The Issue The issue in this case is whether Fort Myers Broadcasting Company (FMBC or Respondent) committed an unlawful employment practice against Jaziah Rivera (Ms. Rivera or Petitioner) on the basis of her sex and in retaliation for engaging in a protected activity, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA).
Findings Of Fact FMBC operates in an office building located at 2824 Palm Beach Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida. For at least 20 years prior to September 2018, FMBC outsourced its cleaning needs. In or around August 2018, a management team at FMBC met to discuss its custodial services. The team included Joseph Schwartzel, Jim Schwartzel, Mark Gilson (Mr. Gilson), and Mr. Mayne. Joseph Schwartzel is the general manager of FMBC, and has served in that role for approximately 25 years. Jim Schwartzel, Mr. Gilson, and Mr. Mayne are all senior managers who report directly to Joseph Schwartzel. After the discussion, the management team decided to terminate FMBC’s contract for outside custodial services and hire an in-house custodian. General Manager Joseph Schwartzel was the final decision maker on this matter. In September 2018, FMBC hired Ms. Rivera as a full-time custodial worker. Ms. Rivera was the first in-house custodian hired by FMBC in its history. Her job duties included generalized cleaning like sweeping, mopping, taking out the trash, dusting, restocking supplies in the bathrooms, and vacuuming. Ms. Rivera reported directly to Mr. Mayne, who served as FMBC’s Chief Engineer. During Ms. Rivera’s entire time at FMBC, Mr. Mayne was her direct supervisor. Ms. Rivera’s weekly scheduled hours were Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. She sometimes altered those hours and worked from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Ms. Rivera testified that she would sometimes work “after hours or on the weekend” if she had to make up missed time. FMBC received complaints from employees that some areas at FMBC were not being stocked/cleaned properly or in a timely fashion. Mr. Mayne spoke to Ms. Rivera about the complaints. Ms. Rivera complained to Mr. Mayne that the amount of cleaning she was required to complete was too much for one person and that she needed assistance. In or around December 2018, FMBC hired an in-house, part-time custodial worker to assist Ms. Rivera with the cleaning duties. The part-time custodian was quickly relieved of her duties, because she proved to be unreliable. In April 2019, Ms. Rivera complained that she was experiencing back pain and was unable to take out the trash. She provided FMBC with a doctor’s note which stated that she was not allowed to lift items that weighed more than 15 pounds. FMBC proposed several accommodations to assist Ms. Rivera in taking out the trash, including providing a rolling bin to push the trash to the dumpster. On several occasions, Mr. Mayne also provided two to three non- custodial employees, from the engineering department, to assist Ms. Rivera with taking out the trash. In April 2019, FMBC hired another part-time employee, Imari Porter (Ms. Porter), to help Ms. Rivera with the cleaning duties. Ms. Porter is Ms. Rivera’s sister. In April 2019, FMBC’s upper management team—Joseph Schwartzel, Jim Schwartzel, Mr. Gilson, and Mr. Mayne—met several times over a two- week period to discuss its custodial needs. The team made the decision to eliminate the full-time and part-time in-house custodian positions and return to outsourcing the custodial services. As the general manager, Joseph Schwartzel was, again, the final decision maker. Joseph Schwartzel testified about the reasoning behind FMBC’s decision to move back to its out-sourced custodial services model. He stated as follows: Well, basically, I think, we discovered that we had made a mistake trying to have an in-house custodial position. We thought it was a good idea to begin with as we could have someone work during the day when most the employees were there and provide cleaning services while people were at the office. And if there were spills or things like that, there would be someone immediately available to try and remedy the situation. So it sounded good. What we didn’t realize is how difficult it would be to cover if someone wasn’t there. If they were out sick, if they were on vacation, things of that nature. In Ms. Rivera’s case, where she had a health issue, all of a sudden we were scrambling, trying to figure out how to get the facility cleaned. And we didn’t have anyone else that could do that on the long- term basis. So it became very problematic. Thus, instead of, you know, having an in-house custodial position, we elected to go back to a third party to do it. On April 22, 2019, FMBC terminated Ms. Porter, less than one month after hiring her. The next day, on April 23, 2019, Mr. Mayne and Karen Seiferth (FMBC’s human resources manager) met with Ms. Rivera. Mr. Mayne terminated Ms. Rivera. FMBC immediately returned to its past arrangement of outsourcing its cleaning needs—on April 23, 2019, the same day Ms. Rivera was terminated, FMBC signed a contract with ABC International Cleaning Service. As of the date of the final hearing, FMBC continued to outsource its cleaning and still contracts with ABC International Cleaning Service. Sexual Harassment Allegations Ms. Rivera testified that Mr. Mayne sexually harassed her during her entire period of employment with FMBC. Ms. Rivera testified that Mr. Mayne subjected her to sexual harassment in the following ways: by staring at Ms. Rivera and looking at her body parts, as if he was “undressing [her] with his eyes”; brushing past her on one occasion, causing his leg to “graze” her buttocks; and making comments about her khaki pants and her buttocks being “big.” Ms. Rivera also testified that Mr. Mayne frequently asked her “to go out for drinks” and that she perceived those invitations as sexual advances. Ms. Rivera testified that she rejected Mr. Mayne’s advances, but did not complain about his behavior to anyone at FMBC. Ms. Rivera alleges that she was terminated for refusing to engage in a sexual relationship with Mr. Mayne. Ms. Rivera claims that after she was fired, Mr. Mayne sent her inappropriate sexual messages, pictures, and a video through social media. It is undisputed that, to the extent this claim is true, it happened well after Ms. Rivera was terminated from FMBC. Ms. Rivera submitted a Technical Assistance Questionnaire (TAQ), dated April 9, 2020, to FCHR, which initiated an investigation into her complaints against FMBC. In the TAQ, Ms. Rivera set out the events that occurred during her time at FMBC that she believed to be discriminatory. The majority of Ms. Rivera’s complaint was based on what appears to be allegations of disability discrimination. The only mention of sexual harassment was at the conclusion of her statement. Therein, she stated: “Now present day Mike Mayne is harrassing me by pursuing me thru social media planforms, sending inappropriate images (private part) to try to get me to engage is some type of sexual relationship & offering support to me.” (errors in original). Ms. Rivera’s allegations that Mr. Mayne was sexually harassing her through social media were described as occurring “now” in the “present day,” which, at that time, would have been nearly a year after she was terminated from FMBC. Ultimate Findings of Fact Ms. Rivera’s testimony that Mr. Mayne sexually harassed her while she worked at FMBC is not credible. Ms. Rivera failed to prove that Mr. Mayne sexually harassed her at work, that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, or that she was terminated for not acquiescing to quid pro quo sexual harassment. Accordingly, Ms. Rivera failed to meet her burden of proving that FMBC committed an unlawful employment action against her in violation of the FCRA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Ms. Rivera’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JODI-ANN V. LIVINGSTONE Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Zandro E. Palma, Esquire Zandro E. Palma, P.A. Suite 1500 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156 Suzanne M. Boy, Esquire Boy Agnew Potanovic, PLLC 4415 Metro Parkway, Suite 110 Fort Myers, Florida 33916-9408 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Did the Respondent engage in a discriminatory employment practice by suspending the Petitioner from work?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Joeann F. Nelson, is a Black female. In 1997, she was employed as an aide working with developmentally disabled persons at Sunrise Community, Inc. The Respondent, Sunrise Community, Inc. (hereafter “Sunrise”) is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. On or about April 24, 1997, the Petitioner was suspended from her employment for a number of days by Sunrise. The Petitioner filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (hereafter “the Commission”) on May 8, 1997, alleging that her suspension was racially motivated, and a violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. The staff of the Commission investigated the complaint, and issued its Determination of No Cause on May 16, 2000. At the same time, the Commission gave the Petitioner notice of her right to an administrative hearing on the Commission’s findings. The Petitioner, while employed by the Respondent, was asked by her immediate supervisor to participate in taking residents of the facility to their group home. The Petitioner refused to take the residents complaining that another co-worker was scheduled to take the residents on the day in question. The supervisor told the Petitioner that the person who was scheduled to take the residents was too old to handle that job, and the Petitioner got into an argument about this matter. As a result of this refusal to take the residents and the argument, the Petitioner was suspended for a number of days. The refusal to follow the directions of her supervisor regarding her work and the confrontational argument with the supervisor over being asked to do a specific task that was within her job duties generally were sufficient cause for discipline. The Petitioner did not show that she was singled out or treated differently because of her race, either in being asked to perform the task or in being suspended for refusing to do the task. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a second complaint with the Commission on June 30, 1997, and raised additional issues regarding her discharge when she asked for her formal hearing on the Commission’s determination of no cause on the original complaint. However, the only matter properly before the undersigned in these proceedings is her suspension.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the complaint upon a finding that there was no cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: JoeAnne Nelson Post Office Box 76 Crawfordville, Florida 32326 Steven M. Weinger, Esquire Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, Tetzeli, P.A. 2650 Southwest 27th Avenue Second Floor Miami, Florida 33133 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent Employer has committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner by discrimination against her on the basis of race, sex, handicap, or retaliation, in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Negro female. As of March 12, 2003, she was rated by the Veterans’ Administration (VA) as having a 30 percent disability, due to a knee injury which occurred while she was on active military duty. (Petitioner’s unrefuted testimony and Exhibit P-37.) Petitioner specifically has alleged “sexual harassment,” “hostile work environment,” racial discrimination, retaliation, disparate treatment, and that she was denied a reasonable accommodation for her alleged knee “handicap.” Her “disparate treatment” allegation was presented in two respects: (1) that employees outside Petitioner’s protected racial class were not disciplined as harshly as Petitioner; and (2) that because Petitioner had worked for Respondent Employer for more than twelve months’ total, the State of Florida career service rules do not support her being terminated as a “probationary employee” from the position to which she was promoted and in which she had worked for less than twelve months at the time of her termination. Petitioner was first employed by Respondent Employer on November 15, 2002, at St. Lucie Regional Juvenile Detention Center in the position of Juvenile Detention Officer (JDO). After completing her twelve months’ probation in that position, Petitioner attained permanent State of Florida career service status. This meant that Petitioner was considered a permanent State of Florida employee, but it did not mean, as she has asserted, that she did not have to undergo a twelve months’ probationary period in each career service promotional position, if and when she attained one, or that she could never be terminated for cause. (See Conclusions of Law.) On September 10, 2003, at Petitioner's request, she was transferred from St. Lucie Regional Juvenile Detention Center to a vacant JDO position at Alachua Regional Juvenile Detention Center (ARJDC or “the facility”). This transfer permitted her to pursue a higher education at Santa Fe Community College (SFCC) in Gainesville, via her VA benefits, while being employed fulltime. When she transferred, Petitioner prepared a memo to all her supervisors at ARJDC stating that she needed to work the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift so she could attend college classes in the mornings. However, at no time did the Employer guarantee that Petitioner would always be assigned to that shift. (P-35) At all times material, Petitioner was a single parent, working full time, and taking college classes. As a single parent, she was the sole support of her child. Because she was going to college pursuant to VA guidelines, she had to attend her classes and successfully complete them in order to continue to receive VA tuition and assistance. At all times material, Jill Bessette (Caucasian female) was employed in the position of ARJDC’s superintendent. As such, she was responsible for the overall functioning and operations at ARJDC, and for ensuring the safety and security of that facility’s juveniles and staff. Bessette relied on the facility's two assistant superintendents, Patricia Newman (Caucasian female) and Charles Parkins (Caucasian male), to assist her. Newman and Parkins oversaw daily operations, attended to personnel matters, and provided direct supervision of staff. In so doing, they regularly made written and oral reports to Bessette. On February 13, 2004, as a result of good reports about Petitioner's performance as a JDO at the facility, Bessette promoted Petitioner to the position of Senior Juvenile Detention Officer (SJDO). (P-17). On or about February 23, 2004, Petitioner complained to her superiors about Douglas Singleton (male) evaluating her, because she felt he had not observed her often enough. She was also rated by a female officer, Cohen, and wanted Cohen’s rating retained. This may have been a departmental career service or a union grievance, but it appears to have had no discrimination overtones. (See Findings of Fact 31 and 34.) Assistant Superintendent Parkins, who was Petitioner’s direct line senior supervisor, denied Petitioner’s grievance about her rating as untimely, but Petitioner did not demonstrate any specific negative personnel action resulting directly from Singleton’s evaluation. There is no evidence that this rating reflected that Petitioner was ever tardy or had unexcused absences. (P- 24, 25). After her termination in September 2004, Petitioner wrote the Governor stating that she had complained to Parkins in March 2004, about his attempt to switch her to a shift which would have interfered with her college classes and that Parkins was hostile about her going to college (P-36), but at hearing she presented no credible evidence that such an attempt by Parkins had ever occurred or that she had ever complained to anyone about such an attempt prior to her termination. Additionally, Petitioner was consistently assigned to the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift she had requested until September 2004. (See Findings of Fact 31-35, 55, and 75, and Conclusion of Law 81.) In late February 2004, Petitioner complained because Newman, the assistant superintendent most concerned with timesheets, had inquired of a middle-level supervisor why Petitioner had been absent on a specific day. The testimony about this incident is so sparse, disjointed, and inconclusive that the undersigned cannot determine whether Petitioner also filed any type of grievance about Newman’s inquiry, but again, Petitioner’s complaint does not seem to have had anything to do with discrimination. (See Findings of Fact 31, 34.) In any case, Newman was apparently satisfied when informed by Cohen that Petitioner had been on pre-approved leave, and Petitioner did not suffer any detrimental personnel action specifically as a result of Newman’s inquiry. (Cf. Findings of Fact 74-75.) During the first week of April 2004, Petitioner tendered a letter of resignation to Bessette, which Bessette reluctantly accepted. Bessette testified that the only reasons Petitioner gave for this resignation were personal ones unrelated to discrimination. Petitioner did not testify otherwise. A short time later, Petitioner reconsidered her decision, and Bessette accepted Petitioner’s rescission of her resignation in such a way that Petitioner suffered no lapse in her career service. (R-5). From April 13, through July 25, 2004, Bessette took extended medical leave. During Bessette's absence, Assistant Superintendent Charles Parkins assumed the role of “Acting Superintendent.” At all times material, Shirley Edmond (Negro female) and Bruce Perry (Negro male) were employed by ARJDC as middle level supervisors. They supervised the JDOs and SJDOs assigned to their shift(s). At ARJDC, there are three shifts around the clock. SJDOs and JDOs at the facility are assigned to work shifts. In order to maintain an appropriate minimum correctional officer- to-juvenile detainee ratio, and in order to ensure the safety and security of staff, juveniles, and the community, SJDOs and JDOs are subject to having their shift assignment rotated or changed. Also in order to prevent the facility from operating below minimum staffing levels, JDOs and SJDOs may be required to “holdover” or continue working into the next shift when asked to do so as a result of on-coming staff members’ tardiness or absence. As a result of minimum staffing level requirements, ARJDC's operating procedures address the issue of tardiness and identify three instances of tardiness in any rolling 90-day period as “excessive.” (R-17). ARJDC’s operating procedures also address absenteeism. The required procedure for “calling in sick” requires employees seeking approved leave to contact the on-duty officer or acting supervisor at least two hours in advance of the employee’s report time, and further requires that thereafter, the employee also speak to the shift supervisor and discuss the employee's return-to-work date. Medical verification may be required by the Employer for absences in excess of three consecutive days. (R-17). Upon her hire, and again in June 2004, Petitioner was made aware of, and was provided with, a copy of the Employer’s policies and procedures with regard to absenteeism and tardiness. (R-3, 19). From May through June or early July 2004, Petitioner, Perry, and Edmond all worked the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. During these months, both Perry and Edmond observed that Petitioner frequently arrived late for her shift, that is: more than one minute after 11:00 p.m., which is the grace period allowed by the facility’s policies and procedures. (R-17). On one occasion, Perry spoke to Petitioner about her tardiness. Petitioner attributed her tardiness to problems with her babysitter. At all times material, Petitioner was aware of the Employer’s policy against, and procedures for reporting, discrimination or sexual harassment. These procedures are given in numbered paragraphs, but are not referred to as “steps.” They permit Petitioner to involve the internal EEOC officer and the Employer’s hierarchy outside the facility. (R-4). On June 25, 2004, while he was her shift supervisor, Bruce Perry wrote Petitioner a counseling memo concerning her tardiness on June 1 and 25. She received the memo on July 13, 2004. (P-15). Shirley Edmond testified that July 22, 2004, Petitioner threatened her as set out in greater detail in Findings of Fact 68-72 infra, concerning Bruce Perry’s counseling memo. On or about July 16, 2004, Petitioner filed what was described as a “departmental grievance” against Perry’s counseling memo(s).2/ This grievance could have been brought pursuant to a union collective bargaining agreement or pursuant to Section 110.227(4), Florida Statutes. However, that statute provides a "two-step" grievance procedure only for career service employees who are no longer on probation in their current position, and it excludes consideration of both "discrimination" and "sexual harassment" issues, which are supposed to proceed through superiors and the EEOC officer. Due to her probationary status as SJDO, Petitioner would have been ineligible to pursue the statutory grievance. In any case, her grievance did not raise issues of sexual discrimination or sexual harassment (P-38), nor was it directed to an internal EEOC officer. On or about July 17, 2004, Petitioner sent an e-mail letter outside the facility to the Assistant Superintendent for Detention Services, Perry Turner. Respondent's discrimination and sexual harassment procedures permitted this. However, in the e-mail Petitioner complained in general terms that she was experiencing problems getting facility personnel, particularly Charles Parkins, to follow all the "steps," in appropriate sequence, of established grievance procedures. (P-39). Turner, who oversees all detention facilities and services statewide, and whose office is in Tallahassee, delegated responsibility for investigating Petitioner's complaint to Operations Manager Richard Bedson, who supervises all of the detention branches’ support services. Mr. Bedson had recommended Petitioner for her promotion to SJDO and for a raise in connection therewith, but they did not know each other. (P-17). He was not housed in her facility. He was entirely independent from ARJDC staff. On July 19, 2004, Perry rescinded his counseling memo to Petitioner (P-12), because it had been shown to Parkins that Perry was not on the same shift with Petitioner on June 25, 2004 (P-13), and/or that on June 25, 2004, or the other date cited in Perry’s memo (June 1, 2004), Petitioner had prior permission from a different supervisor to “back down” her hours so as to legitimately arrive late for her shift (P-39). Perry’s testimony herein confirmed that for one of the days cited in his counseling memo, he had relied on someone else’s observation of Petitioner’s tardiness, and that he, himself, had not seen that particular tardy arrival. In any case, a counseling memo is not considered a disciplinary memo, and Perry’s memo stated that fact. (P-15). A counseling memo does not begin the three-tier progressive discipline that could lead to termination of a permanent employee for cause, and Perry’s counseling memo was rescinded, anyway. Petitioner acknowledged that the offending memo was rescinded after she complained about it. Despite the happy outcome for Petitioner of her grievance about Perry’s counseling memo, Petitioner claimed at hearing that everything that happened to her after February 2004, was the result of Parkins’ retaliation against her for filing the first evaluation grievance which Parkins had ruled was untimely (see P-12, 14, and Finding of Fact 10) and/or because Parkins and Perry were retaliating against her for grieving Perry’s alleged sexual harassment of her. At hearing, Petitioner testified that from late May 2004 to June or July 2004, Bruce Perry made suggestive remarks to her about her lips and buttocks; made comments designed to make others infer that Petitioner and Perry were sexually involved; put his hands on her shoulders; and rubbed his privates in her presence. She claimed that she rejected Perry and reported these unsavory and harassing activities to superiors Parkins (male), Singleton (male), Smith (female), and Cohen (female), and that thereafter, Perry created a hostile and retaliatory workplace for her. She also related that Freda Smith, a middle level supervisor, had promised to report Petitioner’s complaint of sexual harassment by Perry to Parkins. None of the foregoing supervisors Petitioner named corroborated that Petitioner had reported any sexual incident with Perry to them. Of the supervisors Petitioner named, only Parkins actually testified, and he denied that either Petitioner or Freda Smith, on Petitioner’s behalf, had made any such report to him. (R-20). Bruce Perry denied in writing, when the issue was first raised after Petitioner’s termination, and in his testimony herein that he had committed any of the acts of which Petitioner accused him. (R-7). Interestingly enough, although Parkins and Perry both denied any knowledge of Petitioner reporting Perry to Parkins, Petitioner personally testified that when she had reported Perry to Parkins, Parkins removed her from the area physically near Perry and later removed Perry from her shift altogether, so as to separate them. Perry confirmed that he only worked with Petitioner "a couple months" until he was removed from her 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. When, precisely, Perry was removed from that shift is not clear on this record. Petitioner testified that she needed larger pants for her correctional officer’s uniform, to accommodate the knee brace she sometimes needed to wear for her prior military injury, and that Perry had remarked that her pants were all right, in connection with his comments about her buttocks. Perry denied making any suggestive remarks. No other witness noticed a problem with Petitioner’s uniform pants or that Petitioner was in any manner unable to do her job, due to her knee or for any other reason, until she had a shoulder injury on August 4, 2004, as described infra. However, Petitioner testified that Parkins told her to get a doctor’s note stating that she needed the knee brace. Petitioner had admitted in evidence such a note from her doctor dated July 21, 2004, on which she had printed a note to Parkins requesting larger uniform pants and stating she had spoken to Parkins about the larger pants a month before July 21, 2004. This note said nothing about Perry or his alleged sexual comments. (P-11). Petitioner's testimony is not entirely clear as to whether she believed that Parkins refused her request for larger uniform pants, or just ignored it, but since she admitted that she slipped the note under Parkins’ office door when she was told by another supervisor that Parkins would not be in, her delivery system may have failed to get her doctor’s note to Parkins. Parkins testified that he recalled no requests, either oral or written, for bigger uniform pants, but if he had received such a request he would merely have passed it on to the person who was in charge of ordering/issuing property on a regular basis. It is probable the property officer only worked a standard day shift, while Petitioner worked the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. On July 25, 2004, Bessette returned and resumed her duties as superintendent of ARJDC. Bessette testified that she knew nothing of any sexual harassment allegations until after Petitioner was terminated in September 2004, and the evidence as a whole shows that Petitioner first approached internal and external EEOC officers about sexual harassment only after she was terminated. (R-7, P-26,36) Moreover, in late July, Petitioner had every opportunity to speak to the Employer’s non-facility personnel to resolve any alleged “sexual harassment,” “hostile work environment,” racial discrimination, retaliation, disparate treatment, or problems concerning being denied a reasonable accommodation for her alleged knee “handicap,” but she did not do so. In late July, Operations Manager Richard Bedson telephoned Petitioner at the facility and asked if he could speak to her about the concerns she had expressed in her letter to Assistant Superintendent for Detention Services, Perry Turner. (See Finding of Fact 26.) Petitioner refused to speak to Bedson over the phone about her e-mail to Turner or her concerns, stating she did not know who Bedson was and she was not going to speak to him unless someone else on the phone vouched for him. Bedson then arranged to meet with Petitioner, personally. (P-39). Discrimination investigations, particularly those involving sexual matters, are best begun by a discreet meeting between the investigator and the complainant alone, but Petitioner had not told Mr. Bedson what her problems were, and her memos had referred to “step” grievance procedures which are a union device. The use of the word "step" could also have referenced the Section 110.227(4) procedure which, by its nature, could not deal with "discrimination" or "sexual harassment." (See Finding of Fact 25.) Petitioner also had declined, via e-mail, to come to Bedson's office in another city unless she received per diem travel pay, and had stated that she preferred to meet at ARJDC. (P-39). Therefore, Bedson held a meeting on July 30, 2004, with Petitioner, Bessett, Parkins, and Petitioner's union representative, Mr. Reeves, who is a teacher from outside the facility. Bedson chaired the meeting and asked Petitioner to relate her concerns regarding her treatment at ARJDC. At no time during the July 30, 2004, meeting did Petitioner indicate she was being, or had been, sexually harassed; that she or anyone else was the subject of any type of disparate or preferential treatment; or that she had a knee injury that was not being accommodated. She did not state that she was entitled to preferential treatment by virtue of being a veteran. She did orally accuse Parkins of practicing undefined retaliation against her. However, she refused to discuss anything more and stated she would put her concerns in writing. Bedson informed Petitioner that he would request that an investigator meet with her as quickly as possible so that an investigation could occur. He then concluded the meeting. After this meeting, Bedson telephoned Operations Management Consultant II James Darbin Graham, who is assigned to Respondent Department’s North Region Office. He directed Graham to meet with ARJDC staff and Petitioner to determine what Petitioner’s concerns were and to conduct an investigation as necessary. Bedson recounted to Graham his earlier meeting with Petitioner, her prior e-mail, her general allegation of "retaliation" by Parkins, and her refusal to provide any further explanation. On August 4, 2004, while working the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift, Petitioner injured her shoulder opening a door. She left the facility for the hospital. After treatment at the hospital, she returned to the facility at approximately 5:00 a.m. with hospital paperwork for facility administrators so that she could obtain workers' compensation benefits, including medical care, disability pay, and leave. On this same morning, Graham arrived, unannounced, at the facility at approximately 6:00 a.m. to meet with Petitioner. He was advised that she had left for the hospital, but then he spotted her in the ARJDC lobby. Petitioner was wearing a hospital gown, and her arm was in a sling. Graham introduced himself to Petitioner and advised that he needed to speak to her. Petitioner refused to speak to him, stating she was on medication and that he would have to make an appointment so that she could have her union representative at the meeting when she was not feeling the effects of the medication. In order to be able to arrange such a meeting, Graham advised Parkins that he needed to speak with Petitioner upon her return to work from medical leave. From August 4, 2004 onward, Parkins did not arrange such a meeting or notify Graham when such a meeting could occur. Graham concluded this was because of Petitioner’s extended absence and subsequent termination, effective September 8, 2004. As a result of her on-the-job shoulder injury, Petitioner was immediately placed on workers’ compensation leave. The parties agree that Petitioner was entitled to all workers’ compensation benefits, including medical care, leave, and pay, from August 4, through August 10, 2004. It is the two periods of August 10, to August 19, 2004, and August 20, to September 8, 2004, that drive this case. Assistant Superintendent Newman maintains and processes paperwork related to workers' compensation for the facility. On August 10, 2004, Petitioner’s medical physician released Petitioner to return to work with the following restrictions and medications: Employee is to avoid all use of affected arm. . . . Avoid lifting, reaching, grasping with right arm only. Physical therapy ordered. Stop percocet and discontinue sling. The following medication(s) has (have) been prescribed: Naproxen . . . Effects include . . . dizziness Metaxalone . . . May cause drowsiness Cyclobenzaprine . . . common side effects include drowsiness, decreased judgment, . . . blurred vision . . . caution should be exercised when driving or operating dangerous equipment Tramadol . . . May cause sedation . . . Use caution when driving or operating dangerous machinery. (Emphasis supplied) (R-2). Petitioner received a copy of the foregoing document, as quoted supra. It is probable that the Employer’s independent workers’ compensation contract carrier, “Covel”, also received a copy, but there is no evidence this detailed document was presented to anyone at ARJDC. However, ARJDC was made aware of its medical restrictions on use of Petitioner’s arm. “Master Control” is the only light duty available at ARJDC. It has always been used for situations such as Petitioner’s, and is the only “accommodation” Respondent has available. Master Control is a desk assignment away from juvenile detainees, which requires only monitoring cameras, answering telephones, and pushing buttons, but which has no potential for strenuous restraint of, or harm from, detainees. Petitioner was advised on August 10, 2004, that the facility could accommodate her doctor's restrictions of modified duty by assigning her to Master Control. However, Petitioner did not report to work for nine more days, or until August 19, 2004.3/ Petitioner also did not obtain authorization for her absence August 10-19, 2004, using the methods required by the Employer’s policies and procedures. (See Findings of Fact 16- 18.) Instead, Petitioner reached Parkins by telephone on August 10, 2005, and told him that her medications were making her too drowsy and dizzy to drive. Parkins took what Petitioner told him at face value. He was concerned about Petitioner’s safety and the Employer’s liability. He told her not to come to work until she could drive or could see her doctor. Petitioner followed up on their conversation by faxing Parkins, that same day, a written explanation that she was on four medications and that three out of the four medications, which she did not name, were causing her symptoms. (P-34). Petitioner’s next doctor’s appointment was not until August 19, 2004, so she did not report to work until after that appointment. Although her physical restrictions diminished over time, from August 4, 2004, until October 20, 2004, Petitioner’s workers’ compensation physician continued to prescribe one or more medications for Petitioner which could have rendered her dizzy or drowsy. (P-10, 32). However, there is no evidence this information was sent to ARJDC, even though it probably was sent to the independent workers’ compensation contract carrier, Covel. Petitioner did not work the full 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift in Master Control on August 20, 2004. Upon her placement in Master Control early, at about 10:30 p.m., on August 19, Petitioner immediately complained of pain in her shoulder and drowsiness from her medications. After she was observed with her head on the table, she was sent home by her supervisor. She had been present on the jobsite about an hour. Petitioner called in on August 21, 2004, at midnight (an hour after she was due to report for her shift), to say she had just awakened, was in a lot of pain, and would not be reporting to work. Petitioner did not follow proper procedures in reporting this absence. (See Findings of Fact 16-18.) Petitioner's regular days off work fell on August 22, and 23, 2004. On August 24, 2004, Petitioner still did not report to work and did not call the facility, as required by Respondent’s policies and procedures. On August 24, 2004, Assistant Superintendent Newman received a call from Julie Bumgardner of Covel, who wanted to be sure that the facility was accommodating Petitioner’s workers’ compensation shoulder injury with an appropriately restricted work assignment. When Newman indicated that Petitioner continued to be absent due to drowsiness associated with her medication, Bumgardner advised Newman that the medications Petitioner was currently prescribed for her workers' compensation injury did not contain narcotics to make her drowsy and Petitioner should have returned to work on August 10, 2004, with the accommodation for her arm as previously stated. Bumgardner faxed Newman either an incomplete copy of the August 10, 2004, physician's order, which did not mention the four drugs which could have been making Petitioner dizzy or drowsy between August 10-19, 2004, but which did say to discontinue percoset, and/or a separate document showing that the narcotic percocet had been discontinued by the physician on August 10, 2004, and which listed the other four drugs, but not their side effects. (R-8). As a result of this incomplete and therefore misleading information, Newman and Bumgardner concurred that any of Petitioner’s absences after August 10, 2004, should be charged against Petitioner’s accrued sick and annual leave and should not be categorized as workers’ compensation leave. Petitioner was credited with working eight hours on August 25 and eight hours on August 26, 2004. On August 26, 2004, Newman wrote a memo to Petitioner advising her that effective Friday, September 10, 2004, Petitioner was being temporarily reassigned to the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift in Master Control. The memo explained to Petitioner that Newman's purpose in this reassignment was to further accommodate Petitioner by assigning her to Master Control during the day shift when another employee, also assigned to this same station, could assist Petitioner if Petitioner needed assistance. By writing the memo on August 26, and not making the assignment change effective until September 10, Newman intended to give the customary two weeks’ notice so that Petitioner could arrange her personal life to fit the change of shift. When she wrote this memo, Newman should have, but did not, realize that Petitioner was taking morning classes. When she received this memo on August 26, 2004, Petitioner believed that she was entitled to never be reassigned to a shift that did not accommodate her college classes. She refused to sign, acknowledging receipt of the memo. Petitioner wrote the following on the bottom of Newman’s memo: I am confused about this letter because of the last letter I received from D.S. Bessette. I cannot sign this at this time. You must have me confused with SJDO L. Green. She’s the one with the shift ch[ange].(R-10) In her routine review of employee timesheets, Newman had noted that Petitioner had not signed her timesheet covering August 13, 2004, through August 26, 2004, and that Petitioner had claimed “leave without pay: code 60”, signifying that she expected to receive workers’ compensation disability pay and not be docked any sick or annual leave for that period of time. On August 27, 2004, Newman issued a memo to Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Wilcox, requesting that Wilcox address with Petitioner the incorrect coding Petitioner had written into her timesheet covering the dates of August 13, through August 26, 2004. (P-33). Ms. Newman also wrote across Petitioner’s first timesheet (see Finding of Fact 57), in red ink, advising Petitioner: Ms. Francis you need to recode your leave to 52-sick and resubmit w/ signature. According to your doctor’s note you should have assumed work duties on the 10th of August. (R-12) Workers’ compensation pay does not begin until a specified time after the compensable accident. Many employers, including this one, have an elaborate system in place to pay an employee full salary and adjust leave categories of accrued sick and annual leave to make up the difference between the workers’ compensation rate and the regular pay rate, instead of paying the employee just the lesser amount permitted by the workers’ compensation statute. However, neither of those considerations was afoot here. Here, despite Newman’s testimony as to “the first 40 hours of workers’ compensation coverage,” the exhibits clearly reveal that Newman was attempting to get Petitioner to use her accrued sick leave to cover any time she had been absent from work after August 10, 2004. Because of her conversation with, and the incomplete materials supplied by, Bumgardner, Newman believed this was the correct way to code Petitioner’s timesheet. (See Findings of Fact 49-53.) When she received Newman’s August 27, 2004, memo to Wilcox, that same day, Petitioner responded to it by writing a note on the bottom in which she stated that she was not going to use sick leave; that she had permission from Parkins for her August 10-19, absence; that she was on four different “meds”; that her arm became swollen when she did come in on August 19; and again that she would not use sick time for an on-the-job injury that Newman refused to accommodate. Petitioner then finished with I am so sick and tired of the inconsistency and lack of communication among the management team. . . . You all need to stop this please. (P-33) Petitioner’s adamant and belligerent attitude did not sit well with Newman who, based on the information provided by Bumgardner, believed she was just doing her duty. On September 2, 2004, Newman came in at 6:00 a.m. to talk to Petitioner before Petitioner went off her shift at 7:00 a.m. Petitioner insisted on being confrontational with Newman in front of staff, instead of coming to Newman’s office as Newman requested. Petitioner adamantly refused to change the first timesheet or to sign it. (R-14). She stated to Newman that she had relied on Parkins’ oral authorization to be on workers’ compensation leave from August 10, to August 19, 2004. She later submitted a new, typed timesheet, still claiming “Code 60-workers’ comp. disability” for each of her scheduled work days between August 13, and 24. This version she signed. (R- 13). Newman caught up to Petitioner as Petitioner was checking out at the time clock on September 2, 2004; handed her a copy of the August 26, 2004, memo (see Finding of Fact 55); and inquired if Petitioner would be reporting as previously ordered to the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift on September 10, 2004. Petitioner stated she could not make the change due to her babysitter and previous registration for college classes. She continued to rely on Parkins’ oral authorization for August 10-19, and apparently expected workers’ compensation considerations for her absences after August 19, 2004, as well. (R-14). Newman never received corrected timesheets from Petitioner, despite explaining the situation to someone from Petitioner’s union who telephoned Newman and offered to act as an informal intermediary. Finally, in order to get Petitioner paid on time, either Newman or Parkins filled out a timesheet covering August 13 through August 26, 2004, and signed for her. Petitioner ultimately was charged sick leave from August 10-20, 2004, and was declared absent without authorization for August 21 and 24, when she had not followed the prescribed procedures for an authorized absence. (See Findings of Fact 49 and 51.) This meant that Parkins had retroactively withdrawn his oral authorization for Petitioner to take workers’ compensation leave for August 10 through August 19/20, and that Respondent viewed Petitioner’s absences on August 21 and 24 as unexcused. From the way this case was presented, it is difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint when Petitioner did, and did not, report for duty after August 26, 2004. For instance, Petitioner insisted that she was not scheduled for duty on September 3, 2004, because that was the date of Hurricane Frances. She also claimed she could not work on September 3, 2004, because that was a day on which lack of accommodation the night before had caused her arm to swell. (See Finding of Fact 68.) Parkins confirmed that he did not schedule any “light duty” officers, of which Petitioner was one, for duty during Hurricane Frances, but he did not know the date of Hurricane Frances. Another witness thought Hurricane Frances had occurred in August 2004. If Hurricane Frances occurred on August 3, 2004, instead of September 3, 2004, then all such testimony is irrelevant because Petitioner's arm was not injured until August 4, 2004. There is documentation and testimony from Newman and Petitioner that Petitioner worked September 2, rolling into September 3, 2004. (See Finding of Fact 68.) Other dates Petitioner worked are equally confused or obscure, but Petitioner claims she worked August 25-28; was off on August 29-30; and contradicts herself that she was, or was not, scheduled to work on August 31, 2004; and was, or was not, scheduled to work on September 3, 2004. (See, infra.) However, both Petitioner and Edmond agree that on September 2, 2004, Edmond assigned Petitioner to a regular duty post. Edmond claims the assignment was a pure mistake on her part. Petitioner complained, via a 6:05 a.m. September 3, 2004, e-mail to Bessette, Newman, and Parkins, that her arm was swollen because of Edmond’s mis-assignment. (R-18). Petitioner’s e-mail also asserted that the Employer was not accommodating her work restrictions from her workers’ compensation doctor and that she was unable to come in to work that night due to her swollen arm. On September 3, 2004, at 11:35 a.m., about five-and-a- half hours after Petitioner’s complaint about Edmond’s assignment of her to regular duty on the 11:00 p.m September 2, to 7:00 a.m., September 3, 2004, shift, Edmond provided Bessette with a written statement, via e-mail, relating that on July 22, 2004, Petitioner threatened to "take her [Edmond] down." Edmond testified that shortly after receiving Perry’s June 25, 2004, counseling memo, Petitioner had called Edmond into a courtyard area at the facility to discuss her tardiness and her belief that management was tracking her tardiness. Respondent had always tracked its employees’ tardiness but had recently added a new method of keeping track. Petitioner referred to management’s tracking of her tardiness as "foolishness." Petitioner told Edmond not to engage in such behavior or Petitioner would “take her down" with the rest of management. Edmond claims to have acknowledged the incident to her immediate supervisor, Wilcox, on the same night it occurred. Wilcox was not called to corroborate Edmond’s testimony, and Edmond did not memorialize the event in writing until September 3, 2004, when she felt her job was being threatened by Petitioner’s September 2, 2004, memo of complaint. (See Finding of Fact 68.) Edmond testified that she also notified Bessette on September 3, 2004, about the July 22, incident because she believed that Petitioner was using codeine on the job. There is insufficient credible evidence to substantiate Edmond's testimony about codeine. It is more likely that Edmond related the story about July 22, 2004, to Bessette in retaliation for Petitioner's complaining that her workers’ compensation injury was not being accommodated by Edmond. The fact that Edmond also kept the July 22, 2004, incident to herself for six weeks renders the truth of her whole testimony suspect. However, that does not mean that Edmond's superiors had reason to disbelieve her September 3, 2004, accusation. Since August 24, 2004, Parkins and Newman, in reliance on Bumgardner, believed that Petitioner was using a narcotic drug (percocet) which her doctor had told her to discontinue on August 10, 2004. They were unaware that some of the other drugs legitimately prescribed by Petitioner’s authorized workers’ compensation physician might have caused the drowsiness and dizziness that had kept Petitioner from reporting for work between August 10 and August 19, 2004, and sporadically thereafter. (See Finding of Fact 53.) After Julie Bumgardner’s mis-information had been received on August 24, 2004, and continuing onward, Superintendent Bessette received reports from Newman, Parkins, and Edmond about Petitioner’s tardiness problems. It is not clear what instances of tardiness besides those occurring after August 10, 2004, were actually reported to Bessette. It is probable that both Newman and Parkins had an overall impression that Petitioner had frequently been tardy over the whole period of her employment at ARJDC, and it is possible, but not proven, that the rescinded Perry counseling memo (see Findings of Fact 23-27) was remembered or utilized. However, tardiness was only part of Bessette’s considerations. Bessette was also apprised of Petitioner's incorrectly coded timesheets and adamant attitude that she would not use sick leave to cover time off. Petitioner’s belligerency toward Newman and her attitude that everyone was “out to get her” aggravated the situation. Bessette considered Petitioner's refusal of Newman’s direct order to correct her timesheets to be insubordination. Parkins and Newman believed, however erroneously, that Petitioner was taking the narcotic percocet, contrary to her doctor’s instructions. Parkins may also have believed and resented that his oral authorization to Petitioner for leave August 10-19, had been obtained by fraud. The report to Bessette of a threat against Edmond was the last straw. Upon the mounting objections to Petitioner’s job performance, and based on a consensus of Newman, Parkins, and herself, Bessette determined that discipline was appropriate and requested authorization from her superiors to terminate Petitioner, which they granted. Petitioner was terminated by a September 8, 2004, letter, effective that date, stating that her termination was because of . . . your failure to satisfactorily complete your probationary period . . . . (P-9) Petitioner proved that ARJDC SJDO Genevieve Hazelip (Caucasian female), Respondent’s employee since 2000, was disciplined in the position of SJDO on one occasion in January 2005, after Petitioner was terminated. This was an oral reprimand for “a conversation with racial undertones, regardless of intention". (R-15). The oral reprimand of Hazelip was only stage one of the Employer’s three-stage progressive disciplinary system, which could lead to termination of a permanent employee at the third step. If Hazelip was on probation in her SJDO position, the Employer did not have to go through the three steps to terminate her, but it was not proven that Hazelip was on probation when she received the oral reprimand. Petitioner also proved that Hazelip was disciplined on two other occasions but was unable to establish whether these disciplinary actions occurred while Hazelip was a JDO or an SJDO or what level of discipline was imposed either time. At hearing, Petitioner claimed that Caucasian officers at ARJDC regularly got weekends and other coveted days off and Negro officers did not. She submitted nothing to substantiate this allegation, but admitted that there were more Negro officers than Caucasian officers and that she had never complained about the shift assignments because she was not dissatisfied with her own days off. It also may be reasonably inferred that Petitioner was not privy to any requests by other officers, Caucasian or Negro, for what shifts or days they wanted to work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 2006.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent due to Petitioner's race, age, sex, or as retaliation in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent employed Petitioner, a 56-year-old African- American female, as a Food Support Worker at Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida, at all times relevant to these proceedings. Petitioner was promoted to the position of Food Service Worker on May 10, 2002, with probationary status until May 10, 2003. On February 12, 2003, Petitioner was terminated from her employment for failure to satisfactorily complete her probationary period in the career service. In the course of her employment with Florida State Hospital, Petitioner was aware of the strict safety guidelines implemented by Respondent to protect employees from injury. Petitioner also knew that violation of the safety rules could result in dismissal of an erring employee. Violations of these policies had resulted in dismissal of both non-minority and minority employees in the past. On February 9, 2003, due to an unsafe act and violation of Respondent’s safety rules, Petitioner proceeded to cut the tip of her left thumb in the process of slicing cabbage. Petitioner was not using a cutting glove, a mandatory requirement of the safety rules. As a result of this rule violation, Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment on February 12, 2003. At final hearing, Petitioner admitted the cutting injury to her finger, but contended that termination of employment had not been effected for other younger white employees for similar offenses in the past. These allegations of Petitioner were non-specific and uncorroborated; they are not credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Annette Carroll 10202 Northwest Third Street Bristol, Florida 32321 Kathi Lee Kilpatrick, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 1000 Chattahoochee, Florida 32324-1000 Jacqueline H. Smith, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 1000 Chattahoochee, Florida 32324-1000 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment action as alleged by Petitioner and, if so, what relief should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black male. He identifies himself variously as a "Caribbean black," "Jamaican," and "Rastafarian." Respondent conducts its business at Port Everglades, a major Florida seaport (Port Everglades or the Port). Respondent's business is to service passenger and commercial shipping by transporting and loading cargo in and about Port Everglades. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the applicable statutory provisions. Petitioner was employed by Respondent from August 13, 2002, until October 29, 2003, when he was terminated. At all relevant times, Lizabeth Divers (Divers) has been Respondent's Director of Human Resources. In that capacity she was responsible for Respondent's personnel matters as well as its compliance with the FCRA. Her job includes, at all relevant times, hiring and firing; employee discipline; implementing company polices; and receiving and investigating complaints lodged verbally or in writing by employees about any matters affecting their employment.1 At all times material to this case, Petitioner was aware of his right to lodge complaints verbally or in writing with Divers with respect to any matter affecting his employment, including any alleged unlawful employment practice. At no time prior to his termination did Petitioner do so. The record contains no persuasive evidence concerning the composition of Respondent's workforce by race, national origin, religion, or any other classification relevant to Petitioner's claim against Respondent under the FCRA. As previously noted, Petitioner was employed by Respondent from August 13, 2002, until October 29, 2003, when his employment was terminated by Divers for violating a company policy prohibiting possession of firearms or other weapons on Port property (the weapons policy). All of Respondent's employees, including Petitioner at all times material to this case, gain access to Port Everglades only by passing a security checkpoint. A security guard thereupon confirms that the individual has current port identification and parking decal. Once cleared to enter the Port, Respondent's employees have access to the entire Port, and are generally not under direct supervision as they perform their jobs. Respondent's weapons policy is grounded in reasons that were obvious to any employee, and which had to have been obvious to Petitioner. The need for such a policy is self-evident. There is no evidence that any other person employed by Respondent has ever violated the weapons policy. At relevant times Petitioner was licensed by the state to carry a concealed weapon. State licensure does not constitute authorization for Petitioner to ignore Respondent's weapons policy. Petitioner had no job-related reason to carry a gun. Petitioner's job was to drive a truck known to seaport workers as a "mule." Mules are used to transport cargo from one location to another. Petitioner's basic job duty was to drive box loads of material from one location to another at Port Everglades. Petitioner was qualified to do his job and performed his duties adequately with no prior disciplinary record. Divers was unaware of Petitioner's alleged violation of the weapons policy until the start of the business day on Monday, October 29, 2003. At that time, it was brought to her attention that one or more of Petitioner's co-workers had confronted him over the weekend regarding a bulge at his waist, and that Petitioner had confirmed that the bulge was a gun. Divers felt this alleged violation of the weapons policy was a serious accusation which, if true, would warrant immediate termination. She also felt that it posed a potentially life-threatening situation. Divers determined that Petitioner was scheduled to work that day. Divers immediately left her office and proceeded to the Broward County Sheriff's Office (BCSO) Port Everglades precinct to advise of the potential security threat. Divers sought BCSO's assistance in addressing this unprecedented and potentially dangerous situation. BCSO immediately provided assistance in the form of three armed deputies. Each officer drove his police vehicle to intercept Petitioner on Port grounds. The officers interviewed Petitioner in the presence of Divers. Petitioner freely admitted that he regularly concealed his gun in his vehicle. Petitioner had access to his vehicle throughout his shift. The officers verified Petitioner's concealed weapons permit. Divers informed Petitioner and the officers that she was terminating Petitioner's employment. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner protested this action or complained that it was motivated by race, national origin, or religion. Instead, the evidence established that Divers made a decision she was authorized to make, i.e., to terminate Petitioner for his admitted violation of the weapons policy. The officers disassembled Petitioner's gun, placed it in the trunk of Petitioner's vehicle, and escorted Petitioner off the Port property. There is no evidence regarding who, if anyone, was hired to replace Petitioner following his termination. Petitioner has failed to show that any other similarly situated employee who violated the weapons policy was treated differently from Petitioner.
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 dismissing the Petition for Relief and denying all relief requested therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 1st day of November, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2004),1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on her age, race, and/or national origin.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an employer as that term is defined in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's race is black and her nation of origin is Jamaica. She was born on January 12, 1933. Petitioner completed a State of Florida employment application on August 7, 2002, for the position of Human Services Worker II at the Department's Gulf Coast Center in Fort Myers. The state employment application does not require an applicant to list her age or date of birth. All applicants for the Human Services Worker II position were required to sign a "willingness survey" indicating the applicant's willingness to work beyond the hours of a normal shift and/or willingness to work on an assigned day off, if such was required, in order for the facility to meet its minimum staffing requirements. Petitioner read and signed the willingness survey. The Department hired Petitioner for the Human Services Worker II position on September 13, 2002. Her letter of appointment informed Petitioner that she was required to complete a 12-month probationary period before attaining permanent status. Petitioner is a certified nursing assistant ("CNA"), and the job for which she was hired involved the provision of direct care, supervision, and assistance to residents of the Gulf Coast Center. Gulf Coast Center is a 24-hour licensed intermediate care facility for the developmentally disabled, primarily the mentally retarded. Gulf Coast Center's license requires that a minimum number of direct care staff be present and on duty 24 hours per-day, every day of the year, for each residential unit. See 42 C.F.R. § 483.430(d)(3). Petitioner was assigned to the second shift (2:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.), with Mondays and Tuesdays as her days off. She worked in the Madison Cottage, which houses 16 profoundly retarded adult females exhibiting a variety of extreme behaviors, including self-injury and aggression towards facility staff. The third shift in Madison Cottage began at 10:45 p.m. and ended at 6:45 a.m. The minimum staff required for the second shift was six persons. The minimum staff required for the third shift was three persons. To ensure that the minimum staff requirements were met, Gulf Coast Center promulgated a "holdover policy," which was in effect at the time Petitioner was hired and throughout her employment. The policy provided that staff persons on one shift could not leave the facility until the next shift met the minimum staffing requirement. In practice, the holdover policy was most commonly invoked when an employee from an incoming shift called in sick. The supervisor of the outgoing shift would first invoke the "pull policy," contacting other cottages in Gulf Coast Center to ascertain whether they could pull an employee from their incoming shifts to fill the slot of the absent employee. If no one was available from another unit, the supervisor would then seek a volunteer from her own cottage to work the incoming shift. If no one volunteered, the supervisor was then required to "hold over" an employee from the current shift. Having signed the "willingness survey," this employee was required to work the extra shift, later receiving compensatory leave to ensure that she did not work more than 40 hours in a given week. Employees were given the opportunity to choose which day of the week they would be available for holdover. If the employee failed to choose a day, then her supervisor would assign a day. Petitioner failed to choose a day and was assigned Wednesday as her holdover day. Prior to May 21, 2003, Petitioner had worked at least one holdover shift without incident. On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, Laurie Whidden was the acting supervisor of Madison Cottage for the second shift. She was informed that a third-shift employee had called in sick. Ms. Whidden attempted to pull an employee from another cottage to cover the shortage, but no one was available. She asked for volunteers to work the third shift, but received no response. Ms. Whidden then informed Petitioner that she would be required to hold over and work the third shift. Petitioner responded that she could not work the third shift, because she could not leave her sick husband at home alone for 16 hours. Petitioner's husband suffered from heart disease, and at that time, his condition was precarious. Petitioner testified that she frequently had to take her husband to the emergency room. However, Petitioner gave Gulf Coast Center no prior notice that she could no longer work a holdover shift, nor did she make any arrangements for the care of her husband on Wednesday, which she knew was her potential holdover day. On May 21, 2003, Petitioner made no effort to ask a fellow second-shift employee to cover for her that night. Petitioner simply went home at the end of the second shift. There was some dispute as to whether Petitioner answered, "Hell, no," when Ms. Whidden asked her to hold over for the third shift. The weight of the evidence supports Petitioner's assertion that her statement was directed at another employee's remark that Petitioner could sue the state if she came home after working the third shift and found her husband dead on the floor. Petitioner was indicating to the other employee that she wanted her husband alive, not money from the state. Petitioner and Beverly Morgan, another second-shift employee, testified that another employee was sent over from another cottage to work the third shift on May 21, 2003, meaning that Petitioner's refusal to stay had no real impact on the staffing of Madison Cottage. Ms. Whidden testified that no one came from another cottage to cover the shortage and that Ms. Whidden herself stayed to work the third shift. Ms. Whidden's testimony is credited on this point. Ms. Whidden informed Colette Fritts, the residential services supervisor of Madison Cottage, that Petitioner refused to hold over for the third shift on May 21, 2003. Ms. Fritts forwarded the report to Gulf Coast Center's human resources division with a recommendation for disciplinary action against Petitioner. The superintendent of Gulf Coast Center terminated Petitioner's employment. Petitioner produced no credible evidence that her age was a factor in the decision to terminate her employment. Ms. Morgan claimed that one night she overheard Ms. Whidden and Leoncia Trevino, another Human Services Worker II in Madison Cottage, discussing Petitioner's age, saying that if she was too old to hold over, she should quit. Given that Petitioner only once refused to hold over, on the night of May 21, 2003, this testimony is not credible. Further, the evidence established that in March and June 2003, probationary employees in their twenties were terminated for refusing to hold over at the end of their shifts. Petitioner produced no credible evidence that her national origin played a role in the decision to terminate her employment. Petitioner, Ms. Morgan, and Carmel Henry, another Madison Cottage employee, all testified that Ms. Whidden, the acting supervisor, wanted to "get rid" of the Jamaican employees in Madison Cottage before the regular supervisor, Monica Franks, herself a Jamaican, returned from sick leave. However, none of them could point to any action by Ms. Whidden to put such a plan into effect or even any statement by Ms. Whidden that would indicate an animus toward Jamaicans. Ms. Whidden testified that at the time of the events at issue, she knew Petitioner was from an island, but didn't know which one. The source of the rumors regarding Ms. Whidden's intention to get rid of the Jamaicans appears to have been Leoncia Trevino. The other workers in Madison Cottage believed that Ms. Trevino had the ear of management. Ms. Whidden credibly testified that she had no special friendship with Ms. Trevino, who was moved out of Madison Cottage on June 24, 2003, after a confrontation with Ms. Henry, and then resigned her employment at Gulf Coast Center the next day. Petitioner produced no evidence that her race played any part in the decision to terminate her employment. Petitioner was still a probationary employee at the time of her dismissal, meaning that she could be dismissed "at will." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 60L-36.005(3). At the time of her hiring, Petitioner received a copy of the Department's Employee Handbook, which informed her that she could be dismissed at will as a probationary employee. Petitioner was aware of the holdover policy and consented to abide by that policy at the time of her employment. On May 21, 2003, Petitioner refused the lawful order of her duly-delegated supervisor to hold over. This refusal constituted insubordination, which would provide cause for dismissal even for a permanent career service employee. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 60L-36.005(3)(d). The evidence produced at hearing demonstrated that the sole reason for Petitioner's termination was her direct refusal to follow the lawful order of her supervisor.
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 the Department of Children and Family Services did not commit any unlawful employment practice and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 2005, 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 12th day of May, 2005.
The Issue Whether Petitioner failed to timely file her Petition for Relief following the Florida Commission on Human Relations' No Cause Determination? Whether Petitioner failed to timely file a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations with respect to her claim of harassment? Whether Respondent promptly and thoroughly investigated Petitioner's claim of sexual harassment? Whether Respondent took measures reasonably calculated to end and prevent any alleged sexual harassment? Whether Petitioner suffered from a disability, and, if so, what was the nature of her disability. Whether Respondent provided Petitioner with a reasonable accommodation for her alleged disability? Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her sex and/or disability? Whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for complaining of sexual harassment?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed her Charge of Discrimination against Respondent on August 29, 2002. FCHR issued a No Cause Determination and Notice of Determination: No Cause on May 12, 2003. Petitioner filed her Petition for Relief on June 20, 2003. This was 39 days after the No Cause Determination was issued. Petitioner failed to show good cause for the delay in filing. Petitioner worked as an apprentice operator at Respondent's Stanton Energy Center ("Energy Center"), during the relevant time period, under the supervision of Wade Gillingham ("Gillingham"), manager of Operations for the Energy Center. Respondent is an employer under the FCRA. On or about July 5, 2001, Petitioner expressed some concern to Gillingham about a co-worker, Tim Westerman ("Westerman"), potentially hurting himself or others. More specifically, Petitioner told Gillingham that she was concerned Westerman was going to hurt himself or her. Upon learning of Petitioner's concerns, Gillingham notified Respondent's Human Resources Department, and he scheduled a follow-up meeting with Petitioner on Monday, July 9, 2001. Lou Calatayud ("Calatayud") from Human Resources also attended this interview. During these initial meetings, Petitioner did not complain of any inappropriate touching or sexual contact between herself and Westerman. Following her meeting with Calatayud and Gillingham, German Romero, director of Human Resources, held a second interview with Petitioner to discuss her concerns about Westerman. Thereafter, Respondent conducted a thorough investigation into Petitioner's allegations. During the course of the investigation, Petitioner was interviewed twice and Westerman was interviewed twice. Both Westerman and Petitioner admitted to voluntarily participating in several telephone calls with each other, with some lasting as long as two hours. Petitioner did not appear upset or concerned after these calls. Human Resources also interviewed Terry Cox and Tom Dzoba, both watch engineers to whom Petitioner claimed she reported complaints regarding Westerman. Neither Cox nor Dzoba was Petitioner's direct supervisor. Petitioner told Cox that she had issues with another employee. However, she refused to provide Cox with the other employee's name and insisted on handling the matter on her own, despite Cox's asking her for the name of the person. Dzoba has no knowledge of Petitioner ever complaining about any problems with another employee in the workplace. The first person to whom Petitioner reported Westerman's name was her supervisor, Gillingham, who immediately reported Petitioner's complaints to Human Resources. Westerman was not Hanson's supervisor. Westerman never expressed any romantic interest in Petitioner; however, Petitioner had expressed interest in meeting Westerman outside the workplace for dinner. Additionally, Petitioner used to write Westerman "cheer-up notes" while at work. In fact, the only touching that Petitioner later referred to were hand or arm rubbing during voluntary personal conversations with, and counseling or consoling of, Westerman. Similarly, the only touching Westerman recalls was possibly rubbing up against Petitioner in the workplace or maybe putting his hand on her shoulder when they were talking. Westerman never kissed or attempted to kiss Petitioner. In addition to the above, no other employees were able to identify any inappropriate contact between Petitioner and Westerman. After completing its investigation in early August 2001, Respondent determined that sexual harassment had not occurred but instructed Westerman, verbally and in writing, not to have any further contact with Petitioner. Prior to Respondent's instruction, sometime between May and July 2001, Petitioner personally asked Westerman to stop calling her, a request he complied with generally. At the same time, Respondent instructed Petitioner to discontinue counseling employees to protect against any future incidents or allegations of sexual harassment. It is the policy and practice of Respondent to treat all employees equally regardless of their gender and/or disability. Respondent developed and distributed to its employees, via an Employee Handbook, an Equal Opportunity Policy and Policy Against Harassment. Following the conclusion of Respondent's investigation into Petitioner's complaints of sexual harassment, on or about August 6, 2001, Petitioner requested a medically-supported leave of absence for 30 days. This leave was granted by Respondent. However, Petitioner later requested to return to work nearly ten days ahead of schedule, on August 27, 2001, submitting a release from her doctor. Because Petitioner was seeking to return to work so far ahead of schedule, Petitioner was evaluated by Respondent's occupational medical director, Jock M. Sneddon, M.D., before she was released to return to work. Petitioner returned to work in the same position and rate of pay as before her leave. Additionally, Petitioner received disability benefit payments covering the entire duration of her leave. More than seven months later, Petitioner called in sick on April 6 through 8, 2002, after sustaining a house fire at her personal residence. Following the use of 16 hours or more of sick time, employees are required to return to work with a doctor's note authorizing their absence. Here, it was determined that Petitioner was not sick during this time, nor was she even evaluated by a physician. Based on similar previous problems, for which she was twice verbally reminded of Respondent's policy regarding sick leave, Petitioner received a disciplinary write-up. In addition to Petitioner's two verbal reminders, on or about January 7, 2002, Gillingham issued a memorandum to all operations employees, including Petitioner, detailing Respondent's sick leave policy. On or about June 7, 2002, Petitioner and a male co-worker, Tom Moran, were written up by Gillingham for neglect of their job duties as the result of an incident that occurred at the Energy Center on May 14, 2002. More specifically, both Petitioner and Moran were deemed responsible for failing to make sufficient rounds to discover a mechanical failure, which led to severe flooding of a sump basement in the coal yard, causing more than $12,000 in damages. Gillingham estimated it would have taken between six to eight hours to fill the 60-foot by 20-foot sump basement with the seven feet of water that was found the following morning. Although Moran was an auxiliary operator, both "operators," including Petitioner, an apprentice operator, have the same responsibilities and were responsible for making the necessary rounds to ensure that a mechanical failure of this nature is promptly discovered and repaired. In accordance with Respondent's policy, employees with active discipline in their files are not eligible for promotions or transfer. The written discipline Petitioner and Moran received for the May 14, 2002, sump incident remained active in their employee files for nine months. During her employment at the Energy Center, Petitioner's performance evaluations remained relatively unchanged, receiving a "meets" or "good" rating on each evaluation. Additionally, Petitioner received all regularly scheduled wage increases, until she topped out at the salary for her position. Petitioner received the same wage increases as similarly-situated male employees. Further, on or about April 2, 2003, Gillingham notified Human Resources that the discipline in her file had expired, and Petitioner was promoted to auxiliary operator, with the commensurate increase in pay. Petitioner started at the same rate of pay as three of the four other male employees placed in the apprentice operator position at that time. The fourth male employee, David Ziegler, started at a higher rate of pay based on his five years of previous experience working for a contractor at the Energy Center. Further, because of the credit Ziegler was given for his previous work experience, he was promoted to auxiliary operator ahead of Petitioner and all of the other apprentice operators who started at the same time. Vasquez was promoted to auxiliary operator on the standard two-year schedule on or about August 12, 2002; however, Petitioner was not eligible for promotion at that time because of the active discipline in her file. Petitioner failed to prove that she suffered from a recognized disability or that Respondent failed to make a reasonable accommodation for her alleged disability. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent discriminated against her on the basis of her sex. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent retaliated against her for complaining of the alleged sexual harassment which occurred in the Summer of 2001.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR enter a final order dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Relief in DOAH Case No. 03-2306, FCHR Case No. 22-02718. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ellen Edith Hanson 5355 Rambling Road St. Cloud, Florida 34771 David C. Netzley, Esquire Ford & Harrison, LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1300 Orlando, Florida 32801 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, Fort Walton Beach Medical Center (FWBMC), engaged in employment discrimination and, thus, violated the Florida Civil Rights Act(FCRA), section 760.10, et seq., Florida Statutes, by: (a) failing to accommodate Petitioner, Jennifer L. Landress, because of her alleged disability; (b) subjecting Ms. Landress to a hostile work environment on the basis of her sex; (c) constructively discharging Ms. Landress from employment; and (d) retaliating against Ms. Landress, and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact FWBMC hired Ms. Landress on October 31, 2005, and employed her for approximately 14 years as a Cardiovascular Services Specialist. Ms. Landress resigned her employment with FWBMC on October 4, 2019. During her employment with FWBMC, Ms. Landress reported to either Ms. Ristom, Vice President of Quality and Risk Management, or Rob Grant, the former Director of Cardiovascular Services. Between August 30, 2018, and October 4, 2019, FWBMC also employed Ms. Sanders, Human Resources Business Partner, and Ms. Clark, Cardiovascular Tech. FWBMC never employed Dr. Al-Dehneh (or the other physicians who testified at the final hearing—Dr. Sandwith and Dr. Chen). Dr. Al-Dehneh has privileges to use FWBMC to provide services to the patients who come to FWBMC to receive care. Neither Dr. Al-Dehneh nor any of the physicians who testified at the final hearing were supervisors of Ms. Landress. Further, Dr. Al-Dehneh: never had a role in Ms. Landress’s discipline or schedule; never evaluated her performance; and did not exercise any control over Ms. Landress or affect the terms or conditions of her employment with FWBMC. FWBMC’s Policies Concerning Discrimination and Sexual Harassment FWBMC has a policy entitled “Equal Employment Opportunity/Harassment,” which is included in the employee handbook, as well as on its “HR Answers” online portal and intranet. The “Equal Employment Opportunity/Harassment” policy states, in part: Equal employment opportunities are provided to all employees and applicants for employment without regard to race, color, religion, gender, gender identity, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, genetic information, or protected veteran status with applicable federal, state and local laws. This policy applies to all terms and conditions of employment, including, but not limited to, hiring, placement, promotion, termination, layoff, transfer, leaves of absence, compensation and training. * * * Any form of unlawful employee harassment based on race, color, religion, gender, gender identity, national origin, age, disability, sexual orientation, protected veteran status or any other status in any group protected by federal, state or local law is strictly prohibited. Improper interference with the ability of employees to perform their expected job duties is not tolerated. Each member of management is responsible for creating an atmosphere free of discrimination and harassment, sexual or otherwise. Further, employees are responsible for respecting the rights of their co- workers. The following is prohibited: Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and all other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual or otherwise offensive nature …. Behaviors that engender a hostile or offensive work environment will not be tolerated. These behaviors may include, but are not limited to, offensive comments, jokes, innuendos and other sexually oriented or culturally insensitive/inappropriate statements, printed material, material distributed through electronic media or items posted on walls or bulletin boards. FWBMC also has a policy entitled “Complaint Procedures,” which is contained in the employee handbook, as well as on its “HR Answers” online portal and intranet. The “Complaint Procedures” policy states, in part: If you experience any job-related harassment based on race, national origin, religion, gender, gender identity, color, disability, age or other factor prohibited by federal, state or local statute, or you believe you have been treated in an unlawful, discriminatory manner, promptly report the incident to your manager or Human Resources, who will investigate the matter and take appropriate action. If you believe it would be inappropriate to discuss the matter with your manager or Human Resources, you may bypass your manager or Human Resources and report it directly for investigation at The Ethics Line at [phone number]. Ms. Landress testified that she received a copy of the employee handbook, read the policies contained in it—including the policy concerning “Equal Employment Opportunity/Harassment” and “Complaint Procedures”—and knew of and utilized them. Ms. Sanders testified that if FWBMC, after investigation by its human resources department, substantiates a claim of harassment or discrimination by a physician, it would provide its investigative findings to the medical staff office, who would then refer the physician to a peer review process that could culminate in an appropriate action with respect to that physician’s hospital privileges. The undisputed evidence at the final hearing revealed that Ms. Landress reported to FWBMC’s human resources department that she was subjected to discrimination and harassment in August 2018, and again in March 2019. Allegations of Harassment and Hostile Work Environment Ms. Landress testified that Dr. Al-Dehneh began sexually harassing her starting in 2013. On August 30, 2018, she met with Ms. Sanders and Ms. Ristom and discussed this allegation. Ms. Sanders testified of the allegations made by Ms. Landress at the August 30, 2018, meeting: That Dr. Al-Dehneh had asked Rob to find women for him and to get Ms. Landress to sleep with him. She also indicated that Dr. Al-Dehneh was listening to her conversations via some sort of recording or monitoring device in her computer. She felt that Dr. Al-Dehneh had bugged her home through Siri and had accessed her medical records here at the facility. She was afraid for her life and had a gun. She also felt that Dr. Al-Dehneh was watching her home and that she told us a story about a lady on a bike who said that she was dead to her. She was afraid to go to the police about Dr. Al-Dehneh because she had been told that he was a mobster. And then she did admit to us at one point that she had started developing feelings for Dr. Al-Dehneh. Ms. Ristom also testified concerning the allegations made by Ms. Landress at the August 30, 2018, meeting: She said that Dr. Al-Dehneh had said to her to let him know when she was ready to get married. She said that Rob was tasked with getting women and obtaining sex for Dr. Al-Dehneh. And, you know, during that time Jennifer told me that – told Julie Sanders and I that she had started developing feelings for him, for Dr. Al-Dehneh. And in addition, she felt like her neighbor was watching her and providing information back to Dr. Al-Dehneh about her activities at home. Also, she said that she was afraid to report him because she felt like she – she understood him to be a mobster. She said he was listening to her through a listening device when she was at home through, like, a Siri, a radio kind of device because he would say things that he would only know if he was able to hear her at home. She told us about a heavyset lady on a bicycle who told her that she was a dead lady, that Jennifer was a dead lady, but that that woman was not going to be the one to kill her because Jennifer had been nice to her. She said that she was afraid to go to the police because she believed Dr. Al-Dehneh to be a mobster and that he owned the police and the hospital as well. She said that she was defending herself – felt like she needed to defend herself and had been carrying a gun and keeping it on her nightstand as well. She told us that she hadn’t slept in months, that she was taking medication to help her but that she was having difficulty concentrating. The testimony of Ms. Landress more or less confirmed that she made those allegations that Ms. Sanders and Ms. Ristom testified were made at the August 30, 2018, meeting, and that those allegations formed the basis for her Petition for Relief. She added that Dr. Al-Dehneh “constantly” harassed her, that she believed he started a rumor at the hospital that she had herpes, and that he had her “followed” to a local mall. Ms. Landress denied that she had romantic feelings for Dr. Al-Dehneh, but stated that she “had a great working relationship with him for a long time.” Dr. Al-Dehneh testified and denied all of Ms. Landress’s allegations, including: asking Ms. Landress to let him know when she was ready to get married; offering to “buy” Ms. Landress from her husband; threatening to have Ms. Landress fired; having Ms. Landress followed; putting a “hit” out on Ms. Landress; making comments about Ms. Landress to other physicians; spreading a rumor that Ms. Landress had herpes; calling Ms. Landress’s treating physician, Dr. Chen, for information about her; and accessing Ms. Landress’s medical records. According to Ms. Landress, Dr. Sandwith and Ms. Park were witnesses who could corroborate many of her allegations concerning Dr. Al-Dehneh. Both denied each and every allegation. Dr. Sandwith testified that he never saw Ms. Landress and Dr. Al-Dehneh together; denied talking to Dr. Al-Dehneh about Ms. Landress; denied ever seeing or hearing Dr. Al-Dehneh harass or act inappropriately with Ms. Landress or any other hospital staff; and denied hearing rumors concerning Ms. Landress, Dr. Al-Dehneh, their alleged relationship, or that Ms. Landress had herpes. Ms. Park, who worked with Ms. Landress: testified that she never heard any rumors that Dr. Al-Dehneh was having sexual relationships with other women; denied witnessing Dr. Al-Dehneh tell Ms. Landress that he was going to call Ms. Landress’s husband and offer $5,000 for her; denied talking with Ms. Landress about being sexually harassed; denied hearing rumors about Ms. Landress and Dr. Al-Dehneh; denied hearing rumors that Ms. Landress had herpes; and denied telling Ms. Landress to stay away from Dr. Al-Dehneh. According to Ms. Landress, she also discussed her allegations of sexual harassment with her orthopedic physician, Dr. Chen, on numerous occasions. Dr. Chen testified that during one of Ms. Landress’s appointments, I recall you telling me just occurrences at home, of what happened in the workplace between yourself and a certain physician on staff at the – at the Walton Beach Medical Center. Yeah, and there was situations or there were occurrences that were – upsetting to you and they were providing some sorts of distress. He further testified that Ms. Landress “spoke … about the herpes.” Dr. Chen testified that he may have heard FWBMC staff discussing the alleged herpes rumor, but could not recall from whom he heard those rumors, and admitted that the rumors could have come from Ms. Landress herself. Dr. Chen testified that he never witnessed Dr. Al-Dehneh acting inappropriately towards Ms. Landress, and that he never heard any other physician at FWBMC discuss any rumors concerning Ms. Landress or Dr. Al-Dehneh. FWBMC Investigation of Complaint of Harassment and Hostile Work Environment At the conclusion of the August 30, 2018, meeting, Ms. Sanders immediately investigated Ms. Landress’s claims by interviewing Dr. Al-Dehneh that same day, and by interviewing other employees who could potentially substantiate Ms. Landress’s claims. However, Ms. Sanders was unable to find any witness who corroborated any of Ms. Landress’s allegations. Ms. Sanders testified, as part of her investigation, that she determined that Dr. Al-Dehneh did not have any remote access or log-in capabilities to access Ms. Landress’s computer. Ms. Sanders further testified, as part of the investigation, that she confirmed that Dr. Al-Dehneh never had access, nor tried to access, Ms. Landress’s medical records. During the investigation, Ms. Ristom testified that she offered to move Ms. Landress’s office to distance her from the individuals allegedly involved, including Dr. Al-Dehneh. Ms. Landress declined this offer. Ms. Sanders completed her investigation of Ms. Landress’s claims of sexual harassment and hostile work environment on September 18, 2018, and informed Ms. Landress that FWBMC could not substantiate her claims. Subsequent Events On September 20, 2018, Ms. Landress suffered an anxiety attack and went home from work early. When Ms. Sanders and Ms. Ristom learned of the anxiety attack, they attempted to speak with Ms. Landress in her office and told her to take the weekend off to deal with her anxiety. Both Ms. Sanders and Ms. Ristom testified that Landress did not attribute her anxiety attack to the alleged past sexual harassment incidents with Dr. Al-Dehneh, nor any new incidents of harassment. Ms. Landress’s testimony concerning the anxiety attack and subsequent leave was as follows: Predominately because I really wanted to come home and take medication because I couldn’t stand – I – I just couldn’t get past people in the hospital constantly talking about me having herpes. I mean, it’s kind of like if you were walking in the building and that’s all you heard, you want to get out of there. As previously noted, the FWBMC investigation did not substantiate Ms. Landress’s allegation concerning hospital rumors that she had herpes. Further, there was no testimony or evidence presented at the final hearing, outside of Ms. Landress’s testimony, that confirmed this allegation. Ms. Landress soon returned to work and did not report another incident of harassment until March 2019. On March 1, 2019, Ms. Landress reported that a nurse practitioner, who she claimed worked for Dr. Al-Dehneh, took a photo of Ms. Landress on her cellphone when she walked by Ms. Landress’s office. Ms. Landress testified that she “assumed” the nurse practitioner took the photo for Dr. Al-Dehneh. Ms. Landress further testified that she never saw the photo. Ms. Ristom and Ms. Sanders met with Ms. Landress concerning this allegation, and Ms. Sanders investigated it. Ultimately, FWBMC was unable to substantiate this claim or that she was being harassed by Dr. Al-Dehneh or his nurse practitioner. Ms. Landress did not report any other incidents of harassment after March 1, 2019. Leave(s) of Absence FWBMC approved Ms. Landress for a paid leave of absence from June 10, 2019, until she resigned on October 4, 2019. FWBMC granted this leave for two separate reasons: for an orthopedic condition, and for a mental health condition. Initially, Ms. Landress was placed on leave for her claims of stress, anxiety, and post traumatic stress disorder related to the alleged harassment. Then, on September 9, 2019, Ms. Landress submitted a separate claim because of pain in her right elbow. Dr. Chen, Ms. Landress’s treating orthopedic physician, informed FWBMC that her anticipated return work date was October 7, 2019, with restrictions, such as “no repetitive use of right arm to include typing, mouse use, [and] writing.” After Dr. Chen cleared Ms. Landress to return to work, with restrictions, Ms. Sanders reminded Ms. Landress that she could not return until her mental health counselor also cleared her. Ms. Landress’s mental health counselor never cleared her to return to work. In July 2019—during her leave of absence for a mental health condition—Ms. Landress requested, to Ms. Ristom, the opportunity to work from home. FWBMC denied Ms. Landress’s accommodation request; Ms. Sanders testified: At that time we weren’t able to accommodate the work from home request. There was concerns around protecting patient medical records and her ability to work with the staff and the physicians when she needed to ask questions. On September 20, 2019, while Ms. Landress remained on leave, Ms. Ristom received an email from Q-Centrix, a third-party data management provider that collaborates with healthcare providers, such as FWBMC. The September 30, 2019, email requested that FWBMC terminate Ms. Landress as an employee so that Q-Centrix could employ Ms. Landress in a full-time position. Ms. Ristom forwarded this email to Ms. Sanders to investigate and did not reply to the September 20, 2019, email from Q-Centrix until FWBMC could confirm from Ms. Landress that it was her intention to resign her position with FWBMC. On September 27, 2019, Q-Centrix emailed another request to FWBMC to terminate Ms. Landress. Ms. Sanders testified that she spoke with Ms. Landress about this request. On October 4, 2019, Ms. Landress—who still had not received clearance to return to work at FWBMC from her mental health counselor— submitted a letter of resignation to Ms. Sanders. Her letter of resignation stated that she and her mental health counselor agreed that her “PTSD is too great to return.” Her letter further stated that because FWBMC denied her request to work from home, she had accepted a position with “another company.” The October 4, 2019, letter of resignation attached four additional pages of what Ms. Landress contends were the events that led her to resign. The first page listed the allegations of sexual harassment by Dr. Al-Dehneh that Ms. Landress discussed with Ms. Sanders and Ms. Ristom during the August 30, 2018, meeting. The remaining three pages listed various allegations that Ms. Landress did not report to FWBMC and did not include in her charge of discrimination with FCHR. Findings of Ultimate Fact Ms. Landress presented no persuasive evidence that FWBMC’s decisions concerning, or actions affecting, her, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by sex-based or disability-based discriminatory animus. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of unlawful sex-based or disability-based discrimination. Ms. Landress presented no persuasive evidence that FWBMC’s actions subjected her to harassment based on sex. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of unlawful sexual harassment. Ms. Landress presented no persuasive evidence that FWBMC discriminated against her because she opposed an unlawful employment practice, or because she made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the FCRA. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of unlawful retaliation. Ms. Landress presented no persuasive evidence that FWBMC’s actions were sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment to create a hostile work environment. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of hostile work environment. Finally, Ms. Landress presented no persuasive evidence that her working conditions at FWBMC were so intolerable that a reasonable person in her condition would have been compelled to resign. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of constructive discharge.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Jennifer L. Landress 7758 Ramona Drive Navarre, Florida 32566 For Respondents: Cymoril M. White, Esquire Ford & Harrison LLP Suite 900 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Jennifer L. Landress’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III 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 29th day of December, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Tracey K. Jaensch, Esquire Ford & Harrison LLP Suite 900 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Stanley Gorsica, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jennifer Lynn Landress 7758 Ramona Drive Navarre, Florida 32566 Cymoril M. White, Esquire Ford & Harrison, LLP 101 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 900 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue Whether Petitioner was subjected to race and gender discrimination, sexual harassment/hostile work environment, and retaliation, as alleged in her Petition for Relief.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner, a 36-year-old Caucasian female, was employed by Respondent as a sales associate. She first worked for Respondent at its Sebastian, Florida, store where she started in June 2006. She voluntarily resigned from the Sebastian store in October 2006 and was hired by Respondent's Merritt Island, Florida, store one week later. Respondent owns and operates an appliance retail store in Central Florida. Respondent employs more than 15 people. At some time during Petitioner's employment, John Barnaba, an operations manager who rotated among several stores, said things to her that she found "unacceptable." For example, "You would look good on my Harley," "You look like a biker chick," and "You must be anorexic." He also clapped his hands behind her and said, "hurry, hurry, hurry." She reported Mr. Barnaba's conduct to Phil Roundy, her manager and manager of the Merritt Island store, who said "That's just the way he is," or words to that effect. She was unaware of any other action undertaken by Mr. Roundy regarding her complaint. In January 2007, Petitioner began a voluntary sexual relationship with Mr. Roundy, which involved at some point, Petitioner and Mr. Roundy living together. This relationship lasted until April 29, 2007, when the parties separated. She and Mr. Roundy "got back together in May, about a week after her termination." Mr. Roundy did not sexually harass Petitioner based on the voluntary nature of their relationship, nor did he sexually harass Petitioner between April 29 and May 18, 2007. After Petitioner and Mr. Roundy separated, he started treating her "differently." She reports that he became critical of her and would not assist her. Respondent has published an "information resource for common questions and concerns" titled, "Associate Handbook" that addresses sexual harassment and presents a grievance procedure for employees who believe they have been subjected to unfair treatment. It contemplates reporting the unfair treatment to (1) "your immediate manager"; (2) the store manager; or (3) "[s]hould the problem, however, be of a nature which you do not feel free to discuss with your manager, you are encouraged to discuss the problem in confidence directly with Human Resources." Petitioner requested a transfer to another store on May 1, 2007. She requested the transfer before Mr. Roundy started treating her "differently." She called Human Resources on May 9 and 15, 2007; it is unclear as to whether she called to check on the requested transfer or to report the alleged sexual harassment. She did not timely pursue any recourse suggested in the Associate Handbook. On May 9, 2007, Mr. Barnaba, the operations manager mentioned above, authored an email that characterized several of Petitioner's activities of that work day as "completely unprofessional and insubordinate." The following day, Mr. Roundy emailed his supervisor that Petitioner had gone through his private, business-related emails and discovered Mr. Barnaba's May 9, 2007, email. He also related several incidents that he thought unprofessional and that reflected bad customer service. He advised that Petitioner accused Barnaba and himself of conspiring to try to terminate her. Petitioner was scheduled to work on May 16 and 17, 2007, but did not report to work. She was scheduled to work on May 18, 2007; as a result, Kevin Draco, a risk manager for Respondent, went to the Merritt Island store to interview her. When Petitioner did not appear, management made the decision to terminate Petitioner for "absenteeism."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 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 4th day of April, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Maurice Arcadier, Esquire 2815 West New Haven Avenue, Suite 303 Melbourne, Florida 32904 Christopher J. Coleman, Esquire Schillinger & Coleman, P.A. 1311 Bedford Drive, Suite 1 Melbourne, Florida 32940
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a white female. Petitioner worked as a salesperson at Respondent’s Melbourne store from April 2006 to September 2006. Petitioner’s primary job duty was selling appliances to retail customers. She also performed ancillary duties, such as tagging merchandise, cleaning and organizing the showroom floor, scheduling deliveries, and making follow-up calls to customers. Petitioner was not paid a salary. Her income was solely commission-based. She earned a total of $11,826.14 while working for Respondent, which equates to an average weekly gross pay of $537.55. Petitioner had several managers during the term of her employment. She did not have a problem with any of her managers, except for Jeffrey Rock. Mr. Rock is a black male, and by all accounts, he was a difficult manager to work for. He was “strict”; he often yelled at the salespersons to “get in the box”2 and “answer the phones”; and, unlike several of the prior managers at the Melbourne store, Mr. Rock held the salespersons accountable for doing their job. Petitioner testified that Mr. Rock "constantly" made sexual comments in the store, including comments about the size of his penis and his sexual prowess; comments about sex acts that he wanted to perform on a female employee in Respondent’s accounting office, Ms. Miho; “stallion” noises directed at Ms. Miho; and a question to Petitioner about the type of underwear that she was wearing. Petitioner’s testimony regarding the sexual comments and noises made by Mr. Rock was corroborated by Neina Blizzard, who worked with Petitioner as a salesperson for Respondent and who has also filed a sexual harassment claim against Respondent. Mr. Rock denied making any sexually inappropriate comments or noises in the store. His testimony was corroborated by Guy Ruscillo and Carissa Howard, who worked as salespersons with Petitioner and Ms. Blizzard and who are still employed by Respondent. Petitioner and Ms. Blizzard testified that Mr. Rock gave favorable treatment to Ms. Howard and two other female salespersons with whom he had sexual relationships and/or who found his sexual comments funny. Mr. Rock denied giving favorable treatment to any salesperson, except for one time when he gave a “house ticket”3 to Ms. Howard because she took herself off the sales floor for six hours one day to help him get organized during his first week as manager at the Melbourne store. Ms. Howard is white. The record does not reflect the race of the other two female salespersons -- Rebecca and Shanna -- who Petitioner and Ms. Blizzard testified received favorable treatment by Mr. Rock, and the anecdotal evidence of the favorable treatment that they allegedly received was not persuasive. Petitioner did not have any complaints regarding her schedule. Indeed, she testified that Mr. Rock changed her schedule at one point during her employment to give her more favorable hours. Petitioner’s testimony about other salespersons having sexual relationships with Mr. Rock and/or receiving favorable treatment from Mr. Rock was based solely upon speculation and rumor. Indeed, Rebecca, one of the salespersons with whom Mr. Rock allegedly had a sexual relationship, was “let go” by Mr. Rock because of the problems with her job performance observed by Petitioner and Ms. Blizzard. Petitioner’s last day of work was Saturday, September 30, 2006. On that day, Petitioner came into the store with Ms. Blizzard at approximately 8:00 a.m. because, according to Petitioner, another manager had changed her schedule for that day from the closing shift to the opening shift. Mr. Rock confronted Petitioner when she arrived, asking her why she came in at 8:00 a.m. since he had put her on the schedule for the closing shift. An argument ensued and Petitioner went into the warehouse in the back of the store to compose herself. When Petitioner returned to the showroom several minutes later, Mr. Rock was engaged in an argument with Ms. Blizzard. During the argument, Ms. Blizzard demanded a transfer to another store, which Mr. Rock agreed to give her. Then, as a “parting shot,” Ms. Blizzard told Mr. Rock that he was a “racist” who was “prejudiced against white women.” Ms. Blizzard testified that Mr. Rock told her that she was fired immediately after she called him a racist. Petitioner testified that after Mr. Rock fired Ms. Blizzard, he asked her whether she wanted to be fired too. Petitioner testified that even though she did not respond, Mr. Rock told her that “you are fired too.” Then, according to Ms. Blizzard and Petitioner, Mr. Rock escorted them both out of the store. Mr. Rock denies telling Ms. Blizzard or Petitioner that they were fired. He testified that they both walked out of the store on their own accord after the argument. Mr. Rock’s version of the events was corroborated by Mr. Ruscillo, who witnessed the argument. Mr. Ruscillo testified that he heard a lot of yelling, but that he did not hear Mr. Rock tell Ms. Blizzard or Petitioner at any point that they were fired. Petitioner and Ms. Blizzard met with an attorney the Monday after the incident. The following day, Petitioner gave Ms. Blizzard a letter to deliver on her behalf to Respondent’s human resources (HR) Department. The letter, which Petitioner testified that she wrote on the day that she was fired by Mr. Rock, stated that Petitioner “was sexually harassed and discriminated against based on being a white female by my manager, Jeff Rock”; that Petitioner “previously reported numerous incidents of this discrimination and sexual harassment to upper management”; and that she was fired “as a result of this discrimination and the refusal to put up with Mr. Rock’s sexual advancement.” This letter was the first notice that Respondent had of Petitioner’s claims of sexual harassment or discrimination by Mr. Rock. Petitioner considers herself to be a very good salesperson, but Mr. Rock described her as an “average” salesperson. Mr. Rock’s characterization of Petitioner’s job performance is corroborated by Petitioner’s acknowledgement that her sales figures were lower than those of at least Mr. Ruscillo, Ms. Blizzard, and Ms. Howard. Petitioner complained to another manager, Al Sierra, about Mr. Rock’s management style at some point in mid-September 2006. She did not complain to Mr. Sierra or anyone else in Respondent’s upper management about the sexual comments allegedly made by Mr. Rock. Indeed, as noted above, the first time that Petitioner complained about the sexual comments allegedly made by Mr. Rock was in a letter that she provided to Respondent’s HR Department several days after she was fired and after she met with a lawyer. Petitioner testified that she did not complain about the sexual harassment by Mr. Rock because he threatened to fire any salesperson who complained to upper management about the way that he ran the store and because she did not know who to complain to because she never received an employee handbook. There is no evidence that Mr. Rock fired any salesperson for complaining about how he ran the store, and he denied making any such threats. He did, however, acknowledge that he told the salespersons that they were all replaceable. Mr. Rock’s testimony was corroborated by Mr. Ruscillo and Ms. Howard, who were at the sales meetings where Petitioner and Ms. Blizzard claim that the threats were made. The training that Petitioner received when she started with Respondent was supposed to include a discussion of Respondent’s policies and procedures, including its policy against sexual harassment. The trainer, Kit Royal, testified that he remembered Petitioner attending the week-long training program and that the program did include a discussion of the sexual harassment policy and other policies and procedures. Petitioner, however, testified that no policies and procedures were discussed during the training program. Petitioner was supposed to have received and signed for an employee handbook during the training program. No signed acknowledgement form could be located for Petitioner, which is consistent with her testimony that she never received the handbook. The fact that Petitioner did not receive the employee handbook does not mean that the training program did not include discussion of Respondent’s sexual harassment policies. Indeed, Petitioner’s testimony that the training program did not include any discussion regarding salary and benefit policies (as Mr. Royal testified that it did) and that she was never told what she would be paid by Respondent despite having given up another job to take the job with Respondent calls into question her testimony that the sexual harassment policy was not discussed at the training program. Petitioner was aware that Respondent had an HR Department because she met with a woman in the HR Department named Helen on several occasions regarding an issue that she had with her health insurance. She did not complain to Helen about the alleged sexual harassment by Mr. Rock, but she did tell Helen at some point that Mr. Rock “was being an ass” and “riding her,” which she testified were references to Mr. Rock’s management style not the alleged sexual harassment. Petitioner collected employment compensation of $272 per week after she left employment with Respondent. Petitioner testified that she looked for jobs in furniture sales and car sales while she was collecting unemployment, but that she was unable to find another job for approximately three months because of the slow economy at the time. She provided no documentation of those job-search efforts at the final hearing. Petitioner is currently employed by Art’s Shuttle. She has held that job for approximately nine months. Petitioner drives a van that takes cruise ship passengers to and from the airport. The record does not reflect how many hours per week Petitioner works at Art’s Shuttle, but she testified that she works seven days a week and earns approximately $500 per week. No written documentation of Petitioner’s current income was provided at the final hearing. Respondent has a “zero tolerance” policy against sexual harassment according to its president, Sam Pak. He credibly testified that had he been aware of the allegations of sexual harassment by Mr. Rock that he would have conducted an investigation and, if warranted, done something to fix the problem. The policy, which is contained in the employee handbook, states that Respondent “will not, under any circumstances, condone or tolerate conduct that may constitute sexual harassment on the part of its management, supervisors, or non-management personnel.” The policy defines sexual harassment to include “[c]reating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment or atmosphere by . . . [v]erbal actions, including . . . using vulgar, kidding, or demeaning language . . . .” Mr. Pak agreed that the allegations against Mr. Rock, if true, would violate Respondent’s sexual harassment policy. The employee handbook includes a “grievance procedure” for reporting problems, including claims of sexual harassment. The first step is to bring the problem to the attention of the store manager, but the handbook states that the employee is “encouraged and invited to discuss the problem in confidence directly with Human Resources” if the problem involves the manager. Additionally, the handbook states in bold, underlined type that “[a]nyone who feels that he or she . . . is the victim of sexual or other harassment, must immediately report . . . . all incidents of harassment in writing to your manager or the store manager, or if either person is the subject of the complaint, to the president.” Mr. Pak had an office at the Melbourne store. He testified that he had an “open door policy” whereby employees could bring complaints directly to him. The only complaint that Mr. Pak ever received about Mr. Rock was from another salesperson, Rod Sherman, who complained that Mr. Rock was a “tough manager.” Mr. Pak did nothing in response to the complaint and simply told Mr. Sherman that different managers have different management styles.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 2007.
