The Issue Whether Petitioners committed the offenses alleged and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioners Jerry J. Robinson and Charles Osz, were detention deputies employed by the Respondent, Everett S. Rice, Pinellas County Sheriff (Respondent), and assigned to the Pinellas County Jail (Jail). Detention deputies are correctional officers and, as is the case with all detention deputies, Petitioners were responsible for the care, custody, and control of persons held at the Jail. On January 30, 1998, Officer John Fitzgerald of the Largo Police Department took Duston Llano into custody and transported him to the Jail. Joseph Nichols, an Explorer Scout with the Largo Police Department, accompanied Officer Fitzgerald to the Jail. Mr. Llano was not under arrest since he had committed no crime but was taken into custody pursuant to the Marchman Act based upon his intoxicated condition. When he was taken into custody, Mr. Llano did not resist or threaten physical harm to the officers but did threaten to sue the officers. On January 30, 1998, Petitioners Robinson and Osz were assigned to the booking area of the Jail. Upon Mr. Llano's arriving at the Jail, Petitioners Robinson and Osz took possession of him in the pre-booking area. Shortly thereafter, Petitioners transported Mr. Llano to the post-booking section of the Jail and placed him in Cell 4. Mr. Llano was barely able to walk and was assisted by Petitioners Robinson and Osz to the post-booking area. Once in Cell 4, Petitioners began a pat-down search of Mr. Llano. Petitioner Robinson was to the left of Mr. Llano and Petitioner Osz was to Mr. Llano's right. During the search, a substance Petitioners believed might be crack cocaine was found on the person of Mr. Llano. After the suspicious substance was found on Mr. Llano, Detention Deputy Monte Esry requested that Detention Deputy Larry Potts summon Officer Fitzgerald and Mr. Nichols and ask them to remain at the Jail to possibly process the substance and effect an arrest of Mr. Llano. Detention Deputy Potts complied with Detention Deputy Esry's request and then accompanied Officer Fitzgerald and Mr. Nichols down the hall from the pre-booking area to Cell 4 of the post-booking area where Mr. Llano was being held. The substance found on Mr. Llano's person and believed to be contraband was found by Petitioner Osz who gave the substance to Petitioner Robinson. Petitioner Robinson then handed the substance to Detention Deputy Esry who handed it to Detention Deputy Potts who, then, handed it to Officer Fitzgerald for testing. Having found what they believed to be contraband, Petitioners Osz and Robinson began a strip search of Mr. Llano. When they arrived at Cell 4, Officer Fitzgerald stood near the doorway to the cell and Mr. Nichols remained in the hallway outside the cell. From Officer Fitzgerald's and Mr. Nichols' vantage point, it was possible for them to see into Cell 4. Both Officer Fitzgerald and Mr. Nichols observed Mr. Llano sitting on the bunk in the cell with Petitioner Robinson on his left and Petitioner Osz on his right. Mr. Llano was slumped over and again made reference to suing everyone. However, Mr. Llano took no action to resist or otherwise justify the use of force. In an apparent response to Mr. Llano's threat to sue, Petitioner Osz grabbed Mr. Llano by his hair, straightened him up and slapped him on the face or head at least twice. While Petitioner Osz was slapping Mr. Llano, he said something to the effect of "how about another thousand" or "there is another thousand." From his vantage point in the hall, not more than 15 feet away, Mr. Nichols saw Petitioner Osz slap Mr. Llano and heard the comments by Petitioner Osz. Officer Fitzgerald, who was at the doorway of Cell 4, approximately nine feet, also saw the slapping incident and heard the comments made by Petitioner Osz. During the course of the slapping incident, Detention Deputy Potts was also in Cell 4. Nonetheless, he testified that he did not see Petitioner Osz slap Mr. Llano. When Petitioner Osz slapped Mr. Llano, Petitioner Robinson was in Cell 4 and within five or six feet of Petitioner Osz and Mr. Llano. However, at the time of the incident, Petitioner Robinson was preoccupied with depositing items obtained from Mr. Llano's person into a property bag that was on a steel table in the cell and did not see Petitioner Osz slap Mr. Llano. Also, because the Jail was very busy and loud on this evening, Petitioner Robinson did not hear Petitioner Osz slap Mr. Llano. Because Petitioner Robinson did not observe the incident, he did not respond to or report Petitioner Osz' actions toward Mr. Llano. Neither Officer Fitzgerald nor Mr. Nichols observed Petitioner Robinson during the slapping incident and could not testify as to where he was looking when the incident occurred. After the slapping incident, Officer Fitzgerald and Mr. Nichols then left the area of Cell 4 in order to conduct a test of the substance found in Mr. Llano's pants pocket. As a result of the test performed by Officer Fitzgerald, it was determined that the substance was not illegal. After conducting the presumptive test, Officer Fitzgerald and Mr. Nichols left the Jail. Officer Fitzgerald and Mr. Nichols subsequently reported the slapping incident to their supervisors and prepared reports memorializing the events they observed. A representative of the City of Largo Police Department then reported the incident to the Respondent, who initiated an investigation by the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, Inspections Bureau, Administrative Inquiry Division. As a part of the investigation regarding the conduct in question, sworn statements were taken from Officer Fitzgerald, Mr. Nichols, Detention Deputy Potts, Detention Deputy Esry and Petitioners Osz and Robinson. Attempts to speak with Mr. Llano were fruitless based upon his lack of recollection of the incident. During the course of his sworn statement, Petitioner Robinson stated that he did not see Petitioner Osz slap Mr. Llano. Detention Deputy Potts, who was also in Cell 4 during the incident, also stated in his sworn statement that he did not observe Petitioner Osz slap Mr. Llano. During his sworn statement, Petitioner Osz denied that he ever struck Mr. Llano. After completing its investigation, the Administrative Inquiry Division presented its entire investigative file to the Chain of Command Board without conclusion or recommendation. The Chain of Command Board met and after reviewing the materials provided by the Administrative Inquiry Division and giving Petitioners the opportunity to respond further, the complaints against Petitioners were sustained. Specifically, the violations determined to have occurred as to Petitioner Osz were: Violation of Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Civil Service Act, Laws of Florida, 89-404, as amended by the Laws of Florida, 90-395, Section 6, subsection 4: conduct unbecoming a public servant; violations of the provisions of law or the rules, regulations, and operating procedures of the office of the Sheriff; Violation of PCSO Rule C1, V, A (Level Five Violation), 006, relating to truthfulness; Violation of PCSO Rule C1, V, A (Level Five Violation), 021, relating to custody of arrestees/prisoners; Violation of PCSO Rule C1, V, C (Level Three Violation), 060, relating to standard of conduct. Under the PCSO Guidelines, a sustained finding of two Level Five violations and one Level Three violation is the basis for assigning 115 disciplinary points. As a result, Petitioner Osz was assessed 115 disciplinary points. The Sheriff's Office General Order B-15 identifies a disciplinary range for a total point award of 115 points to be a minimum discipline of a 15-day suspension and a maximum discipline termination. In the instant case, the discipline imposed against Petitioner Osz was termination. Specifically, the violations determined to have occurred as to Petitioner Robinson were: Violation of Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Civil Service Act, Laws of Florida, 89-404, as amended by the Laws of Florida, 90-395, Section 6, subsection 4: conduct unbecoming a public servant; violations of the provisions of law or the rules, regulations, and operating procedures of the office of the Sheriff; Violation of PCSO Rule C1, V, A (Level Five Violation), 006, relating to truthfulness; Violation of PCSO Rule C1, V, B (Level Four violation), 037, relating to reporting violations of laws, ordinances, rules or orders. Under the PCSO Guidelines, a sustained finding of one Level Five violation and one Level Four violation is the basis for assigning 80 disciplinary points. As a result, in the instant case, Petitioner Robinson was assessed 80 disciplinary points. The Sheriff's Office General Order B-15 identifies a disciplinary range for a total point award of 80 points to be a minimum discipline of a 10-day suspension and a maximum discipline of termination. In the instant case, the discipline imposed against Petitioner Robinson was termination. The conduct engaged in by Petitioner Osz in slapping Mr. Llano was unnecessary, excessive, did not constitute a good correction practice and is not consistent with the training or conduct expected of correctional officers.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board of the PCSO enter a Final Order: 1) finding Petitioner Osz guilty of the conduct alleged in the charging document; (2) upholding the termination of Petitioner Osz' employment as a detention deputy with the PCSO; (3) dismissing the charges against Petitioner Robinson; and, (4) reinstating Petitioner Robinson as a detention deputy with the PCSO. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. LauBach, Esquire Executive Director Pinellas County Police Benevolent Association 3737 16th Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33704 Jean H. Kwall, Esquire Pinellas County Sheriff's Office Post Office Drawer 2500 Largo, Florida 33779-2500 Charles Osz, pro se 2545 Coachman Road Northeast Number 127 Clearwater, Florida 33765 Keith Tischler, Esquire Power, Quaschnick, Tischler and Evans Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 B. Norris Rickey Office of Pinellas County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 William Repper, Chairperson Pinellas County Sheriff's Civil Service Board Post Office Box 539 Clearwater, Florida 33757
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Invarrary Retirement Center, Inc. (IRC), is licensed by petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), to operate an adult congregate living facility (ACLF). The facility operates under the name of Inverrary Retirement Center at 5811 Northwest 28th Street, Lauderhill, Florida. On or about April 4, 1984, two HRS inspectors performed a routine relicensure survey of IRC. The purpose of the survey was to determine whether IRC was complying with all HRS requirements relating to record keeping, sanitation, fire and safety. During the course of the survey, the inspectors noted the following violations of HRS rules: There was no staff member within the facility at all times who was certified in an approved first aid course (Rule 10A- 5.19(5)(f), F.A.C.); The facility failed to keep "current" records of self administered medication (Rule 10A-5.18(6)(f), F.A.C.); Menus were not planned and posted where they could be easily viewed by the residents (Rule 10A-5.20(1)(j), F.A.C.); The kitchen was not equipped with an approved exhaust hood over the stove (Rule 10A-5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); An electrical extension cord was used to service the coffee maker (Rule 10A- 5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); One of the buildings had an insufficient means of egress for the residents (Rule 10A- 5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); There were no manually operated fire alarms capable of being heard throughout the facility (Rule 10A-5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); Respondent failed to provide documenta- tion reflecting the smoke detectors were tested on a weekly basis (Rule 10A- 5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.); and (j) There was a sliding bolt on an exit door on one of the buildings (Rule 10A- 5.23(15)(a), F.A.C.). All of the foregoing constituted a separated violation of HRS rules. 1/ When the survey was completed, the inspectors reviewed all violations with IRC's manager and advised her that a resurvey would be taken in about thirty days, and that all violations must either be corrected by that time, or some action instituted which reflected an intent on the part of the facility to correct the same. This was in accordance with HRS policy governing ACLFs, and approximated the time given other facilities to make similar corrections. On April 10, 1984, a Corrective Action Plan was issued by HRS and sent to IRC. This document set out in detail the various violations found in the April 4 inspection and set a compliance date of May 4, 1984 for all corrections to be made. A resurvey of IRC's facility was made by the same two HRS inspectors on May 18, 1984. With the exception of item (3)(h), which required documentation verifying that smoke detectors be tested weekly, the inspectors noted that no corrections had been made. However, respondent presented evidence that items (3)(b) and (3)(c) had indeed been corrected by that date and such evidence is deemed to be more persuasive than contrary evidence offered by HRS representatives. Further, the violation in item (3)(f), and turns on whether an HRS publication or the City of Lauderdale fire code was controlling when the inspection was made. Because no evidence was presented to establish which standard was in effect, the allegation that an HRS publication was violated must fail. Accordingly, it is found that IRC failed to timely correct items (3)(a), (3)(d), (3)(e), (3)(h), (3)(i), and (3)(j) as required by the Corrective Action Plan. Respondent eventually made all corrections, although not within the HRS imposed deadline. One of the deficiencies [item (3)(d) required extensive renovations, including bids and a city permit, which took considerable time to accomplish. However, IRC's manager neglected to provide HRS inspectors with any evidence on the May 18 visit showing that bids were being solicited, or that there was any "movement" on the project. The same is true for item (3)(g) which required competitive bids from suppliers. IRC also failed to advise HRS that it could not immediately enroll an employee in the Broward County First Aid Course [item (3)(a)] because of the large number of participants in the class. IRC failed to do so even though its manager had been told that an extension on the May 4 deadline could be obtained where IRC gave some evidence to the inspectors that action was being instituted to correct the deficiency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating agency rules as set forth in items (3)(a), (3)(d), (3)(e), (3)(h), (3)(i) and (3)(j) of the administrative complaint, and that a $900 administrative fine be imposed, to be paid within thirty days after the data of the final order rendered in this proceeding. All other charges should be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of March, 1985.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At some time prior to August of 2013, the Petitioner and Respondent discussed the Petitioner’s potential employment as a “Pharmacy Sales Representative” for the Respondent. The Respondent eventually offered such employment to the Petitioner, the terms of which were set forth in a letter (hereinafter “agreement”) from the Respondent (identified therein as “SCP, LLC” or “company”) to the Petitioner. The agreement stated as follows: Your job title will be Pharmacy Sales Representative and your duties include all aspects of sales and marketing to physicians and patients SCP, LLC can provide for. You will be responsible for producing leads and establishing new pharmacy sales as well as maintaining all existing accounts. You will report to members of SCP, LLC. You may be assigned other duties as needed and your duties may also change on reasonable notice, based on the needs of the company and your skills, as determined by the company. The agreement provided that the Petitioner would be paid an annual base salary of $45,000, and a commission “based on the total sales of compounded products sold to all accounts you are managing.” The salary was to be paid bi-weekly. The commission was to be paid quarterly. The agreement stated that the Petitioner would receive an additional $250 per month for the purposes of obtaining private health insurance, and that the additional payment would cease if a company health insurance plan became available to employees. The agreement stated that the Petitioner would also have access to an expense account, including a company credit card, and receive either a car or a paid car allowance from the Respondent. The agreement specifically provided as follows: YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE COMPANY IS AT-WILL. IN OTHER WORDS, EITHER YOU OR THE COMPANY CAN TERMINATE YOUR EMPLOYMENT AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE AND WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE. According to the agreement, the Petitioner’s employment was to commence on September 3, 2013. Although the Petitioner was dissatisfied with the salary structure offered by the Respondent and believed that the offer was below her market value, the Petitioner signed the agreement on August 1, 2013, and accepted the employment terms set forth therein. The Petitioner’s dissatisfaction with her income was a continuing issue during her employment. The Petitioner repeatedly requested that her base salary be increased, but the Respondent was unprofitable and was unwilling to agree to the Petitioner’s request. Although the Petitioner initially developed some marketing materials for the Respondent, the Respondent was not satisfied with the Petitioner’s overall job performance. Additionally, there appears to have been disagreement between the Petitioner and the Respondent as to the responsibilities of her employment, including continuing friction between the Petitioner and her supervisor. On several occasions, the supervisor requested that the Petitioner come into the office during working hours to meet with him. The Petitioner apparently believed that her time was better utilized meeting with prospective clients; however, some of the prospective clients sought products that, for a variety of reasons, the Respondent could not supply. In any event, rather than come into the office as requested by her supervisor, the Petitioner chose to communicate with him by “after hours” email or by telephone. The supervisor was dissatisfied by the Petitioner’s failure to comply with his request. At some point in December of 2013, the Respondent determined that the Petitioner’s performance was not satisfactory and that a change needed to occur. The Petitioner was advised of the Respondent’s dissatisfaction in a meeting on December 5, 2013, between the Petitioner and a representative of the Respondent. After being advised that some type of change was going to occur, the Petitioner raised a number of complaints about her supervisor. The Petitioner complained that the supervisor used profanity, that he had hung up on her during a telephone call, and that, on one occasion, he had patted her on the head in an apparently demeaning manner. The Respondent had a written “zero tolerance” policy prohibiting all forms of harassment, including sexual harassment. The policy prohibited any form of retaliation against an employee who complained that he or she was a target of harassment. The Respondent also had a written “open door” policy that provided a specific procedure for resolving employment-related disputes. The Petitioner was specifically advised of such policies during an orientation process that occurred at the commencement of her employment with the Respondent. Additionally, the Petitioner received written copies of all relevant policies from the Respondent’s human resource director. There is no evidence that, prior to learning on December 5, 2013, that her employment was in jeopardy, the Petitioner advised any representative or employee of the Respondent that she objected to the supervisor’s alleged behavior. After the meeting on December 5, the Petitioner wrote an email to company officials dated December 17, 2013, wherein she asserted that she had “closed” a number of accounts on behalf of the Respondent, and suggested that her contribution to the company was being undervalued. She also requested reevaluation of her compensation because she believed the commission structure was inadequate. The Respondent apparently disagreed with the Petitioner because few actual sales resulted from the Petitioner’s “closed” accounts. Accordingly, during a meeting with Respondent’s representatives on December 20, 2013, the Petitioner was advised that her employment was officially being terminated. Central to the Respondent’s decision was the lack of revenue generated by the Petitioner’s sales and the unprofitability of the company. The Petitioner’s failure to comply with the requests of her supervisor also provided a basis for her termination from employment. During the meeting on December 20, the Petitioner restated the complaints she had first addressed during the meeting on December 5, and raised a number of additional complaints, including allegations of harassment or sexual harassment by her supervisor or another employee. There is no evidence that, prior to learning on December 20, 2013, that her employment was being terminated, the Petitioner had advised any representative or employee of the Respondent that she had been harassed in any manner by her supervisor or by any other employee of the Respondent. The alleged perpetrators of the harassment dispute the Petitioner’s assertions. The evidence fails to establish that any of the alleged acts of harassment or sexual harassment actually occurred. In a memorandum to the Petitioner dated December 20, 2013, the Respondent advised the Petitioner that her termination package would include salary payments for three weeks (one week of “final” pay and two weeks of severance pay), additional payment for 27 hours of accrued paid time off and unused comp time, and a total commission payment of $31.97. By letter to the Respondent dated December 27, 2013, the Petitioner restated the alleged harassment referenced herein and requested that she receive an additional two weeks of severance pay. The Respondent ultimately paid the Petitioner a total of four weeks of severance pay. The evidence fails to establish that the termination of the Petitioner’s employment by the Respondent was related to any complaint of harassment or sexual harassment, or was retaliatory in any manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's complaint against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Cheyanne Michelle Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Christina Harris Schwinn, Esquire Pavese Law Firm 1833 Hendry Street Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (eServed) Antonios Poulos, Esquire Poulos Law Firm 1502 West Busch Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33612 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Petitioner was discriminated against based on retaliation for participation in a protected activity in violation of Chapter 760.10(7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner (Holden) is an African-American female. At all times relevant to this petition, Holden was employed in a probationary status by the Florida Department of Corrections at Apalachee Correctional Institution (ACI) as a Correctional Officer. Probationary officers are not entitled to progressive discipline, but can be terminated for any reason. At the hearing, Holden withdrew her claims that the Department had discriminated against her based on her race and sex. On or about July 22, 2001, Captain Tullis Scipper responded to a call from the Medical Unit at ACI. Upon his arrival, he observed Officer Holden in front of the Suicide Watch Isolation Cell. She was cussing at the inmate with whom she had a previous confrontation. Scipper explained to her that she was not to argue or verbally abuse the inmate and that she should stay away from the cell. On at least one other occasion that night, Captain Scipper responded to the Medical Unit and observed similar actions by Holden. The next day, Captain Scipper received a call from Warden Adro Johnson, who inquired as to what had happened in the Medical Unit the night before. Warden Johnson had received a complaint from Nurse Carla Weeks that Officer Holden had been cussing the inmates and he was checking into the complaint. Warden Johnson asked Captain Scipper to bring Officer Holden to his office. The purpose of the meeting was not to ascertain whether Officer Holden had been cussing at inmates. The Warden had two eye-witness, staff accounts of her behavior. When confronted, she advised Warden Johnson that she had become angry and had cussed the inmate. Warden Johnson counseled Holden about her behavior. Warden Johnson testified that he felt that Holden was unreceptive to his counseling and that she was argumentative. He believed that she was not displaying the attitude that a good officer displays when he/she is being counseled by a warden. Holden also was upset and crying, and, as a result, Warden Johnson informed her that she needed to adjust her attitude and come back to see him the next day. Warden Johnson testified that he had not made up his mind as to what action he would take against Holden for her actions with the inmate. After the meeting with Warden Johnson, Captain Scipper observed Officers Holden and Shiver arguing with each other. Holden testified that she had asked Shiver about why her tour was changed, and this led to the incident observed by Scipper. In Scipper’s opinion, Holden was the “aggressor” because she continued to advance on Shiver, even though Shiver had his hands in the air and was stating words to the effect that he did not have anything to do with whatever they were arguing about. Knowing that Holden had just had a counseling session with the Warden, Scipper was surprised that Holden would almost immediately be involved in an altercation with a staff member. He relieved Holden of her duties for the rest of her scheduled shift. The next day Holden met as scheduled with Warden Johnson. Captain Scipper did not attend this meeting. Johnson had been informed of the previous day’s incident between Officers Holden and Shiver. He asked Holden if she was willing to change her attitude. He had not determined prior to the meeting if he would take any action at all against Holden. Johnson felt that Holden's response to him was disrespectful, and that she did not have the right attitude. Johnson terminated Holden based on what he perceived to be her poor attitude. He knew that Holden was approaching the end of her probationary status and that if he wanted to terminate her before she attained career service status with its attendant protections, he needed to do so at that time. Petitioner complained in an incident report filed before the Warden the first time that Captain Scipper refused to listen to her when he counseled her about a prior staff altercation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of September, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of September, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly Holden 2103 Vista Road Marianna, Florida 32448 Gary L. Grant, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Respondents' alleged violation of Section 477.02(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondents received a copy of the Administrative Complaint and Notice of Hearing as evidenced by receipt for certified mail. (Exhibit 1) Respondents Arvle and Malvey Sue Kiser operate Golden Touch Coiffeurs, 901 Fillmore Avenue, Lehigh Acres, Florida under Certificate of Registration to operate a cosmetology salon No. 20014 issued by Petitioner on May 27, 1974. On June 13, 1975, Petitioner's inspector visited Respondents' establishment and observed Pearl Raulerson Curry washing the hair of a patron. When asked if she had a Florida license to practice cosmetology, Curry responded that she did not have one. At that time Malvey Kiser informed the inspector that Curry was going to take the test for a license. Kiser knew that Curry didn't have one at that time. (Testimony of Rubin) Respondent Malvey Sue Kiser submitted a written statement in which she claims that the law requiring a licensed person to perform specialist duties in a beauty salon is discriminatory because the same requirement is not imposed on persons performing the same services in barber shops. In her statement she acknowledged that she was aware that the employee Curry did not possess a current license when she was permitted to work in the salon, and that she hired Curry only after having made unavailing complaints of discrimination to various state officials and an attorney. The result was that she decided to challenge the law in question. She further states that she did not receive a quick and speedy hearing which, in turn, weakened her defense inasmuch as witnesses were no longer available. She also claims that the Notice of Violation given to her on June 13th was misleading in that it stated that failure to cure the alleged violation might result in additional disciplinary proceedings or other legal penalties. She therefore believed that if she complied by insuring that the employee became licensed there would be no further proceedings. (Statement of Malvey Kiser)
Recommendation That Respondents' Arvle and Malvey Sue Kiser be issued a written reprimand for violation of Section 477.02(6), Florida Statutes. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald C. LaFace, Esquire Arvle and Malvey Sue Kiser P.O. Box 1752 c/o Golden Touch Coiffeurs Tallahassee, Florida 901 Fillmore Avenue Lehigh Acres, Florida
The Issue The issue in this case is whether an interpretation of Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes, by the Board of Medicine is an agency statement which violates Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact These findings of fact, with a few changes based upon the stipulated record in this case, are facts contained in the Joint Stipulation: The Parties. Petitioner Franciso Vazquez, M.D., is a licensed medical doctor within the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 68742. Respondent Board of Medicine (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”), is charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Dr. Vazquez’s address of record is 4595 Palm Beach Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida 33905. DOAH Case No. 07-0424PL, Dr. Vazquez’s Disciplinary Case. Dr. Vazquez signed a written opinion in the form of an Affidavit on September 5, 2003, as required by Section 766.104(1), Florida Statutes (2003), in support of a medical malpractice action related to the death of C.L. Dr. Vazquez named approximately 40 doctors and one hospital in the sworn statement. The sworn statement generally stated that each of the defendants committed medical negligence and a breach of the prevailing professional standard of care in a multitude of ways, but did not specify which doctor committed which negligent act or how any individual doctor breached the prevailing standard of care. Dr. Vazquez further asserted in this sworn statement that the negligence and breach of the prevailing professional standard of care of all the doctors caused injury, damage and ultimately the death of C.L. That sworn statement ultimately formed the basis for a civil malpractice action filed on February 2, 2004, in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Pinellas County, Civil Division, Case Number 04-875CI-7. On or about February 22, 2005, circuit court judge Bruce Boyer of the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, in an for Pinellas County, Civil Division, in case Number 04-875CI-7, entered an order of dismissal as to two defendant doctors. In the order of dismissal, Judge Boyer stated that the Dr. Vazquez was not a gastroenterologist and did not otherwise appear to be qualified to comment on the defendants’ care and did not appear to have made any reasonable effort to investigate and determine what role the [two] defendants played in C.L.’s care. Dr. Vazquez was not provided with any notice of the hearing on February 22, 2005, and neither he nor anyone acting on his behalf was present at the hearing to defend his interests. The court forwarded its order to the Division of Medical Quality Assurance as required by Section 766.206(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2003). On or about May 3, 2006, an Administrative Complaint was issued against Dr. Vazquez charging him with a one count violation of Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes (2003), which subjects a physician to license discipline for “being found by any court in this state to have provided corroborating written medical expert opinion attached to any statutorily required notice of claim or intent or to any statutorily required response rejecting a claim without reasonable investigation.” The recommended penalties for a violation of Section 4458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes (2003), include revocation of the physician’s license. Dr. Vazquez is the first and only physician in Florida who has been formally charged with violating Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes (2003). On or about January 22, 2007, the Department of Health referred Case No. 2005-03579 (DOH v. Francisco Vazquez, M.D.) to the Division of Administrative Hearings (hereinafter referred to as the “DOAH”) for a formal evidentiary hearing on the Administrative Complaint pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The case was assigned DOAH Case Number 07-0424PL. The case was assigned to the undersigned. On or about March 1, 2007, Dr. Vazquez filed a Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction in the administrative proceeding, advising the court of his intent to file his constitutional challenge to Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes, in circuit court and arguing the DOAH should relinquish jurisdiction until after the Leon County Circuit Court has ruled on his constitutional challenge. On or about March 5, 2007, Dr. Vazquez filed a Petition for Declaratory Action and/or Injunctive Relief in the Second Judicial Circuit Court in and for Leon County, Florida, alleging that Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional under the U.S. and state constitutions, in that it allows disciplinary action against a physician’s license based exclusively on the existence of a court order entered in a proceeding in which the physician, acting as a presuit medical expert, is not a party and has no right to notice and an opportunity to be heard. The case was assigned case number 2007-CA-0663. On or about March 19, 2007, an Order Denying Motion to Relinquish was entered by the undersigned. On or about March 21, 2007, a hearing was held before the undersigned on Dr. Vazquez’ Motion to Continue Hearing. At the hearing, counsel for the Department of Health, argued that it is her client’s position that Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes, only requires proof of the existence of a court order that includes the language mentioned in the statute and that, once this is proven, there is no opportunity for the physician to dispute the findings of the court order. The Department of Health’s argument was accepted by the undersigned. On or about April 17, 2007, after a formal administrative hearing was conducted but before a recommended order was issued, the Department of Health filed a Motion to Reopen the Hearing and Record and Schedule Evidentiary Formal Hearing. In the motion, the Department of Health urged the undersigned that a new interpretation of Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes (2003), should be accepted, stating: It is the [Department of Health’s] position that Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes, creates a rebuttable presumption. Under this interpretation, to create a prima facie case, the Department must prove that [Dr. Vazquez] was found to have provided a corroborating written affidavit in support of a notice of a claim without reasonable investigation. [Dr. Vazquez] may rebut such a showing by demonstrating that, notwithstanding the finding, his investigation was in fact reasonable. On or about May 8, 2007, the undersigned denied the Department of Health’s Motion to Reopen, holding that its new interpretation of Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes (2003), is contrary to any reasonable reading of the statute. On or about July 5, 2007, the Department of Health filed its Exceptions to the Recommended Order of the undersigned in DOAH Case No. 07-0424PL, in which it reasserted that the correct interpretation of Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes (2003), is the one set forth in its Motion to Reopen Hearing (quoted in paragraph 20, supra). On or about July 6, 2007, Dr. Vazquez filed his Reply to Petitioner’s Exceptions urging that, even if Petitioner’s new interpretation of Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes, were to be adopted and applied to this case, the case should be dismissed and sent back to the probable cause panel for a determination made based upon the new interpretation. On or about August 10, 2007, a meeting of the Board was held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida at which the Board approved the Department of Health’s Exceptions to the Recommended Order and entered an Order remanding the case back to the DOAH for a “de novo hearing so that findings may be entered consistent with the Board of Medicine’s reading of Fla. Stat. § 458.331(1)(jj), as set forth in this order.” By accepting the Department of Health’s Exceptions, the Board adopted as its own, the interpretation of Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes (2003), asserted by the Department of Health in its Motion to Reopen the Hearing and Record and Schedule Evidentiary Formal Hearing and quoted in paragraph 20, supra. In light of the fact that the Board has the final authority over its interpretation of the laws it is charged with applying, the Order of Remand was accepted by Order Accepting Remand and Reopening File entered September 17, 2007. On or about January 8, 2008, Dr. Vazquez filed his Motion to Dismiss Administrative Complaint and Remand to Agency for Probable Cause Determination, again arguing that the probable cause determination made against him was based on a reading of the statute which is substantially different than the reading that the Board adopted in the Order on Remand. The Department of Health opposed this motion. The motion was denied by an Order entered by the undersigned on January 18, 2008. The final hearing on remand in DOAH Case No. 07-0424PL was held on January 29, 2008, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his Amended Petition, Dr. Vazquez has challenged the statement adopted by the Board through its Order of Remand. That statement, which is quoted in paragraph 20, supra, will hereinafter be referred to as the “Challenged Agency Statement.” The Challenged Agency Statement has not been adopted a rule pursuant to Section 120.54(1), Florida Statutes, and the Board has not initiated any rule-making procedures in this regard. The Board has not argued or presented evidence to support a finding that rule-making is not feasible and practicable under Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of national origin, race, and perceived disability in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that Mr. Pierre is a male and Black and that his national origin is Haitian. No dispute exists that he is a member of the protected class as it relates to discrimination. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, the School Board was an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended. Mr. Pierre began his employment with the School Board in 1996. For nine (9) years, he worked in the Maintenance Department and was promoted three times. His various supervisors rated his work as excellent. At all times material hereto, Mr. Pierre’s co-workers were of various ethnic groups—Haitian, Hispanic, Black/African American, Caucasian, etc. For approximately seven years, Mr. Pierre was under the supervision of Foreman John Bateman. Mr. Bateman considered Mr. Pierre to be a “fabulous” worker and recommended Mr. Pierre for promotion. Subsequent thereto, Mr. Bateman observed a change in Mr. Pierre’s behavior and attitude. Mr. Bateman discussed the changes in Mr. Pierre’s behavior and attitude with his (Mr. Bateman’s) supervisor, James Bass. Such a change in behavior and attitude was exhibited on April 27, 2004. On that date, Mr. Pierre refused to take orders from a temporary leadman, Joe Williams, in the absence of the leadman, Joe Pierrot. Mr. Bass was called to the work-site, and he spoke to Mr. Pierre regarding his refusal to follow the directives of Mr. Williams. After the discussion, Mr. Pierre agreed to follow the directives of Mr. Williams. Mr. Bass memorialized the incident in a memorandum “For the Record” dated the same day. Mr. Bass testified as to the incident and noted, among other things, in the memorandum that Mr. Pierre had become “very disruptive, creating a hostile environment;” that, after the discussion, Mr. Pierre “returned to his duties without incident;” and that Mr. Pierre was “a very hard worker, but he appears to have ‘fits’ at times . . . seems to intimidate his co-workers with his attitude and overly-aggressive behavior . . . has a tendency to accuse his co-workers of not liking him because of his nationality (Haitian).” Mr. Pierre testified that he did not look at the memorandum and refused to sign it; and that he informed Mr. Bass that he (Mr. Pierre) did not have a “fight” with anyone. Another incident occurred on July 9, 2004. Mr. Bass memorialized the incident in a memorandum “For the Record” dated the same day of the incident. A worker, Mike Walters, had placed a bottle of water in a refrigerator over night, and the next day, the bottle of water was missing. As Mr. Pierre was walking past Mr. Walters, he (Mr. Walters) commented that someone had taken his bottle of water. Mr. Pierre immediately took offense, became agitated, and refused to calm down, even after Mr. Walters explained to Mr. Pierre that he was making a general statement, not directed at Mr. Pierre. Only after the leadman, Mr. Pierrot, interceded did Mr. Pierre calm down. Mr. Bass included in the memorandum that Mr. Pierre appeared to believe that “everyone was out to get him”; that Mr. Pierre’s co-workers expressed being fearful of him; that Mr. Pierre was advised that such behavior was not acceptable; and that further such behavior would lead to disciplinary action up to and including termination. Mr. Bass signed the memorandum, but Mr. Pierre refused to sign it. Mr. Pierre testified at hearing that the Mr. Walters accused him of “stealing” the water but that he knew nothing about it. The undersigned finds Mr. Pierre’s testimony credible that he (Mr. Pierre) believed that he was being accused of stealing the water but that he knew nothing about the water being stolen. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that Mr. Pierre became upset because of this belief. Mr. Pierre was counseled regarding his behavior. Mr. Bass and the District Maintenance Manager, Mark Dorsett, decided that a re-assignment might benefit Mr. Pierre and his co-workers. As a result, on July 20, 2004, Mr. Pierre was re- assigned from a team of workers, i.e., a crew, responsible for cleaning air conditioning coils to a crew responsible for preventative maintenance tasks. The re-assignment was memorialized in a memorandum dated July 20, 2004. The memorandum provided, among other things, that Mr. Pierre would be monitored for six months and, if the re-assignment did not improve Mr. Pierre’s relationship with his co-workers, “progressive disciplinary action” would be invoked; and that the re-assignment would hopefully improve the relationships. The memorandum was copied to Mr. Pierre. Approximately three months later, however, on October 20, 2004, another incident occurred. The incident was memorialized in a memorandum “For the Record” dated October 25, 2004. According to the memorandum, Mr. Pierre had an argument with Sammie Riviera, Mr. Pierre’s work-partner, regarding Mr. Pierre’s tools, which “escalated to a verbal altercation.” Also, the memorandum indicated that, when Mr. Pierre returned to work, after the incident, he began accusing his co-workers of taking his missing tools, which he was unable to locate. Further, the memorandum indicated that the foreman, Jose Martell, advised Mr. Pierre that his behavior would have to “cease immediately.” Moreover, the memorandum indicated that Mr. Martell and Mr. Martell’s supervisor, Diane Caulfield, determined that Mr. Pierre would benefit from the School Board’s Employees Assistance Program (EAP). Mr. Martell and Ms. Caulfield signed the memorandum, but Mr. Pierre did not. Mr. Riviera did not testify at hearing. Mr. Pierre testified that, contrary to what others thought that he believed, he did not believe that Mr. Riviera stole his tools. Mr. Pierre testified that Mr. Riviera used his tools and dropped them on the floor; that he (Mr. Pierre) picked-up the tools and placed them in the truck; that Mr. Riviera attempted to talk to him (Mr. Pierre) but that he (Mr. Pierre) refused to talk to Mr. Riviera. In his testimony, Mr. Pierre did not deny that he and Mr. Riviera argued. On October 26, 2004, Ms. Caulfield presented Mr. Pierre with an EAP Referral Form, which stated the reason for the referral as “Anger Management – no one wanting to work with him.” Ms. Caulfield signed the EAP Referral Form, but Mr. Pierre refused to sign it. At hearing, Mr. Pierre testified that he did not recall Ms. Caulfield’s request for him to attend the EAP. The undersigned finds Mr. Pierre’s testimony to be credible, but such finding does not change or affect the undersigned’s finding that Ms. Caulfield requested Mr. Pierre to attend the EAP. Approximately 20 days later, on November 15, 2004, another incident occurred. The incident was memorialized in a memorandum “For the Record” dated November 16, 2004. Mr. Pierre’s work-partner, Mr. Riviera, observed Mr. Pierre handling a device that he (Mr. Pierre) should not have been handling, and Mr. Riviera so advised Mr. Pierre, who became “very agitated” and was “yelling” at Mr. Riviera. Additionally, the memorandum indicated that Mr. Riviera had observed, on occasion, Mr. Pierre mumbling to himself “excessively” and “banging himself against a wall.” Further, Mr. Riviera indicated that such behavior by Mr. Pierre, together with Mr. Pierre’s exhibited temper, caused Mr. Riviera to be “fearful of his personal well-being” while working with Mr. Pierre. Mr. Martell signed the memorandum, but Mr. Pierre did not sign it. Approximately, nine months later, in August 2005, Mr. Pierre visited the Director of Maintenance, Sylvester Davis. Mr. Davis had known Mr. Pierre since Mr. Pierre began working with the School Board and had always encouraged Mr. Pierre to visit him. Mr. Davis observed that Mr. Pierre was upset about something, but Mr. Pierre was unable to explain to Mr. Davis what was happening to him (Mr. Pierre), so Mr. Davis decided to talk to Ms. Caulfield. Mr. Pierre testified that he went to talk to Mr. Davis because he (Mr. Pierre) was not feeling safe at work, believed that he (Mr. Pierre) was being “persecuted,” and believed that Mr. Davis could help. Mr. Davis met with Ms. Caulfield and expressed his concern regarding Mr. Pierre. She explained what had been happening with Mr. Pierre and showed Mr. Davis the memoranda that had accumulated regarding Mr. Pierre’s behavior. Mr. Davis suggested the EAP, and Ms. Caulfield advised him that Mr. Pierre had already been referred to the EAP. After his meeting with Ms. Caulfield, Mr. Davis became concerned regarding the safety of Mr. Pierre and the other workers. Mr. Davis determined that a Fit-For-Duty examination was appropriate. In a memorandum dated September 19, 2005, directed to the School Board’s Special Investigative Unit (SIU), which is within the School Board’s Office of Professional Standards (OPS), Mr. Davis, among other things, provided the SIU with information in order for it to conduct a Fit-For-Duty examination of Mr. Pierre. In the memorandum, Mr. Davis indicated, among other things, that Mr. Pierre’s behavior had gotten progressively worse; that a safety problem had arisen since Mr. Pierre’s work assignments required assistance, but his co-workers were refusing to work with him because of their fear of his reactions; that Mr. Pierre’s co-workers were concerned about him, had respect for him, and viewed him as an excellent worker; and that Mr. Pierre’s co-workers just wanted him to get help. Further, in the memorandum, Mr. Davis requested that a person who could speak Creole be present when the SIU spoke with Mr. Pierre. Moreover, at hearing, Mr. Davis testified that, at no time did he want Mr. Pierre to be terminated, only for him to get the help that he needed to continue to work for the School Board. Mr. Davis viewed the Fit-For-Duty examination as a way to help Mr. Pierre. Mr. Davis’ testimony is found to be credible. The Fit-For-Duty evaluation is a non-disciplinary process wherein the School Board is attempting to help an employee. School Board Policy 4004 provides in pertinent part: RULES Fit for Duty Determination Procedures (emphasis in original) The Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit (SIU) receives request from a Principal/Administrator (includes District Administrators) or Superintendent/Designee. (Supporting Documents) SIU notifies employee via certified mail that he/she must undergo a physical and/or psychological examination. A reassignment letter is prepared directing employee to remain at home with pay, pending the outcome of the examination. (Letter 1) The affected employee shall select the name of a medical doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist from a list maintained by the Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit, within 48 hours. (See Attachment to Letter 1) SIU Administrator schedules within ten working days a medical appointment and follows-up in writing to the doctor’s office and to the employee of appointment confirmation. Note: This is a mandatory appointment and failure to attend can result in termination of employment for failure to comply with School Board Policy 4004. (Letters 2 & 3) (emphasis in original) * * * 6. The doctor as delineated in the policy will conduct Pre-evaluation at District expense. Note: a 2nd Opinion will be at the employees expense if requested, with the employee selecting from the School Board approved list as delineated in the policy. (emphasis in original) * * * If employee fails to attend any mandatory appointment with the assigned doctor of the designee assigned to handle the Fitness for Duty Evaluation Case per School Board Policy 4004, then a pre- disciplinary meeting is arranged and employee is notified in writing. (Letter 7) If applicable a recommendation for termination is sent to the School Board of Broward County based on just cause, for insubordination, failure to comply with School Board Policy 4004. (Letter 8) By letter dated September 27, 2005, which was hand- delivered to Mr. Pierre, the Executive Director of OPS, SIU, Joe Melita, notified Mr. Pierre that Mr. Davis had requested a Fit- For-Duty Assessment, pursuant to School Board Policy 4004, and that Mr. Pierre was required to submit to a psychological examination at School Board expense. Mr. Melita provided further in the letter that Mr. Pierre was directed to choose a doctor from a list of doctors, which was attached to the letter, indicating his (Mr. Pierre’s) first and second choice, within two days of receipt of the letter; that the OPS Administrator, Richard Mijon, would schedule the appointment with the physician chosen; and that Mr. Pierre was to not return to work, but remain at home with pay pending the determination of the examination. The letter was addressed to Mr. Pierre at 2450 SW 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312. An inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that a perception existed that Mr. Pierre may have been experiencing psychological problems. Additionally, on September 27, 2005, Mr. Mijon met with Mr. Pierre and two of Mr. Pierre’s line supervisors in Mr. Mijon’s office. The line supervisors requested that a Creole-speaking individual also attend to assist Mr. Pierre in communicating only. Mr. Mijon complied with the request and obtained the services of one of his officers, Marc Elias, who was born in Haiti and who spoke Creole, for interpretation purposes only. The aforementioned letter dated September 27, 2005, was hand-delivered to Mr. Pierre at this meeting, and Mr. Mijon reviewed the contents of the letter with Mr. Pierre, who signed the letter and dated his signature (September 27, 2005). The list of physicians attached to the letter included physicians from the counties of Dade [sic], Broward, and Palm Beach. Mr. Pierre testified at hearing that he did not know any of the doctors on the list and, therefore, Mr. Elias circled three of the doctors and marked the order of preference (first, second, and third) for him. Mr. Pierre’s testimony is found to be credible, but also an inference is drawn and a finding is made that the choices were made after consulting with Mr. Pierre. Additionally, on the list, Mr. Pierre provided his contact telephone numbers (home and cell). Mr. Mijon reviewed with Mr. Pierre the choice of doctors, with preferences, and his (Mr. Pierre’s) telephone numbers. Also, Mr. Pierre’s address on the letter dated September 27, 2005, was taken from the School Board’s records. At the meeting, Mr. Pierre did not indicate that his mailing address was incorrect. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Pierre requested that a Creole-speaking doctor perform the Fit-For-Duty examination. Mr. Mijon considered Mr. Pierre’s request reasonable, knew that none of the physicians on list spoke Creole, and indicated to Mr. Pierre that he would hold the list of physicians in abeyance and locate a Creole-speaking doctor through the EAP. On or about October 3, 2005, Mr. Mijon received a list of Creole-speaking psychiatrists and/or psychologists from the EAP. On that same day, Mr. Mijon again obtained the services of Mr. Elias and directed Mr. Elias to contact Mr. Pierre by telephone. Mr. Elias complied and contacted Mr. Pierre by telephone, activating the speakerphone. Mr. Elias participation in the entire telephone conversation was for translation purposes only. Mr. Mijon informed Mr. Pierre that a list of Creole-speaking doctors had been obtained and that Mr. Pierre needed to come to Mr. Mijon’s office on October 5, 2005, to do as he had done previously—choose three doctors, identifying his preferences (one through three), and sign and date the document. Mr. Pierre indicated, during the telephone conversation, that he would not come into Mr. Mijon’s office to do anything, indicating, among other things, that he (Mr. Pierre) was being persecuted. Mr. Mijon informed Mr. Pierre that, if he did not come into his (Mr. Mijon’s) office on October 5, 2005, that he (Mr. Pierre) would be considered to have waived his right to choose from the second list of doctors, and that he (Mr. Mijon) would have no choice but to use the original list chosen by Mr. Pierre, which contained no Creole-speaking doctors, contact Mr. Pierre’s first choice, and schedule an appointment with the first doctor from the original list. On October 5, 2005, Mr. Pierre failed to appear at Mr. Mijon’s office. Mr. Mijon proceeded to schedule an appointment with the doctor from the original list, Laura Hohnecker, Ph.D., who was indicated as Mr. Pierre’s first choice. The appointment was set for October 12, 2005, at Dr. Hohnecker’s office, 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. On October 6, 2005, Mr. Mijon contacted Mr. Pierre by telephone and again obtained the services of Mr. Elias for translation purposes only. Again, the telephone was placed on speakerphone. Mr. Mijon advised Mr. Pierre that an appointment had been scheduled with Dr. Hohnecker, Mr. Pierre’s first choice from the original list, for the Fit-For-Duty examination, and provided Mr. Pierre with the date, time, address, and telephone number of Dr. Hohnecker. Further, Mr. Mijon informed Mr. Pierre that the appointment was mandatory and that, if he (Mr. Pierre) failed to attend the appointment, disciplinary action may result. In addition to the telephone conversation, Mr. Mijon sent a letter, dated October 6, 2005, by certified and regular U.S. mail to Mr. Pierre, containing the same information that was discussed during the telephone conversation. The letter was addressed to Mr. Pierre at the same address that was used by Mr. Mijon on the letter dated September 27, 2005. The certified letter was returned but not for being unclaimed. Mr. Pierre failed to appear at Dr. Hohnecker’s office on October 12, 2005, for his appointment for a Fit-For-Duty examination. Due to Mr. Pierre’s failure to appear for his appointment, by letter dated October 14, 2005, Mr. Melita directed Mr. Pierre to appear at his (Mr. Melita’s) office on Tuesday, October 25, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. to meet with Mr. Mijon for a pre-disciplinary meeting, indicating that the purpose of the pre-disciplinary meeting was Mr. Pierre’s insubordination/noncompliance with School Board Policy 4004. The letter further indicated, among other things, that Mr. Pierre had failed to attend the mandatory appointment, as directed, with Dr. Hohnecker for his Fit-For-Duty examination. Moreover, the letter advised Mr. Pierre that his failure to attend the meeting on October 25, 2005, would result in his (Mr. Pierre’s) name being forwarded to the School Board for “termination” of employment. The letter was addressed to Mr. Pierre at the same address that was used by Mr. Mijon on the letter dated September 27, 2005, and was sent to Mr. Pierre by certified and regular U.S. mail. The certified letter was returned but not for being unclaimed. Subsequently, by letter dated November 7, 2005, Mr. Melita informed Mr. Pierre that, due to a hurricane, the meeting scheduled for October 25, 2005 was re-scheduled for Monday, November 14, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., restating the purpose for the meeting and the same information contained in the letter dated October 14, 2005. The letter was sent to Mr. Pierre by certified and regular U.S. mail, at the same address that was used by Mr. Mijon on the letter dated September 27, 2005. Mr. Pierre, accompanied by his counsel, attended the meeting on November 14, 2005. Mr. Elias was also present at the meeting for interpretation purposes only. At the meeting, Mr. Pierre denied that he had received a telephone call on October 3, 2005, regarding Mr. Mijon obtaining a list of Creole- speaking doctors for the Fit-For-Duty evaluation and the consequences for him (Mr. Pierre) not attending the meeting scheduled for October 5, 2005, with Mr. Mijon. At hearing, Mr. Pierre also testified that he did not receive the telephone call on October 3, 2005, regarding the meeting on October 5, 2005, and the consequences for his failure to attend. The undersigned does not find Mr. Pierre’s testimony to be credible. The undersigned makes a finding of fact that Mr. Pierre received the telephone call on October 3, 2005, regarding the meeting on October 25, 2005, and the consequences for his failure to attend. Also, at hearing, Mr. Pierre testified that he did not speak on the telephone with Mr. Mijon and Mr. Elias on October 6, 2005, regarding the appointment with Dr. Hohnecker on October 12, 2005, and the consequences for his failure to attend. The undersigned does not find Mr. Pierre’s testimony to be credible. A finding of fact is made that Mr. Pierre received the aforementioned telephone call on October 6, 2005, regarding the appointment with Dr. Hohnecker on October 12, 2005, and the consequences for his failure to attend. At the meeting on November 14, 2005, Mr. Melita determined that Mr. Pierre had presented no justifiable explanation for his (Mr. Pierre’s) failure to attend the appointment with Dr. Hohnecker on October 12, 2005, for the Fit- For-Duty examination. Mr. Melita recommended termination of Mr. Pierre’s employment with the School Board due to insubordination and non-compliance with School Board Policy 4004. By letter dated November 30, 2005, sent by certified and regular U.S. mail, Mr. Melita notified Mr. Pierre, among other things, of the recommendation, the basis for the recommendation, and the date (December 13, 2005) that the recommendation would be submitted to the School Board for approval. Mr. Pierre testified that he did not receive the letter dated November 30, 2005. Regarding Mr. Pierre’s address on the letters from the School Board sent by certified and regular U.S. mail, at hearing, Mr. Pierre testified that, in 2004, he had moved from the address reflected on the letters; that, after he was sent home in September 2005, he was receiving his paychecks from the School Board in the mail at his new 2004 address; and that, around December 2005, he moved to Sarasota, Florida. The evidence demonstrates that the certified letters were returned but fails to demonstrate whether the letters sent by regular U.S. mail were returned or not returned. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates and Mr. Pierre admits that he and his counsel attended the re-scheduled pre-disciplinary meeting on November 14, 2005, regarding Mr. Pierre’s insubordination/noncompliance with School Board policy 4004, as to Mr. Pierre’s failure to attend the mandatory appointment with Dr. Hohnecker for his Fit-For-Duty examination. Mr. Pierre testified that he and his counsel became aware of the meeting on November 14, 2005, as a result of his counsel contacting Mr. Melita, attempting to discover what issue the School Board had with Mr. Pierre. The undersigned finds Mr. Pierre’s testimony credible regarding his addresses for 2004 and 2005. However, the undersigned further finds that the failure of Mr. Pierre to advise Mr. Mijon of his (Mr. Pierre’s) correct address at the meeting on September 27, 2005 was unreasonable. Mr. Pierre has not been employed since his termination from the School Board. Mr. Pierre has been consistently seeking employment since his termination from the School Board. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Pierre was suffering from hypertension and depression for which is taking medication for both. The evidence fails to demonstrate that Mr. Pierre was suffering from these illnesses or taking medication for them at the time that he was employed with the School Board. The evidence fails to demonstrate that similarly situated employees of the School Board were treated differently or more favorably.
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 discrimination complaint of Antoine Daniel Pierre against the Broward County School Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 2008.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Black male. Respondent is a staffing company that contracts with third party employers. Over 80 percent of Respondent’s employees are Black. After Respondent matches a candidate with a job opening, the third-party employer interviews the candidate for employment. If the candidate is employed by the third party, the employee must abide by the third-party employer’s policies as well as the employment policies of Respondent. Petitioner was hired by Respondent some time in January 2008. Respondent requires all employees to notify Respondent of his or her absence prior to that employee’s scheduled report time for their employment. Respondent also requires that all employees report to work at their scheduled report time. Failure to either call in or show up for work is known as a ‘no call/no show’. The employment policies of Respondent reflect that a “no call/no show” is grounds for termination. Petitioner received a copy of Respondent’s employee handbook, which included the “no call/no show” provision. He was also aware of Respondent’s “no call/no show” policy. Around January 14, 2008, Respondent successfully matched Petitioner with a position at BR Williams Trucking Company (BR Williams). Like Respondent, BR Williams maintains a policy of termination when an employee fails to show up for work or does not call in prior to the start of the work day to report their absence. Petitioner’s scheduled report time for BR Williams was 7:00 a.m. On March 3, 2008, Petitioner contacted Respondent’s Regional Sales Manager, Diane Jarrett, to report that he had overheard a racial slur that a White employee, Harry Hingson, had made to another employee. Like Petitioner, Mr. Hingson had been placed at BR Williams by Respondent and was an employee of both Respondent and BR Williams. Ms. Jarrett sent Respondent’s Human Resources Assistant, Annis Herndon, to BR Williams to terminate Mr. Hingson for having made the racial slur. She met with Mr. Wilkinson, BR Williams’ manager. Mr. Hingson was terminated from BR Williams. Neither Ms. Jarrett nor Ms. Herndon disclosed that Petitioner had reported Mr. Hingson’s racial slur to her. After the termination, Mr. Wilkinson mentioned to a group of employees, including Petitioner, that he hated to fire Mr. Hingson because “everybody needs a job.” The evidence did not demonstrate that Mr. Wilkinson said that “once he found out who did this, they will pay.” Petitioner felt that Mr. Wilkinson was talking to him or targeting him because Mr. Wilkinson looked him in the eyes during the meeting. Mr. Wilkinson did not testify at the hearing. As a consequence, there is no competent evidence regarding Mr. Wilkinson’s intent showing any look he may or may not have given Petitioner. On March 24, 2008, Petitioner worked his regular shift at BR Williams. On the evening of March 24, 2008, Petitioner was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DUI) and was held in jail overnight. He was released two days later on March 26, 2008. On March 25, 2008, Petitioner was scheduled to begin his shift at 7 a.m. Petitioner did not report to work as scheduled because he was in jail. Petitioner also did not call Respondent to report his absence prior to the beginning of his shift or during the morning of March 25, 2008. Mr. Wilkinson called Respondent around 9:00 a.m. and reported that Petitioner was not at work and had not called in. He did not know where Petitioner was. Respondent could not locate Petitioner at his home. Mr. Wilkinson instructed Respondent that if he or Respondent did not hear from Petitioner before noon, Petitioner was terminated for not showing up at work and not calling in. About 1:00 p.m., after Petitioner was terminated by BR Williams, Petitioner called Respondent collect from jail. He was advised that he had been terminated from BR Williams. After speaking with Petitioner, Respondent called BR Williams to report that Petitioner had called in after noon and that she had told him that he had been terminated from BR Williams. Respondent did not tell Petitioner that he was terminated from Cardinal Staffing. BR Williams’ decision to terminate Petitioner was not based on his race or his complaint regarding Mr. Hingson’s racial slur. Indeed, there was no competent evidence to suggest that Petitioner was terminated from BR Williams for any reason other than he was in jail, and did not report to work as scheduled. Petitioner was not terminated from Cardinal Staffing. Petitioner left a message on Respondent’s answering machine on March 27 or March 28, 2008. Return calls by Respondent could not be left at the numbers that Respondent had for Petitioner. He did not contact Respondent again until August 2008, at which time there were no positions available for him. Importantly, Petitioner was not terminated from Respondent. As with all Respondent’s employees, Petitioner had the responsibility of calling Respondent as often as possible to check if other employment opportunities were available. If Petitioner had contacted Respondent to seek placement during April–June, 2008, and if a placement for which Petitioner was qualified had been available, Respondent would have sent him for an interview with the prospective employer. Indeed, it was Petitioner’s lack of action that caused him to miss any employment opportunities that may have been available to him during April – June, 2008. After August 2008, Petitioner did not contact Respondent to seek other employment opportunities. Petitioner identified two non-minority employees that were terminated from their third-party employer jobs and received new assignments with another of Respondent’s clients. The two employees were Jason Whibble and Sherita Cheshire. Neither of these employees was similarly situated to Petitioner. Mr. Whibble was terminated for having a felony conviction involving multiple traffic tickets. Ms. Cheshire was terminated because she could not perform her job duties. After termination, both employees called in on a daily or weekly basis to check to see if any job openings were available. In this case, Petitioner was terminated for a very different reason from BR Williams. Petitioner also did not frequently call Respondent to check for job openings that might be available to him. Indeed, Petitioner has not identified any similarly situated non-Black employee of Respondent’s who was terminated from an employment assignment on the basis of an employer’s “no call/no show” policy and was treated more favorably than Petitioner. The evidence was clear that Petitioner was not terminated from Cardinal Staffing and failed to maintain frequent contact with them. Clearly, Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner. Given these facts, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter Jan Pietruszka, Esquire Shumaker Loop & Kendrick 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2800 Tampa, Florida 33602 Melvin Lee Butler 40 Jack Scott Road Quincy, Florida 32351 Robert E. Larkin, III, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed the offenses charged in the Administrative Complaint concerning unlawfully committing a battery upon a person he had placed under arrest and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the licensure and enforcing the practice standards of law enforcement officers. The Respondent is a certified law enforcement officer being certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on May 12, 1986, and holding Law Enforcement Certificate No. 82811. He was employed by the DeFuniak Springs Police Department as a law enforcement officer during the period of October 29, 1985, until his termination on November 13, 1997. On April 12, 1997, Daniel Robertson was a passenger in a vehicle driven by his girlfriend. The vehicle was stopped by Officer James Burnham of the DeFuniak Springs Police Department for a traffic violation at approximately 3:00 a.m. When the officer approached the vehicle, he detected a strong odor of alcohol which he believed to come from the driver. He asked the female driver to step out of the vehicle and submit to a field sobriety test. Upon completion of the test, he placed her under arrest for driving under the influence of alcohol. While the officer conducted the field sobriety test on the driver, the passenger, Daniel Robertson, began arguing with Officer Burnham about the test and creating a verbal disturbance. Officer Burnham radioed for other officers to respond to the incident. Officers Travis Howell and the Respondent, Kenneth G. May, of the DeFuniak Springs Police Department, together with a civilian, Bradley Stafford, responded to Officer Burnham's call for assistance. Stafford was a civilian authorized by the police department to ride along with Officer Howell as an observer. Once his girlfriend was arrested, Mr. Robertson became concerned about driving the vehicle home, since he owned the pick-up truck in question. Officer Burnham advised him that if he could pass a sobriety test in the field, then he would be allowed to drive home. Officer Burnham administered two field sobriety tests to Robertson and advised him that he had failed both tests and could not drive his vehicle. Mr. Robertson began again loudly arguing with Officer Burnham, after being told to quiet down. Officer Burnham advised him that he was under arrest for disorderly intoxication and told him to place his hands behind his back. Mr. Robertson refused to place his hands behind his back and Officers Burnham, Howell and May, the Respondent, had to physically subdue Mr. Robertson as they attempted to handcuff him with his hands behind his back. Because Officer Burnham had already placed the female driver in the back seat of his patrol car, he asked the Respondent to transport Mr. Robertson to the county jail. The Respondent thereupon escorted Mr. Robertson to the Respondent's police car. Officer Howell followed the Respondent and Mr. Robertson but never physically touched Robertson. The Respondent physically placed Robertson into the back seat of the police car. Robertson was verbally complaining, using foul language, but did not physically resist being placed in the police car. Mr. Robertson continued to verbally complain and berate the Respondent until the Respondent finally slapped him one time in the face, while Robertson was seated in the car with his hands cuffed behind his back. Robertson was then transported to the Walton County Jail by the Respondent and charged with disorderly intoxication and resisting arrest without violence. Mr. Robertson continued to verbally complain to the Respondent, although he was not physically resistant or physically struggling with the Respondent. Once they were inside the jail with his hands still cuffed behind his back and in the presence of other officers, the Respondent sprayed Robertson in the eyes with pepper spray. Mr. Robertson was continuing to be verbally abusive at this point, but his hands were cuffed behind his back and he engaged in no physical contact with the Respondent. The Respondent maintains that he sprayed Mr. Robertson with pepper spray because Robertson was coming toward him in a threatening manner. This account of events is belied by the testimony of Officer Howell, however, which is more credible under the circumstances, as it is not self-serving and which is accepted. The Chief of Police of DeFuniak Springs, Mr. Ray Burgess, and the Assistant State Attorney, Clayton Adkinson, felt that an unbiased investigation was needed and therefore requested the services of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to conduct the investigation into Mr. Robertson's complaint. Special Agent Carl Causey with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) was assigned to conduct an investigation into Robertson's complaint against the Respondent and did so. He interviewed numerous witnesses including Robertson, Officers Burnham and Howell, and the civilian who rode with Officer Howell on the night in question, as well as the Respondent. Respondent stated at his interview with Agent Causey that he told Officer Burnham that Mr. Robertson had intentionally kneed him in the groin while he was placing him into the police car and therefore Robertson should be charged with resisting arrest with violence. This statement was contrary to the statements of officers Burnham and Howell and Mr. Bradley Stafford. It is also contrary to the statements those three individuals made in their testimony at hearing. During Agency Causey's second interview with Officer Burnham, Officer Burnham denied that the Respondent ever told him that Robertson had kneed him during the process of getting Robertson into the patrol car. Upon completion of his investigation, Agent Causey filed an investigative report. Agent Causey also arrested the Respondent and charged him with two counts of battery on Mr. Robertson. The Respondent pled no contest to those charges in the Walton County Court and was adjudicated guilty on both counts of misdemeanor battery involving Mr. Robertson.
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 RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of a failure to maintain good moral character as required by Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and as elucidated by the other authority referenced herein and that the Respondent's certification be subjected to a six-month suspension, followed by a one-year probationary period. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: James D. Martin, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 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 4th day of March, 1999. H. R. "Bob" Bishop, Jr., Esquire Florida Police Benevolent Association, Inc. 300 East Brevard Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
