The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his race in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, when Petitioner was an employee of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact From November 2004 until early 2008, which period includes all times relevant to this case, Petitioner Robinson Nelson ("Nelson") worked for Respondent Alutiiq-Mele, LLC ("AML") as a security guard. Nelson, who is black, alleges that on two discrete occasions, AML unlawfully discriminated against him based on race, once denying him an overtime shift which he requested, and the other time refusing to assign him "equal work hours." The first incident allegedly took place on "or about March 1, 2005." According to Nelson, he called his supervisor that day, using a telephone at his workstation, to ask that he be scheduled to work overtime on his day off. The supervisor, Nelson claims, told him that overtime had been "eliminated" and denied Nelson's request. Shortly thereafter, as Nelson tells it, the supervisor called Nelson's coworker, Nadja Abreu, and offered her the overtime that Nelson had just been denied. Nelson's story cannot be squared with AML's records, which the undersigned considers reliable and truthful and hence credits. Nelson's timesheet for the week of February 27 through March 5, 2005, shows (and it is found) that he worked all seven days that week, putting in 40 regular hours and 26 overtime hours. Ms. Abreu's timesheet for the same period shows (and it is found) that she worked four days, accruing 40 regular hours and four overtime hours. At hearing, Nelson claimed (apparently for the first time) that the telephone conversation with his supervisor regarding overtime had not occurred on or about March 1, 2005—— as he had alleged originally in his Charge of Discrimination (signed on November 20, 2005) and maintained as recently as the Joint Prehearing Stipulation (dated May 30, 2008)——but rather some two weeks later, on or about March 15, 2005. Again, however, credible contemporaneous records belie Nelson's claim. A payroll document shows (and it is found) that Nelson and Ms. Abreu each worked 40 regular hours during the week of March 13, 2005——and neither put in overtime. (Moreover, Nelson did not work on March 15 and 16, 2005, which means that, if Nelson called his supervisor on March 15, as he asserted at hearing, then he likely would not have been at his workstation at the time, which is inconsistent with his testimony that he placed the call while at work.) Regarding the second alleged incident of discrimination, Nelson claims that on Monday, October 31, 2005, shortly before 9:00 a.m., he received a telephone call at home from his supervisor, who wanted to know why Nelson had failed to report for work that morning. Nelson says he told his supervisor that he had not been scheduled to work that day, and he could not work because he was babysitting. Nelson complains that, in connection with this situation, AML "denied" him regular work hours because of his race. In addition to being facially illogical, Nelson's claim of discrimination is contradicted by reliable and persuasive documentary evidence. First, AML's payroll record shows (and it is found) that Nelson worked four hours on Sunday, October 30, and seven-and-a-half hours each day the next Tuesday through Friday, making a total 34 regular hours during the week of October 30, 2005. While this was not quite a full-time workweek, that Nelson worked fewer than 40 hours one week is not, of itself, proof that AML "denied" him six hours of work. In fact, AML did not "deny" Nelson a work opportunity, as other contemporaneous documents——not to mention Nelson's own testimony——show. In evidence are two work schedules pertaining to the week of October 30, 2005. One was printed on October 28, 2005, and the other on October 30, 2005. There are a number of differences between them; each, however, notes that "scheduled hours are subject to change as needed." On the earlier schedule, Nelson was to be off on Monday, October 31, 2005. On the subsequent schedule, he was to work from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. that day. Had Nelson reported to work on October 31, 2005, as (ultimately) scheduled——and as he was asked to do——Nelson would have worked more than 40 hours the week of October 30, 2005. Ultimate Factual Determinations Taken as a whole, the evidence in this case is either insufficient to establish that AML discriminated unlawfully against Nelson on the basis of his race; or it proves, affirmatively, that AML did not, in all likelihood, unlawfully discriminate against him. Either way, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that AML did not violate the civil rights laws in its treatment of Nelson while he was an employee of AML.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order finding AML not liable to Nelson for racial discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Erwin Rosenberg, Esquire Post Office Box 416433 Miami Beach, Florida 33141 Christine L. Wilson, Esquire Jennifer A. Schwartz, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practices alleged in Petitioner's charge of discrimination and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is now, and has been since June 2008, employed as a "per diem" switchboard operator at Holy Cross Hospital. She was employed as a part-time switchboard (PBX) operator in University's PBX Department from July 25, 2005, until she resigned on October 26, 2008.6 As a University switchboard operator, Petitioner was responsible for answering and appropriately handling and routing, with dispatch, incoming calls (including "codes," which are emergency calls) to University's switchboard during her shift. The manager of University's PBX Department when Petitioner was hired was Eleanor Dingus. At no time did Ms. Dingus have occasion to discipline Petitioner, nor did Ms. Dingus ever receive any complaints from other operators about Petitioner's "performance on the switchboard." Gloria Gonzalez replaced Ms. Dingus as the PBX manager in July 2006, and has held that position ever since. At all times material to the instant case, directly under Ms. Gonzalez in the chain of command in University's PBX Department was Cathy Hudson, the PBX supervisor. Reporting to Ms. Hudson were three switchboard operators who served as "team leaders," one of whom was Miriam Reyes. At the bottom of the chain of command were Petitioner and approximately three other non-"team leader" switchboard operators. The PBX Department provided switchboard services on a 24-hour per day, seven-days a week, basis. At all times, there was either one operator or two operators (each using separate "consoles") taking calls. When there were two operators on duty, one operator's not picking up calls, or "staying on a call for an unusually long amount of time," would result in the other operator's having "more calls to pick up." Petitioner primarily worked the evening shift. "Sometimes she worked alone," and sometimes she worked a shift with another operator. In August 2007, Petitioner received a merit pay increase to $11.90 per hour (from $11.55 per hour) based upon an annual performance appraisal Ms. Gonzalez had completed on July 10, 2007. The appraisal contained the following "Evaluation Summary": Evaluation Summary Strengths/accomplishments: Gladys is a good operator. Very responsible and always on time. Areas for growth: Gladys needs to [acc]ept our Departmental changes in a much more positive manner and not get caught up with the small stuff or negativity in our Dept. This was the last annual performance appraisal that Petitioner received prior to her resignation on October 26, 2008, notwithstanding that, pursuant to written University policy, University employees were supposed to "receive an evaluation at least annually, normally twelve months from their anniversary date (date of hire) or last change of position date (promotion, lateral move, and demotion) . . . in order . . . to monitor adherence to performance standards to manage, develop and motivate individual performance." Prior to her 2007 annual evaluation of Petitioner, Ms. Gonzalez had started receiving complaints about Petitioner's performance from operators who had shared shifts with Petitioner. Over time, the complaints became more numerous. According to what the operators had told Ms. Gonzalez, Petitioner had been "slow answering [calls]"; kept "the switchboard on busy"; "take[n] her time getting to the switchboard at times"; and on occasion, "stay[ed] [on] too long with a caller." These were things that Ms. Gonzalez herself had personally observed. Initially, Ms. Gonzalez just verbally counseled Petitioner about these issues. Petitioner "would sometimes get upset" during these counseling sessions. In November 2007, Petitioner was formally disciplined for "unsatisfactory performance regarding receiving calls." The discipline she received was in the form of a "written warning" contained in a Notice of Corrective Action prepared by Ms. Hudson (the PBX supervisor and Ms. Gonzalez's second-in- command) and approved by Ms. Gonzalez. Petitioner was given a 30-day (probationary) period to improve her performance. The decision to place Petitioner on probation was made jointly by Ms. Gonzalez and Jennifer Lindsey, University's human resources operations manager. Ms. Gonzalez monitored Petitioner's performance on the switchboard during her probationary period and determined that it had improved sufficiently to warrant Petitioner's return to non-probationary status, without the imposition of any further disciplinary action. Unfortunately, Petitioner's performance deficiencies subsequently "resurfaced." On May 20, 2008, after receiving a complaint about Petitioner from Ms. Reyes (one of Ms. Gonzalez's three "team leaders"), Ms. Gonzalez prepared and gave to Petitioner a Notice of Corrective Action, reflecting that she was issuing Petitioner a "verbal warning" for "[n]ot responding to the switchboard in a timely manner." The following "details of the . . . infraction" were given in the notice: Gladys was informed that she would take over the switchboard at 4 pm on 5/12/2008 for a department meeting. She did not turn her switchboard on at that time and calls started to accumulate. Miriam asked Gladys to take over the switchboard and Gladys did not do so with a sense of urgency. The expectation going forward is that Gladys will answer the switchboard as soon as it buzzes. The notice also contained the following "Corrective Action Plan": [On] 11/21/07 [Petitioner] was given 30 days for performance improvement and although the plan was completed on 1/9/08, previous performance concerns have resurfaced with the timely answering of the switchboard. It is our expectation that within 30 days we will be able to review her performance with answering calls and be able to notice significant improvement. When presented with the notice, Petitioner wrote on it, under "Employee Comments," the following: "This was one incident on our meeting day. I do remember when it occurred." The notice had been presented to Petitioner by Ms. Gonzalez at a meeting between the two at which Ms. Lindsey had also been present. As University's human resources operations manager, it was Ms. Lindsey's responsibility to make sure that employees met the physical requirements of their position and were otherwise fit for duty. One of the physical requirements of the position Petitioner held was to "[h]ear alarm, telephone/tape recorder/normal speaking voices." During the May 20, 2008, meeting at which Petitioner was presented with the Notice of Corrective Action, Ms. Lindsey "asked [Petitioner] if [Petitioner had] heard the switchboard." Petitioner "perceived th[is] as a statement of age discrimination by Ms. Lindsey"7 (albeit one that did not "affect [her] job"). Despite what Petitioner may have believed, in making such an inquiry, Ms. Lindsey was simply seeking to find out if the reason for Petitioner's not "timely answering . . . the switchboard" was that she had a hearing problem. Petitioner responded to Ms Lindsey's question by telling Ms. Lindsey that "she did hear the calls, but that . . . the calls pile up all the time." Ms. Lindsey required Petitioner to review a Position Minimum Requirement[s] Checklist. After reviewing the document, Petitioner signed it, indicating that she believed that she met all of the requirements of her position. Some time after the May 20, 2008, meeting, Ms. Gonzalez heard from Ms. Hudson that Ms. Reyes had reported being asked by Petitioner, in a confrontational manner, whether it was Ms. Reyes who had complained about Petitioner's "[n]ot responding to the switchboard in a timely manner" on May 12, 2008. Ms. Gonzalez thereafter personally contacted Ms. Reyes to find out what had happened during this post-May 20, 2008, incident involving Ms. Reyes and Petitioner. Ms. Reyes, when contacted, told Ms. Gonzalez that Petitioner had "threatened" her. The matter was brought to the attention to Ms. Lindsey, who made the decision to suspend Petitioner for three days. The suspension was "for the purpose of conducting a fact-finding investigation" to determine whether Petitioner, in her dealings with Ms. Reyes, had violated University's Workplace Violence Policy (HR-2000-009), which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: POLICY University Hospital and Medical Center is committed to providing a safe workplace for all employees, patients, physicians and visitors. Workplace violence of any type committed by or against employees, patients, physicians or visitors will not be tolerated. PROCEDURE A. To ensure safe and efficient operations, University Hospital and Medical Center expects and requires all employees to display common courtesy and engage in safe and appropriate behavior at all times. * * * The following list of behaviors, while not all inclusive, provides examples of conduct that is prohibited. * * * Making threatening remarks; Aggressive or hostile behavior that creates a reasonable fear of injury to another person or subjects another individual to emotional distress; * * * Reporting Procedures Any potentially dangerous situation must be reported to a Supervisor, Security Department or Human Resources. Reports can be made anonymously and all reported incidents will be investigated. Reports or incidents warranting confidentiality will be handled appropriately and information will be disclosed to others on a need-to-know basis only. All parties involved in a situation will be counseled and the results of the investigation will be discussed with them. Employees are expected to exercise good judgment and to inform Security and/or Human Resources if any employee, patient or visitor exhibits behavior which could be a sign of a potentially dangerous situation. Such behaviors include but are not limited to: * * * Displaying overt signs of extreme anger, hostility, resentment or stress; Making threatening remarks; * * * e. Display of irrational or inappropriate behavior. * * * During the investigation, Petitioner submitted to Ms. Lindsey a "rebuttal" statement, dated May 29, 2008, which read as follows: This serves as notification that I am in complete disagreement with any claims made about my work performance as stated by Gigi Gonzalez. Gigi stated on 5/20/08, with Jennifer Lindsey in HR as witness, that a team leader Miriam Reyes said there were two calls backed up on the switchboard when we were changing shifts on Monday 5/12/08. She had already signed off and was abruptly leaving the office without checking if I was logged in before she signed off. Both calls were answered without problem or complaint by the callers. It is a normal occurrence when more than one call comes in at once for them to be what she referred to as "backed up." Miriam signed off the switchboard before checking if I was signed on. I received a 30 day probation disciplinary action and she did not. Per our work instruction, an operator is not to leave the position before a relief operator is available. I find the comment made by Jennifer "can you still hear the phone" a discriminatory reference to my age of 76-years-old. Furthermore, I was called at home by Jennifer Lindsey on 5/29/08 [and] put on involuntary suspension without pay for 3 days. Jennifer claimed that since I asked Miriam what she said about the incident that it was inappropriate. I was not asked about the situation. Rather I was interrogated. I have a right to know what is causing a disciplinary action . . . on my record. I also have the right to dispute or state my complaints without retaliation. Unpaid suspension without a proper investigation was undue hardship and a measure of retaliation. Since I was told I must sign the probation notice whether I agree with it or not, I request this to be in my personnel file and sign[ed] as received and reviewed by my supervisor as previously stated orally in the said meeting on May 20, 2008. This claim is unwarranted and causes undue financial hardship. Following the completion of her investigation, Ms. Lindsey determined that there was "insufficient evidence" to conclude that Petitioner had violated University's Workplace Violence Policy. Petitioner was put back on her normal work schedule and paid for the three days she had been suspended (and had not worked). Ms. Lindsey's "insufficien[cy]" determination was set forth in the following written statement Petitioner was given (and which she signed) on June 5, 2008: After an investigation was conducted on the incident that occurred on May 23, 2008, it is concluded that a discussion between Gladys and a co-worker did take place regarding Gladys' verbal warning for performance on May 20th. Gladys does admit to questioning her co-worker regarding information she may have provided to the manager of PBX regarding her performance. There is insufficient evidence to support that Gladys threatened her co-worker or that she was verbally abusive in any way. In the future Gladys will restrict her conversations with Miriam to business- related activities. This means only communication that must take place for her to perform the functions of her job. Any unnecessary communications or interactions may result in disciplinary action. In the future it is expected that Gladys will follow the Employment Dispute Resolution policy HR 2006-416 to express any disputes or state any complaints that she may have. A copy of this policy is being presented to Gladys today for reference. Gladys will be paid for the days that she was suspended in order to conduct this investigation. In late June 2008, in accordance with the "Corrective Action Plan" set forth in the Notice of Corrective Action she had given Petitioner, Ms. Gonzalez reviewed Petitioner's performance in the area of "answering calls." Ms. Gonzalez, in a document that she prepared and presented to Petitioner on or about July 18, 2008, described the "results" of that review as follows: Operator Gladys Norris has completed her performance improvement plan as of Sunday 6/29/08. In the course of the 30 days, I have been able to observe Gladys on the switchboard. Gladys has improved greatly. She has answered the board much more quickly. She did not let the board pile up. She put the callers on hold and then came back to the calls. I am confident that Gladys understands and is taking seriously her switchboard duties. She is very much aware that whenever possible, we should not let the calls pile up as emergency codes come through the switchboard. At around this same time (mid-July 2008), Petitioner learned that she needed to have emergency vascular surgery, and she so informed Ms. Gonzalez via an e-mail message, sent the evening of July 17, 2008, which read, in pertinent part, as follows: * * * . . . . But last week I had to have some tests done rather quickly and unfortunately have to have an unexpected urgent surgery performed (vascular nature). The doctor called me late this afternoon and said he has scheduled me for next Wednesday July 23rd. At this writing I cannot say how long I will be out from work but he did say at least three or four weeks for recovery. I will keep you apprised of my situation. You may have me on medical leave also. I will not be working anywhere during my recovery period so I cannot list any hours right now. Petitioner was granted leave for this "unexpected urgent surgery," as well as for her "recovery period." When she returned to work from leave, Petitioner was given her work schedule for September, which had her working the hours and days she "usually worked." Her schedule for September, however, was subsequently changed and, to her displeasure, she had to work three "overnight," Saturday night/Sunday morning shifts (from 11:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m.) that month. She had never before, as a University employee, worked an "overnight" shift. When Petitioner asked Ms. Hudson why she had to work these "overnight" shifts, Ms. Hudson responded, "That's just the way it is." Up until September 18, 2008, throughout her employment at University, Petitioner had used a University-provided headset when working at the switchboard. On September 18, 2008, her headset and those of the other employees in the PBX Department were taken away in anticipation of their being replaced by new headsets (from Verizon). That same day, Petitioner and the other switchboard operators received the following e-mail from Ms. Gonzalez, informing them that they would soon be experiencing an uptick in call volume: Subject: Pavilion[8] Calls Ladies, Please note that starting Tuesday morning, we will be getting all the Pavilion[']s calls. There will be more Ext: 2221. Please make sure that you go over all Ext and Pavilion info. Keep in mind that call volume is going to increase. So do not spend a long time on any one call. Remember the time allowed for each call is 24 seconds per call. The Hospital wants a live person to answer at all time[s]. Also make sure that you know how to page all Pavilion calls over head. So ladies, when you clock in, and enter the PBX office, you must be ready to log in and start to work immediately. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Due to delays, it was not until November (approximately two months later) that all of the old headsets were replaced by new ones. The first new headsets came in a group of three.9 They arrived in the first half of October and were given to Ms. Gonzalez (the PBX manager), Ms. Hudson (the PBX supervisor), and Ms. Reyes (one of the three "team leaders"). On October 15, 2008, Ms. Gonzalez held a departmental meeting at which she discussed "what was going on with the headsets." Petitioner was at the meeting. From September 18, 2008, until her resignation on October 26, 2008, Petitioner had to use a "hand-held phone," instead of a headset, to answer calls coming in to University's switchboard. Approximately two weeks after she had started using the "hand-held phone," Petitioner began experiencing pain in her wrists, arms, shoulders, neck, and lower back. She visited her primary care physician, Greg Sherman, M.D., for treatment of the pain. The pain went away five or six weeks after she had stopped working at University. All told, the pain lasted no more than ten weeks. Based on what she had been told by Dr. Sherman,10 Petitioner attributed the pain she was experiencing during this period to her using a "hand-held phone" when working the switchboard at University. Despite the onset of the pain, Petitioner continued to work and perform her job duties at University for approximately three or four weeks until she felt she could do so no longer and resigned. During this period, she made her supervisors aware that she was in pain. On the morning of October 2, 2008, during a telephone conversation, she told Ms. Hudson that her "wrist, arms and neck hurt." Ms. Hudson did not ask Petitioner for any further details, and Petitioner did not provide any. Two weeks later, on October 16, 2008, at 10:34 p.m., Petitioner sent Ms. Hudson the following e-mail: Dear Cathy, Regarding my PTO [Paid Time Off] request for Nov 13, 14, 15, 16 (Thurs, Fri, Sat, Sun) I am wondering when I will know if it has been approved. Also do you know when my headset will arrive? I went to the doctor yesterday because I have had pain for a week now in my shoulders and wrists. I explained that I have been working without my headset for the past four weekends. He stated that that was likely the cause of the strain. I do hope the headset will arrive soon. A week having passed without Petitioner's having received a reply from Ms. Hudson, Petitioner, at 9:34 p.m. on October 23, 2008, sent the following e-mail to Ms. Gonzalez, to which Ms. Gonzalez never replied: Re: Waiting for an e-mail answer Hello Gigi, I sent an e-mail to Cathy regarding the headsets on Oct 14th.[11] I have not received a reply as of today. I understand a few operators have already received their headsets. Shouldn't we all have them as we work the same consoles? Working without my headset for the past 4 weekends has caused problem[s] in my wrists and shoulder/neck which I had to see a doctor [about] last week. After taking off earlier in the week because of the pain she was experiencing, Petitioner "tried to come in" to work at University on October 26, 2008, but she did not stay her entire shift. Because she did not know when she "was going to get a headset" and she had experienced "a lot of pain" working without one, Petitioner decided to resign her position at University. At 11:05 a.m. on October 26, 2008, she gave notice of her resignation by sending Ms. Lindsey the following e-mail: I hereby give notice that today, Sunday October 26, 2008 will be my last day at University Hospital. I have used a headset since the first day of employment in July 2005 when on PBX. Over the past five weeks I have been forced to work without my headset. My physical condition has been aggravated to the point I am forced to resign. Management has been uncooperative in this problem as well as many others I have addressed that have gone unanswered. Despite the pain she was experiencing at the time, Petitioner continued working, without interruption, as a switchboard operator at Holy Cross Hospital, where she had the use of a headset. To date, University has not filled the position from which Petitioner resigned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order finding University not guilty of the unlawful employment practices alleged by Petitioner in her charge of discrimination and dismissing the charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 2010.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 24, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Linda J. Coonrod, was employed by Respondent, Baptist Hospital (the hospital), since approximately 1993. She became a unit coordinator in approximately 2002 and remained in that position until she was terminated from employment effective September 4, 2007. Petitioner is a licensed practical nurse. Her position as a unit coordinator required her to perform such tasks as answering the phone, coordinating doctors' appointments and doctors' orders, and performing various tasks using a computer. Petitioner’s regular work schedule was Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. until 2:00 or 3:00 p.m. Petitioner was scheduled to work on Thursday, August 30, 2007, and Friday, August 31, 2007. However, she did not report to work on either August 30 or 31. Petitioner did not report to work as scheduled on August 30 and 31, 2007, because she had been admitted as a patient to the emergency room of the hospital on the evening of August 29, and remained a patient at the hospital on August 30 and 31, 2007. She was discharged on September 1, 2007, a Saturday. Melanie Kuzma is a registered nurse and is employed by Respondent as the clinical manager of the medical floor. Ms. Kuzma was Petitioner’s supervisor when Petitioner was employed at the hospital. Unfortunately, Ms. Kuzma did not know why Petitioner did not report for work as scheduled on August 30 and 31. Petitioner was being treated at the hospital for chest pain and was given several medications while a patient there. She could not or did not notify Ms. Kuzma of her admission to the hospital and her resulting unavailability to report to work as scheduled. Petitioner did not ask her treating nurse, her treating doctor, or anyone else to inform Ms. Kuzma of her whereabouts. No one else contacted Ms. Kuzma as to Petitioner’s whereabouts. In any event, Ms. Kuzma was not aware of why Petitioner did not report to work as scheduled. While in the hospital as a patient, Petitioner was not in the same unit in which she worked as an employee. Ms. Kuzma was not a supervisor over the area of the hospital where Petitioner was a patient. When Petitioner did not report to work as scheduled on August 30, 2007, Ms. Kuzma called Petitioner’s home. No answering machine or voice mail was available to leave a message, so she and the unit coordinator continued to call Petitioner’s home throughout the day with no success. When Petitioner did not report to work as scheduled the following day, Ms. Kuzma and the unit coordinator continued to call Petitioner’s home. Again, they did not reach Petitioner and had no way of leaving a message. Attempting to call a person who fails to report to work as scheduled is standard practice at the hospital. A person who fails to report to work as scheduled and fails to call in is referred to by the hospital as a “no call, no show.” Ms. Kuzma notified Venus Jones, the Employee Relations Manager for the hospital, that Petitioner had not reported to work as scheduled and failed to call in for two days. Ms. Jones informed Ms. Kuzma that when an employee had two days “no call, no show,” that it would result in discharge from employment with the hospital. Petitioner reported to work on Monday, September 3, 2007, which was a holiday. It was then that Petitioner told Ms. Kuzma that she had been admitted as a patient in the hospital on the evening of August 29, and remained a patient on August 30 and 31, 2007. Ms. Jones has terminated the employment of other employees for “no call, no show” for a two-day period. Ms. Jones does not consider anything unique about Ms. Coonrod’s situation. Ms. Jones did not consider Petitioner’s reason for her “no call, no show” to work to be adequate. On September 11, 2007, Ms. Jones sent a letter to Petitioner informing her that her employment was terminated for failure to report to work and failure to notify her department of her absence. Petitioner acknowledged that her heart problem which precipitated her hospitalization at the time in question was not a disability. This medical condition did not prevent her from working and did not limit her from doing everyday tasks such as getting dressed, driving, brushing her teeth, or other normal life activities. When questioned at hearing about her medical condition, Petitioner responded, “I’m not disabled. I don’t have a handicap because of it.” Further, there is no evidence in the record that anyone employed by Respondent perceived Petitioner to have a disability.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Employment Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of February, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda J. Coonrod 40487 Audiss Road Milton, Florida 32583 Russell F. Van Sickle, Esquire Beggs & Lane. LLP Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32591-2950 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 is whether Respondent, Bar-B-Que Management, Inc. d/b/a Sonny's Real Pit Bar-B-Q (Respondent), discriminated against Petitioner, Dorine Alexander (Petitioner), based on an alleged disability and her race.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a management company with employees at 16 franchise-owned restaurants in central and north-eastern Florida. Respondent has employment policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and disability. It also has policies that provide for reasonable accommodation of employees with disabilities. Respondent's policies inform employees about the procedure to be followed in reporting perceived race or disability discrimination. The policies prohibit retaliation against employees who report perceived discrimination. Petitioner is an African-American female. Respondent employed her as a cashier in its Belleview, Florida, location from July 14, 2008, to April 5, 2009. At the beginning of her employment, Petitioner was aware of Respondent's policies relative to discrimination. Respondent provided her with a copy of its Team Member Handbook containing the policies. Petitioner's duties included working as a cashier in both the drive-thru and at the front counter. She also was responsible for stocking all takeout areas and completing side work. Initially, Petitioner's job required her to perform deck scrubbing. However, when Petitioner notified her manager that deck scrubbing made it difficult for her to breathe, she no longer had to perform that task. Petitioner never complained that she continued to have breathing difficulties even when others were performing deck scrubbing. Respondent accommodated Petitioner's alleged breathing problem even though Petitioner never provided Respondent with requested medical documentation indicating that she had asthma or any other respiratory difficulties. There is no competent evidence to show that Petitioner is disabled. In the Fall of 2008, Respondent demoted the general manager at the restaurant where Petitioner worked. The demotion was based on poor performance, including not enforcing company policies and failing to hold employees accountable for compliance with company policies and performance standards. Respondent directed the new management team to enforce company policies and to issue discipline when appropriate. The directive was communicated to the restaurant's employees. After the change in management, Petitioner received numerous disciplinary write-ups. The write-ups included the following: (a) violation of Respondent's policy against use of cell phones during working hours; (b) violation of Respondent's policy against smoking on the premises and/or parking lot while in uniform during working hours; (c) violation of Respondent's attendance policy, requiring employees to arrive at work on time and to attend mandatory meetings unless excused; (d) violation of Respondent's cash-handling policy, resulting in cash overages and shortages; and (d) violation of Respondent's work performance standards by failing to stock supplies and complete other side work duties. Non-black employees received written discipline for the same violations as Petitioner. At least one white employee was terminated for violating the cell phone usage policy. Prior to February 2009, Petitioner worked an average of 25 hours per week. The fewest number of weekly hours worked by Petitioner after February 2009 was 19 hours. Petitioner worked 19 hours for only two weeks. Petitioner asserts that she was not allowed to "pick up" extra shifts when another cashier went on vacation for five days. Scheduling requests had to be submitted by Tuesday for the next week's schedule. Petitioner failed to timely request any of the extra available shifts. Instead, she approached the scheduling manager after the schedule was already completed. Despite the lateness of her request, the scheduling manager revised the schedule to assign Petitioner one extra shift. Beginning in January 2009, Respondent's schedules were created and posted on-line through a computer program called Hot Schedules. At all times relevant here, the schedule was posted late only three times. The late posting affected all employees, not just Petitioner. Petitioner asserts that she was assigned to work the drive-thru more than white employees. This assertion is without merit as shown by the following statistics. Petitioner worked 59 shifts between January 1, 2009, and her resignation on April 5, 2009. Respondent assigned Petitioner to work in the drive-thru on 23 of those shifts, approximately 39 percent of the total shifts. Petitioner worked at the front counter for the remainder of her shifts, approximately 61 percent of the total shifts. Two white cashiers, Brittany Knaul and Sarah Liles, worked a comparable number of shifts between January 1, 2009, and April 5, 2009. During that time, Ms. Knaul worked 54 shifts, with 25 shifts or 46 percent assigned to the drive-thru. Of the 86 shifts worked by Ms. Liles, 33 shifts or 38 percent were in the drive-thru. On the other hand, Beatrice McKoy, a black cashier, worked almost exclusively at the front counter between January 1, 2009, and April 5, 2009. Petitioner sought out and spoke with Respondent's Director of Operations, Josh McCall, on several occasions during her employment. The conversations involved her requested accommodation and complaints about the disciplinary write-ups. Petitioner never reported any perceived race discrimination. On one occasion, Mr. McCall asked Petitioner if she believed she was being discriminated against based on her race. Petitioner denied that she was being treated differently from non-black employees. Petitioner submitted a letter of voluntary resignation on March 30, 2009. Her last day at work was April 5, 2009. Petitioner asserts that she was constructively discharged. However, Petitioner failed to notify Respondent of the alleged discrimination until she spoke with Respondent's Area Manager on April 6, 2009, after her resignation and last day at work. Shortly after her last day at work for Respondent, Petitioner voluntarily resigned her other job with Internet Access. Petitioner resigned that job due to a dispute with her manager. Petitioner obtained subsequent employment which ended when that company closed in June 2009. Petitioner remained unemployed until February 2010. The only employment she held in the intervening six months was occasional work assisting her sister, who is a home health aide.
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 13th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Joanne B. Lambert, Esquire Jessica A. DeBono, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP 390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1285 Post Office Box 3389 Orlando, Florida 32802-3389 Dorine Alexander 307 Marion Oaks Course Ocala, Florida 34473 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 is whether Respondent engaged in the practice of discrimination against Petitioner when terminating him from employment as a firefighter due to a medical condition.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jonathan Race, was employed by Respondent, Orange County Fire Rescue Department, since January 1989, and worked in the Operations Division as a Lieutenant/EMS Supervisor. In this role, he managed, coordinated, and performed firefighting and emergency rescue services. In the mid-1990s, Petitioner was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation which ultimately resulted, in July 2001, in his undergoing an open heart surgical procedure known as the "MAZE" procedure. Following the open heart surgery, Petitioner had a pacemaker installed in August 2001. Petitioner's cardiologist from 1997 to January, 2005, was Arnold Einhorn, M.D. Barry Portnoy, M.D., is a physician under contract with Orange County to perform annual physical examinations for members of the Orange County Fire Rescue Department. While Dr. Einhorn served as Petitioner's cardiologist, he had periodic conversations with Dr. Portnoy concerning Petitioner's cardiac condition. On May 20, 2003, Dr. Einhorn wrote a letter to Dr. Portnoy in which he stated that Petitioner, "continues to be on medical therapy with beta blockers and Digoxin and his underlying heart rate is in the 30s and this making him dependent on the pacemaker approximately 80% of the time." Dr. Einhorn concluded at that time that Petitioner needed to continue with his medications and use of the pacemaker. Petitioner, concluded, Dr. Einhorn, "is dependent on the pacemaker." On January 16, 2004, Dr. Portnoy conducted an annual physical for Petitioner. On February 6, 2004, Dr. Portnoy stated in his evaluation of Petitioner: "Classification deferred pending additional information. . . . Employee may continue in his/her present duties for no more than 30 days while awaiting further evaluation." On June 4, 2004, Dr. Portnoy completed his evaluation of Petitioner, imposing a restriction of "No functioning as a member of a team or independently where sudden incapacitation could result in harm to himself, risk to others, or mission failure." Dr. Portnoy placed Petitioner on light duty, which resulted in his assignment to an office job at fire headquarters. Respondent's policy dictates that, when an employee is placed on light duty, a medical review is conducted. After being placed on restricted or light duty, a medical review of Petitioner was commenced in June 2004. Respondent's medical review committee requested that Petitioner obtain from his cardiologist, Dr. Einhorn, information concerning Petitioner's cardiac condition. On January 5, 2005, Dr. Einhorn, at Petitioner's request, sent a letter to Dr. Portnoy in which he stated, in part, "We have been trying to wean the patient off beta blockers and Digoxin to see if the patient is still pacemaker dependent. He is now not on any Digoxin and Toprol and interrogation of his pacemaker revealed 30% atrial paced with 16 runs of atrial fibrillation." Based upon the information received from Dr. Einhorn by Dr. Portnoy, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter dated February 17, 2005, which stated that Respondent had determined there was a preponderance of evidence that restrictions placed on Petitioner by Dr. Portnoy would continue indefinitely and that Petitioner would not be able to return to his position in the Operations Division as Lieutenant/EMS Supervisor. Respondent concluded that under Article 34.11 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Petitioner would be medically separated from his employment with the County, effective March 26, 2005, at 19:30 hours. While on light office duty, Petitioner was given additional time to pursue other jobs with Orange County. Petitioner did not find another job with Orange County. On March 10, 2005, after Petitioner had received the February 17 letter from Respondent, Amish Parikh, M.D., wrote a letter "To Whom It May Concern", in which he stated that Petitioner "is now pacing only 0.8% of the time and it is not considered pacemaker-dependent. I believe the pacemaker is not a limiting factor in his ability to perform his job and he should be permitted to return to full duty without restrictions." Nothing in this letter makes reference to any medications Petitioner would be required to take in the future. On April 15, 2005, after Petitioner had been terminated from his employment with Respondent, Petitioner was examined by another cardiologist, Sunil M. Kakkar, M.D., who concluded that Petitioner was not pacemaker dependent and could return to full duties with Respondent. Neither Dr. Parikh nor Dr. Kakkar testified at the hearing. Their written reports appear to be based upon one visit by Petitioner with each of them. On March 23, 2005, Dr. Portnoy reviewed the March 10 letter from Dr. Parikh. Dr. Portnoy did not change his determination that Petitioner was pacemaker dependent after his review of Dr. Parikh's letter. Dr. Portnoy did not lift the restrictions he had imposed on Petitioner. At the time of hearing, Petitioner continued to take medications, both aspirin and Toprol, for his cardiac condition. David Hart worked as a firefighter with Respondent from March 16, 1981, through his voluntary retirement, with the rank of Engineer, on February 10, 2005. Mr. Hart was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation in 1992 and was treated for the condition with medications for the ensuing six years. Mr. Hart had a pacemaker implanted in October of 1998, and had the pacemaker in place through his retirement. While still employed by Respondent, Mr. Hart's private cardiologist, Dr. Filart, provided Respondent and Dr. Portnoy with information concerning the pacemaker, and determined that Mr. Hart was not pacemaker dependent. Based upon Dr. Filart's determination that Mr. Hart was not pacemaker dependent, Mr. Hart was not removed from duty or placed on restricted duty due to his pacemaker. Mr. Hart agreed that the decision with respect to pacemaker dependency should be made by the patient's cardiologist. Petitioner claims that he was discriminated against by Respondent due to disparate treatment between himself and David Hart. He alleges he is not pacemaker dependent, is similar to Mr. Hart, and, therefore, should not have been medically separated from his employment with Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order finding that the Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2006, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jonathan A. Race 1081 Dean Street St. Cloud, Florida 34771 Gary M. Glassman, Esquire Orange County Attorney's Office Litigation Section 435 North Orange Avenue, 3rd Floor Orlando, Florida 32801 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a healthcare facility that provides in- patient nursing care to patients after their surgery. As a healthcare facility, Respondent employs an ethnically diverse staff of nurses, including several black nurses. Petitioner is a black female. As such, Petitioner is a protected person under chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Additionally, Petitioner is a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). She received her nursing license in 2002 and has worked in the nursing field since that time. Currently, she is completing her education to become a Registered Nurse. In March 2011, Petitioner was employed by Respondent as an LPN on its skilled medical surgical unit in Tallahassee, Florida. Petitioner was supervised by the Director of Nursing (DON), Michelle, who was, in turn, supervised by Heritage's administrator, Brenda. Both the DON and administrator are white. An important part of Respondent's service is the administration of prescribed medications to its patients in accordance with the medication's prescribed dosage and schedule. As an LPN at Heritage, Petitioner was responsible for the proper administration of medications to patients under her care. At some point, two patients accused Petitioner of giving them their medications earlier than they were supposed to receive them. Although the evidence is unclear, these accusations may have been reported to the administration of Heritage by another nurse who worked the same unit as Petitioner and who Petitioner believed was jealous of her because the patients preferred Petitioner's care to that of the other nurse. Additionally, Petitioner testified that one of the patients told her that she was bribed with a package of cigarettes by the other nurse to make the allegations. However, neither of these patients testified at the hearing. As a consequence, such patient statements constitute uncorroborated hearsay and cannot be considered in this proceeding. Petitioner denies that she ever gave these two patients medication earlier than the prescribed time. Sometime around April 1, 2011, Petitioner was called into a meeting with the administrator and the DON for a "number 2 write-up." There was no evidence that demonstrated the nature of such a disciplinary action or the action that would be taken for such a write-up. The write-up was based on the allegations of the two patients referenced above. However, there was no evidence that Respondent did not investigate or follow its policy on employee discipline. Indeed there was no evidence regarding any of Respondent's policies. Likewise, there was no evidence that other similarly-situated, non-protected employees had received less discipline for similarly alleged infractions. Petitioner tried to explain what the patient had told her about being bribed and making her allegation up. Petitioner also asked the administrator to explain what a "number 2 write- up" was since she did not know, and did not know at the hearing, what such a write-up was. The administrator said she did not have to explain anything, slammed her hand down on her desk, and loudly said "you people make me sick." The administrator also referenced something about lying and trying to cover things up instead of admitting mistakes. There was no substantive evidence that the administrator’s very subjective statement was a reference to Petitioner's race or was intended as a racial epithet. Indeed, viewed objectively, the statement appears to be, at worst, abusive or rude. Ultimately, there was insufficient evidence upon which to base a finding (or to infer) that these remarks were anything but an administrator venting her exasperation at staff. Without more, such language is not the sort of language that anti-discrimination laws are designed to reach. Petitioner was told to sign the write-up or be terminated. She was understandably offended by the administrator's behavior, refused to sign "something that was untrue,” wished the administrator "Jehovah's blessing" and left. Petitioner never returned to the facility and her paycheck was mailed to her. However, as indicated, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that Petitioner was the victim of racial discrimination. The Petition for Relief should, therefore, be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2012, 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 2nd day of March, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Kareen Anita Gantt 1340 Mount Hosea Church Road Quincy, Florida 32352 Michael McKelvaine Heritage Health Care 1815 Ginger Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 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 to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice based upon her disability or based upon retaliation, in purported violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was employed as a Training Specialist II in the staff development department of the Sunland facility of the Department of Children and Families. (Now the Agency for Persons With Disabilities.) At times relevant hereto, in October 2003, the Petitioner, Constance Gatewood, was employed by "Sunland Marianna" (Sunland). The Respondent Department of Children and Family Services is an agency of the State of Florida charged, as pertinent hereto, with implementing statutes, rules, and policies concerning persons with disabilities who are within its custody or otherwise. A meeting was conducted with Sunland's management and the Petitioner on October 8, 2003, in which the Petitioner provided documentation from a physician confirming that she suffered from a condition triggered by exposure to certain chemicals or perfumes. This condition was described as "potentially life threatening." The condition apparently primarily involved the Petitioner's respiration. Sunland sought to accommodate this condition by instructing attendees to training sessions conducted by the Petitioner to refrain from using perfumes, colognes, etc., which might aggravate the Petitioner's condition. There is no dispute that the Petitioner has a disability of this nature. Sunland also provided each new employee who came for training with the Petitioner with a separate similar notification. Sunland also posted the notification in and around the staff development building, the Petitioner's primary work place. Sunland also relocated the Petitioner's office and ordered alternative non- irritating cleaning supplies in order to accommodate the Petitioner's condition. Despite these accommodations the Petitioner's condition still sometimes became symptomatic. In an effort to minimize her exposure to perfumes or other chemicals the Petitioner on occasion would teach from her doorway, rather than standing in her accustomed place in front of the class. On occasion she would have to teach her class with all the doors opened, which sometimes created an uncomfortable draft in cold weather. On other occasions she would send students out of her class in the belief that they were wearing a perfume, cologne, or other chemical agent which was irritating her respiratory condition. On one or more occasions she had to rely on a co-worker to perform a cleaning task for which she was responsible. The Petitioner received a performance evaluation in March of 2004, which contained an overall rating of 4.33, a score which reflects that her performance exceeded expectations. On performance expectation number one, however, she received a grade of three rather than the four she had received the prior year. This was based upon a decline, in her employer's view, of her performance related to team work and respect for others. Because of this reduction from a four to a three on this category of her performance evaluation the Petitioner filed a Career Service Grievance. She contended that her performance had been based upon "confidential information," despite her supervisor's assurances that it was based on her supervisor's perception of problems the Petitioner had in the areas of cooperation with co-workers and respect for class attendees. Upon investigation, the Career Service Grievance was denied by a memorandum of April 8, 2004. Dr. Clemmons, the superintendent of the Respondent's facility, continued efforts to accommodate the Petitioner and her disability. He offered the Petitioner a job in an open position as a social worker on or about April 1, 2004. This position would have no deleterious effect on the terms, conditions, privileges, or benefits of the Petitioner's employment. The Petitioner was apparently pleased to have the job transfer to the new position and, in fact, volunteered to begin the position prior to the customary two week notice period. The Respondent has continued to attempt to accommodate the Petitioner and her disability as she has raised issues regarding her disability upon assuming her new position. The Petitioner, however, did not identify in advance any accommodation-related issues to her employer prior to beginning work in her new position.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Constance Gatewood Post Office Box 262 Campbellton, Florida 32426 Amy McKeever Toman, Esquire Agency for Persons With Disabilities Sunland Center 3700 Williams Drive Marianna, Florida 32446 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent Department of Corrections (Respondent or the Department) violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes,1/ by discharging Petitioner Theresa Williams (Petitioner) in retaliation for her participation as a witness during the investigation of an alleged discrimination claim brought by another employee.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Corrections is a state agency as defined in chapter 110, Florida Statutes, and an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. At all times material, Petitioner was employed as a nurse at the Department's Lake Correctional Institution (“the Institution”) in Clermont, Florida. She was hired by the Department as a Licensed Practical Nurse effective July 12, 2007. Petitioner was terminated from her position with the Institution in May 2013. At the time of Petitioner's termination, her official title was “Senior Licensed Practical Nurse.” Prior to her termination, the Department provided Petitioner with a letter dated April 16, 2013, advising her of her proposed dismissal and scheduling a meeting (“termination conference”) with the Institution's Warden to discuss the reasons why Petitioner was being considered for termination. The letter was excluded from evidence because it was not timely disclosed as an exhibit by the Department as required in the Order of Prehearing Instructions in this case. Nevertheless, Respondent testified that she attended the termination conference and that, during the termination conference, she was provided, and they discussed, three incident reports against her that she had previously seen. The termination conference was attended by the Institution's Warden, the Assistant Warden, and Dr. Virginia Mesa, the Institution's Chief Health Operator. The incident reports discussed at Petitioner's termination conference included Petitioner's alleged violation on February 8, 2013, of the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) for which Dr. Mesa recommended Petitioner’s dismissal; Petitioner's alleged failure on February 8, 2013, to carry out an assignment to log walking canes provided to inmates; and an alleged argument on February 18, 2013, with a supervisor regarding Petitioner's reassignment to process transferred inmates known as "new gains." There is no indication that the termination conference changed the Department's proposed decision to terminate Petitioner. At the final hearing, Petitioner testified and presented evidence designed to prove that the incidents outlined above did not occur. However, following her termination in 2013, Petitioner timely filed a career service system appeal with the State of Florida, Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC), contesting her termination. Following an evidentiary hearing and a PERC hearing officer's recommended order in that proceeding, PERC entered a final order on November 6, 2013, providing in its pertinent part: The relevant facts found by the hearing officer relate three separate incidents that led to [Theresa] Williams' dismissal. On February 8, 2013, Dr. Virginia Mesa observed Williams showing Captain Reed, who was the security officer-in-charge of the shift, something in a green file. A green file is the type of medical file kept for each inmate. The green file was open in Williams' hand and Reed and Williams were looking into it. Mesa observed Williams flipping through the file with Reed in the public hallway. The Agency's policy and federal law strictly prohibit prison medical personnel from allowing non-medical staff to see inmate medical records. That same day, Debra Elder, who was a senior health services administrator and new manager, asked Williams to record various information about canes that were issued to inmates and to label each cane with an identifying mark. Williams turned to a co- worker and told her to do it. Elder considered Williams' attitude insubordinate and wrote an incident report as soon as she returned to her office. On February 18, Williams was assigned to be the "sick call" nurse when she reported for her shift at 6:45 a.m. However, she was informed that, if the prison received a significant number of "new gains," she would be re-assigned to assist the two nurses doing that work. "New gains" is the Agency's term for the processing of inmates transferred to the institution from another facility. Around 8:00 a.m., Williams' supervisor, Joyce Isagba, arrived at work. Isagba reviewed the assignments and directed a subordinate to assign Williams to new gains that day. Williams believed Isagba, a relatively new supervisor, had a pattern of changing her assignment from sick call nurse to new gains and did not like it. Williams approached Isagba and questioned why she was being reassigned. Williams and Isagba became loud and argumentative. Other nurses were present in the room. The conversation lasted some time and Williams repeatedly stated that the change of her assignment was unfair and repeatedly wanted to know why she was being reassigned. Isagba told her she was more qualified to do that work and that she did not have to give her reason for her decisions. The dispute lasted several minutes and Williams reluctantly assisted with new gains. Later that day, Williams was sent to sick call to finish that duty. Isagba considered Williams to have been insubordinate and wrote an incident report. Based on these factual findings, the hearing officer concluded that the Agency had grounds to discipline Williams for poor performance, violating the Agency's medical information privacy, and insubordination in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 60L-36.005. He recommended that [PERC] adopt his recommended order and dismiss Williams' appeal. * * * Upon review of the complete record, including the transcript, we conclude that all of the hearing officer's facts are supported by competent substantial evidence received in a proceeding that satisfied the essential requirements of law. Therefore, we adopt the hearing officer's findings. § 120.57(1)(l), Fla. Stat. Furthermore, we agree with the hearing officer's legal analysis of the disputed legal issues, his conclusions of law, and his recommendation. Accordingly, the hearing officer's recommendation is incorporated herein and Williams' appeal is DISMISSED. The hearing officer's Recommendation and PERC's Final Order in the PERC Proceeding, Williams v. DOC, 28 FCSR 284 (2013), were submitted by both parties and received into evidence without objection in this case as Exhibits P-4 and P-5, respectively, and Exhibits R-B and R-C, respectively. The PERC Proceeding involved the same parties as in this case and the allegations in the incident reports discussed at Petitioner's termination conference were actually litigated and determined in the PERC Proceeding. In other words, whether the incidents outlined in those incident reports occurred and are sufficient to support the Department's decision to terminate Petitioner's employment has already been determined.2/ Moreover, Petitioner failed to show, in this case, that the incidents did not occur. Although Petitioner testified that she did not show Captain Reed the inmate's medical chart in violation of HIPAA and introduced Captain Reed's written statement stating that Petitioner did not show him the chart, the evidence adduced at the final hearing showed that when she met with Captain Reed during the incident, she was flipping through papers with the medical chart in her hand. As found in the PERC hearing officer's Recommended Order: Williams violated the Agency's privacy policy when she held an open inmate medical file so a security staff officer could see the inmate's writing and signature. This was not a reasonable procedure to accomplish the task of notifying the officer of a potential security threat to other inmates. There was a real possibility that the sick call slip had been forged. It was unnecessary to show Captain Reed an inmate's medical file to determine if the slip was forged. Williams could have done that herself with the same accuracy as Reed, since neither is a handwriting expert. Williams v. DOC, 28 FCSR 284 (Recommended Order, 08/26/13). Dr. Mesa's testimony in this case was consistent with the hearing officer's finding and is credited. Regarding the other two incident reports, while Petitioner denied asking another to perform her assigned task of logging inmates' canes, she admitted that she delayed performing the task. Petitioner also admitted that she questioned her supervisor, Ms. Insagba, as to why she was being assigned "new gains," that during the incident Ms. Insagba raised her voice, and that they "were both talking at the same time and I guess she was trying to get a point across and I was just trying to ask her why." In addition to the incidents addressed in the three incident reports, during cross examination in this case, Petitioner revealed that she was also disciplined twice in 2012. In August 2012, Petitioner received a record of counseling for insubordination. And in December 2012, Petitioner received a written reprimand for failure to follow instructions. In sum, the record supports a finding that, by May 2013, the Department had cause to terminate Petitioner. Although it has been determined that the Department had cause to terminate Petitioner's employment at the Institution, in this case Petitioner asserts that the real reason for her dismissal was her participation as a witness in a discrimination charge brought by another employee against the Department and Dr. Mesa. The disciplinary incidents supporting Petitioner's dismissal occurred in February 2013, and before. The investigation in which Petitioner participated began in March of 2013 and Petitioner provided testimony in that investigation on April 23, 2013, after Dr. Mesa had already recommended Petitioner’s dismissal and after Petitioner had been notified by the Department that she was being considered for dismissal. Petitioner was dismissed in May 2013. In finding probable cause, the Commission stated in its summary of the Investigative Memorandum: Complainant did not demonstrate that she was harassed or disciplined because of participation in the internal investigation. Complainant provided no evidence of harassment, and she was not disciplined after her protected activity occurred. Respondent admitted that Complainant was disciplined for the alleged HIPAA violation, but this occurred prior to her protected activity. Based on the information received during the investigation, it does appear that Complainant was terminated in retaliation for her participation in the internal investigation. If the alleged HIPAA violation was a true terminable offense, Complainant should have been terminated in February of 2013 when it occurred. Instead, Respondent waited nearly three months to terminate her, which was about three weeks after her protected activity. Additionally, Respondent has a progressive disciplinary policy which it did not follow. The alleged HIPAA violation is Complainant's only documented incident. Respondent also claimed that Complainant was terminated after she was disciplined several times prior to the HIPAA event, yet it could provide no evidence that she had a disciplinary record prior to February of 2013. Unlike the limited information available to the Commission in its probable cause determination, the evidence in the de novo proceeding conducted in this case demonstrated that Petitioner had a number of disciplinary offenses in February that were found by PERC to support her dismissal, and that Petitioner had been written up for two other disciplinary infractions in 2012. Moreover, the showing necessary for a probable cause determination is less than Petitioner's burden to prove discrimination. While there was a delay in Petitioner's termination, the evidence showed that Dr. Mesa recommended Petitioner for dismissal when she wrote up the incident report for the HIPAA violation in February 2013. Although it is evident that management, including the Warden and Dr. Mesa, was generally aware that Petitioner had participated as a witness in another employee's discrimination claim in April of 2013, Petitioner did not show that she was terminated because of that participation. And, while the Department's delay in dismissing Petitioner remained unexplained at the final hearing,3/ that delay, in light of the other facts and circumstances of this case, including Petitioner's numerous disciplinary infractions outlined above, is an insufficient basis to support a finding that Petitioner was terminated in retaliation for her participation in a protected activity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSotoBuilding 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida32399-3060 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2015.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether Petitioner was terminated from his employment with Respondent because of his race, his alleged disability, and in alleged retaliation for his attempt to file a workers' compensation claim in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. Petitioner also has been diagnosed with obsessive/compulsive disorder and major depression. On March 21, 1997, Petitioner began his employment with Florida Department of Corrections as a substance abuse counselor at Lancaster Correctional Institution. Petitioner's employment status was in career service, probationary status for six months from the date of his employment. A probationary status employee can be terminated without cause. Petitioner's employment as a counselor required him to be present at the institution a reasonable amount of time in order to perform his counseling duties. From March 21, 1997 through September 2, 1997, Petitioner failed to report for work 39 full workdays out of a possible 115 workdays. In addition, Petitioner had five other workdays that he only worked part of the day, with a total of 16 hours of leave used over those days. Sixteen hours is the equivalent of two full workdays missed by Respondent. As a result, Petitioner was absent from work approximately 35 percent of the time. Thirty-five percent absence rate was excessive based on Petitioner's job duties. Most of the leave was without pay because Petitioner had not accumulated enough sick or annual leave to cover his absences. The leave was taken for various reasons, but a large part of the leave was taken when Petitioner was hospitalized due to his mental condition. Petitioner's doctor released him from his hospitalization on August 8, 1997; however, Petitioner did not return to work until August 20, 1997. The last pay period ran from Friday, August 22, 1997 to Thursday, September 4, 1997. Petitioner only worked 20 hours out of 40 the first week and two hours out of 40 the second week. Around September 1, 1997, Petitioner went to the personnel office to inquire about filing a workers' compensation claim based on his disability. The staff person he spoke to did not know the procedure for filing a workers' compensation claim. She told Petitioner she would find out the procedure and asked him to return the next day. Other than Petitioner's speculation about the events following his initial inquiry about filing a workers' compensation claim, other material evidence regarding the events following his initial inquiry and Respondent's response thereto was submitted into evidence. The evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions of a factual or legal nature regarding Petitioner's workers' compensation claim and his termination. Petitioner was terminated on September 2, 1997, the day following his initial inquiry about workers' compensation. Petitioner received his letter of termination on September 2, 1997. Petitioner was a probationary status employee when he was terminated. Eventually, Petitioner filed a workers' compensation claim. The claim was denied by the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security. In 1997, L.D. "Pete" Turner was the warden at Lancaster Correctional Institution. As warden, Mr. Turner supervised Petitioner. Mr. Turner made the decision to terminate Petitioner due to his excessive absences. Mr. Turner did not terminate Petitioner based on Petitioner's race, his alleged disability, or because of Petitioner's attempt to file a workers' compensation claim. Petitioner was needed at work and he was not there a sufficient amount of time to fulfill his job duties. In fact, there was no competent evidence that there was any connection between Petitioner's termination and/or his race, disability, or desire to file a workers' compensation claim. Petitioner alleged that two employees at the institution were excessively absent but were not terminated. The employees were Doris Jones and Victoria Englehart. Both individuals were career service employees with permanent status. They were not probationary status employees. Doris Jones is an African-American female. Victoria Englehart is a white female. No other evidence was produced at the hearing regarding these two employees, their attendance records, job duties or anything else of a comparative nature. Clearly, the evidence is insufficient to make any comparison between these two employees and Petitioner's employment and termination.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Otis Ware Post Office Box 2155 Trenton, Florida 32693 William J. Thurber, IV, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Azizi M. Dixon, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, as a covered employer under the Florida Civil Rights Act, Sections 760.01 through , Florida Statutes (2008),1 committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent is a constitutional officer and employer subject to the jurisdiction of the Florida Civil Rights Act. On or about July 2, 2001, Respondent, upon the recommendation of Tom Kay, then director of Respondent's Information Technology ("IT") Department, hired Petitioner as a desktop support analyst in the IT Department. The desktop support analyst position, like all positions with Respondent, is an at-will position. Petitioner was 64 years of age when he was hired by Respondent. During his initial years of employment with Respondent, until about late 2005, Petitioner reported to and was supervised by Mr. Kay. After Mr. Kay resigned in November or December 2005, Petitioner reported to Greg Brock, the IT director. Throughout his employment as an IT desktop support analyst, Petitioner was knowledgeable regarding computer applications and his employer's policies regarding use of computers. The essential functions of the desktop analyst position included adhering to and following the principles of the Clerk's Office, and complying with and supporting the mission of the Clerk's Office and the goals and objectives of the IT Department. The Policies and Guidelines Respondent established detailed Information Security Policy Guidelines regarding the use of network resources. Section 5.6 of the Security Guidelines prohibits employees from using network resources for "obscene or suggestive messages or offensive graphical images." Additionally, Section 5.7 of the Guidelines prohibits employees from deliberately downloading or uploading certain materials, including materials of a "sexually explicit nature" or "material which adversely affects the employee's or user's ability to do his or her job or . . . the [Clerk's] office's ability to carry out its assigned mission." Respondent developed and approved a Personnel Handbook which governs, among other matters, employee use of various types of equipment. Section 1.16 addresses the "Care and Use of Equipment," including computers, Internet access and email, which are the property of the Clerk's Office. The policy prohibits employees from using those computers for personal purposes and, specifically, prohibits the use of such equipment in ways "that may be disruptive, offensive, or harmful to morale." Section 1.16 further provides that Respondent's objective with regard to this policy is "to maintain a workplace free from harassment and sensitive to the diversity of its employees." IT Team Building Exercises While IT director, Mr. Kay instituted sports-based office games for team-building. Mr. Kay believed that these activities would boost morale, promote camaraderie, and facilitate communication among staff in the office. Mr. Kay considered the team-building activities to be an effective tool in leading a group of IT people, who typically are introverted by nature, prone to going to their "corners," and not interacting very much. JeanMarie Walsh, then assistant to Mr. Kay, coordinated some of the team-building activities, including the fantasy football game. While serving in that capacity, Ms. Walsh prepared football pool ballots at lunchtime on Friday for Monday morning bragging rights and temporary use of a team hat. She also occasionally used the office computer for email reminders and did so at the direction of Mr. Kay, believing it was not inconsistent with the Clerk's Office policies. The sports "picks" were done primarily during off-duty times and involved only incidental (five to ten minutes a day) use of staff time or the Clerk's Office equipment. This incidental use of equipment in connection with authorized team-building activities did not constitute unauthorized personal use of Respondent's equipment. Mr. Kay opined that the team building activities and use of staff and equipment in connection with those activities were within his rights as IT director. The Chief Deputy Clerk, Janet Cantees ("Chief Deputy Cantees"), knew that the IT Department employees participated in the sports-based team-building exercises initiated and implemented by Mr. Kay. Furthermore, at no time were these team-building activities proscribed by the employer. Respondent was generally aware of the team-building exercises in the IT Department and cautioned Mr. Kay to make sure no money was involved in the activities. She also advised him that employee participation in the team-building exercises was to be on a purely voluntary basis. In accordance with Respondent's instructions, no money was exchanged in regard to these sports team-building activities, and no IT employee was required to participate in the sports activities. The team-building sports activities in the IT Department concluded prior to July 2007. The use of team-building exercises is not unique to the IT Department, but is used with other employees in the Clerk's Office. For example, Chief Deputy Cantees had developed and used other team-building exercises for managers and staff who worked in different locations in the county. Some IT employees also participated in a "Clerk Shirt Everyday" activity, which was to encourage employees to wear their official "clerk shirts." The person who wore a "clerk shirt" that was a color not worn by anyone else that day was the winner of the activity. The winner was given one or two dollars by each participating employee to buy donuts the next day for the work group. Policy Violation Related to Use of Computers In or about early July 2007, Ms. Walsh, an employee in the IT Department telephoned Petitioner from her office. After he did not answer his phone, Ms. Walsh went to Petitioner's work area where she observed him on the computer in the Miami Hurricane football chat rooms. Ms. Walsh then reported to IT Director Brock that Petitioner was not answering his phone and told him what she had observed. On or about July 5, 2007, after Ms. Walsh reported seeing Petitioner in the Miami Hurricane chat rooms, Mr. Brock had Petitioner come to his office. Mr. Brock then told Petitioner that he should not be visiting what Brock believed to be the Miami Hurricanes football web chat rooms on Respondent's computer. During this meeting, Petitioner denied that he had visited such chat room as had been reported. On or about July 25, 2007, while in the area in which Petitioner worked, Ms. Walsh observed Petitioner at his computer. At that time, Ms. Walsh saw an inappropriate image on Petitioner's 24-inch computer screen. The inappropriate image was in clear view of Ms. Walsh and any other employee present in the adjacent working area. When Ms. Walsh saw the inappropriate image, she was concerned that a female vendor working nearby might be exposed to the explicit image. Ms. Walsh was embarrassed and shocked by the image she saw on Petitioner's computer screen and, thus, said nothing to Petitioner. Instead, Ms. Walsh immediately reported what she had witnessed to Mr. Brock. When Ms. Walsh initially told Mr. Brock about the image she had witnessed on Petitioner's computer screen, she described it as "offensive" to "a woman." During their brief conversation about the image on Petitioner's screen, Ms. Walsh was uncomfortable and embarrassed talking about the image. As a result, neither Mr. Brock, nor Ms. Walsh discussed the image in any detail other than confirming it was of a sexual nature. On July 25, 2007, after Ms. Walsh complained about the inappropriate image on Petitioner's computer screen, Mr. Brock conducted an inspection of Petitioner's computer. As a result of that inspection, Mr. Brock found on the hard drive two offensive photos, referenced as "Jugsy.jpg" and "cheappussy.jpg." The "Jugsy.jpg" photo found in Petitioner's computer depicts a young woman, mouth open, clad in a bra or bikini top, clutching her breasts, most of which were exposed, and pushing them together. The "cheappussy.jpg" photo found in Petitioner's computer depicts a man holding or dangling a hairless cat, which appears to be dead, in the air by its head. The offensive photos were found among other photos depicting Petitioner and his friends, and/or acquaintances of his, engaged in social or sports activities, including the University of Miami Hurricane events. The offensive photos found by Mr. Brock were located in a place on Petitioner's computer associated with his user name/login and were copied to the computer into Petitioner's profile or personal directory. Furthermore, based on Mr. Brock's inspection, there was no indication that the offensive pictures had been tampered with or modified by anyone else. At all times relevant hereto, there were ten or eleven employees in the IT Department, all of whom had administrative passwords that allowed them to access any of the Clerk's Office computers. The IT employees needed this access in order to perform their authorized job responsibilities. Because the IT employees had access to all computers, it is possible that any IT employee could have accessed Petitioner's computer. However, there is no evidence that this ever occurred. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Brock had the experience and expertise to run a report of computer activity and to conduct a forensic analysis of Petitioner's computer to determine the history of the images. However, based on the findings of Mr. Brock's initial investigation of Petitioner's computer, he determined that such analysis or report was not necessary. On July 26, 2007, Mr. Brock showed Ms. Walsh the images he found saved in Petitioner's computer. At that time, Ms. Walsh identified the picture labeled "Jugsy.jpg" as the offensive image she had seen on Petitioner's computer. At this proceeding, Ms. Walsh testified that the image she saw on Petitioner's computer screen in July 2007 was a topless female in partially unzipped jean shorts. Undoubtedly, there is a difference in the image Ms. Walsh described in her testimony, which was two years after the incident, and the "Jugsy.jpg" photo she identified the day after she saw the image. This difference or discrepancy may be attributed to several factors including the following: (1) the lapse of time, two years, between Ms. Walsh's seeing the image and testifying at this proceeding; (2) the brief time that Ms. Walsh actually saw the image on Petitioner's screen; and/or (3) the brief time she looked at the "Jugsy.jpg" photo when it was shown to her by Mr. Brock. Notwithstanding the foregoing difference in Ms. Walsh's description of the image she saw on Petitioner's computer screen and the photo she identified as that image, Ms. Walsh's testimony that she saw an offensive image of a woman on Petitioner's computer screen is found to be credible. Significantly, Ms. Walsh's complaint led to an investigation, which found that there were offensive photos stored in Petitioner's computer (the one provided to him by the Clerk's Office). Decision to Terminate Petitioner's Employment In personnel matters regarding employment termination, the process begins with the unit manager or director discussing and reviewing the situation with Edith Peacher, manager of Human Resources ("HR"). After the matter is reviewed, the director or manager typically makes a recommendation in consultation with HR Manager Peacher. That recommendation is then conveyed to Chief Deputy Cantees, a key decision maker, who reviews the matter and then communicates her decision/recommendation to Respondent. Ultimately, Respondent has "veto authority" over the recommendation and/or decision of the chief deputy clerk. Consistent with Respondent's personnel practices, after Ms. Walsh identified the picture that she believed she saw on Petitioner's computer screen, Mr. Brock conferred with the HR manager. During the meeting with HR Manager Peacher, Mr. Brock advised her of Ms. Walsh's complaint, his investigation, and the photos he had retrieved from Petitioner's computer. Mr. Brock also told HR Manager Peacher that a few weeks before, he had spoken to Petitioner about using his computer to go to chat rooms. HR Manager Peacher, with input from Mr. Brock, drafted a Termination Notice dated July 26, 2007, for violations of the Clerk's Office's policies, procedures and professional conduct and standards. HR Manager Peacher then recommended to Chief Deputy Cantees that Petitioner's employment be involuntarily dismissed from the Clerk's employ. The July 26, 2007, Notice of Termination cited the prior disciplinary action; the July 5, 2007 verbal counseling; and references the two photos/images described in paragraphs 24 and 25 as deliberate and inappropriate use by an IT employee of the Clerk's Office computer equipment, justifying termination of employment. Section 4.02 of the Clerk's Personnel Handbook provides that "[e]mployment with the Clerk . . . is on at will basis," but states that "the Clerk may utilize progressive discipline in an effort to work with the employee." Under this provision, the option of using progressive discipline is discretionary, not mandatory. In the instant case, HR Manager Peacher believed that the display of offensive images on Petitioner's computer screen was an "egregious" situation and one which warranted immediate termination. On July 26, 2007, Mr. Brock and HR Manager Peacher met with Petitioner and reviewed the Notice of Termination and the pending recommendation for dismissal with Petitioner. When confronted with the allegation regarding the offensive images found in his computer, Petitioner stated "matter of factly" that someone "may" have placed the photos on his computer. However, he offered no reason for his implication that someone else "may" have tampered with his computer. Nonetheless, HR Manager Peacher told Petitioner that Respondent could investigate and find out if someone else had placed the images in his computer, but Petitioner did not request further investigation. At the July 26, 2007, meeting, Petitioner signed the Notice of Termination and indicated that he "read the Notice but did not agree with it in any way, shape or form." HR Manager Peacher conveyed to Chief Deputy Cantees the substance of the meeting with Petitioner and her belief that no errors of fact had occurred. After listening to HR Manager Peacher's presentation of the facts, Chief Deputy Cantees asked HR Manager Peacher and Mr. Brock several follow-up questions about the incident (i.e., the validity of the complaint, if and how Petitioner's computer had been checked, etc.). Chief Deputy Cantees was satisfied with the information HR Manager Peacher provided to her, as well as the responses to her questions that were provided by HR Manager Peacher and Mr. Brock. Both HR Manager Peacher and the Chief Deputy Cantees relied on Mr. Brock's experience and expertise in computer forensics in determining the origin of the offensive images found on Petitioner's computer. Based on her discussions with HR Manager Peacher and Mr. Brock and her review of the record, Chief Deputy Cantees concurred with the recommendation of termination and the Clerk gave final approval. Petitioner was 71 years old when he was terminated from his employment with Respondent. The person hired to replace Petitioner was an individual estimated to be in the mid-40 to mid-50 range. Prior to the incident involving Petitioner, neither Respondent, nor the HR manager had received reports of, or knew of incidents of, employees having inappropriate (sexual) images on their computers. Therefore, no employees in the Clerk's Office have ever been disciplined for that offense. Medical Condition of Petitioner In 2002, Petitioner was diagnosed with a melanoma that required office surgery and other pre-cancerous lesions that also required treatment. The surgery and all other treatments were performed in the doctor's office and required no hospitalization. Between 2002, when he was first diagnosed with a melanoma and through July 2007, Petitioner has continued to be treated for skin cancer. During this five-year period, Petitioner's condition and his treatments for that condition have not significantly affected or, otherwise, limited Petitioner's ability to work or to engage in most activities. During the five-year period since he was diagnosed with skin cancer, Petitioner had regular check-ups, some of which may have resulted in his doctor's performing certain in-office medical procedures. Other than those in-office procedures, Petitioner's treatment for his condition consists of applying various salves, creams, and/or lotions to his skin. Finally, as a result of his medical condition, Petitioner had been directed to stay out of the sun. Because Petitioner must now stay out of the sun, he is no longer able to participate in daytime activities that he previously enjoyed doing and/or had been able to do (i.e., going to the beach and to his grandson's soccer and softball games). During his employment with the Clerk's IT Department, Petitioner never requested leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. Moreover, there is no indication that his medical condition affected his attendance at work. In fact, between January and July 2007, Petitioner saw his physician only about six times. Petitioner never notified Respondent, Mr. Brock, or Chief Deputy Cantees that he had skin cancer. Furthermore, none of them knew or suspected that Petitioner had skin cancer or any other medical condition. Finally, Petitioner's co-workers were unaware of his medical condition. While employed in the IT Department, Petitioner had several conversations with HR Manager Peacher. Petitioner recalled that during one of those conversations, HR Manager Peacher referred him to a dermatologist or assisted him with a medical referral. At this proceeding, HR Manager Peacher did not recall giving Petitioner the name of a dermatologist, but acknowledged that she may have done so. HR Manager Peacher explained that she speaks to numerous employees throughout the workday about various personnel-related matters and provides them with such assistance when requested to do so. Despite having several discussions with Petitioner during his employment with the Clerk's Office, HR Manager Peacher was unaware of his medical condition. Alleged Disability Discrimination Respondent conducted general meetings with employees every other month. During those meetings, Respondent covers a variety of topics with employees, all of which are on a printed agenda and later sent to employees by e-mail. The Agenda for the June 22, 2007, employee meeting included a three-page overview of the employee compensation package offered to Respondent's employees that included the following introductory statement: "Part of offering a competitive benefits plan is being proactive in maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Each of us must take the responsibility to live healthy lives, and, in return, our insurance costs will be minimized." During that meeting, Respondent read that language verbatim. In reading the above-quoted language, Respondent's intent was to encourage employees to address "preventable issues," such as smoking, overeating, and not exercising. However, in the charging document, Petitioner alleges that the above-quoted language meant Respondent wanted to hire only "healthy employees." Petitioner's interpretation distorts and misconstrues the above-quoted comments made by Respondent. Further, there is no evidence to support Petitioner's allegation that Respondent wanted to hire only healthy employees. Also, those comments do not, in any way, relate or refer to employees with disabilities and cannot reasonably be construed to do so. Claim of Age Discrimination Petitioner received such inquiries periodically and complained about the practice from time to time. For example, in a June 8, 2007, email to HR Manager Peacher, Petitioner complained about a phone call from ACS Recovery Service ("ACS"), a third-party health benefits coordinator. Petitioner perceived the ACS inquiries regarding Medicare eligibility as age discrimination. Sarasota County Government Benefits Manager Steve Marcinko testified credibly that ACS provides coordination of benefits services for Aetna, Sarasota County Government's third-party administrator. To carry out its responsibility, ACS is authorized to contact the employees to determine whether alternate insurance coverage, including Medicare, may be available to cover a claim that is otherwise the responsibility of the Sarasota County Government. Among those contacted by ACS are group health plan participants who are "post-65 and Medicare-eligible." The purpose of these contacts is to verify whether the participants are "active" or "retired" employees. Such verification assists in determining whether the group health plan or Medicare has primary or secondary responsibility for the benefits of those individuals. The inquiries by ACS are not age-based, except as they relate to an individual's Medicare eligibility, and are not conducted at the direction of the Clerk. When conducting these inquiries, ACS does not copy the individual's employer or former employer about such inquiries.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner, Michael L. Coyle's, Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2010.
