Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black female. At all times material, Petitioner was employed by Respondent corporation in one of its general retail merchandise stores in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner was hired by Respondent's white male store manager, Mr. John Sasse, on October 20, 1992, as a stock clerk in the shoe department. Petitioner was terminated on January 10, 1993, within the ninety day probationary period published in Respondent's employee handbook. In making the foregoing finding of fact, it is recognized that Petitioner attempted to show that the probationary period for new employees was only sixty days. However, she only showed that the sixty day period was applicable in a different time frame than is material here. On October 31, 1992, while working in a stock room, Petitioner's back and neck were injured when a box fell on her. Supervisors called an ambulance, and Petitioner was transported to the emergency room of a local hospital. She was treated but not hospitalized. Respondent duly filed the "Notice of Injury" as mandated by Chapter 440 F.S., "The Florida Workers' Compensation Act," and began to pay Petitioner's medical expenses. Prior to her injury, Mr. Sasse considered Petitioner to be only a marginal employee. Petitioner was released by hospital doctors for return to work as of November 6, 1992. At that time, she had no work restrictions imposed by a doctor, so Mr. Sasse reassigned Petitioner to her usual duties. Petitioner worked at the tasks she felt she could do until November 11, 1992, when she returned to the hospital. She was examined and medicated. Later that same day, as is standard procedure with workers' compensation injuries wherein the employer pays for an injured worker's medical care and as a result has the legal right to specify which doctors attend the employee, Mr. Sasse ordered Petitioner to go to "Care One," a "walk-in" medical facility specializing in occupational medicine. Petitioner went to Care One, where she was again examined and medicated. Petitioner was released for work the same day with written work restrictions from the Care One doctor. Petitioner's resentment against Respondent that she had been injured in the first place apparently was a motivating force in her actions after she returned to work the second time. Petitioner's candor and demeanor while testifying, as well as her persistence in returning her testimony to the circumstances surrounding the box falling upon her in the storeroom, made it very clear that she considered it discriminatory, or at least unfair, that Respondent had "forced" her or anyone to work under the cluttered stock room conditions that had resulted in her initial accident or injury. In Petitioner's mind, at least, the fact that an accident or injury had occurred in the first place was sufficient to establish "dangerous working conditions" and "an unlawful employment practice." After November 11, 1992, she persisted with these complaints to the employer. However, no competent evidence established a nexus between Petitioner's race and her pre-injury job assignments, and no evidence demonstrated that after her accident, the Respondent-employer handled her workers' compensation medical care any differently because she was black. On November 11, 1992, Care One's written restrictions provided: Restricted Employee should avoid movements of the upper body and neck that would place undue stress on the neck, such as strenuous pushing and pulling, heavy lifting, and working above the shoulders. Employee should avoid lifting > 20 pounds, avoid frequent bending and twisting of the back, and avoid strenuous pushing and pulling. Mr. Sasse and his subordinate supervisors assigned Petitioner tasks consistent with Mr. Sasse's interpretation of Petitioner's written restrictions, as modified over time by subsequent information. On November 11, 1992, a position was created for Petitioner in the soft goods department. At this time, Petitioner became the only black clerk in the soft goods department. Initially, Mr. Sasse told her she was not to reach above her shoulders or bend to pick up anything below her knees. Petitioner complained that these tasks constituted too much physical exertion for her due to her physical condition. Petitioner continued to complain about the accident and her pain. The employer and insurance carrier continued to refer her back to Care One. There was a short delay with regard to some medical services requested by Petitioner or by referring and consulting doctors under the workers' compensation medical care delivery system, but the employer/insurance carrier in due course authorized physical therapy, a consultation with an orthopedic specialist, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for further diagnosis. Derrick Proctor, a black male employee and Petitioner's friend, presented as a credible witness, even though he claimed to have been fired by Mr. Sasse under what Mr. Proctor termed "suspicious circumstances" and at the time of formal hearing had some type of action pending against this employer. Mr. Proctor described Petitioner as "embittered" against the employer because of the employer's refusal or delay in dealing with Petitioner's medical concerns and stress. However, it appears that Petitioner's problems, if any, were common disputes and communication delays inherent in the workers' compensation medical care delivery system. For instance, when asked, the doctors reported directly to the employer, insurance carrier, and store manager concerning the Petitioner- employee's medical condition, consultant treatment, and recovery progress. On December 10, 1992, Mr. Sasse told Petitioner that he had received an oral report on her December 9, 1992 MRI results and that they were negative. This conversation occurred before any of the doctors had reported the MRI results to the Petitioner, and Petitioner inferred therefrom that information was being withheld from her. Later, on December 22, 1992, Petitioner learned, during a reprimand and counselling session for insubordination and failure to work up to her capacities, that the employer had been informed much earlier that she could return to work with no restrictions. (See Findings of Fact 32-36) Although Mr. Sassy and others had told her this before December 22, 1992, the events of December 22, 1992 triggered a belief in Petitioner that the employer was "out to get" her. Notwithstanding the extreme light duty assigned her, Petitioner complained about the work assigned and was uncooperative about helping supervisors find a job description she felt she could perform. Although Petitioner may not have known about it until November 25, 1992, on November 20, 1992 Care One deleted the prior restrictions on lifting items over 20 pounds, bending, and strenuous pushing and pulling, and narrowed her restrictions to the following: Restricted. Employee should avoid movements of the upper body and neck that would place undue stress on the neck, such as strenuous pushing and pulling, heavy lifting, and work above the shoulders. In December 1992, Mr. Proctor was required to close his department, hardware, every night, and Petitioner closed the soft goods department some nights. Petitioner considered being required to close some nights to be discrimination against her since she was the only black employee in the soft goods department at that time and the white female employee in soft goods had been switched to the day shift in Petitioner's place. The greater weight of the evidence shows that the whole store's evening hours increased from midnight to 1:00 a.m. due to the Christmas season, and on December 6, 1992, Petitioner was assigned to work nights so that she could go to daytime medical and physical therapy appointments. The employer's accommodation of Petitioner's situation in this respect was comparable to the accommodation given a white female employee in soft goods. Beginning November 23, 1992, that white female employee, Ms. Audrey, had been assigned to a daylight shift so that her husband, who had bad night vision, could drive her to and from work. Race was not a factor in the accommodation rendered Ms. Audrey or Petitioner. Who closed the store during December 1992 depended upon who worked the evening shift, not race. It is not entirely clear on the record whether, on December 3, 1992, Petitioner withdrew from physical therapy because she could not do the weight training assigned her or was rejected by the physical therapist as a client because she would not cooperate in weight training. Petitioner testified that she returned to physical therapy thereafter for ultrasound treatment. It is clear that Petitioner believed she was rejected by the therapist because she could not lift the heavy weights assigned her by the therapist as part of Petitioner's planned recovery. It is also clear that the decision to end the weight phase of Petitioner's treatment did not have employer input. By December 5, 1992, Petitioner's personally professed physical limitations and complaints about Mr. Sasse's treatment of her had resulted in Mr. Sasse accommodating her by creating a "make-work" job description. Under it, she was asked to push a cart that other employees had hung clothes on; she was not required to load the car with clothes. She was required only to pick up single articles of clothing that were left in the women's dressing rooms and return them to the racks. She was told only to bend if an occasional article of clothing was found on the floor. She was also told to open dressing room doors for customers and, if requested, fetch more clothes for them to try on while they remained in the dressing room. Petitioner was permitted to wear her softly padded neckbrace at all times, even though she presented no written doctor's instructions to do so. Petitioner described it as an "agony" imposed on her by the employer when, on December 5, 1992, Mr. Sasse ordered her not to sit continuously on the sales floor in a chair she had removed from the women's dressing room. Petitioner had previously complained because she had been required to sit for long hours on a very hard chair Mr. Sasse had provided for her, and this time she had gotten a different chair herself. On December 5, 1992, Mr. Sasse told her she must leave the dressing room chair in the dressing room for the customers, that she was not permitted to sit all the time on the sales floor where customers could see her, and she must not just sit without doing any work, until all her work was done. He told her to do a variety of the tasks of which she was capable, including but not limited to sitting while pricing goods. Petitioner considered these orders to be contrary to her doctor's limitations and to constitute "physical abuse." Petitioner repeatedly requested time off with pay so that she could recover completely through bed rest. Mr. Sasse would not allow her time off for medical reasons without a doctor's written approval. Petitioner considered this condition imposed by management to be "abusive." Petitioner described Mr. Sasse as being rude to her on December 6, 1992, when he refused to discuss her accusations of "physical abuse" and her request for time off in the presence of other employees and customers in the public buffet area of the store, and walked off, leaving her there. Petitioner referred to this incident as at least part of her "opposition to unlawful employment practices" which she believed resulted in her termination. Petitioner presented no evidence that a doctor had ever recommended that she stay at home and do nothing so that she could heal. From all the evidence, it is inferred that as a probationary employee, Petitioner had no accrued sick leave to expend for this purpose. Ms. Gardner was a long-time white female employee who had her doctor's approval for knee surgery and who required a month of bed rest at home afterwards. The employer allowed Ms. Gardner to use earned compensatory time as sick leave for that purpose during the month of December 1992. By mid-December, 1992, Mr. Sasse was frustrated because Petitioner refused to do every job he devised, even the "make work" ones, and he believed that she only pretended to be busy when he was watching her. Mr. Sasse had told Petitioner that she could do normal work again and she would not accept this from him without hearing it also from her doctor. Mr. Sasse decided to discipline Petitioner for not working up to her limitations as he understood them and for insubordination. He directed the soft goods manager trainee, Ms. Lynn Tyler, a white female, to "write up" Petitioner. Ms. Tyler and the assistant store manager, Ray Harding, a white male, met with Petitioner on December 22, 1992 to discuss the contents of the prepared memo. One of the supervisors' concerns at the time Petitioner was "written up" was that they could not get Petitioner to do anything at all without an argument, even after pointing out various light work job duties on a walk around the whole store. They were also concerned that without Petitioner doing some tasks, the employer had to pay other employees overtime to accomplish what Petitioner was not accomplishing in her regular shift hours. It was stipulated that Petitioner was never asked to work overtime. Petitioner refused to sign the December 22, 1992 memorandum of reprimand because she did not agree with it and because Tyler and Harding were, in her opinion, "grudgeful." Petitioner was informed later on December 22, 1992 by her Care One doctor that he had, indeed, released her for normal work activities effective December 16, 1992. His December 16, 1992 report which had been previously received by the employer read: Please note employee's current duty status is as follows: Regular May return to normal work activities full time. After her accident, Petitioner was observed by Derrick Proctor doing some of the same types of physical exertion the employer had required that she do before the accident, including reaching above her head to put clothes on and take them off clothes racks and picking clothes up from the floor, but he never knew her medical restrictions other than what she told him. He also observed her in agitated conversations with Ms. Tyler and Mr. Sasse while she was wearing a neck brace. On January 7, 1993, he saw Ms. Tyler "very out of sorts" when talking to the Petitioner. At first, he stated that he did not consider Petitioner to be rude or insubordinate on these occasions because the topic was working conditions, but later he admitted that he could not overhear what was actually said on all these occasions. Mr. Proctor also observed that, "Mr. Sasse rode everybody pretty hard," including white workers. It was "his way of getting things done." Mr. Proctor once observed Petitioner hiding in another department, behind racks, to avoid management. Petitioner acknowledged and described her "hiding out" at that time to Mr. Proctor as due to her "feeling mistreated" and "avoiding management." In her formal hearing testimony, Petitioner described it as "opposing unlawful work practices and abusive treatment." After learning on December 22, 1992 of her release from all medical restrictions, Petitioner continued to be uncooperative with management. Petitioner's testimony conceded that she had understood that all doctors had released her with no restrictions as of December 28, 1992 and that she had still refused to reach and bend in the stock room when ordered to do so by Mr. Sasse and Ms. Tyler on January 7, 1993. After evaluating Petitioner's continued failure or refusal to perform even the lightest of duties, Mr. Sasse decided to terminate Petitioner before her ninety days' probationary period ended. Mr. Sasse, who was terminated by Respondent-employer sometime later in 1993 and who, at the time of formal hearing, was litigating an unemployment compensation claim against Respondent, had no reason to fabricate information or testify favorably for the Respondent-employer. He was credible to the effect that the decision to terminate Petitioner in January 1993 was his unilateral decision and that he made his decision without reference to, or motivation by, Petitioner's race. Specifically, it was Mr. Sasse's foundational assessment that Petitioner could physically do the light work he assigned her after reasonable accommodation for a temporary disability but that she would not do the work assigned by him that caused him to terminate her. Petitioner testified that she was replaced by a white female. In fact, a white female was hired approximately one or two weeks prior to Petitioner's January 10, 1993 termination, with a due date to report to work on January 11, 1993, which subsequently turned out to be the day immediately following Petitioner's termination. The employer did not hire this white female with the intent of replacing Petitioner, but she was ultimately placed into the soft goods department. Mr. Proctor testified that other blacks worked in soft goods after Petitioner's termination. Within four weeks of Petitioner's termination, three new employees were hired. None of these were assigned to the soft goods department. Mr. Standley Gillings, a black male, was originally employed in another of Respondent's Ocala stores. In October 1993, Mr. Gillings was demoted with a loss of pay and transferred to the store from which Petitioner had been fired ten months earlier. His new immediate supervisor in that store was also black. Respondent continued to employ Mr. Gillings under the black supervisor until Mr. Gillings found another job and quit.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of August, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 1994.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be deemed to have abandoned her employment with Petitioner and resigned from Career Service on March 10, 1989.
Findings Of Fact From March 31, 1987 through March 6, 1989, Nguyet Mackay, Respondent herein, was an employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (Petitioner herein). Petitioner's workday commences at 7:30 a.m. At approximately 9:30 a.m., on March 6, 1989, Respondent called Larry Blackburn, a supervisory employee and advised that she was in Ohio and requested leave without pay (LWOP). Blackburn was without authority to approve LWOP and so advised Respondent, but agreed to submit Respondent's request to personnel for consideration. Blackburn expressed skepticism about granting LWOP to Respondent since Respondent, at the time, was on special probation for failing to achieve the required standards in her department. During the conversation with Blackburn on March 6, Respondent advised Blackburn that she was enroute to California to pick up her sister and other relatives and that she would again call the following day, i.e., March 7, to find out if her request for LWOP was granted. Blackburn, in an effort to make sure that in the event Respondent called prior to his arrival at work the following morning, left specific instructions with Marilyn Ford, a unit supervisor, on whether to grant or deny Respondent's request for LWOP. At approximately 8:30 a.m., on March 7, 1989, Respondent phoned to inquire whether her request for LWOP was approved. Ford inquired of Respondent the basis for her request for LWOP and determined that since it was not an emergency, Respondent was advised and placed on unauthorized LWOP and that disciplinary action was being contemplated. Ford further advised Respondent that she was to report to work the following day, March 8, 1989, at her regular reporting time. Respondent was cautioned that in the event that she failed to report to work by the close of business on Friday, March 10, 1989, her employment relationship with Petitioner would be severed for abandonment of position. Respondent advised supervisor Ford that she had flown to California from Ohio to meet with seven members of her family who were flying to California from Malaysia, a sister and brother-in-law and their five children, who had a language barrier and were unable to communicate in English. Respondent understood the directives issued by Ford respecting her unauthorized LWOP and her duty to report to work on March 8. Respondent did not report to work by the close of business on March 10, and her only communication with Petitioner following the March 7, 1989 conversation with Marilyn Ford, was a phone call during the week of March 13 to give her new address and directions for mailing her final paycheck. By letter dated March 13, 1989, Respondent was advised that she was deemed to have resigned from Career Service on March 10, 1989, based on her continuous absence from work without authorization during the period 7:30 a.m., Monday, March 6, 1989 through 4:00 p.m., Friday, March 10, 1989, since such absence without authorized leave for three consecutive work days constituted an abandonment of position. At the time of Respondent's employment on March 31, 1987, she received a copy of Petitioner's employee handbook and loyalty oath and acknowledged her responsibility to review the handbook in detail and request any clarification needed from either her supervisor or the personnel office. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Administration enter a Final Order denying Respondent's petition for review of the facts herein based on the determination that Respondent abandoned her position of employment with Petitioner on March 10, 1989. DONE and ENTERED this 25th of August, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Shari N. Cortese, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 701 94th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33702 Nguyet Mackay 6202 South Harold Avenue Tampa, Florida 33601 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1500 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 A. J. McMullian, III Interim Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Linda Cattanach, was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, Florida Department of Elder Affairs, based on her sex or in retaliation for her opposition to an unlawful employment practice in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2013).2/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Linda Cattanach, was at all times relevant hereto an employee of the Florida Department of Elder Affairs. Respondent, Florida Department of Elder Affairs (Respondent or Department), is the state agency responsible for administering human services programs for the elderly and for developing policy recommendations for long-term care. See § 430.03, Fla. Stat. (2015). Respondent operates a Comprehensive Assessment and Review for Long-Term Care (CARES) program to assess individuals for Medicaid long-term care services, whether in a nursing facility, in a private home, or in another community setting. The CARES program operates 19 offices statewide and one central office in Tallahassee. Medical assessments are conducted by CARES Assessors (CAs), and Senior CAs. CAs and Senior CAs are supervised by a Program Operations Administrator (POA) in each office, who reports to a Regional Program Supervisor (RPS). The RPS reports to the Deputy Bureau Chief in Tallahassee, who reports to the Bureau Chief; who, in turn, reports to the Division Director for Statewide and Community- Based Services. In January 2013, Petitioner began employment as a CA in Respondent’s Gainesville office. Petitioner began in a one-year probationary employment status. The record did not clearly establish how many individuals were employed in the Gainesville office with Petitioner. There was an office assistant, Rose Gonzalez; at least four other CAs, including Justin Keels; a registered nurse; and their supervisor, POA Sam Rutledge. Freadda Zeigler was the RPS for the region, which included the Gainesville, Tallahassee, Pensacola, Jacksonville, and Daytona Beach offices. Ms. Zeigler commuted from her home in Broward County. In Tallahassee, Jay Hudson was the Deputy Bureau Chief, Paula James was the Bureau Chief, Carol Carr was the Deputy Division Director, and Marcy Hajdukiewicz was the Division Director. The Gainesville territory covered from Marion County north to the Florida/Georgia line, west to the Leon County line, and east to the Duval County line. CAs were assigned to particular locations within the office’s jurisdiction. CAs traveled to both health care facilities (e.g., nursing homes, assisted living facilities) and private homes to meet with and personally evaluate the needs of the client. Petitioner was primarily assigned to cover facilities in Jasper, Live Oak, Dowling Park, Mayo, and Lake City. Petitioner was in the field conducting evaluations two to three times per week. Her assignments required some long commutes, up to one and one-half hours to Jasper (just south of the Georgia line) and over an hour to Dowling Park and Live Oak. In February 2013, a senior CA position became open in Gainesville. Both Petitioner and Mr. Keels applied and were interviewed for the position. Mr. Keels was selected for the position in March. As senior CA, Mr. Keels did not supervise other CAs in the Gainesville office, but was “put in charge” when Mr. Rutledge was out of the office. When Petitioner began her employment in Gainesville, she was told that a desk was being ordered for her. She was given a folding table to use in her workspace. Petitioner’s workspace was in an open area of the office. Other employees would pass through and occasionally gather in her workspace on breaks or on their way to lunch. Petitioner testified that Mr. Rutledge often came into the open area to interact with other employees around lunchtime to see if anyone wanted to “get food.” Sexual Harassment Claim4/ One day in late March 2013, Mr. Rutledge and Mr. Keels were in Petitioner’s workspace and began discussing a restaurant with the word “cooter” in its name. During this conversation, the two men stood on opposite sides of Petitioner’s worktable, where Petitioner was seated. One of the men asked Petitioner if she knew what the word “cooter” meant, and she responded that she did not. One of the men stated that it meant “vagina.” Petitioner testified that she was embarrassed, uncomfortable, and felt trapped at her worktable where the men stood on either side of her. Petitioner did not report this incident to anyone at first. Petitioner testified that she was afraid that if she said anything, she would be fired. Petitioner’s ambivalence was due in no small part to the fact that Mr. Rutledge was her supervisor. Petitioner described another incident that occurred shortly before the “cooter” incident. Mr. Rutledge called Petitioner into his office and asked her to look at a picture on his computer screen. The picture was of a woman in a bikini. Mr. Rutledge said something to the effect of “that is what my ex-wife used to look like.” Petitioner was embarrassed and left Mr. Rutledge’s office. Respondent maintains a sexual harassment policy of which Petitioner was aware. The policy provides, in part, that “[a]ny employee who believes that he or she is the victim of sexual harassment . . . may make an oral or written complaint to the General Counsel or Director of Internal & External Affairs within 365 days of the alleged discriminatory action.” In April 2013, approximately a week after the “cooter” incident, Respondent’s Inspector General Taroub King began an investigation of Mr. Rutledge, prompted by an anonymous complaint. Among the allegations investigated were that Mr. Rutledge borrowed money from employees, encouraged employees to participate in an investment scheme (or schemes), and utilized employees to witness signatures and notarize documents of a personal nature. The complaint described Mr. Rutledge as maintaining no management structure, lacking basic documentation, and essentially performing no work of any kind. Petitioner was interviewed in connection with the investigation by Ms. King and another investigator from the Inspector General’s office on April 4, 2013. Petitioner was placed under oath and her interview was audio-recorded. Petitioner was questioned about the allegations in the complaint against Mr. Rutledge, and she fully cooperated with the investigators. At the end of the interview, Ms. King asked Petitioner if she had any other information to relay. At that point, Petitioner reported that inappropriate comments and banter of a sexual nature occurred in the office. Petitioner did not report any other details. Ms. King asked Petitioner for particular examples. In response, Petitioner shared the “cooter” incident and the “bikini” incident. All of the employees in the Gainesville office were interviewed by Ms. King. Mr. Keels was interviewed after Petitioner and was questioned about the “cooter” incident and office banter of a sexual nature. At the final hearing, Petitioner maintained that there was both frequent sexual banter and inappropriate conversations in the Gainesville office. She testified that the staff nurse once referred to a patient as having “balls the size of a bull.” She also reported that Mr. Rutledge made hand gestures indicating that Ms. Gonzalez was large-breasted. Petitioner did not share these details with Ms. King during her interview. As with the “bikini” incident, Petitioner was able to walk away from, or otherwise ignore, the comments and gestures of a sexual nature in the workplace. Upon her return to Tallahassee, Ms. King reported her investigative findings to members of Respondent’s Human Resources Department, the Deputy Secretary, and the Director of Internal and External Affairs. Petitioner testified that she sent Ms. King an email sometime after her interview asking whether more information was needed from Petitioner regarding her complaints of inappropriate sexual comments in the workplace. Ms. King denied that Petitioner sent any follow-up email of that nature. Ms. King did recall an email from Petitioner requesting public records. Respondent terminated Mr. Rutledge on April 8, 2013, four days after Petitioner was interviewed by Ms. King. The decision to terminate Mr. Rutledge was made by management in the Tallahassee office. Both Mr. Hudson, the Deputy Bureau Chief, and Ms. James, the Bureau Chief, traveled from Tallahassee to Gainesville to terminate Mr. Rutledge. Ms. Zeigler was likewise present at the Gainesville office for the termination of Mr. Rutledge. However, Ms. Zeigler claimed not to have been informed ahead of time about the termination. She said the appearance of Mr. Hudson and Ms. James at the Gainesville office on April 8, 2013, was a surprise to her. In early May 2013, a significant remodel of the Gainesville office was initiated. The remodel created confusion in the Gainesville office, with furniture being moved around, office files and equipment being boxed up, and the general mess associated with construction in the workplace. At some point, Petitioner lost track of an entire box of her files and later found them on the floor under a pile of chairs she assumed the painters had moved.5/ Alleged Acts of Retaliation Respondent named Mr. Keels as Acting POA, effective April 8, 2013. Ms. James testified, credibly, that Mr. Keels was named Acting POA because he was the senior CA in the office. Mr. Keels was questioned about the “cooter” incident during his interview by the Inspector General. Thus, there is sufficient evidence from which the undersigned can infer that Mr. Keels was aware Petitioner had reported the “cooter” incident to the Inspector General during the investigation of Mr. Rutledge. Petitioner complained that she was ostracized by other employees in Gainesville after Mr. Rutledge was terminated. Petitioner also complained that Mr. Keels treated her unfairly in his capacity as acting POA. First, Petitioner maintained that Mr. Keels increased her caseload, from about 27 to about 44 cases, which made her job very difficult given the lengthy commutes to her assigned facilities. Petitioner introduced no evidence, other than her testimony, that her caseload substantially increased after Mr. Keels became acting POA. Petitioner complained to the Inspector General on April 4, 2013, that her caseload under Mr. Rutledge’s supervision was inordinately heavy. Petitioner also shared with the Inspector General that Mr. Keels, in his capacity as senior CA, was unfair in case distribution. Further, Petitioner testified that although her caseload was heavy in early May, it later declined. The evidence does not support a finding that Mr. Keels assigned Petitioner an inordinately heavy caseload following her complaints to the Inspector General and Mr. Keels’ temporary promotion to acting POA. Sometime after Mr. Keels became acting POA, he took away Petitioner’s worktable. According to Petitioner, Mr. Keels said he took the table for use in the conference room for “staffings,” a term that was not explained by any witness. Petitioner testified there were other tables available in the meeting room which could have been used for that purpose. For the next two months, Petitioner completed her in- office work at a window ledge. She placed her laptop and files on the ledge and utilized extra chairs for additional workspace. In June 2013, Petitioner was presented with a new desk. Petitioner’s Termination During Mr. Rutledge’s tenure as POA, the Bureau had rolled out significant changes to the CARES program. Those changes had not been implemented by Mr. Rutledge, much less communicated to the Gainesville staff. After Mr. Rutledge’s termination, CARES management began monitoring the Gainesville office very closely. During the next few months, Ms. Zeigler was more frequently present in the Gainesville office and was in almost constant contact with Mr. Hudson regarding the activities of the Gainesville office. However, Ms. Zeigler was unaware of any discussions Mr. Hudson may have had with the Bureau Chief or the Division Director. Shortly after Mr. Rutledge’s departure, Ms. Zeigler met with the Gainesville staff to explain new procedures. Among the procedures was a requirement to include on employees’ GroupWise calendars, an entry of every planned field visit. The CAs’ GroupWise calendars were accessible not only to their immediate supervising POA, but also to the RPS and higher-level managers. The calendar was an important management tool used by Respondent both to perform quality assurance checks and to monitor employee performance. On May 9, 2013, Ms. Zeigler sent the following email to the CAs in Gainesville: Good afternoon all, As mentioned in the past meeting in your office, it was requested that I be given access to your GroupWise calendars to help monitor accountability for field visits with Specialization. I would like to thank each of you for adhering to the request, and would like to ask each of you to add the following information to your calendars: First and Last name of client visiting Facility name where client will be visited Home address if visiting client in the home Purpose of visit Time of visit (include estimated travel time) * * * This information is needed for accountability purposes, and also used to check that assessments are being entered in CIRTS, per the attached CARES policy #PPH Update No2011_2, that is still currently in place. Effective immediately, I would like for each worker to add this information to their calendars prior to making a visit. You should also add any approved leave time that you will be taking as well. If your visit schedule changes, it needs to be noted on the calendar with the appropriate change. Please revisit this memo for a thorough understanding. On May 14, 2013, Ms. Zeigler sent an email to Petitioner informing Petitioner that information on her calendar was incorrect. On May 31, 2013, Ms. Zeigler issued a formal counseling memorandum to Petitioner for failure to list her client visits on her GroupWise calendar as directed. The following excerpt is especially relevant: You were instructed to submit your plans for field visits [sic] travel at least one day in advance of the actual travel. A review of your calendar clearly showed that you either did not put any information on your calendar as required and/or you entered incorrect data, for the following dates: April 16, 2013, May 6, 2013, May 7, 2013, May 9, 2013, May 10, 2013, and again on May 14, 2013. At the final hearing, Petitioner did not deny that she failed to enter required information on her calendar. Instead, Petitioner offered a series of excuses, including system connectivity issues, her travel schedule, and confusion regarding a transition from GroupWise to the Outlook calendar system. With regard to connectivity, Petitioner explained that there were problems connecting to the Department’s computer system from remote locations and, occasionally, in the Gainesville office. Petitioner likewise testified that she would not return home until 6:00 p.m. or later on days she traveled to Jasper and other remote field locations. Petitioner complained that connectivity issues prevented her access to GroupWise from home, and thus, was unable to enter the visits scheduled for the following day. Petitioner testified that she complained to the information technology department in Tallahassee about connectivity issues and diligently tried to address these concerns. Petitioner introduced in evidence an email exchange between herself and Ms. Zeigler in which she complained about, and Ms. Zeigler resolved, an issue with Petitioner’s access to CIRTS – the Department’s online case input system. The email string is dated July 17, 2013, well after the date of Petitioner’s documented missing calendar entries. Further, the email relates to access to the case input system and is irrelevant to Petitioner’s claim of issues with connectivity to the computer system in general. Finally, Petitioner explained that the Department changed from GroupWise to the Outlook system, and she was confused about whether to continue adding entries on her GroupWise calendar during that transition. In the May 31, 2013, counseling memorandum, Ms. Zeigler referred to the program’s transition from the GroupWise to the Outlook calendaring system, as follows: The Microsoft Outlook Email and Calendar program was installed on all computers in DOEA, migrating existing GroupWise information to the new Outlook program on May 28, 2013. Instruction videos and online documentation were made available to all DOEA employees to learn how to utilize the new program. You were instructed to give proxy access to the RPS via email from the acting Supervisor. It is evident that you were successful in accessing the Outlook Calendar, as you sent the RPS a request to share your calendar on May 30, 2013. On the same date, you left the office to go to the field at 12:55 p.m., and failed to update/place any information on your calendar before departing. The sign in sheet indicated that you were going to a nursing facility. This repeated failure to comply with procedures is unacceptable. As a result of this failure, your supervisor was unaware of what facility and/or client you were seeing and how long it would take time wise for the field visit. You effectively prohibited your supervisor from knowing your whereabouts and/or the client(s) to be seen. In light of the facts, Petitioner’s alleged confusion about whether to continue adding information to her GroupWise calendar is not credible. Petitioner did not send an Outlook calendar-sharing invite to Ms. Zeigler until May 30, 2013, well after her missing GroupWise calendar entries of April 16 and May 6, 7, 9, 10, and 14, 2013. Further, Petitioner failed to calendar her appointments the same day she sent Ms. Zeigler the calendar- sharing invitation, thus belying any excuse that she had connectivity issues, at least on that particular date. In an effort to minimize the significance of her failure to document her field visits on her calendar, Petitioner testified that she noted her field visits on a daily sign-in log physically maintained in the Gainesville office. Petitioner introduced a composite exhibit purporting to be copies of the daily sign-in logs from April, May, June, and July 2013. Even if the exhibit was reliable evidence of Petitioner’s whereabouts, the logs are irrelevant to the issue of whether Petitioner complied with the electronic calendaring requirement. No evidence was introduced to support a finding that the daily sign-in log was an acceptable alternative to Ms. Zeigler’s specific, clear, and repeated direction to all Gainesville employees to use their GroupWise, and later Outlook, calendars to note their planned field visits with required details. The evidence conflicted as to whether Ms. Zeigler’s May 31, 2013, counseling memorandum constituted discipline. Petitioner testified that the memorandum was a training tool. Ms. Zeigler testified alternately, and with hesitancy, that the memorandum was “almost like a verbal warning type of thing,” and “unofficially formal.” On cross-examination, Ms. Zeigler testified, “I don’t think that that would be a reason to fire somebody after one counseling memo. I mean that would be absurd.” Ms. James testified that the memorandum constituted a first-step disciplinary action. Ms. James explained that a counseling memorandum is preceded by a verbal warning from the supervisor. The Department’s disciplinary policy was not introduced in evidence. In light of Petitioner’s probationary employment status, the issue of whether the counseling memorandum constituted discipline is largely irrelevant. The counseling memorandum is evidence of poor job performance during Petitioner’s probationary employment period. At some point after Mr. Rutledge’s termination, the Department advertised for the open POA position. Both Petitioner and Mr. Keels applied for the position. Mr. Hudson and Ms. Zeigler conducted interviews for the position. Petitioner was not responsive to Ms. Zeigler’s efforts to schedule Petitioner’s interview for the position. Eventually, Ms. Zeigler did interview Petitioner for the position. Ms. Zeigler also interviewed Mr. Keels. In June 2013, Ms. Zeigler prepared performance evaluations of the Gainesville staff. Ms. Zeigler had little knowledge of staff performance prior to Mr. Rutledge’s termination, as Ms. Zeigler was new to the region. Ms. Zeigler gave all the Gainesville employees ratings of “3,” satisfactory performance, across the board. In late July 2013, Ms. Carr and Ms. Hajdukiewicz from the Tallahassee office came to the Gainesville office and personally terminated Mr. Keels. Ms. James did not directly make the decision to terminate Mr. Keels, but she agreed with the decision. Ms. James stated that Mr. Keels was terminated based on his actions after he became acting POA in Gainesville. Ms. James did not elaborate and neither counsel asked any follow-up question. On July 31, 2013, Ms. Carr and Ms. James came to the Gainesville office from Tallahassee, met with Petitioner, and offered her a choice of resignation or termination. Petitioner chose termination. That same day, after leaving the office, Petitioner called the Department of Human Resources and requested to change her termination to resignation. The request was granted. Petitioner did not ask why she was being terminated or asked to resign. Petitioner testified that neither Ms. Carr nor Ms. James gave her a reason. Ms. Zeigler resigned from the Department in October 2013. The circumstances of Ms. Zeigler’s resignation were not introduced in evidence. In that regard, Ms. Zeigler testified as follows: I had a lot of questions with the State that probably should not come up here, but there are a lot of questionable things that were going on with the State at the time which led to my resignation. So I did not question it. I did not question [Petitioner’s] termination based off of my ability to run the office, because I almost felt like it was being run above me.[6/] Ms. Zeigler’s testimony was introduced in support of Petitioner’s claims. However, Ms. Zeigler had difficulty recalling events, including the timing of relevant events. Of note, Ms. Zeigler testified that she was the RPS for Gainesville about a year, meaning she would have begun in the position in October 2012. Later, she testified that Mr. Rutledge was terminated “not long after I was there [as RPS].” Her testimony was hesitant, hedging, and sometimes conflicting. Ms. Zeigler testified that she was in daily contact with Mr. Hudson about issues in the Gainesville office after Mr. Rutledge was terminated, but claimed to have had no advance notice of either Mr. Keels’ or Petitioner’s termination. As such, the undersigned finds Ms. Zeigler’s testimony to be both unreliable and unpersuasive. Ms. Zeigler’s counseling memorandum to Petitioner regarding calendaring is credible evidence of Petitioner’s job performance which cannot be discounted by Ms. Zeigler’s after-the-fact, and apparently biased, testimony.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent, Florida Department of Elder Affairs, did commit an unlawful employment practice as to Petitioner, Linda Cattanach, and prohibiting the practice. However, under the specific facts of the case, the undersigned recommends no affirmative relief from the effects of the practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment act against Petitioner pursuant to Chapter 70 of the Pinellas County Code, as amended, and Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a black female, is a member of a protected group. Respondent is an employer as defined in the Pinellas County Code, as amended, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Respondent hired Petitioner as a telemarketer on December 8, 1997. Petitioner's job required her to call the telephone numbers on a list furnished by Respondent. After making the call, Petitioner was supposed to solicit the booking of vacations in time-share rental units by reading from a script prepared by Respondent. The script included an offer to sell potential customers three vacations in three locations for $69. When Respondent hired Petitioner, she signed a copy of Respondent's "New Employee Policy and Procedures" manual. Petitioner admits that this manual required her to book 25 vacations each pay period after a two-week training period. She also admits that the manual required her to only use the prepared script, including preplanned rebuttals to customer questions when talking over the telephone. Petitioner understood that during the two-week training period, she would be required to book 14 vacations or be terminated. She knew that Respondent's supervisors would monitor her sales calls. Petitioner sold four vacation packages in her first week at work with no complaints from her supervisors. In fact, one of Respondent's supervisors known as Mike told Petitioner, "You got the juice." On December 15, 1997, Mike monitored one of Petitioner's calls. Petitioner admits that she did not use the scripted rebuttals in answering the customer's questions during the monitored call. Instead, she attempted to answer the customer's questions using her own words. According to Petitioner, she used "baby English" to explain the sales offer in simple terms that the customer could understand. After completing the monitored call on December 15, 1997, Mike told Petitioner to "stick to the shit on the script." Mike admonished Petitioner not to "candy coat it." Petitioner never heard Mike use profanity or curse words with any other employee. Before Petitioner went to work on December 16, 1997, she called a second supervisor known as Kelly. Kelly was the supervisor that originally hired Petitioner. During this call, Petitioner complained about Mike's use of profanity. When Kelly agreed to discuss Petitioner's complaint with Mike, Petitioner said she would talk to Mike herself. Petitioner went to work later on December 16, 1997. When she arrived, Mike confronted Petitioner about her complaint to Kelly. Petitioner advised Mike that she only objected to his language and hoped he was not mad at her. Mike responded, "I don't get mad, I get even." When Petitioner stood to stretch for the first time on December 16, 1997, Mike instructed her to sit down. Mike told Petitioner that he would get her some more leads. Mike also told Petitioner that she was "not the only telemarketer that had not sold a vacation package but that the other person had sixty years on her." Petitioner was aware that Respondent had fired an older native-American male known as Ray. Respondent hired Ray as a telemarketer after hiring Petitioner. When Petitioner was ready to leave work on December 17, 1997, a third supervisor known as Tom asked to speak to Petitioner. During this conversation, Tom told Petitioner that she was good on the telephone but that Respondent could not afford to keep her employed and had to let her go. Tom referred Petitioner to another company that trained telemarketers to take in-coming calls. Tom gave Petitioner her paycheck, telling her that he was doing her a favor. During Petitioner's employment with Respondent, she was the only black employee. However, apart from describing the older native American as a trainee telemarketer, Petitioner did not present any evidence as to the following: (a) whether there were other telemarketers who were members of an unprotected class; (b) whether Petitioner was replaced by a person outside the protected class; (c) whether Petitioner was discharged while other telemarketers from an unprotected class were not discharged for failing to follow the script or failing to book more than four vacations during the first ten days of employment; and (d) whether Petitioner was discharged while other telemarketers from an unprotected class with equal or less competence were retained. Petitioner was never late to work and never called in sick.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the City's Human Relations Review Board enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Boudreau Vacation Break 14020 Roosevelt Boulevard Suite 805 Clearwater, Florida 33762 Donna Conway 3156 Mount Zion Road No. 606 Stockbridge, Georgia 30281 William C. Falkner, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Stephanie Rugg, Hearing Clerk City of St. Petersburg Community Affairs Department Post Office Box 2842 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731
The Issue The issue for determination in this matter is whether Respondent engaged in unlawful employment practices by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of race or sex in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female who had several years of progressive experience working in the field of aerospace engineering when she was hired by Respondent in 2006 as a Quality Assurance Engineer III, the highest level for that non-management position at Respondent. Petitioner reported to Quality Manager Ken Koehler, who is a white male. When Petitioner began her employment with Respondent, Steve Schneider was the site leader. After Schneider left, Don Pearson, a white male, replaced him as the interim site leader. Pearson served in this capacity from the middle of June 2006 to February 2007. Pearson had substantial managerial and quality manager experience before joining Respondent and helped to implement the operations excellence ("op ex") program. Under Pearson, the reporting structure changed, and the quality assurance people reported directly to the manufacturing managers. As the interim site leader, Pearson had a leadership team that reported to him consisting of Wes Ryan, the head of the supply chain; Nick Miles, a value stream manager; Alan Hook, an interim quality assurance manager; Floyd Cooper, the "op ex" manager; Darlene Todd, a special projects manager; and Kris Hoffman, an interim value stream manager. Petitioner had a good working relationship with Site Leader Mark Harris and an acceptable relationship with Pearson. Both site leaders acted professionally towards Petitioner. Miles, a white male, began work with Respondent in January 2006 as an executive-level value stream manager. Miles had prior management experience with Respondent in various positions. When Koehler left as the quality manager, Respondent had already changed its management model to the value stream approach. Petitioner began to report directly to Miles after Koehler left. The value stream manager position, which was designed to streamline operations on the manufacturing floor, was a new concept to Respondent. Between May 2006 when Koehler left and February 2007, when Doug Bower started, Petitioner reported directly to Miles. Miles was Petitioner's supervisor. Morris Stevens, a white male who had been working as a supervisor, was a quality engineer level two. There were two senior level quality engineers, Petitioner and Jim Stein. Tawanna Cobble was a quality level engineer two and an African- American female. Arlene Hamilton was a quality engineer and an Asian female. Petitioner's job as a quality engineer was to monitor production activities to ensure products were of good quality. Some of Petitioner's responsibilities were to work on projects to find solutions, perform data analysis, determine what was happening with defects and test failures, and handling customer complaints. Petitioner's job duties included: exhibiting tact and consideration in dealing with her co-workers; working cooperatively in group situations; contributing to meetings and group efforts in a positive manner; maintaining sensitivity to the needs and feelings of others; supporting the organization's goals and values; treating her co-workers or supervisors with respect; maintaining the confidence of her supervisors or those above her in lines of authority or supervision; establishing positive relations with others within the organization; contributing effectively as a team member; cooperating with others and responding appropriately in interpersonal situations; inspiring trust in her co-workers and supervisors; upholding organizational values; and identifing the root cause of and solutions to problems. In her interaction with her co-workers, Petitioner was not expected: to be condescending; to make her co-workers feel badly; or to belittle her co-workers in front of others. Putting her co-workers down could be disruptive of the team approach, cause friction in the workplace, and breed stress with her co-workers. Respondent does not deem it acceptable conduct for Petitioner to call a co-worker a liar, whether in front of other co-workers or supervisors. Petitioner's statements made during a team meeting that a manager was being untruthful to a customer was not acceptable conduct in the workplace. These statements were not diplomatic and might be considered disruptive. Petitioner understood that she was expected not to undermine the authority of other managers. Respondent was involved in a program known as "op ex" while Petitioner was under its employ. "Op ex" is part of the lean enterprise or lean manufacturing process Respondent adopted to focus on prioritizing business practices with the goal of improving performance. Respondent committed to implementing this philosophy throughout its operations. "Op ex" was designed to achieve the goal of improving matrixes involving safety, quality, delivery, and costs to ensure delivery of the highest quality product on time and under cost. The "op ex" program drove quality. Respondent's employees were all required to participate in the continuous improvement activities. Petitioner was coached in "op ex". Cooper held the post of "op ex" manager. He had been the "op ex" manager since February 2006. Prior to that time he had worked in various positions as a supervisor or manager for approximately 20 years. Respondent used the value stream as part of its "op ex" program. "Root cause" relates to problem solving, data analysis, and corrective actions by defining what the actual root problem is and implementing a corrective action to keep the problem from recurring in the future. Petitioner had responsibility for group cause analysis. As part of her job responsibilities, she was expected both to report the data and to try to identify solutions to the problem. Petitioner raised numerous issues related to her failure to be promoted to positions she believed herself qualified to fill. After Koehler left as the quality manager in May 2006, a search was begun for both internal and external candidates. At this time, Petitioner sent an email to Site Leader Schneider asking to be considered for the interim quality manager position. Schneider met with Petitioner for an hour to discuss what his expectations were for the job, but three weeks later he was let go as the site leader. After Schneider left as site leader, the hiring process for quality manager took several months. Petitioner went through a group interview, then Pearson, the interim site leader, interviewed both Petitioner and Cindy Burton, a white female. Burton had been employed by Respondent for 20 years and had previously served as the quality assurance manager. Burton was qualified for the position of quality manager. Pearson concluded that based upon her prior experience as a quality assurance manager, Burton was better qualified for the position than Petitioner. Pearson offered the position to Burton. His decision to offer the job to Burton was based on the problems the company was having, including product yield in the factory, and upon her prior experience and familiarity with the customer base and product line. Burton turned down the job, and Pearson told Petitioner he would continue to seek candidates from the outside since he did not believe she had enough seasoning for the managerial position. After Burton turned down the quality manager position, Pearson interviewed eight-to-ten external candidates for the job. Resumes from the internet were also considered. Bower, a white male, who had been employed by Respondent for five years at another site, was hired on February 22, 2007. Bower was selected because he had experience as a quality assurance manager, and with one of Respondent's customers, Smith Aerospace. He had also been a production manager, and was both a certified quality engineer and quality manager. Bower was chosen for the position over Petitioner because he was better qualified and had significant prior management experience. Bower was qualified for the position based upon 10 years more of experience in the industry than Petitioner, his professional certifications, and a strong resume. Petitioner even acknowledged that Bower was better qualified than she for the quality manager job. The job description for the quality assurance manager requires a bachelor's degree in a related field, plus five years of manager level experience or a combination of education and experience. Supervision in an electronics environment is preferred. Based upon the job description alone, Petitioner lacked some of the necessary qualifications. She did not have a bachelor's degree and did not have five years of management experience. Petitioner believes she was passed over for a value stream manager position in July 2006. Prior to Pearson's becoming the interim site leader, Schneider selected Hoffman, a white female, as an interim value stream manager. Hoffman had worked for Respondent since April 18, 2005. She was a planner who planned the purchasing of parts to meet the production schedule. Hoffman had prior manufacturing experience with Burton Golf, a company she owned. Petitioner was not involved in the value stream job at the time Hoffman was selected for this position. Petitioner expressed her happiness to Hoffman when she was selected for the interim low value stream manager job. After replacing Schneider, Pearson promoted Hoffman from the interim position to the permanent value stream manager job. He sought to stabilize the leadership team at the site since a site leader and quality assurance manager had left, and rumors began to circulate that the facility might close. Pearson also had observed Hoffman's performance in the interim position in terms of team building and employing some of the "op ex" tools, as well as her team's ability to meet commitments, and deemed her the best fit for the position. Petitioner also had hoped to secure a value stream manager position that Pearson filled with Jack Cox. Pearson selected Cox because he observed that Cox had practiced and implemented "op ex" and had been a manager at several other locations during his career. Cox was better qualified for a value stream manager position than Petitioner. Cox left after six months as a value stream manager. Hoffman stepped down as a value stream manager after six months and was demoted to cell leader for the shared services area. After these changes, effective January 8, 2007, Respondent announced a search for two value stream managers, one for shared services and one for low voltage. On that same date, Pearson announced that Hoffman would become a cell leader and Martha Gentry, a white female, would become an interim value stream manager at no increase in salary from her previous position as cell leader. Petitioner asked to apply for the value stream manager position and was told it was closed to internal applicants. The position of low voltage value stream manager remained open until Darnell Rogers, an African-American male, was hired. Rogers was better qualified for the value stream manager job than Petitioner. When Koehler resigned, Hook was made the interim quality manager. Pearson continued him in this role based upon his qualifications and in the interest in maintaining some stability amidst all the changes being made. Between October 2006 and February 2007, Hook was the interim quality manager. Petitioner claimed that she was acting as the interim quality manager during this time period. She asked to be appointed the interim quality manager, but was not given the job. Although she was involved with preparing forms and the monthly review of the strategic employment during this time period, Petitioner was not part of the leadership team and was not entitled to attend leadership dinners. Petitioner was invited on one occasion to make a presentation before the executive team. Petitioner was paid $66,300 as of April 12, 2006. This was more than both Gentry ($41,000), when she served as interim value stream manager; and Hoffman (her salary increased from $56,100 to $61,817.60), when she served as interim value stream manager. Petitioner had some interactions with various employees that became an issue with respect to her assignments. Lois Speights, a female of "mixed race black and white" as she describes herself, was a quality inspector with Respondent for 13 years. She found it stressful to work with Petitioner and testified that Petitioner was condescending and arrogant towards her. Speights believed that Petitioner tried to make her feel stupid, which added to her stress level. Speights complained about how Petitioner treated her to Miles, her supervisor, during the summer of 2006. After she complained to Miles about Petitioner, the situation did not improve and Speights felt as though Petitioner treated her "like the dirt on the sole of her shoe." Petitioner also had some behavior issues that arose in team meetings. Two incidents were brought to Miles' attention. Both occurred in late summer or early fall of 2006. The first incident involved Petitioner throwing down her materials and walking out of a meeting at which she disagreed with comments being made. The second incident occurred during an "op ex" training class. Petitioner exhibited an argumentative tone with other members of the training class; expressed disagreements with how "op ex" was being handled; and, finally, threw up her hands and expressed frustration with having to do whatever the managers wanted done. Petitioner specifically disagreed with the methods of training being used by Cooper. Miles spoke with Petitioner about each of these incidents and stressed the need to act professionally and courteously at team meetings. Petitioner told Miles that she recognized her behavior was not appropriate. On December 12, 2006, Petitioner asked Stevens, a co-worker, to pull some data for her. Stevens informed her that he was too busy and that she would have to do it herself. Petitioner thereafter sent a series of emails which appeared to be disciplinary in nature concerning Stevens. Miles concluded these emails were not appropriate since Petitioner was not the supervisor of Stevens, and these could be disruptive to the balance of the team. Petitioner filed a complaint with Marty Kassulke, the Human Resources Manager, about Gentry refusing to talk to her. A meeting was held with Kassulke, Miles, Gentry, and Petitioner. The issue involved Petitioner being argumentative with Gentry, not cooperating or working well within the value stream team, and not performing tasks requested by Gentry. Petitioner had previously told Gentry she would not report to or take direction from her. Petitioner believes that Gentry overreacted. At the close of the meeting, Petitioner and Gentry shook hands and agreed to work together. Petitioner experienced issues concerning the ability to perform her job related to the Gunbay Program. This program involved Northrop Grumman as a customer. Petitioner was assigned to the project and attended periodic team meetings concerning it. These meetings were attended by material handlers, assemblers, and line inspectors. Brian Fish was the director of engineering. Matt Mulrain was the business manager whose responsibility included interacting with customers. Mulrain worked at Keltec and with Respondent for 25 years and had been a business manager for nearly three years. He was expected to be the primary contact with the customer. As the quality engineer assigned to the Gunbay Program, Petitioner had no managerial authority over the people assembling the product. Setting the schedule and deadlines was Mulrain's job. Petitioner understood she was expected to respect the lines of authority for the project and not to be disruptive at the Gunbay Program team meetings, which were held on a daily basis due to the pressure to deliver the project on time. Mulrain attended a March 22, 2007, meeting of the Gunbay Program team. The purpose of the meeting was to pull the team together, discuss the day's activities, and to identify delivery dates and completion dates for the team. About eight people attended the meeting, including Petitioner; Fish, the technical lead on the program; and Mulrain. Mulrain spoke up about the urgency of meeting the deadlines for the customer, the assemblers, and the inspectors. He had told the customer the day before this meeting when it could expect delivery. Petitioner disagreed with the deadline and spoke up at the meeting stating she did not believe the deadline could be met and that it was not appropriate for management to lie to a customer about delivery dates. Mulrain believed Petitioner was criticizing him for lying to the customer. Both Fish and Mulrain became upset at Petitioner's comments. At a meeting with Fish and Mulrain, Petitioner said she realized she may have been out of line in making her comments. Mulrain told Petitioner what she said was unacceptable and that she accused him of lying to a customer. Petitioner could have met in private with Fish or Mulrain to express her disagreement with the deadline rather than calling them out at the meeting. Although Petitioner had a good working relationship with Mulrain and Fish prior to this incident, Mulrain now believed he could not go forward with Petitioner on the team. He believed she had undermined the team. Mulrain and Fish approached Bower and asked that Petitioner be removed from the Gunbay Program team. On March 29, 2007, Petitioner was given a corrective action involving a verbal warning from Bower. Both Miles and Kassulke echoed the sentiments of Fish and Mulrain regarding the effect Petitioner's statements could have on the Gunbay Program team. Respondent's performance evaluations are done by a team. Cooper, Todd, Hoffman, and Miles attended a meeting at which forced rankings were given. A forced ranking is based upon multiple evaluators so that not a single manager or supervisor evaluates the employee. In November 2006, Kassulke appointed the evaluation teams and participated as the facilitator. The team met and discussed the different areas of evaluation and gave rankings to the six quality engineers. The outcome of the meeting was the composite scores of the forced rankings. Five categories were considered in making the rankings based upon job knowledge, results, continuous improvement, change agent, digital quotation, teamwork, and interpersonal skills. Kassulke took the ratings of the six evaluators and calculated a composite number. Respondent's practice was to display the rankings on a bell curve. Petitioner received an overall average of 1.625 on a maximum scale of 4.0. When forced onto the bell curve, Petitioner received a ranking of 1.0, making her the lowest scored engineer out of six evaluated. In January 2007, Petitioner asked Miles what she needed to do to improve her performance. Miles told Petitioner that she was perceived by some people as hard to work with. Petitioner said she needed to work on getting along better with others. Later that month, after Petitioner inquired about her performance evaluation, Miles told her that her number one issue was teamwork. Petitioner received the performance evaluation on April 24, 2007. The comment written on her evaluation which received a 1.0 was "Roni has a difficult time working in the team environment, and lacks the required tool set to excel in her current position." These comments reflected the consensus of the team meeting. Respondent had a non-discrimination and harassment policy in place during Petitioner's employment. This policy included a toll-free hotline to call if an employee experienced discrimination or harassment. Petitioner never called the hotline to complain about her treatment by Respondent. Petitioner filed a complaint with the EEOC on May 16, 2007. Harris became the site leader in March 2007. He is now the Director of Global Operations for Respondent. When he started, his mandate was to improve the performance of the operation in Ft. Walton. In April and May, he had daily walk around meetings, which included the six quality engineers. After several weeks studying the operation, he decided to realign the quality manager responsibilities. Stein and Stevens were assigned to program quality and had direct interaction with the customers. Hamilton, Cobble, Hook, and Petitioner were assigned to be process oriented quality engineers. Harris moved Petitioner to take on the dock to stock and supplier certifications to make the business better, drive down some of the costs of the business, and to give Petitioner an opportunity to do something professionally she had not done at that point. Petitioner gave Harris some ideas on how to deal with the dock to stock program which was a business initiative and problem Harris was trying to solve. The program was trying to reduce the time from the loading dock to the production floor by decreasing handling time. Petitioner received a memo effective July 2, 2007, sent by either Harris or Kassulke. The memo emphasized that "the restructure is designed to maximize [Respondent's] effectiveness and efficiencies to achieve better service and coordination for our customers, vendors and internal staff." Harris relied primarily on recommendations by Bower about the strengths or weaknesses of the quality engineers. Petitioner was made the supply quality engineer as a result. Miles had nothing to do with this restructuring. Petitioner worked in various locations during her tenure with Respondent. Prior to the June 2007 realignment, she worked in a bullpen. After the July realignment, Petitioner worked inside a fenced area that was locked at night to secure the inventory. She had a desk and chair in that area as well as three inspectors who had work stations, two white females and an African-American female. Petitioner was not satisfied with the work area to which she was assigned in the last realignment. Petitioner submitted her letter of resignation on July 30, 2007. Petitioner acknowledged that only certain of Respondent's managers even knew she was African-American. In fact, on one occasion when answering how many African-Americans attended a meeting that she attended, she answered "none." She had never talked about her race and the issue never came up until an encounter with Miles where he asked her if she was African-American and she told him she was. This encounter was awkward for Petitioner. Harris also was aware of Petitioner's race, but Pearson, the site leader, and Mulrain, the business manager, were not. Other non African-American employees received discipline from Respondent. Edgar Salcedo, an Hispanic male and a non African-American, was a program manager who received a performance improvement plan (PIP) on January 16, 2007, and was removed from the Gunbay Program. Kevin Kennedy, a white male, received a corrective action on November 12, 2007. Burton, a white female, was issued a final warning on June 3, 2008. John Irvine, a white male, received a final warning. Hook, a white male, was given a PIP as part of a corrective action dated September 13, 2007. Hoffman, a white female, received a corrective action and a verbal warning concerning her job duties and skills. She received a PIP because she was not meeting the performance expected of her position. Hoffman received a demotion as a result of her performance. Respondent's available progressive disciplinary steps include a verbal warning, written warning, final warning, and a PIP. Petitioner received only the lowest of the steps, a verbal warning. She never received a PIP. Petitioner did not receive a raise in 2007. She was not alone since 23 employees did not receive raises that year, including four quality engineers. At least 17 white employees did not receive a raise in 2007. Respondent hired and promoted other African-American employees. Cobble, an African-American female, was promoted from a quality engineer to a quality supervisor. Rogers, an African-American male, was hired in 2007 as a value stream manager. Speights, Iris Fidel, and Jennifer Williams, all African-American females, were employed as assemblers. Of the three quality engineers employed in November 2008, Yataive Harris is an African-American male, Marisol Sade is Hispanic, and Ahmad Allaoui is from Morocco. After resigning from Respondent, Petitioner was able to secure a position in her field with General Dynamics.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Marty Denis, Esquire Barlow, Kobata & Denis 525 West Monroe Street, Suite 2360 Chicago, Illinois 60661 Bruce A. Minnick, Esquire The Minnick Law Firm Post Office Box 15588 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5588 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Frank Bowder began his employment with Exports, Inc., under the tutelage of Kenneth L. Kellar, President and sole stockholder of Exports, Inc., at the office in Washington state approximately 20 years ago. He became very knowledgeable about the company's business, and approximately 15 years ago he was sent by Kellar to operate the company's Florida office. He was given the title of general manager of the Florida office and remained an excellent employee until his recent death. Kellar considered Frank Bowder to be an excellent manager of the product of Exports, Inc., but recognized that Frank Bowder had a large turnover of employees. His wife Mae Bowder was also an employee of Exports, Inc., and was considered by Kellar to be "the best cleaning woman there is." She was in charge of cleaning and maintenance duties at the Florida office. At some point Mae Bowder began representing to people that she was the office manager of the Florida office. That information was brought to Kellar's's attention on several occasions, and he corrected that information by explaining that she was simply in charge of maintenance. At some point Mae Bowder's son, Wayne Evans, became employed by the Bowders in the Florida office and was given the title of warehouse manager. Within the last several years, Frank Bowder allowed his wife to "become" the office manager. When Kellar found out, he fired her because he believed that she was "not office material." Approximately a year later Kellar found out that Mae Bowder was once again the office manager. He spoke to Frank about it, and Frank explained, essentially, that Mae was giving him so many problems at home about it that he had to hire her back. Kellar fired her once again. Sometime thereafter, Kellar found out that Frank was ill. He came to the Florida office and discovered Mae Bowder once again employed as "office manager." He again discussed the matter with Frank and determined the extent of Frank's illness, which was terminal. He told Frank that Frank was too ill to be running the office full time and told Frank that he should only come to the office a few hours a day. Frank responded that he did not know what to do about his wife. Kellar then went to Mae Bowder and discussed with her the fact that he only wanted Frank to be at the office a few hours a day and that it was too difficult for Frank to continue working full time. He also told Mae Bowder that she should be staying home and taking care of Frank because Frank was so sick. Mae Bowder specifically asked Kellar if he were firing her, and Kellar responded "no" but that she should be staying home to take care of her husband. Mae Bowder "got in a huff," threatened two of the female office personnel, and left. Kellar did not see her again until the final hearing in this cause. Kellar began investigating the operations of the Florida office at that point and began discussing with the other employees there how the office had been managed. He discovered problems. He was told that the Bowders gave highly preferential treatment to Wayne Evans in comparison to the other employees. He discovered that Mrs. Bowder did not like to hire black employees, and the black employees who were hired were not given keys to the office. There was a stated policy by Mrs. Bowder to not hire people with children. Specifically, one black employee did not tell Mrs. Bowder that she had a child when she was hired. When she later became pregnant, Mrs. Bowder was furious. The employee was given one month for unpaid maternity leave and when she called at the end of that month, Mrs. Bowder told her she had been laid off. When she called two months later, the time by which her baby who was sick could be left with someone else, Mrs. Bowder returned her call a week later telling her she could come back to work because another black employee had left. Lastly, the other employees reported that Mrs. Bowder would yell and curse at them, threaten to hit them with an upraised hand, and even pushed and shoved an employee on one occasion because that employee had made a mistake in her work. The employees had previously not made these complaints because they could have only complained to the general manager who was the husband of the person about whom they would be complaining. Kellar brought an employee from the Washington office down to the Florida office to assist Frank Bowder and continued to pay Frank Bower his salary until he died. No evidence was offered that Kellar would not have continued to pay Mae Bowder her salary if she had reduced her hours in order to take care of Frank rather than walking out when Kellar tried to discuss the matter with her. No one else was present when Kellar and Mae Bowder had their discussion at the time when Mae Bowder resigned. Later that day, according to her son, Kellar made a comment that the Bowders had been the last of the married couples working for the company. Such a statement, if it were made, is susceptible of many interpretations, including sadness for the end of an era. Kellar did not fire Mae Bowder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Exports, Inc., not guilty of committing an unlawful employment practice and dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief filed in this cause. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. McGlynn, Esquire 4633 10th Avenue North Lake Worth, Florida 33463 Kenneth L. Kellar President/Owner Exports, Inc. Post Office Box 449 Blaine, WA 98230 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner as stated in the Petition for Relief in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following facts were established by clear and convincing evidence: Respondent, Atria Windsor Woods, provides retirement and assisted living facilities and employs more than 15 persons. Petitioner, Judith Monteiro, was hired as a housekeeper in 2002 at the age of 57. On or about November 29, 2006, Petitioner was discharged from her employment with Respondent. She was advised that she was discharged for violating company policy regarding entering an apartment while the occupant was absent due to hospitalization. Petitioner testified that she entered an apartment of an absent occupant when she smelled spoiled food, disposed of the spoiled food, and reported the matter to her supervisor. On the following day, a theft of approximately $150.00 was reported from the apartment. Petitioner appears to be the victim of disgruntled relatives of the apartment's occupant who, apparently, complained about the purported theft to Respondent and confusing rules about when to enter an unoccupied apartment and who was authorized to enter an unoccupied apartment. Petitioner presented no direct or circumstantial evidence that her discharge was based on age, sex, or any other right actionable under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Respondent, Atria Windsor Woods, did not discriminate against Petitioner, Judith Monteiro, and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2009, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas J. Birchfield, Esquire Fisher and Phillips, LLP 220 West Main Street, Suite 2000 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Judith Monteiro 13738 Lavender Avenue Hudson, Florida 34667
The Issue The issues are whether the Respondents committed unlawful employment practices against Petitioner, and if so, to what relief is she entitled.
Findings Of Fact In the spring of 1994, Respondent CSD began operating a residential detention program for juvenile offenders pursuant to a contract with the Department of Juvenile Justice. The purpose of the program, commonly known as Hamilton House, was to provide redirection to the lives of its youthful residents/clients. Hamilton House had 48 beds divided between two dormitories. Respondent CSD assigned each resident to the appropriate dormitory, level six or level eight, depending on the type of security and rehabilitative services required. The program included an educational program as well as facilities for vocational and recreational activities. Respondent CSD employed Petitioner, a 51 year-old white female, as a resident advisor at Hamilton House from March 24, 1994 through June 30, 1996. Petitioner initially worked the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift in the level six dormitory. At times she served as the acting shift supervisor though she was not paid a supervisor's wages. When Petitioner began working for Respondent CSD, she lived with her elderly mother, Lotus Musgrove, whose colon cancer was in remission. At that time, Mrs. Musgrove was able to live independently and did not need a caretaker. On April 24, 1994, some of the clients managed to gain access to a bottle containing an alcoholic beverage. Petitioner and other employees received a verbal warning for failing to adequately monitor the behavior and movement of the clients. A training letter was placed in each employee's personnel file. In May of 1995, Respondent CSD hired Bobby Williams, Sr., as a resident advisor in the level eight dormitory. Mr. Williams is a black male. He eventually assumed the position of shift supervisor for the entire facility. There is no evidence that Petitioner sought this full-time position or a similar supervisory position at any time during her employment with Respondent CSD. In October of 1995, some of the clients accused Petitioner and another staff member of inappropriate conduct including, but not limited to, furnishing them with prohibited magazines and movies. As a result of the allegations, Respondent CSD suspended Petitioner and her co-worker without pay on October 18, 1995. By letter dated October 20, 1995, Respondent CSD advised Petitioner in writing that there was insufficient evidence of misconduct to warrant termination of her employment. However, the letter stated that Petitioner had violated company policy and procedure by allowing a youth to leave his room for extended periods after curfew. Respondent CSD paid Petitioner and her co- worker for the time they were suspended during the internal investigation. Respondent CSD subsequently reassigned Petitioner and her co-worker to work in a different dormitory and on a different shift. The change in time and location of their work shift was necessary to ensure there was no contact between them and the clients who had accused them of improper conduct. Petitioner was assigned to work the 3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. shift in the level eight dormitory. In a written statement dated October 23, 1995, Petitioner objected to the change in her shift. She preferred to continue working the 11:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. shift. She asserted that, during the day, she took care of her 78 year-old mother who had cancer. Respondent CSD did not immediately honor Petitioner's request. On or about November 24, 1995, Petitioner voluntarily purchased some supplies in the amount of $20.98 from a retail store. The supplies included the following: hand sprayers, cotton swabs, hydrogen peroxide, rubbing alcohol, highlighters, marker, Sharpies, and other miscellaneous items. Petitioner requested reimbursement from Respondent CSD because she intended to use the supplies at work. Respondent CSD declined to reimburse Petitioner for the supplies. There is no evidence that Respondent CSD ever authorized the purchase of the supplies. On December 11, 1995, a resident in the level eight dormitory attempted to discard a container of contraband tobacco. Petitioner detected his effort and responded appropriately. She received a letter of commendation for exemplary action which was placed in her personnel file. On January 23, 1996, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Juvenile Justice made a formal and final determination that "[i]t is inconclusive that staff members Julie Toughton and Alice Musgrove engaged in improper conduct with clients." On or about February 1, 1996, Petitioner took a box of pens and pencils from a client's desk. The client became upset and exhibited inappropriate behavior toward Petitioner. As a result of the client's tantrum, Petitioner took token-economy points from the client. Petitioner filed a written complaint dated February 4, 1996, with Respondent CSD after learning that one of her supervisors, Mike Myers, changed the client's point sheet. Petitioner's February 4, 1996, statement also asserted that Supervisor Myers was mishandling clients' mail. She complained that he was logging clients' mail and making the clients read their personnel mail to him. According to Petitioner, handling client mail was the responsibility of "line staff." On one occasion in February 1996, Petitioner was 30 minutes late reporting to her assigned duty station in the dormitory. She spent that time in the administration building because she refused to work with one of her co-workers. Supervisor Myers was responsible for changing Petitioner's time sheet to reflect a 30-minute deduction in regular time. On another occasion in February 1996, Petitioner and other employees worked two hours of overtime due to a crisis situation with one of the clients. Petitioner elected to "bank" the overtime rather than receive time-and-one-half of overtime pay. The other employees chose to receive overtime pay. Petitioner was off from work on February 22-23, 1996. When Petitioner arrived at work on February 24, 1996, her time sheet was not with the time sheets of other employees. Petitioner's time sheet was locked in a supervisor's office until February 26, 1996, because the supervisor was not at work. There is no indication in the record whether Petitioner's time sheet was locked up inadvertently or due to a dispute over Petitioner's wages. On March 1, 1996, Petitioner filed a written grievance with Respondent CSD regarding her pay. She claimed that Supervisor Myers was harassing her and discriminating against her by changing her time sheet without her knowledge. Specifically, Petitioner complained that Mr. Myers cheated her out of 30 minutes of regular time on one occasion and two hours of overtime on another occasion. She complained that her time sheet was locked in a supervisor's office for four days. On March 4, 1996, the Program Director, Dale Edwards, agreed that Petitioner should not be penalized for one-half hour of regular pay because she was in the administration building during the disputed time. Additionally, Mr. Edwards directed Supervisor Myers not to change an employee's time sheet without prior approval. He also requested that Petitioner furnish documentation that the company owed her for the two hours of overtime. Mr. Edwards was under the mistaken impression that the dispute over Petitioner's time sheet had been resolved. In March of 1996, Petitioner was working the midnight shift in dormitory eight consistent with her written request dated October 23, 1995. On March 18, 1996 and March 27, 1996, Petitioner made written requests for a change to the 7:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. shift. Petitioner specifically wanted to replace a Ms. Aikens on the morning shift. Respondent CSD did not honor Petitioner's request. However, there is no evidence showing that Ms. Aiken's position was ever filled, and if so, whether Respondent CSD selected a person of a different race or a younger to file the position. Petitioner was absent from work between April 8, 1996, and April 16, 1996, on April 22, 1996, and on April 29, 1996, due to illness and/or medical appointments. While she was absent, her inner-office mail box became so full that the mail had to be removed. The administrative manager gave Petitioner's mail to her supervisor. On April 23, 1996, Supervisor Myers completed Petitioner's annual performance appraisal for the period March 14, 1995 through March 14, 1996. Petitioner disagreed with the determination that she had difficulty communicating with others. Petitioner's mental health counselor, Christine Clark, sent Mr. Edwards an unsolicited letter dated April 23, 1996. According to the letter, Ms. Clark was treating Petitioner for family/employment related stress reduction. The letter states as follows in pertinent part: Due to the demands of her home environment, caretaking of her elderly mother who is dying from colon cancer, I am recommending that Ms. Musgrove be reassigned new working hours, namely a day schedule of approximately 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM in order to effectively and efficiently facilitate the evening and night care of her mother. In addition, Ms. Musgrove appears to have unresolved issues regarding her personnel file and salary still due to her for 30 minutes or .5 hour pay as well as two hours uncompensated work from several weeks ago. I personally read your approval for this compensation but apparently this has still not yet been indicated on her pay check. There also remain the allegations of her misconduct charges that appears not to be fully resolved. As an employee she does have the legal right to have these fully addressed and challenged. From my understanding that although the misconduct charges have been dropped, there are still areas that compromise Ms. Musgrove's reputation as a resident advisor. Mr. Edwards did not disclose the contents of Ms. Clark's letter to any employee of Respondent CSD other than his superiors, who advised him to get a release from Petitioner before responding to the letter. After receiving Ms. Clark's letter, Mr. Edwards had a telephone conversation with Petitioner's mother because Petitioner was not at work or at home. During the conversation, Mr. Edwards inquired about the mother's health. Mr. Edwards learned that Mrs. Musgrove's cancer had been in remission since 1993 and that she no longer required assistance with daily living activities. Mr. Edwards did not disclose any information regarding Petitioner's employment status, medical condition, or personal business to Mrs. Musgrove. Petitioner's sister placed an unsolicited telephone call to Mr. Edwards several days after he talked to Mrs. Musgrove. The purpose of the call was to thank Mr. Edwards for his concern over Mrs. Musgrove's health. During the telephone call, Mr. Edwards and Petitioner's sister did not exchange any information relating to Petitioner's employment, medical condition, or personal business. On April 29, 1996, all staff at Hamilton House received a memorandum advising them as follows, in pertinent part: As a result of the recent competitive bid conducted by District 3, Department of Juvenile Justice, Gator Human Services has been awarded the contract to operate the Hamilton County Youth Treatment Complex starting July 1, 1996. The memorandum also included information regarding the transfer of operations to the new service provider. Respondent CSD advised employees that, if requested, it would supply Gator Human Services the name, position title, hire date, and current salary of each employee of record. Respondent CSD stated that no other information would be given to the new organization without the consent of the employee. On May 1, 1996, Mr. Edwards wrote two memoranda regarding Petitioner's pay. First, Mr. Edwards directed the administrative manager to pay Petitioner for .5 hours of regular wages out of the company's petty cash fund and to get a receipt for the payment. Second, he directed the resident life manager to allow Petitioner to leave work two hours early (with pay) at a time of her choosing within the next work week. Petitioner could not "bank" the time indefinitely because Respondent CSD's contract was scheduled to expire on June 30, 1996. Mr. Edwards phoned Petitioner at home on May 2, 1996, to request a written release so that he could respond to Ms. Clark's letter. Petitioner wrote that release on May 3, 1996. The release gave Mr. Edwards permission to disclose confidential information to Ms. Clark. On May 3, 1996, Petitioner signed a written acknowledgment that receipt of $4.06 in payment for .5 regular hours would end the issue of the .5 regular hours owed to her. On May 10, 1996, Respondent Gator informed the staff at Hamilton House of the procedure for handling applications for employment with Respondent Gator's new program, Tiger Success Center. Applications were due on or before May 28, 1996. Interviews were to be scheduled between May 28, 1996, and June 7, 1996. Applicants would be advised of the final selections and employment offers by June 14, 1996. Respondent Gator requested that each applicant take a copy of their most recent performance appraisal to their employment interview. By letter dated May 13, 1996, Mr. Edwards responded to Ms. Clark's inquiry. First, he explained that questions regarding Petitioner's compensation had been resolved. Second, he stated that letters from the Department of Juvenile Justice and from the Office of the Inspector General had been added to Petitioner's personnel file, clearing her of all misconduct allegations. Third, he explained that the day shift would be the least desirable shift in terms of stress reduction because the activity level of the residents is highest during the day. Mr. Edwards also revealed that Petitioner's mother was treated successfully for cancer in 1993 and that her current health failed to support the need for a change in Petitioner's shift. Finally, Mr. Edwards noted that he had to consider the needs of the residents and other staff. A copy of Ms. Clark's inquiry and Mr. Edwards' response were placed in Petitioner's personnel file. Neither of the documents were disclosed to unauthorized persons. On May 22, 1996, the employees at Hamilton House received another memorandum advising them that after June 30, 1996, Respondent CSD would no longer operate the facility. The employees were encouraged to apply for employment with the new organization. Petitioner was scheduled for an employment interview on May 30, 1996. However, the interview was rescheduled because she was unable to keep the appointment. Petitioner's application for employment with Respondent Gator is dated May 31, 1996. She also furnished Respondent Gator with copies of three performance appraisals. Petitioner's signature on the application authorized Respondent Gator to make inquiries of references and former employers regarding her general character and past performance. There is no evidence that Respondent Gator ever made any such inquiries about Petitioner. A panel of three people representing Respondent Gator interviewed Petitioner. The panel asked her the same questions that they asked other applicants. Petitioner was very negative and critical of the existing program and Respondent CSD during her interview. After the interview, each member of the interview panel tallied their score sheets independently. All three agreed that Petitioner should not be given further consideration for employment with Respondent Gator because of her negative attitude and low interview scores. On June 13, 1996, Petitioner received a memorandum from Respondent Gator stating that the company was unable to offer her a position of employment. That same day, Respondent Gator offered employment to every other Hamilton House staff applicant except one black male, Mr. Humphrey. Respondent Gator hired a black female, Latasha Bristol, who worked in the level eight dormitory with Petitioner. Ms. Bristol is younger than Petitioner. However, she was not hired to replace Petitioner. Respondent Gator hired Ms. Bristol to work in the level six dormitory. Respondent Gator offered an employment position to a white female, Lucy Oxendine. Ms. Oxendine was over 60 years old at the time. She declined to accept a job with Respondent Gator for personal reasons. Mr. Edwards was hired by Respondent Gator to continue as program director after July 1, 1996. However, neither he nor any other employee of Respondent CSD shared any information about Petitioner with Respondent Gator or had any input into Respondent Gator's decision not to hire Petitioner. Respondent Gator based its decision not to employ Petitioner solely on the results of her interview which was very negative. On June 14, 1996, the staff at Hamilton House received a memorandum stating that anyone interested in accepting employment with Respondent Gator must sign up on June 19, 1996. On June 14, 1996, Petitioner's doctor faxed a medical excuse to Respondent CSD stating that Petitioner could not return to work for an undetermined period of time. The document indicates that Petitioner's diagnosis involved anxiety, depression, and work-related stress. The doctor commented that Petitioner was the primary caretaker of her mother who was terminally ill with cancer. The doctor's June 14, 1996, fax was received by Respondent CSD in the administrative manager's office. It was on her desk for a brief period of time before it was delivered to Mr. Edwards. There is no credible evidence that any employee of Respondent CSD disclosed the contents of the fax to unauthorized persons. Petitioner's doctor did not give her permission to return to work until after July 1, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that FCHR enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's Charges of Discrimination against both Respondent CSD and Respondent Gator. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: H. B. Stivers, Esquire Levine and Stivers 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Faye Musgrove Post Office Box 657 Live Oak, Florida 32064 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Black male. Respondent is a staffing company that contracts with third party employers. Over 80 percent of Respondent’s employees are Black. After Respondent matches a candidate with a job opening, the third-party employer interviews the candidate for employment. If the candidate is employed by the third party, the employee must abide by the third-party employer’s policies as well as the employment policies of Respondent. Petitioner was hired by Respondent some time in January 2008. Respondent requires all employees to notify Respondent of his or her absence prior to that employee’s scheduled report time for their employment. Respondent also requires that all employees report to work at their scheduled report time. Failure to either call in or show up for work is known as a ‘no call/no show’. The employment policies of Respondent reflect that a “no call/no show” is grounds for termination. Petitioner received a copy of Respondent’s employee handbook, which included the “no call/no show” provision. He was also aware of Respondent’s “no call/no show” policy. Around January 14, 2008, Respondent successfully matched Petitioner with a position at BR Williams Trucking Company (BR Williams). Like Respondent, BR Williams maintains a policy of termination when an employee fails to show up for work or does not call in prior to the start of the work day to report their absence. Petitioner’s scheduled report time for BR Williams was 7:00 a.m. On March 3, 2008, Petitioner contacted Respondent’s Regional Sales Manager, Diane Jarrett, to report that he had overheard a racial slur that a White employee, Harry Hingson, had made to another employee. Like Petitioner, Mr. Hingson had been placed at BR Williams by Respondent and was an employee of both Respondent and BR Williams. Ms. Jarrett sent Respondent’s Human Resources Assistant, Annis Herndon, to BR Williams to terminate Mr. Hingson for having made the racial slur. She met with Mr. Wilkinson, BR Williams’ manager. Mr. Hingson was terminated from BR Williams. Neither Ms. Jarrett nor Ms. Herndon disclosed that Petitioner had reported Mr. Hingson’s racial slur to her. After the termination, Mr. Wilkinson mentioned to a group of employees, including Petitioner, that he hated to fire Mr. Hingson because “everybody needs a job.” The evidence did not demonstrate that Mr. Wilkinson said that “once he found out who did this, they will pay.” Petitioner felt that Mr. Wilkinson was talking to him or targeting him because Mr. Wilkinson looked him in the eyes during the meeting. Mr. Wilkinson did not testify at the hearing. As a consequence, there is no competent evidence regarding Mr. Wilkinson’s intent showing any look he may or may not have given Petitioner. On March 24, 2008, Petitioner worked his regular shift at BR Williams. On the evening of March 24, 2008, Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DUI) and was held in jail overnight. He was released two days later on March 26, 2008. On March 25, 2008, Petitioner was scheduled to begin his shift at 7 a.m. Petitioner did not report to work as scheduled because he was in jail. Petitioner also did not call Respondent to report his absence prior to the beginning of his shift or during the morning of March 25, 2008. Mr. Wilkinson called Respondent around 9:00 a.m. and reported that Petitioner was not at work and had not called in. He did not know where Petitioner was. Respondent could not locate Petitioner at his home. Mr. Wilkinson instructed Respondent that if he or Respondent did not hear from Petitioner before noon, Petitioner was terminated for not showing up at work and not calling in. About 1:00 p.m., after Petitioner was terminated by BR Williams, Petitioner called Respondent collect from jail. He was advised that he had been terminated from BR Williams. After speaking with Petitioner, Respondent called BR Williams to report that Petitioner had called in after noon and that she had told him that he had been terminated from BR Williams. Respondent did not tell Petitioner that he was terminated from Cardinal Staffing. BR Williams’ decision to terminate Petitioner was not based on his race or his complaint regarding Mr. Hingson’s racial slur. Indeed, there was no competent evidence to suggest that Petitioner was terminated from BR Williams for any reason other than he was in jail, and did not report to work as scheduled. Petitioner was not terminated from Cardinal Staffing. Petitioner left a message on Respondent’s answering machine on March 27 or March 28, 2008. Return calls by Respondent could not be left at the numbers that Respondent had for Petitioner. He did not contact Respondent again until August 2008, at which time there were no positions available for him. Importantly, Petitioner was not terminated from Respondent. As with all Respondent’s employees, Petitioner had the responsibility of calling Respondent as often as possible to check if other employment opportunities were available. If Petitioner had contacted Respondent to seek placement during April–June, 2008, and if a placement for which Petitioner was qualified had been available, Respondent would have sent him for an interview with the prospective employer. Indeed, it was Petitioner’s lack of action that caused him to miss any employment opportunities that may have been available to him during April – June, 2008. After August 2008, Petitioner did not contact Respondent to seek other employment opportunities. Petitioner identified two non-minority employees that were terminated from their third-party employer jobs and received new assignments with another of Respondent’s clients. The two employees were Jason Whibble and Sherita Cheshire. Neither of these employees was similarly situated to Petitioner. Mr. Whibble was terminated for having a felony conviction involving multiple traffic tickets. Ms. Cheshire was terminated because she could not perform her job duties. After termination, both employees called in on a daily or weekly basis to check to see if any job openings were available. In this case, Petitioner was terminated for a very different reason from BR Williams. Petitioner also did not frequently call Respondent to check for job openings that might be available to him. Indeed, Petitioner has not identified any similarly situated non-Black employee of Respondent’s who was terminated from an employment assignment on the basis of an employer’s “no call/no show” policy and was treated more favorably than Petitioner. The evidence was clear that Petitioner was not terminated from Cardinal Staffing and failed to maintain frequent contact with them. Clearly, Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner. Given these facts, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
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 29th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter Jan Pietruszka, Esquire Shumaker Loop & Kendrick 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2800 Tampa, Florida 33602 Melvin Lee Butler 40 Jack Scott Road Quincy, Florida 32351 Robert E. Larkin, III, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent City of Gainesville committed an unlawful employment practice when it terminated Petitioner's employment.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a white male. Petitioner's employment as a police officer was terminated by Respondent City of Gainesville on September 17, 2008. On the evening of June 26, 2008, Petitioner was voluntarily working an extra duty assignment at the Super Wal- Mart store on Northeast 12th Avenue in Gainesville. Wal-Mart had been experiencing problems with juveniles entering the store in large groups and causing disturbances and property damage. At approximately 11:15 p.m., Ms. Felicia Stallworth, a black female, pulled into a handicapped-parking space and hung her handicapped-parking decal from her rear-view mirror. She was accompanied by two children: her twelve-year-old son and her seven-year-old niece. At the time, Petitioner, who was in uniform and wearing his badge, was engaged in conversation with the occupants of a vehicle parked in another handicapped-parking space. Stallworth and the children exited her vehicle and began walking to the store's entrance. Because Stallworth was talking on her cell phone while she was walking, she heard Petitioner say something but did not know what he said. She stopped walking and asked him what he wanted. Petitioner rudely and loudly demanded to see her documentation to prove she was entitled to park in a handicapped-parking space. Stallworth complied by walking back to her vehicle, sitting in the driver's seat with the driver's door open, and retrieving her handicapped-parking registration from her glove compartment. While she was doing so, Petitioner, who was standing just outside the car door, was shining a flashlight into her car so that it was shining in her face. She told him several times to move the flashlight because she could not see, but he ignored her and continued to shine it in the same manner. Concerned for the safety of the children who were standing at the back of the car on the passenger side, she instructed the children to get back in the car so as to be out of the path of passing vehicles. Petitioner rudely and loudly told them to stand in front of the car instead. The children complied. Stallworth retrieved the registration and handed it to Petitioner. She also handed him her placard. She then attempted to get out of the car so she could put her purse on the hood of the car so she could find her driver's license. As she stood up, Petitioner crossed his arms in front of his chest in a blocking motion and, using them, shoved her forcefully against her car and then down into the driver's seat. Her glasses were knocked askew, and the side of her face and earlobe began to burn, likely from being scraped against the doorframe. After she was shoved back into her car, Stallworth was able to find her driver's license in her purse, and she handed it to Petitioner. When Petitioner finished examining her placard, her placard registration, and her driver's license, he handed the documents back to Stallworth and told her to have a nice day. Petitioner walked to the door of the store, turned and looked at Stallworth, and stood there, apparently laughing at her. Some of the numerous witnesses to this encounter between Petitioner and Stallworth came up to her, inquired as to how she was, and walked into the store with her. Petitioner followed Stallworth while she was in the store. When Stallworth left the store, she saw Petitioner walk behind her car, write down her license tag, and then get into his vehicle. Stallworth thought he was "running her tag" and became afraid of what he might do to her next. She called a relative who worked for the Alachua County Sheriff's Office and asked that person to come to Wal- Mart and watch her leave. After calling, she went back into the Wal-Mart to wait. When she came out again, she and Petitioner did not interact. Before Petitioner shoved her against and then into her vehicle, Stallworth had made no threatening remark or gesture that would cause Petitioner to have any concern for his safety. After Stallworth returned to her home, her back started hurting, and her face and earlobe still burned. She telephoned the City of Gainesville Police Department and complained about Petitioner's unacceptable treatment of her. The complaint was forwarded to Sergeant Lance Yarbrough, the Sergeant on the midnight shift. At 1:45 a.m., when he had "cleared" the matter he was working on, he called Stallworth. She described what had happened, including Petitioner's demeanor and her injuries. She told Yarbrough she had obtained the names and telephone numbers of some of the witnesses who had seen the entire encounter. After attending to some additional duties, Yarbrough arrived at the Wal-Mart at 3:00 a.m. to talk to Petitioner about his use of force on a disabled person. Petitioner's version of what had happened essentially matched Stallworth's, including admitting he had "pinned" her to her vehicle. By the end of their conversation, Petitioner had become confrontational about defending what he had done and demanded of Yarbrough, "Do you have a problem with that?" Yarbrough answered Petitioner in the affirmative. Yarbrough tried to obtain a copy of Wal-Mart's video surveillance tape, but a copy of the tape could not be made by Wal-Mart employees at that hour. After he left Petitioner, Yarbrough, a white male, completed an Administrative Investigation Referral Form regarding Petitioner's treatment of Stallworth, which he considered a violation of the City's Policies and Procedures Number 19, Rule 19. That Form is, essentially, a referral to the police department's internal affairs office. He filed that form on June 27, 2008, in his name and in Stallworth's name. Stallworth filed her own form on that same date. Wal-Mart has a policy of releasing copies of its video surveillance tapes only to law enforcement officers conducting official business. Internal Affairs investigator Sergeant Jorge Campos, a white male, contacted Wal-Mart and arranged to obtain a copy of the video of Wal-Mart's parking lot showing Petitioner's encounter with Stallworth. When he later called Wal-Mart to make sure the copy was ready, he was told that another police officer had come to pick it up, and the copy had been given to him. Campos requested an additional copy and when he went there to pick up that copy, the Wal-Mart loss prevention employees showed Campos the video and also a video of Petitioner picking up the copy of the video that had been made for Campos. Since Petitioner had come there in a police car and in uniform, they had assumed that Petitioner was obtaining the copy of the video for official purposes. In fact, Petitioner never reported to the police department that he was conducting an investigation and that he had obtained evidence of his encounter with Stallworth. Further, he never turned over to the police department his copy of the video so it could be preserved as evidence in the evidence room, as required by department policy. Petitioner did not obtain the video for law enforcement purposes, therefore, but rather for personal purposes. Campos watched the copy of the surveillance video he had obtained from Wal-Mart in conjunction with his investigation. He also interviewed and obtained sworn statements from Yarbrough, from Stallworth, and from all of the identified witnesses who were willing to speak with him about what they saw. During the course of the internal affairs investigation, it was discovered that Petitioner had also repeatedly contacted Stallworth's personal physician, allegedly in his capacity as a police officer, to ascertain what Stallworth's disability was that would have made her eligible for a handicapped placard. Eventually, Petitioner did speak with a doctor in that office who disclosed Stallworth's disability. Campos attempted to interview Petitioner, but Petitioner called in sick and did not appear for the scheduled appointment. Campos' further attempts to interview Petitioner were unsuccessful. At the conclusion of his investigation, Campos prepared his report and consulted with the Chief of Police as to an appropriate disposition of the matter. It was concluded that Petitioner had violated Rule 19 regarding his encounter with Stallworth by his (1) excessive use of force, (2) obtaining a video recording under the color of a law enforcement officer for personal use, and (3) obtaining medical information under the color of a law enforcement officer without proper legal service. It was determined that Petitioner's employment should be terminated. Policy 19, Rule 19 prohibits "[i]mmoral, unlawful, or improper conduct or indecency, whether on or off the job[,] which would tend to affect the employee's relationship to his/her job, fellow workers' reputations or goodwill in the community." The range of penalties for the first offense is from instruction plus 5 days' suspension up through dismissal, and for the second offense is dismissal. Petitioner exercised his right to file a grievance regarding his termination and participated in a multi-level grievance process within the City. His grievance was unsuccessful, and he was terminated from his employment as a police officer. At no time during Petitioner's conversation with Sergeant Yarbrough, during the internal affairs investigation, or during the City's grievance process did Petitioner raise any allegation of disparate or discriminatory treatment of him by the City due to his race or his sex. Sergeants Yarbrough and Campos are, like Petitioner, white males.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of July, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Daniel M. Nee, Esquire City of Gainesville 200 East University Avenue, Suite 425 Gainesville, Florida 32601-5456 Jarrod Rappaport 402 Northwest 48th Boulevard Gainesville, Florida 32607 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
