour and he worked a 40-hour-work-week. After his termination, Petitioner actively sought employment but could not find any until September 1, 1997. At that time he began work for Tallahassee Community College as a custodial worker with light duties at a higher rate of pay. Petitioner's search for work was reasonable.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner and awarding Petitioner backpay in the amount of $11,770.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Edward Willison Carroll, III, is currently eligible for licensure and is licensed in this state as a Credit Life, including Credit Disability Insurance Agent; General Lines - Property, Casualty, Surety and Miscellaneous Lines Agent; General Lines - Motor Vehicle Physical Damage and Mechanical Breakdown Agent; Ordinary Life, including Health Insurance Agent; Health Insurance Agent; and Automobile and Inspection and Warranty Association Salesman. On March 10, 1980, respondent filed a verified application with petitioner for examination as a General Lines Agent (Property, Casualty, and Miscellaneous Lines) . Question number 13 of the application asked the following: Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony? If so, complete the following and submit a full and detailed report on a separate sheet. Date Name of Court Address of Court Nature of Charge and Outcome Respondent answered no to this question. On May 28, 1982, respondent filed a verified application with petitioner for examination as an Ordinary Life including Disability Agent. Question number 15 of the application asked the following: Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony? If so, complete the following and submit a full and detailed report on a separate sheet. Date Name of Court Address of Court Nature of Charge and Outcome Respondent answered no to this question. Respondent's answers to question 13 on the March 10, 1980, application and question 15 on the March 28, 1982, application were false. On December 11, 1970, the State Attorney for the Second Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, filed an information with the circuit court which charged that respondent did on December 3, 1970, in Leon County, Florida ... knowingly commit a lewd or lascivious act in the presence of Alice Leigh Divita, a female child under the age of fourteen years, to-wit: of the age of six years, without intent to commit rape upon said child, contrary to Section 800.04, F.S. On March 9, 1971, respondent entered a plea of guilty to the crime of fondling, as charged in the information. The court withheld adjudication of guilty and imposition of sentence, and placed respondent on probation for a period of three years. At hearing, respondent conceded that he had been charged with the aforementioned felony. He averred, however, that his failure to disclose such charge on his applications was not intended to be deceitful but was premised on his belief that he could properly answer no to such inquiries because adjudication of guilty had been withheld. While respondent may reasonably have believed that he could respond in the negative to an inquiry concerning felony convictions, his contention that he held an honest belief that he could also respond in the negative to inquiries about whether the had ever been charged with a felony is not persuasive. But for the foregoing charge, respondent has not been charged or convicted of any other felonies. Nor, has the respondent been shown to have engaged in any improprieties as an insurance agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered suspending respondent's licensure and eligibility for licensure for three months. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of August, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 1. 2 & 3. Addressed in paragraph 2. 4 & 5. Addressed in paragraph 3. 6. Addressed in paragraph 5. 7 & 8 Addressed in paragraph 6. 9 & 10. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 8. 11. Addressed in paragraph 9. 12-14. Rejected as not relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: S. Marc Herskovitz, Esquire Office of Legal Services 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Thomas L. Neilson, Esquire 105 West Fifth Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32303 The Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Don Dowdell, Esquire General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of section 70-53, Pinellas County Code, by terminating Petitioner's employment allegedly because of her disability; and, if so, what is the appropriate remedy.
Findings Of Fact Admitted Facts Per Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation Sure-Tek is an employer as defined by section 70-51, Pinellas County Code. Ms. Turner was employed by Sure-Tek on January 18, 2010. Her employment was terminated by Sure-Tek on February 22, 2010. Prior to her employment, Ms. Turner was diagnosed with diabetes insipidus. Ms. Turner's diabetes did not prevent her from performing the essential functions of her job, with reasonable accommodations. Lewis "Mitch" Currie is the owner of Sure-Tek, and he was Ms. Turner's direct supervisor. Mr. Currie made the decision to terminate Ms. Turner's employment. Additional Findings of Fact Based on the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses and the greater weight of the competent substantial evidence presented at the final hearing, the following additional facts are found. Diabetes Insipidus Ms. Turner developed diabetes insipidus four years ago as a result of brain surgery to remove a tumor on her pituitary gland. She described the condition as a very rare form of diabetes that is a sodium/electrolyte disorder, instead of the more common forms of diabetes that are insulin/blood sugar disorders. She testified that her understanding of her condition is that it is essentially permanent--the underlying cause of her condition will never go away, and she will eventually need brain surgery again. Ms. Turner's condition requires constant monitoring, but instead of measuring blood sugar via blood tests, Ms. Turner's condition involves monitoring and maintaining a balance of hydration, electrolytes, and output (urination), while taking prescription medication to protect against extreme imbalance that could result in her urinating herself to death. The line where the balance should be drawn at any given point is variable and difficult to predict, so the monitoring and adjustment process is a matter of trial and error, to some degree. The balance that Ms. Turner's condition requires is thrown off by temperature extremes, so she cannot work or spend much recreational time outside when it is hot or cold. She can work in an indoor office setting, provided that she takes extra steps to regulate the temperature, such as using space heaters to warm up a cool space. Ms. Turner must also be permitted to have ready access to plenty of drinking water at all times, and she has gotten used to bringing bottled water with her to ensure an appropriate supply. Her condition can cause her to urinate frequently, and so she also must have ready access to a restroom. Ms. Turner also testified that her condition requires her to maintain a strict diet, because many foods and drinks will throw off the balance she must maintain. For example, Ms. Turner must avoid sodium, butter and certain other fats, meats, and other ingredients. Since some of the ingredients she must avoid, such as sodium, are difficult to control and monitor when eating out, she does not often go out to eat in restaurants and no longer goes out to dinner with friends. Ms. Turner has gotten very sick when she has unknowingly ingested too much sodium or when the ingredients she must avoid have secretly been in her food. Ms. Turner has learned the hard way about some of the things she cannot tolerate. For example, she learned that she cannot drink alcohol when, after the onset of her diabetes insipidus, she collapsed after drinking a small amount of alcohol at a party and had to be hospitalized. By sticking to a careful regimen of monitoring and adjustment, by adhering to all of the hydration and dietary restrictions she has learned are necessary from her experience, limiting her social activities (rarely eating out, limiting outdoor activities), controlling the temperature of her settings and ensuring constant access to water and bathrooms, Ms. Turner has been able to deal with her condition. In a lay person's sense, Ms. Turner does not really consider herself to be disabled, although she tends to think in comparative terms, noting that there are persons with severe debilitating conditions that are much worse off than she is. Ms. Turner testified that her diabetes disorder also has impaired her immunity system, making her more prone to sickness. No medical testimony was offered to verify this opinion. Somewhat inconsistently, Ms. Turner later testified that when she got sick with a cold, which evolved into bronchitis, that episode of sickness was unrelated to her diabetes condition. Indeed, Ms. Turner's opinion that her sickness was not related to her diabetes condition was confirmed by her testimony that she has gotten colds that turned into bronchitis every winter for many years, pre-dating the onset of her diabetes insipidus. Employment at Sure-Tek Sure-Tek is in the business of powder coating, which is an anti-corrosive industrial coating applied to metal and other objects. The building in which Sure-Tek carries out its business has two main areas: administrative office space and warehouse space. The powder coating is done in the warehouse part of the building, in a room with two ovens that operate at 400+ degrees. The room with the ovens is very hot, often 120 degrees or more. Ms. Turner was hired as a bookkeeper/receptionist/ office assistant, beginning on January 18, 2010. She was the only administrative/office worker at Sure-Tek. The other approximately 10 employees worked in the warehouse, carrying out the powder-coating business. Mr. Currie, the owner/president, spent about half of his time in his office and the other half in the warehouse. Ms. Turner had an office with a door that she often kept closed because of her sensitivity to hot and cold temperatures; it was easier to regulate the temperature of her office space if the door was closed. Ms. Turner found her office to be very cold, so she kept two space heaters going. She brought her own space heater to use at the office to accommodate her need to modify the temperature of her space. Brandon Bean, another employee at Sure-Tek, did not like having to go into Ms. Turner's office, finding it unpleasantly warm--he described it as quite "toasty." When Ms. Turner was hired, Mr. Bean had been working at Sure-Tek for about five months. Mr. Bean had been in jail before he was hired by Sure-Tek, having served a sentence for a felony conviction related to firearms. During the time that Ms. Turner was an employee at Sure-Tek, Mr. Bean's position was referred to as floor supervisor or warehouse foreman. Mr. Bean testified that he was promoted to general manager one year ago, which would have been a few months after Ms. Turner was fired, while the Pinellas OHR was conducting its investigation of Ms. Turner's discrimination complaint. Ms. Turner was expected to work 40 hours per week, and she testified that she did so, not missing a day of work. No evidence was presented that Ms. Turner did not work the hours she was expected to work each day and week of her employment (with the exception of leaving sick two hours early on the last Friday of her employment, discussed below). She rarely took lunch. She was expected to be available during business hours to answer the phones and was expected to take a portable phone with her when she stepped away from her desk, even when she went to the bathroom. When she went to the bathroom with a portable phone, she was expected to answer the phone, even then, if a call came in. At her interview, Ms. Turner told Mr. Currie that she had substantial bookkeeping experience and knew how to use QuickBooks software. No credible evidence was presented to prove that her representations were not true. When Ms. Turner began working for Sure-Tek, she received no training or orientation from someone who knew the office systems, protocols, or electronic files. Mr. Currie told Ms. Turner verbally what her duties were and how things were done, but he did not actually train her. For him, it was good enough that she said she knew QuickBooks. Besides, as he admitted at the hearing, he really did not know the computer systems himself; he "doesn't use the computer much." Ms. Turner discovered that there were two QuickBook systems, which were password-protected. Ms. Turner said that it took two days for her to track down the passwords. Then, she had quite the time sorting out the accounts set up in the two different systems--she described the state of the computer accounting as "a mess" when she started. She asked Mr. Currie if she could merge the two systems, and he told her to go ahead. At the hearing, Mr. Currie acknowledged that there were two QuickBook systems, an older version and a new 2010 version. He testified that his only office help after getting the updated QuickBooks software consisted of a series of three different temporary employees sent over by a "temp" agency. He said that these temporary employees were awful; nonetheless, he tasked them with setting up the new system with information brought over from the old system. It should come as no surprise, then, that Ms. Turner found many problems and errors, such as entries of very recent information in the old system that should have been in the new system. Ms. Turner testified that she discovered quite a few late and unpaid bills when she started. She would bring these items to Mr. Currie's attention, and he would tell her whether the bills could be paid or not. Mr. Currie's permission was required before Ms. Turner could pay any bills, and sometimes Mr. Currie would refuse to authorize payment for bills that were due or past due. Mr. Currie confirmed this at hearing; he testified that he "absolutely" had to refuse permission to pay bills at times, because there was not always enough money to pay all of the bills. At other times, he would tell Ms. Turner to just pay part of a bill that was due. Mr. Currie testified that for the first two weeks of Ms. Turner's employment at Sure-Tek, she seemed to be on track and was trying very hard. Ms. Turner noted that Mr. Currie praised her work during those first two weeks, and he did not deny this. However, according to Mr. Currie, after about two weeks, Ms. Turner's performance went "downhill." Mr. Currie did not present any credible evidence to prove this demarcation point. However, the evidence did establish that the two-week point was significant for a different reason. Mr. Currie had lunch with Ms. Turner after her first two weeks. In their lunchtime conversation, Mr. Currie told Ms. Turner that his wife suffered from a thyroid problem, which he said sometimes made her off-balance. Ms. Turner responded by telling Mr. Currie that she had diabetes insipidus. Mr. Currie had no apparent immediate reaction to this disclosure. However, at some point thereafter, Mr. Currie told Ms. Turner that he never would have hired her if he had known she had diabetes.1/ When Ms. Turner had a cold throughout the week of February 15, 2010, the two had an awkward encounter on Friday afternoon, February 19, 2010. As Ms. Turner described it, by mid-afternoon on Friday, after sticking it out at work all week while not feeling well, she asked Mr. Currie if she could go home two hours early, because she had finished her Friday task of getting the information in to the payroll service and thought it would be all right if she left for the day. Mr. Currie got very angry and said that her diabetes was always making her sick. She tried to tell him that she had a cold and was on antibiotics (to stop the apparent evolution of her cold to bronchitis), and it was unrelated to her diabetes. But Mr. Currie just waved his hands and yelled at her to "just go!" She thought he meant that she should go home as she had asked, although she knew he was not happy about it. So she left. Mr. Currie told a very different version of Friday, February 19, 2010. Mr. Currie denied making any statements about Ms. Turner's diabetes, then or ever. Mr. Currie also denied having any conversation with Ms. Turner that afternoon about whether Ms. Turner could go home two hours early because she had a cold. However, Mr. Currie testified that he noticed that Ms. Turner was sub-par that day. As Mr. Currie put it, that day Ms. Turner "seemed a little sicker than she appeared to be normally." Mr. Currie then testified that Mr. Bean was looking for Ms. Turner in the middle of the afternoon that Friday, February 19, 2010. He asked Mr. Currie where she was, and Mr. Currie said he did not know. Then, according to Mr. Currie, after they spent about 45 minutes looking for Ms. Turner, Mr. Currie decided that Ms. Turner must have quit, leaving without telling anyone, never to return. At that point, Mr. Currie instructed Mr. Bean to place an ad on Craigslist for a replacement for Ms. Turner. Mr. Currie's version of the events on Friday, February 19, 2010, is not credible, particularly when coupled with Mr. Currie's inconsistent version of the events on Monday, February 22, 2010; Ms. Turner's version is accepted as the more credible account of events. On Monday, February 22, 2010, Ms. Turner went to work that morning, only to find a number of telephone messages from applicants for the Craigslist ad and resumes submitted by individuals requesting an interview for the bookkeeper position. By mid-morning, Mr. Currie called Ms. Turner into his office. According to Ms. Turner, Mr. Currie said that it was not working out with her diabetes. When Ms. Turner tried again to tell him that her two-hour break Friday afternoon was because of a cold, and not diabetes, Mr. Currie then added that that was not the only reason he was letting her go--that she had bankrupted his company.2/ Then, according to Ms. Turner, Mr. Currie asked her to stay to train her replacement, which she refused to do. Mr. Currie does not deny that he told Ms. Turner she was terminated, but he denies any reference to her diabetes, claiming it was all because of her performance. Mr. Currie did not attempt to reconcile this version in which he admittedly intended to fire Ms. Turner, with his inconsistent description of the previous Friday, when he claimed that the only reason he placed the Craigslist ad was because he believed that Ms. Turner had voluntarily quit, and he had no choice but to start looking for a replacement. In an effort to show that he was thoughtful and accommodating of Ms. Turner's health condition and needs, Mr. Currie testified that a few days before Ms. Turner was fired, she had told him that she would be needing another surgery. His response was that he would hire a temporary employee to cover for her so she could have the time off for her surgery. But this testimony tends to underscore that as of just a few days before Ms. Turner was fired, Mr. Currie gave no signs to Ms. Turner that there were any performance-related issues that would put her job in jeopardy. Twisting back toward the different version of events that suggested there were mounting problems with Ms. Turner's performance, Mr. Currie claimed to have talked with Ms. Turner on several different occasions throughout her employment about her performance problems. As noted above, Ms. Turner testified, credibly, that for the first few weeks, Mr. Currie said she was doing a good job. After that, Ms. Turner acknowledged a single comment by Mr. Currie that she did not know how to run reports right. Ms. Turner also acknowledged that Mr. Bean called one meeting with Mr. Currie and Ms. Turner to complain that Ms. Turner was unfriendly to him and did not respond quickly enough to a request he made for information. Ms. Turner explained her run-in with Mr. Bean, stating that she was on the phone when he walked into her office and started talking to her as if she was not on the phone. She said that he got quite huffy when she asked him to wait a minute while she finished the call. Mr. Currie claimed that after the first few weeks, he started noticing that bills were going unpaid, and he talked to Ms. Turner about it. Ms. Turner's version, as noted above, was that there were overdue bills when she started, and she called them to Mr. Currie's attention; however, as Mr. Currie admitted, he sometimes refused permission to pay those bills and sometimes told her to just pay part of the bills, because he did not have enough money. No credible evidence was presented that Ms. Turner was to blame for bills going unpaid, or only partially paid, during her time of employment. Instead, the evidence showed that before, during, and after Ms. Turner's employment, bills sometimes went unpaid or only partially paid, admittedly, at Mr. Currie's direction. While Mr. Currie denied that it made a difference to him when Ms. Turner told him about her diabetes at that two-week lunch, the more credible evidence is that Mr. Currie's attitude towards Ms. Turner as an employee changed at that two-week mark. The more credible evidence established that Mr. Currie had a knee-jerk reaction upon learning that Ms. Turner had "diabetes" to jump to the conclusion that she had a disability that rendered her substantially and significantly impaired in the major life activity of working. He decided, without any real basis, that she was incapable of working in the one type of job where she thought she would be able to function with the accommodations she herself supplied. The credible evidence establishes that Mr. Currie fired Ms. Turner because of his perception of her disability. Mr. Currie's testimony included the occasional revealing slips that were much more telling than his steadfast (but not credible) denial of any discrimination. As noted, Mr. Currie testified that he found Ms. Turner to be a good employee who was trying very hard for the first two weeks, but that her work slipped and went downhill after the first two weeks. Yet he presented no evidence to prove what he observed that showed such a downhill slip in her performance after two weeks. Instead, the evidence and testimony, considering the credibility and demeanor of the witnesses, painted the picture that it was Ms. Turner's disclosure of having diabetes, and that alone, caused Ms. Turner's downhill plummet in Mr. Currie's eyes. That Mr. Currie perceived Petitioner to be disabled and perceived Petitioner's disability to substantially affect her ability to do her job, was evident from Mr. Currie's slip that on her last Friday of work, Petitioner seemed "sub-par," which he characterized as "a little sicker than she appeared to be normally." Thus, Mr. Currie perceived Petitioner as "normally" sick. That perception came despite the unrebutted testimony by Petitioner that she did not miss any work time based on illness or complication from her diabetes until she asked to leave two hours early on Friday, February 19, 2010. Ms. Turner's testimony regarding Mr. Currie's discriminatory comments was corroborated by the testimony of Tanya Rodriguez, who was hired in response to the Craigslist ad to replace Ms. Turner. Ms. Rodriguez did not know Ms. Turner until she met her, when Ms. Turner came in to Sure-Tek to pick up her last paycheck after she had been fired. Ms. Rodriguez provided information to the Pinellas OHR in its investigation of Ms. Turner's complaint when Ms. Rodriguez was still employed by SureTek. Ms. Rodriguez was then fired, allegedly for performance problems.3/ Ms. Rodriguez convincingly testified at the final hearing that when she was interviewed by Mr. Currie to replace Ms. Turner, Mr. Currie asked her, point-blank, whether she had diabetes. He told her that the last person he hired with diabetes was a good for nothing S.O.B; that he never would have hired her if he knew she had diabetes, because she was always sick; and that he would never hire another person with diabetes. Ms. Rodriguez told Mr. Currie that she did not have diabetes, even though she actually was diabetic.4/ After Mr. Currie asked his question about diabetes, he proceeded to ask Ms. Rodriguez whether she had thyroid problems (like his wife, whom he told Ms. Turner was sometimes off-balance as a result). Ms. Rodriguez also confirmed Ms. Turner's testimony that there were deep-seated problems remaining in the dual QuickBook systems. Although Respondent attempted to characterize this testimony as evidence of Ms. Turner's poor performance, Ms. Rodriguez made it very clear that the problems imbedded in the dual systems were from a much longer time span--up to one year--and could not have been the result of errors made in the one month preceding Ms. Rodriguez' employment at Sure-Tek. Instead, Ms. Rodriguez saw signs of efforts to merge the two systems, but noted that there would not have been enough time in one month to completely merge the systems and fix all of the imbedded problems. She testified that she also tried her best to make progress, but she was only at Sure-Tek for a few short weeks. Ms. Rodriguez' testimony was credible and is accepted.5/ Her testimony strongly corroborates Ms. Turner's testimony of Mr. Currie's direct discriminatory statements, including the first words out of his mouth when he fired her--that it was not going to work out, with her diabetes. At hearing, Respondent presented evidence offered in an attempt to demonstrate that Ms. Turner's job performance was not good and was the legitimate reason for her termination. Mr. Currie testified that a Progress Energy bill due on February 18, 2010, went unpaid. Mr. Currie blamed this on Ms. Turner forgetting to pay the bill, but that was not established. Ms. Turner and her successor, Ms. Rodriguez, both testified that as bookkeepers for Respondent, they did not have the authority to pay bills. Instead, they were required to review the bills with Mr. Currie, and each week he would tell them which bills could be paid, which bills should be partially paid, and which bills should be ignored. Mr. Currie corroborated this testimony, admitting that he "absolutely" had to refuse permission to pay bills sometimes. The short billing history Respondent put in evidence for Progress Energy showed, for example, that the month's charges due on June 18, 2009, went unpaid until the following month and that was well before Petitioner began her employment. Regardless of whether the Progress Energy bill due on February 18, 2010, was unpaid because of Ms. Turner's fault or Mr. Currie's instruction, the notification of this unpaid bill was first mailed out to Mr. Currie on Thursday, February 18, 2010. Thus, this could not have been an example of one of the bills allegedly going unpaid that Mr. Currie claimed to have begun noticing after Ms. Turner had been working at Sure-Tek for two weeks. Indeed, there is no evidence that Mr. Currie was even aware of this late notice, mailed on Thursday, by the next afternoon when he had an ad placed for Ms. Turner's replacement or by the following Monday morning, when he fired Ms. Turner. Mr. Currie also testified that Ms. Turner was to blame for an increase in his Progress Energy utility deposit from $800 to $2,500.00, but no evidence was presented to prove that there was an increase in SureTek's required utility deposit at all, or, if so, when any such increase occurred. To the contrary, the Progress Energy statement for February 2010, covering the billing period of January 27, 2010, through February 24, 2010 (very close to the time span of Ms. Turner's employment), shows that the deposit amount already being held for that account at that time was $2,680. Further, the Progress Energy billing history summary shows that the prior month's bill, due on January 21, 2010, had been paid. Thus, the evidence refutes Mr. Currie's suggestion that there was an increase in the deposit requirement because of Ms. Turner's failure to pay the bills. Instead, it appears that if the deposit requirement had been increased, the increase occurred before January 2010, based on billing history that predated Ms. Turner's employment. A similar story was told with respect to the City of Pinellas Park water bills. Mr. Currie blamed Ms. Turner for not paying a bill from January 15, 2010, even though that bill was transmitted online before Ms. Turner was hired. Both before and after Ms. Turner was employed, there was a billing history for the water bills that showed occasional missed payments and occasional partial payments of the total amount due, as well as the imposition of a penalty charge for late payment. The January 15, 2010, bill that was not paid when due on February 10, 2010, resulted in a $34.10 penalty charge, which may have been Ms. Turner's fault. However, given Mr. Currie's admission that he controlled payment of bills and sometimes refused permission to pay bills when due, the evidence is insufficient to show that Ms. Turner was to blame for the bill not being paid while she was employed at Sure-Tek or for the late charge. Mr. Currie also presented evidence regarding PESCO gas bills. A summary of PESCO charges and payments was presented with a January charge highlighted. Next to the January charge was a handwritten note, "DID NOT PAY PESCO BILL." The only problem with this evidence is that the summary is for charges and payments in 2009, not 2010. Thus, whoever did not pay the PESCO bill in January 2009, it could not have been Ms. Turner. Mr. Currie also presented a separate PESCO invoice dated March 4, 2010, which showed that the balance due as of the prior month's bill, February 4, 2010, was $4,609.13. This balance was reduced by a $1,791.73 payment made February 10, 2010, presumably by Ms. Turner during her time of employment. Mr. Currie admitted at the final hearing that PESCO accepted partial payments at that time, and he admitted that he probably instructed Ms. Turner to pay only part of the February bill. It was not shown that there were any billing or payment problems with this account or that Ms. Turner's performance can be faulted at all. Next came the TECO People's Gas bill. On a statement dated February 12, 2010, a "previous balance" of $1,589.88 was carried forward from the prior month's bill. Sometime between the prior statement issued in mid-January 2010, and the February 12, 2010, statement, a partial payment was made and credited in the amount of $497.68, leaving $1,092.20 still due from the January bill. Because the remaining balance was considered "past due" on February 7, 2010, a late payment fee of $16.38 was added to the February statement. Mr. Currie acknowledged that the January 2010 bill was partially paid while Ms. Turner was employed at Sure-Tek. Once again, Mr. Currie admitted that it was "entirely possible" that he was the one who instructed Ms. Turner to pay what Respondent could afford to pay--the partial payment of $497.68--because he did not have the money to pay the entire bill. Mr. Currie's own testimony and the bill itself refute his claim that Ms. Turner overlooked or forgot to pay the January bill. In addition, Mr. Currie's testimony corroborated the testimony of Ms. Turner and Ms. Rodriguez regarding the tight control Mr. Currie kept on which bills were paid or partially paid. This evidence does not establish that Ms. Turner's performance can be faulted for the partial payment of the January TECO People's Gas bill or the late fee charged on the remainder that was not paid when due. TECO People's Gas also sent a "final notice" on February 11, 2010, informing Sure-Tek that it had to pay the remaining past due balance of $1,092.20 right away, or else its service would be terminated on February 19, 2010. A copy of the final notice in evidence has handwriting on it, indicating "pay" in one handwriting style and "paid" in a different handwriting style. Mr. Currie did not testify that his TECO People's Gas service was terminated. Thus, the reasonable inference is that Mr. Currie authorized Ms. Turner to pay the rest of the January balance upon receipt of the final notice, and she did so before February 19, 2010. Mr. Currie's final piece of documentary evidence to support his claim of mounting performance problems was a notice from the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, dated February 17, 2010 (the Wednesday of Ms. Turner's last week of employment). This notice informed Sure-Tek that its corporate annual report was due and should be filed with the filing fee by May 1, 2010, to avoid a late fee. A second notice dated June 16, 2010, imposed the late fee and notified Sure-Tek that the annual report, filing fee, and late fee had to be submitted by September 17, 2010, to avoid administrative dissolution. Despite the fact that Ms. Turner was fired a few days after the first notice and a late fee could have been avoided if the report and filing fee were submitted at any time in the approximately 70 days remaining after Ms. Turner was fired, Mr. Currie blamed the failure to meet the May 1, 2010, deadline on Ms. Turner. That attempted blame is not warranted and, instead, tends to suggest that Mr. Currie was looking to find things to blame on Ms. Turner after she was fired. Mr. Currie testified that he believed Ms. Turner did not know how to use QuickBooks, and, as a result, did not follow his instructions to enter bills into QuickBooks as soon as they were received. However, Mr. Currie offered no credible, competent evidence of this. Mr. Currie admitted that he had no personal knowledge regarding what was or was not entered into QuickBooks by Ms. Turner or how Ms. Turner performed using QuickBooks, and no other evidence was offered to prove Mr. Currie's unsubstantiated claim. Mr. Bean participated in the Pinellas OHR investigation and testified at the final hearing in support of Mr. Currie's position that Ms. Turner was fired because of her performance problems. Mr. Bean testified that Ms. Turner was fired because of a "lack of ability to do the job," and he referred to her not paying bills. Mr. Bean's testimony lacked credibility and probative value. He admitted that he had no personal knowledge of unpaid bills, no personal knowledge of Ms. Turner's interaction with vendors, and no personal knowledge of her QuickBooks work. Mr. Bean provided no competent, credible evidence of any problems with Ms. Turner's performance. The only testimony he provided that was based on personal knowledge was that he found her to be "unfriendly" to him. While Ms. Turner was employed at SureTek, Mr. Bean was not her supervisor; at the time, he supervised only the warehouse employees. Mr. Bean testified that he was promoted to general manager in early July 2010 (one year before the final hearing), having "worked [his] way up." This was a few months after Ms. Turner was fired, after Ms. Rodriguez was fired, and after Mr. Bean had provided support to Mr. Currie's position in the Pinellas OHR investigation. The credible evidence fails to support Mr. Currie's suggestion that Ms. Turner was not performing acceptably in her brief tenure and was fired for that legitimate reason. Instead, it appears that Mr. Currie went on an after-the-fact hunt for things he could blame on Ms. Turner that could not reasonably be blamed on her, nor were they shown to be reasons why Mr. Currie made the decision on February 19, 2011, to terminate Ms. Turner and advertise for her replacement. Indeed, Mr. Currie's own testimony shows the inconsistencies in his attempt to develop a legitimate rationale for letting Ms. Turner go. When Mr. Currie was explaining his recollection of the events of February 19, 2011, he testified that after just 45 minutes of looking for Ms. Turner, who he described as looking sub-par and sicker than she normally looked that day, he decided that she must have quit, and he instructed Mr. Bean to place an ad on Craigslist because Ms. Turner had apparently decided to quit. That is quite a bit different than coming to the studied view over a multi-week period of time and following several counseling sessions that Ms. Turner's job performance was unacceptable and that she should be fired for poor performance. Instead, the suggestion was that Mr. Currie would have been happy to keep Ms. Turner--even willing to get a temporary employee to accommodate Ms. Turner's need for another surgery in the future--but she was the one who chose to leave. Mr. Currie never attempted to reconcile these two very clearly different explanations of how Ms. Turner's employment at Sure-Tek ended. These inconsistencies undermine the credibility of his attempt to legitimize her termination. Appropriate Remedy Petitioner testified that she is seeking back pay only, through the date of the final hearing, as damages. Petitioner quantified her back pay damages as 71.5 weeks of unemployment since her termination. She testified that her income at Sure-Tek was $540.00 per week ($13.50 per hour, times 40 hours per week). This evidence was not challenged by Respondent. Therefore, the total amount of back pay damages claimed before offsetting reductions is $38,610.00 Petitioner testified to her substantial efforts to obtain a job after she was fired by Respondent, and her testimony was corroborated by a tremendous amount of electronic mail inquiries and applications she submitted to follow up on job postings on Craigslist and other online job listings. Petitioner was hired shortly after she was let go by Mr. Currie at a company called Clear Tech, Inc. That job did not last long, however, because Ms. Turner was hired to work for the part of the company that was in the business of new pool construction and that part of the business was shut down soon after she started, due to the economic slow-down. Petitioner proved the amount of wages earned at Clear Tech: $1,632.00. In addition, Petitioner proved that she earned an additional $1,612.00 in unemployment compensation after she was fired from Sure-Tek. These two categories reduce the total amount of damages sought to $35,366.00. Petitioner testified that since she stopped working for Clear Tech, she has not earned wages. However, she testified that she has been helping out at Apple Homes, the company owned by her grandfather and father and has worked about ten hours per week. She is not on the payroll, because business is not good enough for her to be paid. However, both her grandfather and father help her out financially, helping to pay her rent and her bills. Although Ms. Turner testified that she plans to eventually pay back her father and grandfather for their financial help, she did not produce any evidence to substantiate that claim, such as an accounting maintained by her to tally the amounts of their assistance so she would know how much to repay them. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that her ten hours per week of work to "help" the company is being compensated by this indirect "help" to assist with her rent and bills. The undersigned finds that Petitioner has mitigated her damages to the extent of having similar work for which she is compensated for ten hours per week. Petitioner testified that she began working at Clear Tech in March 2010 and that she worked there for approximately 30 days. Therefore, the undersigned will assume that Petitioner worked at Clear Tech for the month of March 2010, and, thereafter, she worked at Apple Homes for ten hours a week. That equates to approximately 66 weeks, or 660 hours. In the absence of any other evidence showing how much Petitioner received as indirect compensation, it is reasonable to assume that her compensation would have approximated the hourly rate she earned from Respondent. Therefore, the undersigned will deduct $8,910 from the total back pay damages, representing estimated compensation of the value of her services of ten hours per week at Apple Homes for 66 weeks. The undersigned finds that Petitioner has incurred actual damages due to lost wages from her date of termination by Respondent through the date of the final hearing, reduced/offset by the items described above, of $26,456.00. Petitioner established her reasonable efforts to mitigate her damages, and she, in fact, mitigated her actual damages which have been reduced/offset as described above by a total of $12,154.00. Petitioner has hired an attorney who has represented her at the final hearing, in pre-hearing preparation, and in post-hearing proceedings. Petitioner has also incurred costs in connection with this litigation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: Finding that Respondent, Sure-Tek Powker Coating, Inc., violated section 70-53, Pinellas County Code; Ordering Respondent to pay Petitioner, Rebecca Turner, the sum of $26,456.00 and interest at the prevailing statutory rate; and Ordering Respondent to pay Ms. Turner reasonable costs and attorney's fees. Jurisdiction is retained to determine the amount of costs and attorney's fees, if the parties are unable to agree to the amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 2011.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Marcella Taggart (Petitioner) was the subject of unlawful discrimination by Publix Super Markets, Inc. (Respondent), in violation of chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Beginning in June 2007, and at all times material to this case, the Petitioner was employed as a systems analyst in the Respondent’s Information Technology (IT) department. The Respondent is a Florida corporation that operates a chain of grocery stores. The Respondent’s IT department is a high-security unit. A systems analyst working in the IT department has access to the Respondent’s financial and product pricing systems. Such an employee would also have access to some confidential human resources department data, including names, addresses, social security numbers, and banking information of the Respondent’s other employees. At the hearing, the Petitioner testified that some co- workers harassed her by repeatedly asking questions about her hair when she wore it in a braided hairstyle. The Respondent has adopted an explicit policy prohibiting all forms of harassment. In relevant part, the policy states as follows: The very nature of harassment makes it virtually impossible to detect unless the person being harassed registers his or her discontent with the appropriate company representative. Consequently, in order for the company to deal with the problem, offensive conduct or situations must be reported. The policy identifies a specific formal process by which an employee who feels harassed may lodge a complaint about such behavior. The Petitioner did not file a formal complaint about the alleged harassment related to her hairstyle. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner informally complained to the Respondent about such alleged harassment prior to her termination from employment. In April 2009, the Petitioner participated in a work- related meeting, during which the Petitioner perceived that she was treated by another female employee in a demeaning manner. The Petitioner reported the other employee’s behavior in an email to supervisor Terry Walden. The other employee wrote a similar email complaining about the Petitioner’s behavior at the meeting, and, according to the Petitioner’s email, the Petitioner was aware of the other employee’s report. Although the Petitioner now asserts that she complained that the incident was discriminatory, the Petitioner’s email, which was written at the time of the incident, does not state or imply that the incident was related to some type of discriminatory conduct by the other employee, or that the altercation was related to anything other than assigned work responsibilities. In May 2014, the Petitioner and a white male co-worker engaged in an office confrontation about assigned work responsibilities. Both the Respondent and the other employee separately reported the incident to supervisors. The Respondent investigated the incident and interviewed other employees who observed, but were not involved in, the confrontation. As a result of the incident, the Petitioner received a written memo of counseling on June 16, 2014, from supervisor Greta Opela for “poor interpersonal skills.” The memo reported that the Petitioner “consistently performed well in her position from a technical standpoint” but that she “has had ongoing associate relations issues.” The memo stated that the Petitioner was unable to work appropriately with other employees and that “many associates have requested not to work with her because of their previous interactions with her.” The memo noted that the Petitioner’s behavior towards her co-workers had been referenced in previous performance evaluations, as well as in direct discussions between the Petitioner and her immediate managers. In relevant part, the memo further stated as follows: Of concern, when coached or provided constructive criticism, Marcella is very unreceptive and often becomes defensive and deflects blame to others. Given Marcella has had interpersonal conflicts with numerous individuals, Marcella needs to recognize her role in these conflicts, take ownership for her actions, and work to correct her behavior. * * * Marcella must treat her fellow associates with dignity and respect. Also Marcella must take ownership for her actions and work to improve upon her relationships with her peers. Should Marcella fail to improve upon her interpersonal skills, she will be issued additional counseling, removed from her position, or separated from Publix. The Petitioner’s written acknowledgement of her receipt of the memo indicated that she disagreed with the assessment. The Petitioner asserts that the Respondent committed an act of discrimination against her because the Respondent did not issue a similar memo to the other employee. The evidence fails to support the assertion. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent had any reason to issue a similar memorandum to the other employee, or that the other employee had a documented history of exhibiting “poor interpersonal skills” that could warrant counseling. There is no evidence that the June 2014 memo was related in any manner to the Petitioner’s race, color, sex, age, or was retaliatory. Although the memo was placed in the Petitioner’s personnel file, the Respondent took no adverse employment action against the Petitioner as a result of the memo or the underlying incident. On June 23, 2014, the Petitioner’s house, which she owned with her husband, was partially destroyed in a fire. The Petitioner had been called to the scene after the fire commenced, and was present as the structure burned. The fire and subsequent events resulted in an investigation by the State Fire Marshall’s Office. On April 1, 2015, the Petitioner informed supervisor Opela that the Petitioner had to go to the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) and was unsure whether she would return to work on that day. Thereafter, the Petitioner left the workplace and traveled to the HCSO where she presented herself for arrest on a felony charge of making a “false and fraudulent insurance claim.” After the Petitioner left her place of employment, Ms. Opela accessed an internet resource and learned of the pending charge against the Petitioner. Ms. Opela reported the information to her own supervisor, Ms. Walden, and to Susan Brose, a manager in the Respondent’s human resources department. Ms. Brose reviewed the available internet information, and then arranged with the Petitioner to meet upon her return to the workplace. At the hearing, Ms. Brose testified that the Respondent requires complete honesty from its employees, and that, according to the Respondent’s policies, dishonest of any kind is unacceptable and can result in termination from employment. Ms. Brose testified that she restates the requirement at the commencement of every personnel disciplinary meeting, and did so at the beginning of her meeting with the Petitioner, after which she asked the Petitioner to explain the situation. The Petitioner responded by stating that there had been a fire at the house, that there had been no insurance on the house, that her husband had filed a claim, and that she had asked the insurance carrier not to pursue the claim. The Petitioner denied to Ms. Brose that she had been arrested at the HCSO. Ms. Brose also spoke with William Harrison, a detective with the Florida Department of Financial Services, Division of Insurance Fraud. Mr. Harrison prepared and executed the Summary of Offense and Probable Cause Statement (Probable Cause Statement), dated December 4, 2014, which formed the basis for the Petitioner’s arrest on April 1, 2015. According to the Probable Cause Statement: the Petitioner was aware at the time of the fire that the homeowner’s insurance on the house had lapsed for non-payment of the premium; the Petitioner was present at the scene of the fire and became aware that the policy could be reinstated during the “grace period” by payment of the premium due, as long as the house had suffered no damage during the uninsured period; the Petitioner was warned at the scene of the fire by an employee of the State Fire Marshall’s office that the reinstatement of the lapsed policy without disclosing the damage could constitute insurance fraud; and the Petitioner was overheard on the phone at the scene of the fire having the lapsed policy reinstated. Ms. Brose became aware that, when having the lapsed insurance policy reinstated, the Petitioner executed a “Statement of No Loss” form that provided in relevant part as follows: I CERTIFY THAT THERE HAVE BEEN NO LOSSES, ACCIDENTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MIGHT GIVE RISE TO A CLAIM UNDER THE INSURANCE POLICY WHOSE NUMBER IS SHOWN ABOVE. After completing her review of the circumstances, Ms. Brose concluded that the Petitioner had been dishonest during their meeting. Ms. Brose recommended to Ms. Walden that the Petitioner’s employment be terminated because the Petitioner worked in a high-security unit of the IT department where she had access to confidential financial information and systems, the Petitioner had been arrested for fraud, and the Petitioner was not honest when asked to explain the circumstances. On April 13, 2015, Ms. Walden terminated the Petitioner’s employment as a systems analyst for the reasons identified by Ms. Brose. The Petitioner presented no evidence that the Respondent’s termination of her employment was related to the Petitioner’s race, color, sex, age, or in retaliation for any complaint of discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's complaint of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May, 2016.
