The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent denied Petitioner employment opportunities in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as a part-time employee on or about March 10, 1981. At the time of her employment Petitioner executed a statement acknowledging that the Respondent did not guarantee weeks or hours of employment and that her employment was dependent, in part, upon the demands of the business. Petitioner's job title throughout her employment with Respondent was "warehouse worker." At all times material to this case, Petitioner was assigned to the Orlando distributing center that serves as a warehouse for items shipped to and for Respondent's retail system. During her employment with Respondent, Petitioner received acceptable work evaluations but was not elevated to full-time employment status when job openings occurred. For the first year of her employment, Respondent utilized an employee review form which rated Petitioner on a scale of 1 to 7; the lower number indicated unsatisfactory, the higher number indicated distinguished performance. For that review period, Petitioner received all 4s on her review. The 4 rating evidenced that Petitioner's performance had been consistently good and had met the requirements of the job to which she was assigned. For the review period ending April 1, 1985, the Petitioner received four 4s and one 3. The 3 rating was in the category "working relations" and found her performance to be fair. The 3 rating indicated that for the period reviewed Petitioner's performance was generally satisfactory, but sometimes fell below an acceptable level. Later in 1985, the Petitioner filed an EEOC complaint against the Respondent and alleged that the company had treated her unfairly on account of her sex. Petitioner did not prevail on that complaint. The Petitioner's employee performance review issued on June 10, 1986, the next evaluation after her EEOC complaint, evaluated her performance at all 3s with one 4 in the category of job knowledge. Petitioner did not challenge this review and did not, at that time, allege that the less favorable review had been issued by the company in retaliation for the EEOC complaint. Subsequent to the 1986 review, Respondent's evaluation form was amended to compute an employee's performance on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being the unacceptable end of the scale and 5 indicating distinguished performance. For the review period ending April 12, 1988, Petitioner received all 3s which established that her overall performance again met the employer's expectations. Throughout her tenure with the Respondent, Petitioner sought to increase her work hours. Petitioner complained to the company that work assignments were given unfairly. In June, 1987, Mr. Maupin, manager of the center, issued a notice regarding a change in the scheduling practices for part- time employees. That notice advised employees that the length of service with the company would no longer be the determining factor in assigning part-time hours. The notice provided: "Other factors such as performance, availability when needed and work experience (such as driving skills) will also be considered when determining who will be scheduled." Petitioner continued to be scheduled for work and, in 1988, received the second highest number of hours worked for the center's part-time employees. Petitioner did not receive full-time employment with the Respondent. Two employees who had not worked in the warehouse as long as Petitioner were placed in full-time positions. Petitioner did not offer evidence as to the qualifications of those individuals to perform the work requested of them. The employment history of the individuals chosen by the employer, together with the training, skills and aptitudes of such individuals are all unknown. Petitioner's assertion that she had performed the work in the past and, therefore, was the better qualified to receive the full-time job has not been deemed credible or, in itself, sufficient to prove affirmatively that others chosen by the employer were less worthy of the jobs for which they were selected. To the contrary, the Respondent posted full-time job openings and allowed interested parties to apply for same and be reviewed for employment based upon individual merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's claim against this Respondent as Petitioner has failed to establish that the employer discriminated against her in retaliation for a prior assertion of discrimination. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5133 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant the petition filed in this cause does not allege Petitioner was unfairly disciplined. Paragraph 6 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 7 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as argument, hearsay not corroborated by direct evidence, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 8 is rejected as irrelevant; it is undisputed that Petitioner perceived a bias against her, the evidence in this case does not, however, establish that such bias did exist. An employer's assessment that an employee has a poor attitude does not, of itself, lead to the conclusion that employer will, consequently, unlawfully discriminate against that employee. The first sentence of paragraph 9 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as hearsay unsupported by direct evidence presented in this case or unsupported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 10 is rejected as unsupported by direct evidence presented in this case. Paragraph 11 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 12 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 13 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is accepted. Paragraph 15 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 16 is rejected as speculative, not supported by the evidence in this case. Paragraph 17 is accepted. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is accepted to the extent that the record reflects Petitioner retained an attorney to represent her; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the record. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 9 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 10, it is accepted that all of Petitioner's annual evaluations rated her work as acceptable. Paragraph 11 is rejected as inaccurate or contrary to the weight of the evidence. While Petitioner's reviews remained substantially the same, the forms and evaluation system did change. Important was that Petitioner's work was always deemed acceptable. With regard to paragraph 12, it is accepted that Petitioner worked forty days within the period described. Otherwise rejected as not supported by the record in this case. Paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted but incompletely refers only to the delivery job; Petitioner had expressed an interest in two other jobs available. Paragraph 15 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence or an incomplete statement of fact. Petitioner did seek full-time employment with the Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Heather Morcroft 2431 Aloma Avenue Suite 285 Winter Park, Florida 32791 William E. Curphey Parker, Johnson, McGuire & Michaud 1300 Barnett Plaza 201 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Margaret Jones, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Ronald M. McElrath Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
The Issue The issue is whether this case should be dismissed based on Petitioner's failure to appear at the hearing.
Findings Of Fact The Notice of Hearing in these consolidated cases was issued on November 17, 2010, setting the hearing for January 24 and 25, 2011, in Tallahassee, Florida. The hearing was scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. on January 24, 2011. Also on November 17, 2010, an Order of Pre-hearing Instructions was entered. Neither the Notice of Hearing nor the Order of Pre- hearing Instructions was returned as undeliverable to Petitioner. On January 19, 2011, Petitioner filed a letter at the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting that the hearing be delayed until after February 18, 2011, due to various appointments she had made that conflicted with the hearing dates. This letter indicated that Petitioner was aware of the scheduled hearing dates. By order dated January 20, 2011, the undersigned declined Petitioner's request for failure to state grounds sufficient to warrant a continuance over the objection of Respondent. Several attempts to reach Petitioner by telephone were unavailing. At 9:30 a.m. on January 24, 2011, counsel and witnesses for Respondent were present and prepared to go forward with the hearing. Petitioner was not present. The undersigned delayed the commencement of the hearing by fifteen minutes, but Petitioner still did not appear. The hearing was called to order at 9:45 a.m. Counsel for Respondent entered her appearance and requested the entry of a recommended order of dismissal. The hearing was then adjourned. As of the date of this recommended order, Petitioner has not contacted the Division of Administrative Hearings, in writing or by telephone, to explain her failure to appear at the hearing.
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 Petitions for Relief in these consolidated cases. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of January, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly D. Dotson 825 Briandav Street Tallahassee, Florida 32305 Kim M. Fluharty-Denson, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mary Kowalski Department of Financial Services Human Resource 200 East Gaines Street, Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 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 matter is whether the Petitioner was terminated from employment with the Respondent because of her race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black female and is a member of a protected class. Respondent employed Petitioner at the time of the alleged discrimination. Petitioner was employed by Respondent for approximately three and a half months, from her date of hire on December 17, 1994, through her date of termination on March 30, 1995. She was fired for insubordination. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). Her responsibilities as a CNA included taking care of patients and cleaning the facility. Her direct supervisor was Barbara Jean Gossett. Petitioner claims she was fired because of her race, alleging disparate treatment. To support this allegation, Petitioner cited an example of a white female who was having problems with her baby, whom Petitioner testified was sick, and that the white employee would come in for work when she was ready. Petitioner alleges the employee often reported late for work. Petitioner does not know the name of the employee, does not know who the white female talked to about reporting to work, and was not involved in any decision about whether the white female could or could not report late as a result of her child's ailments. Petitioner presented no other evidence or documents to support this allegation. Petitioner, when asked for any other basis for her claim of discrimination, cited an example of a woman who she claims never did what she was required to do, although she said the woman was in charge. Petitioner presented no other evidence or documents to support this allegation. Petitioner also alleges she was fired because of her race based on the way her supervisor, Barbara Jean Gossett, acted toward her. Petitioner also cited the varying way her supervisor verbalized instructions to the black and white staff. During examination by Respondent's counsel, Petitioner acknowledged receipt of Respondent's employee handbook on her first day of employment. She acknowledged that the purpose of the handbook is to notify employees of the rules and expectations and also to provide notice of behaviors that would lead to discipline or termination. She admitted that, based on the handbook, she knew what kind of behaviors were appropriate and what were considered inappropriate. She admitted that in the setting of a nursing home, punctuality was important. Petitioner admitted that there was a progressive disciplinary schedule in place for tardiness. She further admitted that under the schedule in place during her employment, an employee who was late seven or more times in a 90-day period would be fired. The supervisor, whom Petitioner claims was racist, however, did not fire Petitioner as the policy permitted. In fact, that same supervisor recommended a discretionary merit increase for Petitioner. Petitioner's performance evaluations show that as of March 14, 1995-approximately three months into her employment- she had been tardy nine times, absent three times, and had a performance rating below standard, which was the lowest rating permitted by the evaluation form. On March 29, 1995, Petitioner refused to clean an assigned work area during her shift. The employee handbook Petitioner received lists refusing a job assignment as number one on the list of behaviors that can lead to immediate termination and for which there is no progressive disciplinary schedule (as there is for tardiness and certain other offenses). As noted, Petitioner was fired for this incident. Finally, Petitioner admitted that she signed her Charge of Discrimination on June 18, 1996, and that it was filed June 20, 1996.
Recommendation Based on 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 11th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Joann Annichianrico Tandem Healthcare, Inc. Cherrington Corporate Center 200 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 360 Moon Township, Pennsylvania 15108 Josephine Hayes Davis Route 4, Box 4699-M Monticello, Florida 32344 James Garrity, Esquire McConnaughay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street Post Office Drawer 229 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0229 Azizi M. Dixon, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact Petitioner in this case is K. Kristine Nowacki. She was employed as an attorney in the office of the legal counsel for Respondent's District One in Pensacola, Florida, from November 14, 1988, until termination of her employment on June 9, 1989. Respondent is the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Rodney Johnson, the district's chief legal counsel. Cheleene Schembera was Johnson's immediate supervisor and chief administrator of District One. Upon commencement of Petitioner's employment, the work force in the legal office consisted of Johnson, a male, and Teresa Goodson, another female attorney. Another attorney, Randy Werre, was male and began employment in March of 1989. Since Petitioner had never used a dictaphone and could type exceedingly fast, 140 words per minute, she was given a word processor to prepare preliminary drafts of her work products. Word processing equipment was limited in the office. Johnson considered the provision of such equipment to Petitioner to be an exceptional employee benefit, as opposed to a burden or impairment. Petitioner never requested that she be provided with a dictaphone. Both Johnson and Schembera were concerned about Petitioner's dress and appearance. On separate occasions, both individuals spoke with Petitioner about a need to effect changes in her personal dress and grooming habits. When Johnson offered employment to Petitioner, he discussed with her the need to do something with her long, bushy and unkempt hair style. Prior to his employment offer to Petitioner, Johnson was told by Schembera that he should counsel with Petitioner about her hair style if he intended to hire Petitioner. However, the need to change dress or hair style was not a condition of employment. On January 11, 1989, Johnson spoke with Petitioner and noted that she had handled a difficult evidentiary matter in a hearing that day. However, Johnson's comments did not amount to an endorsement of Petitioner as a person with potential to become a great trial attorney. Petitioner was hired to serve as Johnson's "backup" and to effectively take Johnson's place in the event of his absence. Petitioner never developed such capability in the course of her employment with Respondent. Although Schembera spoke with Petitioner on April 21, 1989, regarding the need for Petitioner to adopt a more conservative hairstyle and dress, Schembera sought to provide Petitioner with guidance in order that Petitioner might retain the respect of her peers. Schembera told Petitioner that the discussion had no significance with regard to Petitioner's job. Such counselling by Schembera is not unusual. She has counseled with other employees concerning dress or hair styles when she considered such action to be appropriate. On at least one occasion in proximity to Petitioner's employment, Schembera counselled a male employee regarding the necessity of that employee obtaining a hair cut. Schembera even-handedly applied her grooming code to both male and female employees. Petitioner was unable to properly perform her job duties. In the judgement of her supervisors, she did not adequately prepare for hearing or otherwise adequately present Respondent's position in numerous hearings. As an attorney in Respondent's employment, Nowacki was a select exempt employee serving at the pleasure of Respondent. As such an employee, Petitioner's employment could be terminated at any time by Respondent. By letter dated June 9, 1989, Johnson informed Petitioner that her employment had been terminated. Her gross wages at the time of discharge from employment were $788.46 biweekly. The testimony of Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Rodney Johnson, was candid, consistent and creditable. That testimony establishes that Petitioner's employment was terminated because of her work performance. Neither dress nor hair length or style were factors in her termination. Johnson felt that Petitioner's appearance had begun to improve at the time of her employment termination. Petitioner's testimony, as a result of inconsistencies in that testimony and her demeanor while testifying, is not credited and fails to establish that her supervisors unlawfully terminated her employment. During the course of her seven months of employment, Petitioner made extensive use of sick leave. From an initial allotment of 104 hours, Petitioner used all but 17 hours of that leave amount. On June 27, 1989, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination against Respondent alleging termination of employment on the basis of sex.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-6600 The following constitutes my ruling on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in substance. Rejected with regard to pregnancy comment, credibility. Rejected, legal conclusion, argumentative and a mere restatement of Petitioner's position. The creditable evidence establishes that Petitioner was hired and retained in employment until her lack of capability was demonstrated. Rejected, Petitioner's testimony in this regard is not credited. As established by Johnson's testimony, which is credited, one of Petitioner's asserted strengths was her typing capability and she was provided a word processor as a benefit. Petitioner did not establish that she objected to this arrangement at the time. Rejected, creditability, insofar as grooming and dress requirements comprising employment conditions. Adopted in substance. 7.-8. Rejected, relevancy. Rejected, Petitioner's version is not supported by weight of the evidence, creditability. Rejected, relevancy. Adopted in substance, but not verbatim. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 13.-16. Rejected, relevancy. 17. While Schembera frankly admitted her dislike for Petitioner's dress and grooming and also accepted responsibility for the ultimate approval of the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment, this testimony does not establish that the basis for employment termination was other than Petitioner's job performance. This proposed finding must be rejected as a mischaracterization of Schembera's testimony. 18.-19. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 22.-24. Rejected, unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-21. Adopted, although not verbatim. 22.-25. Rejected, relevancy. 26.-28. Adopted by reference. 29.-30. Rejected, relevancy. 31. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: John Barry Kelly,II, Esq. 15 West Main Street Pensacola, FL 32501 Peter S. Fleitman, Esq. Lynda Quillen, Esq. Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol-Suite 1501 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Ronald M. McElrath Executive Director Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Clerk Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, AT&T Mobility Services, LLC (“AT&T”)1/ committed unlawful employment practices contrary to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2012),2/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on his age by failing to hire him as a customer service representative in its Ocala Call Center.
Findings Of Fact AT&T is an employer as that term is defined in subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes, and 29 U.S.C. § 630(b). Petitioner is a white male who was 60 years old at the time he applied and was rejected for a job at AT&T. In April 2012, Petitioner applied for a Customer Service Representative (“CSR”) position with AT&T at its Ocala call center. The CSR position is covered by a collective bargaining agreement between AT&T and Communication Workers of America. CSRs handle incoming customer calls for the variety of products and services sold, provided, or serviced by AT&T. The CSR’s essential duty is to resolve customer complaints and then transition the call into an attempt to sell the customer additional products and services. Petitioner submitted an application and resume. AT&T’s “resume builder” tool took Petitioner’s submissions and generated a document that set forth Petitioner’s education, certifications, work experience, and job preferences. Petitioner noted that he had many years of experience with Pacific Bell between the early 1970s through 1989, including six years as a customer service representative. Petitioner has also owned his own small business telephone system interconnect company for 25 years. Petitioner believed that this experience made him an ideal candidate for the AT&T CSR position. Petitioner took and passed an initial prescreening test for the CSR position. As a result, AT&T sent him an automated email scheduling him to attend a group teleconference presentation given by Tina Garcia, a staffing manager based in California who was responsible for the Ocala call center. Petitioner attended the teleconference. Thirteen other applicants were on the call. Ms. Garcia offered details about the CSR position, including salary, training, hours, and the status of the union. Ms. Garcia also explained the remainder of the application process, including how to prepare for the interview. Petitioner testified that the applicants were not really allowed to participate in the teleconference. He found it unusual that Ms. Garcia stated that AT&T was only interested in applicants’ job experience from the last five years. She also stated that if an applicant were self-employed, AT&T would consider his employment history only to the extent it could be substantiated with federal tax documents. Ms. Garcia testified that AT&T looks at only the last five years of employment for purposes of setting pay according to the union scale, but that AT&T is willing to consider all of an applicant’s work experience during the interview process. The tendency is to focus on more recent experience during the interview, and it is therefore up to the applicant to make sure the interviewer is aware of all his relevant experience. Applicants still interested in the CSR position after the teleconference were scheduled to take an assessment at the Ocala call center. Petitioner took the call center assessment, which is a live test administered via computer at the Ocala call center. Petitioner testified that the assessment covered general aptitude, general knowledge, and situational customer contact. Petitioner passed the assessment. Ms. Garcia then reviewed Petitioner’s application and determined that he met the minimum qualifications for the CSR position. She contacted Petitioner to schedule him for a job interview at the Ocala call center. Ms. Garcia sent Petitioner a form email that she sends all applicants who are scheduled for interview. The email is designed to assist applicants in preparation for their interviews. Among the bullet points set out in the email were the following: Go on-line and Google “Behavioral Interview Questions.” By reviewing and practicing your responses this [sic] will help refresh details regarding situations “you” have handled. The Interviewing Manager only wants to hear responses regarding actual situations that you have handled already. Tell a full story do not hesitate [sic] to share all details on how you handled the specific situation. Your application is only a guide; your responses will determine the outcome. Remember this is a Customer Service and Sales position (be prepared to Sale) [sic] Petitioner testified that he went online and looked up behavioral interview questions and practiced his responses to them before going to the interview. He stated that the materials consisted of questions about “situational customer things” such as how to sell a product and how to handle customer complaints. On May 2, 2012, Petitioner went to the Ocala call center and was interviewed by Hiring Manager Sheri Kerstetter. Ms. Kerstetter used an AT&T-produced CSR “Interview Guide” to conduct the interview. The guide set forth two segments to the interview: a “Key Background Review” during which the applicant discusses his work experience; and “Planned Behavioral Questions,” in which the applicant is presented with the opportunity, in response to specific questions, to describe his methods and experience in handling situations involving five categories: Customer Service, Sales Ability/Potential, Technical Savvy/Troubleshooting, Computer Knowledge, and Adaptability/Flexibility.4/ The guide provides the interviewer with three questions in each category, though the interviewer may opt to ask only two.5/ The interviewer scores the applicant’s responses in each category on a scale of 1 to 5, with any score below 3 being deemed unacceptable. Based on the entire interview, the interviewer also gives the applicant a score in a category labeled “Communication” on the same 1 to 5 scale. Finally, the interviewer gives the applicant an overall grade of “Acceptable” or “Not Acceptable.” AT&T requires the applicant to answer the Planned Behavioral Questions in a “STAR” format; that is, the applicant’s response should disclose a “Situation/Task” that was presented to the applicant, describe the “Action” the applicant took, and state the “Response” or outcome of the action taken to resolve the situation. At the beginning of the interview, Ms. Kerstetter explained that she would ask him a series of questions that he was to answer from his personal experience. She also explained the STAR format to him. Ms. Kerstetter testified that she had no present recollection of Petitioner or of the May 2, 2012, interview. However, Ms. Kerstetter’s notes of the interview were admitted into evidence as a joint exhibit and adopted by Ms. Kerstetter at the hearing. Petitioner conceded that the notes were accurate but stated that they did not capture the detail of everything he stated during the interview. Petitioner testified that Ms. Kerstetter’s initial questions were about his job experience. They spoke for five to ten minutes about Petitioner’s phone company work. Petitioner told Ms. Kerstetter about his 17 years at Pacific Bell, including time as a supervisor in operator services and six years in customer service. He also told her that he owned a business phone system interconnect company that was still a going concern after 25 years. Petitioner testified that he found it “sort of peculiar” that Ms. Kerstetter did not ask him for more details about his phone company work or make any written notes about it. In fact, under “Work Background,” Ms. Kerstetter parenthetically noted “small business phone systems 25 years.” Petitioner faulted Ms. Kerstetter for not asking him detailed follow-up questions about his phone company experience, but he conceded that he talked about his experience only in general terms and provided no details as to any special projects he worked on. When Ms. Kerstetter asked him to describe any other experience he had, Petitioner told her about his handyman business and his work as a cable installer. Petitioner gave the overall impression of having been very passive during the interview, waiting for Ms. Kerstetter to draw out the information rather than taking the initiative to make sure she knew everything about him that he believed was relevant to the job for which he was applying. Ms. Kerstetter noted that Petitioner did not comply with the STAR format in response to question 3 in the category of Sales Ability/Potential. (The question is set forth at endnote 5, supra.) In fact, she noted that he did not answer the question at all. Ms. Kerstetter also noted that Petitioner provided no STAR in response to question 3 of the Computer Knowledge category, which asked the applicant to describe the most complex activity he is able to complete with a computer, how often he performs that activity, and the computer programs he uses in the activity. In the categories of Customer Service, Sales Ability/Potential, Technical Savvy/Troubleshooting, and Computer Knowledge, Ms. Kerstetter scored Petitioner a 2, which indicates a result that is “Less than Acceptable.” Ms. Kerstetter rated Petitioner a “3”, or “Acceptable,” in the categories of Adaptability/Flexibility and Communication. Ms. Kerstetter rated Petitioner’s overall score as “Not Acceptable.” Ms. Kerstetter testified that the scoring on the interview is subjective. She stated that AT&T does not have a policy of disqualifying an applicant who makes a certain number of less than acceptable scores. Her rule of thumb is that she might hire someone who made one “2” because she could focus on that area of weakness and improve the applicant’s skill in that area during training. If there are two or more less than acceptable scores, she is not likely to hire the applicant. Ms. Kerstetter testified that Petitioner’s rating was based entirely on his responses to the questions in the interview. Applicants are not required to provide their age.6/ Ms. Kerstetter testified that her training instructed her not to ask applicants age-related questions. She stated that she did not know Petitioner’s age and did not base her decision on his age. However, it is noted that Petitioner plainly appears to be well past fifty years of age. Therefore, Ms. Kerstetter’s unawareness of Petitioner’s exact age does not alone operate as a complete defense to the allegation that she discriminated against him because of his age.7/ Petitioner objected that Ms. Kerstetter did not have a copy of his resume or the resume builder document in front of her during the interview. Ms. Kerstetter testified that sometimes she does and sometimes she does not have a resume during these interviews, depending on whether an AT&T clerk has placed the resume in the file. Ms. Garcia testified that applicants for the CSR position are not required to submit resumes and interviewers are not required to bring applicants’ resumes to the interviews. Eunice Robinson, the AT&T area manager who is Ms. Kerstetter’s supervisor, testified that she has done interviews with and without resumes. She added that she did not think the resume makes a difference regarding whether the applicant is hired, because “the interview process, at the point when you’re in front of the interviewer, it’s all about communication, it’s all about how you sell yourself to say that you are the right person for the job.” Ms. Kerstetter interviewed other applicants for the CSR position around the time of Petitioner's application. Four of those she interviewed were ultimately hired as CSRs. Ms. Kerstetter gave higher scores to each of these four, Jason Rodriguez, Terri Gill, Angela Queen, and William DeRousse, than she gave to Petitioner based on their answers to the questions asked. Ms. Kerstetter gave credible explanations for her ratings that were unrelated to the age of the applicants, none of whose ages she knew at the time of the interviews. Mr. Rodriguez received scores of 3 in all areas except Technical Savvy/Troubleshooting and Computer Knowledge, for which he was rated a 4, indicating “More Than Acceptable.” Ms. Kerstetter testified that she gave Mr. Rodriguez a high score on Computer Knowledge because he was “very savvy on the internet” and had advanced computer skills such as the ability to set up gaming servers.8/ In contrast, the computer skills noted by Petitioner, such as the ability to work with Microsoft Office, were things learned “in middle school nowadays.” Ms. Kerstetter did not hold Mr. Rodriguez’ relative lack of work experience against him because he had been a college student and was only now ready to work a full-time job. As to Petitioner’s contention that his experience with Pacific Bell, an AT&T related entity, made him more qualified than Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Robinson testified that prior experience working for AT&T would not be a deciding factor in hiring. Ms. Kerstetter noted that she was looking for sales experience, not necessarily experience in the telephone industry. She also noted that Petitioner’s experience was somewhat stale, having predated wireless communications, and that Petitioner did not give her sufficient detail describing his experience: “Just saying you have customer service experience doesn’t really mean —- you could be good or bad.” The behavioral interview, not experience, is the key to being hired for the CSR position. Ms. Gill received scores of 4 in the categories of Customer Service and Adaptability/Flexibility, and scores of 3 in all other categories. Ms. Kerstetter noted that Ms. Gill demonstrated she “can take sales pressure to deliver quotas. Enjoys Customer Service. Incentives motivate.” Ms. Kerstetter recalled that Ms. Gill stated during the interview, “Money motivates me.” Ms. Kerstetter testified that such motivation was important because “we have incentives and commission-based drivers to drive key behaviors that we want the representatives to demonstrate.” Ms. Queen was rated a 3 in all categories. Ms. Kerstetter’s notes indicated that Ms. Queen had done seasonal work in call centers, that her interview responses appeared to comply with the STAR format, and that she was able to rebuild a computer. Mr. DeRousse received scores of 5, indicating “Much more than acceptable,” in the categories of Sales Ability/Persuasiveness and Technical Savvy/Troubleshooting, and scores a 4 in all other categories. Ms. Kerstetter noted that Mr. DeRousse was “assertive” and “will be a good salesperson able to overcome objections and already knows how to sell benefits.” Ms. Kerstetter credibly denied that her decision to hire any of these successful applicants had anything to do with their ages. Petitioner attempted to establish that Ms. Kerstetter behaved differently in her interview with Petitioner than with these other applicants, that she was less inquisitive and showed less interest in his experience and qualifications, leading to the inference that she ruled out Petitioner as soon as she saw that he was an older candidate. Petitioner did not establish this proposition. AT&T hired applicants over the age of 40 to the position for which Petitioner applied, including one who was 60 years old. Out of 28 individuals hired, ten were in the protected age group (35.71%) as of the date of their application. Of these ten, four were over 50, and one was 60. The CSR position is an entry-level job. AT&T does not expect applicants to spend their careers in this position. Ms. Robinson testified that there are 450 CSRs working at the Ocala call center, with a capacity for 696. The company interviews and hires applicants every day. There is a lot of turnover. Ms. Robinson estimated that the call center loses 25 to 40 CSRs every month. Ms. Kerstetter testified that applicants are hired in the hope that they will stay with the company for twelve months. All of this is to say that it would be self-defeating for someone in Ms. Kerstetter’s position to dismiss any applicant out of hand for reasons unrelated to the requirements of the position. Petitioner failed to offer persuasive evidence that AT&T discriminated against him because of his age in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that AT&T Mobility Services, LLC, did not commit any unlawful employment practices, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 2014.
Findings Of Fact The Notice of Hearing in this case was issued on January 12, 2011, setting the hearing for March 30 and 31, 2011, in Tavares, Florida. The hearing was scheduled to commence at 9:00 a.m. on March 30, 2011. Also on January 12, 2011, an Order of Pre-hearing Instructions was entered. Neither the Notice of Hearing nor the Order of Pre- hearing Instructions was returned as undeliverable to Petitioner. On March 23, 2011, Petitioner filed a letter at the Division of Administrative Hearings stating that she would be unable to attend the hearing on March 30, 2011, for unexplained medical reasons. This letter indicated that Petitioner was aware of the scheduled hearing dates. At the hearing on March 30, 2011, counsel for Respondent stated that Petitioner did not serve a copy of this letter to Respondent. On March 29, 2011, Petitioner filed a second letter at the Division of Administrative Hearings that declined to request a continuance of the hearing and proposed that the hearing proceed based on hearsay documents that Petitioner had previously filed at the Division of Administrative Hearings. At the hearing on March 30, 2011, counsel for Respondent stated that Petitioner did not serve a copy of this letter to Respondent. At 9:00 a.m. on March 30, 2011, counsel and witnesses for Respondent were present and prepared to go forward with the hearing. Petitioner was not present. The undersigned delayed the commencement of the hearing by fifteen minutes, but Petitioner still did not appear. The hearing was called to order at 9:15 a.m. Counsel for Respondent entered his appearance and requested the entry of a recommended order of dismissal. As noted above, Respondent had received no notice that Petitioner did not intend to appear at the hearing or that continuance was under consideration. Respondent's counsel had flown to Florida from Tennessee to appear at the hearing. One of Respondent's witnesses was a former employee whom Respondent had flown to Florida from Wisconsin at Respondent's expense. Respondent vigorously opposed any continuance of the scheduled proceeding. The undersigned declined on the record to continue the hearing. The hearing was then adjourned.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Leebron Grand Court Tavares 111 Westwood Place, Suite 200 Brentwood, Tennessee 37027 Ann L. Brunette Post Office Box 304 Fruitland Park, Florida 34731 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice as alleged in the petition for relief filed on April 19, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this discrimination case, petitioner, Arthur R. Jones, alleges that in October 1993, when he was fifty-four years of age, he was unlawfully terminated from his position as a welder with respondent, Progress Rail Services, Inc. (PRS), on account of his age. After conducting a preliminary investigation of the claim, the Commission on Human Relations (Commission) concluded that there was no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice occurred. Petitioner then filed his petition for relief realleging the same disparate treatment. Respondent is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of refurbishing railroad cars and is located in Green Cove Springs, Florida. Although there is no direct evidence as to the number of persons employed by PRS, through representation of its counsel in his opening statement, it can be inferred that PRS employed fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the year when the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, or in the preceding calendar year. After taking a welding test, petitioner began employment with PRS in April 1992. Initially, he worked as a carpenter, but he was later transferred to a "weld out" position. The latter position involved physically demanding work and required petitioner and a co-worker, working as a team, to weld steel tops onto railroad car frames. During petitioner's tenure as a PRS employee, PRS had a progressive discipline policy which provided that an employee would receive a verbal warning, followed by a written warning, which was then followed by placement on probation. The fourth and final step was termination of employment. PRS's absenteeism and tardy policy was based on a point system. Employees received one point for tardy or early leave, and two points for absences. When the employee reached eight points, a verbal warning was given in accordance with the progressive discipline policy. A total of twelve points resulted in a written warning while sixteen points resulted in a period of probation. Eighteen points resulted in termination. On November 17, 1992, petitioner was given his first verbal warning regarding absenteeism. On March 24, 1993, petitioner again received a verbal warning for failing to report to work on time. On the March 24 disciplinary action form, petitioner was admonished by his supervisor to "come to work on time." On May 12, 1993, petitioner was given a written warning for absenteeism. On the disciplinary action form, the supervisor noted that petitioner "need(ed) to improve on come (sic) to work all work day." As of May 24, 1992, petitioner had accumulated seventeen points, and thus he was placed on probation for excessive absenteeism. His supervisor again warned him in writing "not (to) be late or absent," and if he was, "(i)t will result in your termination at (PRS)." All of the foregoing disciplinary actions were taken by supervisor O'Bryant. Sometime after May 24, 1992, petitioner began working under a new supervisor, Thomas M. Martin. On December 12, 1992, petitioner was given a verbal warning by Martin for "not wearing safety shoes." The warning was justified since petitioner was not wearing lace-up safety shoes as required by company policy. In May 1993, petitioner was transferred to a "weld-out" position under the supervision of Randy Cochran. On September 3, 1993, Cochran gave petitioner a written warning for "not doing (the) job assign(ed) to him!" Petitioner had been instructed to clean out a storage boxcar but was found reading a newspaper. He was advised in writing that he "need's (sic) to perform the job assign(ed) to him!" On October 1, 1993, petitioner was placed on probation for poor "work performance" due to not meeting established time standards for a particular job. Specifically, he was charged with "taking too long to do the work" by "spend(ing) 5.0 hours on (a job that) should have taken 2.0 hours to complete." He was told in writing to "(d)o (his) job within the time standards," or face possible "termination." After observing petitioner continually failing to meet established time standards during the next few days, on October 6, 1993, Cochran verbally warned petitioner that unless he "made the time standard" on the job he was working that morning, he would be terminated. When Cochran later observed petitioner "way behind" on his job, petitioner was terminated for poor "work performance." According to the disciplinary action form, petitioner was "not able to complete work within time standards." These time standards were uniformly applied to all welders regardless of age, and the dismissal was in conformity with PRS's progressive discipline policy. There is no credible evidence that PRS was motivated by discriminatory animus when it made this employment decision. Whether petitioner was replaced by another person, and if so, the age of that person, is not of record. When an employee leaves employment with PRS, an exit interview is conducted to identify any problems with employment policies and procedures, including management practices. Complaints made by the employee regarding unfair treatment, such as discrimination, are recorded on the exit interview form. When petitioner was discharged, an exit interview was conducted. During the interview, petitioner made no complaints regarding suspected age discrimination. Petitioner was not employed from the time of his discharge until November 16, 1994. On that date, he began collecting Social Security disability benefits. During the years 1991 through 1994, PRS discharged eighty-one employees. Of those, twenty-four were age forty or over. In 1995, respondent had one hundred fifty-seven employees, of which sixty-one were age forty or older. At hearing, petitioner contended that Randy Cochran, his supervisor from May 1993 until his termination, made discriminatory comments regarding his age. Specifically, petitioner contended that, on more than one occasion, Cochran called him an "old man" and threatened to fire him on account of his age. These allegations, however, are not deemed to be credible and are hereby rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the the Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order denying the petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Arthur R. Jones Post Office Box 8 Satsuma, Florida 32189 Charles F. Henley, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 40593 Jacksonville, Florida 32203-0593 Dana A. Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, based upon her complaints about a coworker’s conduct perceived by Petitioner to be sexual harassment.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and documentary evidence presented at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner, a female, was employed as a server with Respondent from May 6, 2011, through September 29, 2012. Respondent, Stavro's Pizza, Inc., is a restaurant located in New Smyrna Beach, Florida. Respondent employs more than 15 individuals at any given time and therefore is subject to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. §§ 760.01-760.l1, Fla. Stat. Early on the morning of Friday, September 27, 2012, it was reported to Martha Trimble, long-time General Manager of Respondent, that a "weird conversation" took place between Petitioner and another employee, Brian Hayes, the previous evening.2/ During this conversation, Mr. Hayes allegedly told Petitioner that “he knew everything about her, including where she lived, and that her favorite color was blue.” Mr. Hayes also allegedly told Petitioner that he was soon to be the new manager of the restaurant. Ms. Trimble approached Petitioner later that day about the alleged incident with Mr. Hayes, and while Petitioner admitted she had had a strange conversation with Mr. Hayes, she denied that she was upset by it. Nonetheless, Ms. Trimble told Petitioner she would investigate the matter and that she took it seriously. Later that same day Ms. Trimble also questioned Mr. Hayes, who denied making the reported comments. And while Ms. Trimble was aware that Petitioner had voluntarily given Mr. Hayes her address,3/ out of caution, Ms. Trimble placed Mr. Hayes on leave while she continued her investigation. The following day, Saturday, September 28, 2012, there was a mandatory meeting for all employees of Respondent. The meeting was mandatory because Ms. Trimble had been made aware of horseplay among some employees, and was concerned that staff training had been inadequate. Notice of the meeting was conspicuously posted in the restaurant for two weeks prior to the meeting. The notice explained that the meeting was mandatory and that all employees were to attend unless they contacted Ms. Trimble prior to the meeting to be excused. Petitioner did not attend the Saturday meeting and was not excused in advance. Four other employees contacted Ms. Trimble ahead of time and explained that they would be unable to attend due to schedule conflicts. Those employees were excused. When Ms. Trimble contacted Petitioner later in the day, Petitioner told Ms. Trimble that she had been ill, and in bed all day. That evening Ms. Trimble also reviewed the security camera video of the one hour period the previous Thursday during which Petitioner and Mr. Hayes had been alone in the restaurant, and during which the suspect comments had reportedly been made. In reviewing the video, Ms. Trimble specifically watched for physical contact, lingering conversations, and body language. At hearing, Ms. Trimble related her observations from the restaurant video as follows: So I watched the tape. Brian basically stayed back in the kitchen. Uh, we have side work we do. We make garlic bread. We make boxes. We do little oil containers for to-go salads. And Brian was back doing that almost the entire time. Once I saw him go up to the waitress station and get a beverage and bring it back. Amanda basically was at the register. She would come back every once in a while, hang a ticket, kind of stand there and chitchat until, uh – until, uh, a salad was given to her or something like that. So, um, but mainly they were both in their own areas. I did not see anything that indicated that there was anything improper going on. Following her review of the surveillance video Ms. Trimble concluded that there was no basis to believe that Mr. Hayes had engaged in any form of sexual harassment against Petitioner. The following day, Sunday, September 29, 2012, Ms. Trimble met with Petitioner regarding her absence from the mandatory meeting the day before. At this meeting Ms. Trimble informed Petitioner that because she failed to attend the mandatory meeting without being excused, and had failed to even call Ms. Trimble to explain she was ill and would be unable to attend, her employment was terminated. A former employee of Respondent, Lindsey Yauch, testified on behalf of Petitioner. Ms. Yauch testified that she had once missed a mandatory meeting called by Ms. Trimble but had not been fired as a result. However, on cross-examination Ms. Yauch could not remember the purpose, date, or any other details surrounding the meeting. Ms. Trimble’s testimony regarding the meeting that Ms. Yauch missed was more precise. Ms. Trimble recalled that it was a “safe-staff meeting”, which is a food-handler’s course that all employees must take. Because all 27 of Respondent’s employees were required to take the class, it was offered on two separate dates, and employees were permitted to choose which session they would attend. Ms. Yaugh had chosen to attend the first session, but overslept and missed the class as a result. Since a second class offering was still available, Ms. Yaugh was permitted to attend the second session, which she did. There is no credible evidence in this record that Petitioner was treated differently than other similarly situated employees when she was terminated for missing a mandatory meeting. At hearing Ms. Trimble testified that Petitioner's termination had nothing to do with her gender or the alleged comments made by Brian Hayes. Rather, Petitioner’s termination was the result of her missing a mandatory staff meeting without excuse. This testimony is credible. To his credit, in his closing statement counsel for Petitioner candidly acknowledged that, even if true, the comments made by Mr. Hayes would not constitute sexual harassment.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's Petition for Relief should be dismissed as untimely pursuant to Subsection 760.11(7), Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with FCHR on February 20, 2004. Petitioner alleged that Respondent discriminated against him based on his age when it failed to hire him for a position with the agency. Finding no reasonable cause to believe that Respondent had committed an unlawful employment practice, FCHR issued a Determination: No Cause on May 4, 2004. On the same date, FCHR issued a Notice of Determination: No Cause advising Petitioner that he had 35 days from the date of the notice in which to request an administrative hearing. The notice clearly stated that Petitioner's claim would be dismissed pursuant to Section 760.11, Florida Statutes (2003), if he failed to request a hearing in a timely manner. The 35th day was June 8, 2004. FCHR received the Petition for Relief on June 14, 2004, six days after expiration of the 35-day period.
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 ORDERED this 26th day of August, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Edward W. Koerner 81 Emerald Woods Drive, M-11 Naples, Florida 34108 Mary Linville Atkins, Esquire Department of Juvenile Justice 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
