The Issue Whether Petitioner was wrongfully terminated from her position as a human resource assistant with Respondent because of her perceived handicap, in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, a 33-year-old female, was hired by Respondent on or about February 6, 1995, as a temporary employee as a human resource assistant in the Personnel Services Department of the School Board of Orange County. Petitioner received the same training given to all new employees in her position. One employee in the department served as the primary trainer and Petitioner relied on her for training and assistance. On April 10, 1995, Petitioner was evaluated on her ability to perform in her temporary assignment. The assessment reflected satisfactory performance for the period February 6, 1995, through April 10, 1995. Petitioner demonstrated the ability to provide good telephone skills when dealing with customers. Petitioner did not notify Respondent that she was disabled or that she required a reasonable accommodation in order to perform her job. During this period, Petitioner was recommended to fill a regular position in the same department to replace an employee who had retired. Petitioner's regular position was effective May 1, 1995. As was customary, Petitioner was on probationary status for a six-month period following that appointment. The new position required Petitioner to work more independently than the temporary position had required. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner successfully completed her formal training and was responsible for her own workload and prioritized work tasks. At the time Petitioner assumed her new position all work in the area was current with no tasks pending. Shortly after her appointment to her new position, Petitioner demonstrated she was experiencing extreme difficulty in handling the detailed process that is required in order to complete tasks of the position. Petitioner received limited assistance to help her better understand the process; however, her skill level continued to deteriorate. During the period May 1, 1995, through July 14, 1995, Petitioner showed signs of stress and nervousness while at work and was late four times and took sick leave on two occasions. Petitioner did not discuss her "disability" or that she was having "psychological" problems with her supervisors. Petitioner was not regarded as having a physical or mental impairment while on probationary status. On July 14, 1995, Petitioner was terminated from her position while on probation. Petitioner was given the option of taking a probationary letter of termination or resigning. Petitioner submitted a letter of resignation. The basis for Petitioner's termination was that she was unable to effectively manage the technical aspects of the position; deterioration in her communication skills; and concern for the reasons for her absence and tardiness during her probationary period. Petitioner is not a disabled person, nor was she perceived to be disabled by her employer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Kyle McNeil 523 Hicksmore Drive Apartment A Winter Park, Florida 32792 Frank Kruppenbacher, Esquire Orange County School Board 445 West Amelia Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Recommendation The General Counsel's Motion for Summary Judgement is hereby granted. The Respondent shall cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with the Charging Party. The Respondent cease and desist from interfering with, restraining and coercing public employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed under the Act. That Respondent post an appropriate notice on forms provided by PERC in conspicuous places. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his race in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, when Petitioner was an employee of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact From November 2004 until early 2008, which period includes all times relevant to this case, Petitioner Robinson Nelson ("Nelson") worked for Respondent Alutiiq-Mele, LLC ("AML") as a security guard. Nelson, who is black, alleges that on two discrete occasions, AML unlawfully discriminated against him based on race, once denying him an overtime shift which he requested, and the other time refusing to assign him "equal work hours." The first incident allegedly took place on "or about March 1, 2005." According to Nelson, he called his supervisor that day, using a telephone at his workstation, to ask that he be scheduled to work overtime on his day off. The supervisor, Nelson claims, told him that overtime had been "eliminated" and denied Nelson's request. Shortly thereafter, as Nelson tells it, the supervisor called Nelson's coworker, Nadja Abreu, and offered her the overtime that Nelson had just been denied. Nelson's story cannot be squared with AML's records, which the undersigned considers reliable and truthful and hence credits. Nelson's timesheet for the week of February 27 through March 5, 2005, shows (and it is found) that he worked all seven days that week, putting in 40 regular hours and 26 overtime hours. Ms. Abreu's timesheet for the same period shows (and it is found) that she worked four days, accruing 40 regular hours and four overtime hours. At hearing, Nelson claimed (apparently for the first time) that the telephone conversation with his supervisor regarding overtime had not occurred on or about March 1, 2005—— as he had alleged originally in his Charge of Discrimination (signed on November 20, 2005) and maintained as recently as the Joint Prehearing Stipulation (dated May 30, 2008)——but rather some two weeks later, on or about March 15, 2005. Again, however, credible contemporaneous records belie Nelson's claim. A payroll document shows (and it is found) that Nelson and Ms. Abreu each worked 40 regular hours during the week of March 13, 2005——and neither put in overtime. (Moreover, Nelson did not work on March 15 and 16, 2005, which means that, if Nelson called his supervisor on March 15, as he asserted at hearing, then he likely would not have been at his workstation at the time, which is inconsistent with his testimony that he placed the call while at work.) Regarding the second alleged incident of discrimination, Nelson claims that on Monday, October 31, 2005, shortly before 9:00 a.m., he received a telephone call at home from his supervisor, who wanted to know why Nelson had failed to report for work that morning. Nelson says he told his supervisor that he had not been scheduled to work that day, and he could not work because he was babysitting. Nelson complains that, in connection with this situation, AML "denied" him regular work hours because of his race. In addition to being facially illogical, Nelson's claim of discrimination is contradicted by reliable and persuasive documentary evidence. First, AML's payroll record shows (and it is found) that Nelson worked four hours on Sunday, October 30, and seven-and-a-half hours each day the next Tuesday through Friday, making a total 34 regular hours during the week of October 30, 2005. While this was not quite a full-time workweek, that Nelson worked fewer than 40 hours one week is not, of itself, proof that AML "denied" him six hours of work. In fact, AML did not "deny" Nelson a work opportunity, as other contemporaneous documents——not to mention Nelson's own testimony——show. In evidence are two work schedules pertaining to the week of October 30, 2005. One was printed on October 28, 2005, and the other on October 30, 2005. There are a number of differences between them; each, however, notes that "scheduled hours are subject to change as needed." On the earlier schedule, Nelson was to be off on Monday, October 31, 2005. On the subsequent schedule, he was to work from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. that day. Had Nelson reported to work on October 31, 2005, as (ultimately) scheduled——and as he was asked to do——Nelson would have worked more than 40 hours the week of October 30, 2005. Ultimate Factual Determinations Taken as a whole, the evidence in this case is either insufficient to establish that AML discriminated unlawfully against Nelson on the basis of his race; or it proves, affirmatively, that AML did not, in all likelihood, unlawfully discriminate against him. Either way, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that AML did not violate the civil rights laws in its treatment of Nelson while he was an employee of AML.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order finding AML not liable to Nelson for racial discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Erwin Rosenberg, Esquire Post Office Box 416433 Miami Beach, Florida 33141 Christine L. Wilson, Esquire Jennifer A. Schwartz, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, Superior Construction Company Southeast, LLC (Superior), wrongfully terminated Petitioner, James Walker, and refused to rehire him based on his disability in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA).
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner was hired as a laborer by Superior in March 2016. During his tenure with Superior, Petitioner also worked as a flagger and a roller machine operator (roller operator). Superior is a construction company specializing in roadway and highway improvement projects. Superior was Petitioner’s employer as defined by the FCRA. § 760.02(7), Fla. Stat. During the relevant time period, Petitioner worked for Superior on a construction assignment known as “15901 Wekiva Project” (Wekiva Project). Oscar Matson, Superior’s superintendent at the relevant time, was Petitioner’s ultimate supervisor and made day-to-day decisions regarding equipment and staffing. Mr. Matson made all employment decisions with regard to Petitioner, including his hiring and job assignments. Jose Gomez, the project manager at the relevant time, oversaw the administrative side of Wekiva Project and supervised the engineering staff. Mr. Matson consulted with Mr. Gomez regarding the construction staff, and Mr. Gomez was familiar with all of the employees working on this project, including Petitioner. The parties stipulated Petitioner suffers from a disability. Relevant Policies Although Superior offered evidence of its Equal Opportunity Policy (EOP), there is no evidence it provides protections for applicants or employees with disabilities. The EOP states in relevant part: Statement of Policy To further the provisions of equal employment opportunity to all persons without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and to promote the full realization of equal opportunity through a positive continuing program[,] it is the policy of Superior Construction Company to assure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, religion, sex, color or national origin. * * * N. Handicapped Relative to direct federal contracts, we shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of a physical or mental handicap in regard to any position of which the employee or applicant for employment is qualified. There was no evidence whether the Wekiva Project was federally funded or part of a federal contract. Although there was no evidence of a written policy, there was testimony that Superior had a reasonable accommodation process that allows an employee who requires an accommodation to request one through his or her supervisor or through a Human Resources hotline. This process was followed by Petitioner. Petitioner’s Accommodations Petitioner began working for Superior as a laborer with the primary duties of shoveling dirt and cleaning roads. The laborer position was physically demanding and required standing, climbing, crawling, and lifting up to 40 pounds. The position also required constant walking and moving within the project site. Petitioner worked ten-hour shifts on weekdays and eight-hour shifts on weekend days. In April 2016, approximately a month after he was hired, Petitioner was hospitalized for a toe injury incurred at work. Although he was injured on the job and knew he was obligated to report the injury to his supervisors, Petitioner did not. He failed to report the incident to Mr. Matson or anyone else because he did not want “a workman’s comp” issue. On or around April 19, 2016, Petitioner brought medical documentation titled “Work/School Status” to Superior indicating that his work duties should be modified until May 10, 2016. The medical documentation indicated Petitioner should be limited to “light duty.” It also indicated Petitioner could perform the following activities: “Limit[ed] standing/walking” and “Light weight activity.” As a result, Mr. Matson initially placed him in a “flagger” position. This position involved directing traffic in one place, and was considered “light duty” because it did not involve heavy lifting or continuous walking. Although the timing is unclear, Mr. Matson later placed Petitioner in the position of roller operator, where he operated a large piece of equipment. As a roller operator, Petitioner was not required to stand, walk or lift. There was no evidence Petitioner complained to Mr. Matson regarding the assignment to either the flagger or roller operator position, nor did he request further accommodation. The undersigned finds Superior accommodated Petitioner’s request for “light duty.” Petitioner had no attendance, disciplinary, or other issues from April 2016 through the summer of 2016 in the flagger or roller operator position. On August 12, 2016, Petitioner was admitted into a medical facility and was out of work. Upon his return on or about August 18, 2016, Petitioner gave Mr. Matson medical documentation titled “Disability Certificate.” That document certified that Petitioner was “unable to return to work” and was “not able to work until further notice.” As a result of the August 18, 2016, meeting, Mr. Matson prepared Petitioner’s termination paperwork. What triggered the termination paperwork on August 18, 2016, is in dispute. Petitioner asserts when he returned to Superior, Mr. Matson told him he was concerned about his health and fired him. Superior counters that Petitioner informed Mr. Matson he had to quit because he was unable to work due to his medical condition, and Superior advised Petitioner to reapply when he was ready. For the reasons below, the undersigned finds Superior’s version of the facts is more consistent with the credible evidence and testimony. First, Superior’s version of events is corroborated by Petitioner’s own sworn statements made in his Charge and Amended Charge of Discrimination, in which he states Superior “advised me to come back to work when I was ready.” Second, Mr. Matson’s testimony that Petitioner told him he was unable to work is consistent with the Disability Certificate provided by Petitioner and with Mr. Matson’s work notes made on August 18, 2016. Those notes indicate Petitioner “said he had to quit because he has austioprosis [sic]. We filled out a termination paper for him.” Although Petitioner challenges the reliability of these notes because he actually had “osteomyelitis,” it is plausible that Mr. Matson mislabeled or misspelled the illness given his unfamiliarity with it and the phonetic similarity between the two terms. Third, Petitioner’s assertion that he was fired is inconsistent with statements he made on subsequent applications when asked the “reason for leaving” Superior. In one application he answers “no work”; in another he lists “medical reasons.” Nowhere does he disclose or state that he was fired or terminated. Finally, based on Petitioner’s demeanor and the inaccuracies and inconsistencies between his testimony and the other evidence, the undersigned finds Petitioner’s testimony less credible than that of Mr. Gomez and Mr. Matson. Petitioner was unable to recall specific dates or details about alleged conversations or his work/medical status. Petitioner admitted he lied to Superior about the injury causing him to go out on leave in April 2016. He blamed discrepancies between his hearing testimony and sworn statements in the documents submitted to the Commission on his attorney; he blamed inconsistencies in the statements made in his disability benefits paperwork on the insurance company; and he explained misleading statements in subsequent job applications as necessary white lies. The undersigned finds Superior’s explanation that it processed Petitioner’s termination after it was clear he could not work and there was no date certain as to when he could return, and its version of facts surrounding Petitioner’s separation more credible. Regardless, however, of whether he quit or was fired, Petitioner was not qualified to work on August 18, 2016. He offered no evidence, nor is there anything in the record, indicating that his inability to work had ever changed, or that the restrictions and limitations set forth in the Disability Certificate were ever lifted. As such, the undersigned finds Petitioner could not perform his job duties and could not work as of August 18, 2016. Petitioner’s Reapplication Petitioner claims he reapplied for a position with Superior numerous times after August 2016. Other than a July 2017 application, it is unclear how often or what other times he reapplied. Petitioner claims Superior did not rehire him because of his disability. As proof, he states Mr. Matson and Mr. Gomez made comments inquiring about his health. The undersigned finds these comments were innocuous and were expressions of concern for his well-being, rather than related to his specific disability. Petitioner’s attempt at reemployment with Superior is also suspect. There was no admissible evidence to prove that Superior was actually hiring in July 2017. In fact, there was evidence Petitioner only reapplied for work at Superior to better his legal position for future litigation; Petitioner admitted he reapplied for a position at Superior “because my attorney said to reapply to see how they would react.” Petitioner also made statements in disability insurance applications that he was unable to work at the time he reapplied for work at Superior. Specifically, as of July 17, 2017, the date of Petitioner’s Social Security Application for Disability Insurance, Petitioner indicated he could not work and had been unable to work since September 1, 2016. Irrespective of Petitioner’s motives, Superior asserts it did not consider his disability when Petitioner reapplied, but rather that it did not rehire Petitioner because it had no vacancies. Mr. Matson credibly testified that in July 2017, the Wekiva Project was coming to an end and he was struggling to keep the staff occupied until the next assignment. Mr. Matson explained, “we were long on help at that time.” Mr. Gomez also met with Petitioner in July 2017 regarding his reapplication. At the time Superior was working on another project, Project 16903. Mr. Gomez told Petitioner that he would be eligible for the next project, Project 17904, but that project was not starting until late 2017 or early 2018. This is consistent with Petitioner’s application dated July 5, 2017, which has a handwritten notation: “Consider Rehire for 16903 per Jose G. till 17904 Ready.” Mr. Gomez was not responsible for Project 17904, nor was there any evidence that the person hiring for Project 17904 was aware of Petitioner’s disability. Superior never rehired Petitioner. The undersigned finds Superior did not consider Petitioner’s disability, but rather, based its decision not to rehire Petitioner on the fact it did not have any vacancies.
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 Petitioner, James Walker, did not prove that Respondent, Superior Construction Company Southeast, LLC, committed an unlawful employment practice against him; and dismissing his Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 4th day of January, 2019.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, John W. Cohen, Jr., began employment with the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") Duval Detention Center, on June 26, 1976. His position was that of Detention Care Worker I. He continued in that position as a permanent employee until his final dismissal of July 25, 1989, which is the subject of this proceeding. In the course of his employment with the Respondent, the Petitioner has complained of instances of unfair treatment on numerous occasions with both informal complaints and grievances and formal complaints. The current case arises from the Petitioner's claim that his dismissal of July 25, 1989 was discrimination in the form of retaliation, that is, the employer's alleged retaliation as the result of the previously- raised complaints and grievances. The Petitioner maintains that he first became aware that his repeated use of grievance procedures involving his employer was noticed and resented by the circulation of a cartoon in his work place, which depicted his supervisor threatening to shoot the Petitioner with a large firearm in retaliation for using grievance procedures. The Petitioner and his supervisor were named in the cartoon. The Petitioner filed a formal complaint with the Jacksonville Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on March 3, 1985 as a result of this belief. The Petitioner again felt that he had suffered disparate treatment by his supervisor, Ms. Thelma Menendez, while he worked under her supervision for the Respondent agency. Ms. Menendez found the Petitioner to be a good employee and gave him favorable performance appraisals but stated that she had a problem with the Petitioner because of his tardiness and excessive absence. The Petitioner was ultimately terminated for tardiness and excessive absence and filed a retaliation and harassment complaint with the Jacksonville Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in response to that action by the agency. It developed, apparently in the course of investigation and proceeding with regard to that complaint, that the agency's records revealed that other employees, similarly situated to the Petitioner, some of whom apparently worked on his shift, had exhibited tardiness to the same or to a greater degree than the Petitioner, and that some of them had suffered less severe discipline, as imposed by their supervisor, Ms. Menendez. The Respondent acknowledged this problem and took action by reprimanding Ms. Menendez for her failure to document and respond appropriately to abuses of leave procedures and excessive tardiness by all employees. Because the Petitioner was aware that other employees on his shift had been frequently tardy without experiencing disciplinary actions of the same severity, he filed the retaliation and harassment complaint mentioned above. This complaint ultimately culminated in a negotiated settlement agreement between the Union representatives and attorney, who represented the Petitioner, and the Respondent. This settlement reversed the termination and reduced it to an agreed-upon 30-day suspension. Apparently, the Petitioner initially refused to sign the settlement agreement because he felt that the 30-day suspension, itself, was also harassment. On two occasions, allegations of child abuse against the Petitioner were made, pursuant to Chapter 415, Florida Statutes, apparently in connection with the supervisory duties over children in custody at the Respondent's facility where the Petitioner was employed. It is standard practice with the Respondent that any employee who has such allegations made against him must be removed from supervisory duties over children whenever the allegations are pending and until they are resolved. During the investigatory and resolution process concerning such child abuse allegations, employees are customarily and routinely reassigned to another job with the agency, which does not involve direct supervision of clients or children. Such events frequently occur at the Juvenile Detention Center. On the two occasions involving the Petitioner, the Petitioner was reassigned to maintenance duties at the Respondent's facility. The Petitioner consistently protested this reassignment to maintenance duties because other employees in similar situations had not been reassigned to maintenance duties but, rather, to other employment duties, not involving maintenance. Although he protested the reassignment for this reason, he performed in the maintenance or janitorial capacity for over 13 months. The Petitioner remained in the maintenance position, pursuant to his reassignment, because of the allegations pending against him until an Order of the Division of Administrative Hearings was issued and, presumably, an agency Final Order, which removed the disqualification involving the child abuse allegations, effective July 22, 1987. Upon his second such reassignment to maintenance duties, on August 16, 1988, the Petitioner refused to climb up on the roof of the building to perform roof repair work when asked to do so by his supervisor. Instead, he filed a complaint with one of his supervisors, Sub-district Administrator Lucy Farley. In any event, because both allegations of child abuse were disproved, the Petitioner was reassigned to his normal duties as a Detention Care Worker I. The only reason for reassignment to the maintenance duties was because such removal from child supervision duties is mandatory under Department rules and policies. Although the Petitioner maintains that he was subjected to harassment of some sort because he was the only known employee who was given maintenance duties in the face of such allegations, it was established that he was reassigned to maintenance or janitorial duties because those were the only positions available in order for him to continue employment with the agency at the facility until the charges were resolved. His salary and benefits were not affected by this action. It was not demonstrated that he was singled out for reassignment to maintenance duties for any reasons of harassment, disparagement or disparate treatment of any kind. Likewise, it was not proven that the cartoon allegedly circulated in the Petitioner's work place was published by, authored by, or otherwise done at the instance of or within the knowledge of the Respondent. Thus, it cannot be probative of any intent or motive on the part of the employer to harass the Petitioner on the basis of previously- filed grievances or complaints against the employer or for any other reason. It cannot serve as evidence that the ultimate dismissal, which is the subject of this proceeding, constituted a retaliatory dismissal by the employer. On July 14, 1989, the Petitioner reported to work on the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift, at the Duval Regional Juvenile Detention Center. He was performing his regular duties as a Detention Care Worker I. The client population was high in the facility at that time, and employees were generally unable to take regularly-scheduled breaks from their duties. On that morning, the Petitioner worked without a break from 7:00 a.m. to approximately 11:50 a.m. He then maintained that he felt ill and notified Mr. Arnett Morrell and Mr. Carlton Smith, his coworkers and/or supervisor, that he intended going to the staff lounge to eat. Prior to leaving his work area ("Module A"), the Petitioner advised Mr. Bernard Brock, who was the "Floor Coordinator" between "A" and "B" Modules, that he needed to go eat. He secured Mr. Brock's agreement to cover his module or duties while he took a break. The Petitioner then proceeded to "master control", the control center for the facility. At the master control station, Detention Care Worker Supervisor, Reginald Chambliss, asked the Petitioner why he had not followed proper procedures by calling the master control center before he left his module to come to master control or to leave his module for any reason. The Petitioner responded by explaining that he had secured coverage of his duties and his module from Mr. Brock and two other workers. He also stated to Mr. Chambliss that he had not had a break since 7:00 a.m. that morning and was feeling sick. After some discussion, the Petitioner advised Mr. Chambliss again that he was sick and needed to eat or that he would have to take leave time. Mr. Chambliss then gave the Petitioner his keys so that he could unlock his personal effects. The Petitioner then returned to his module to get his personal effects. The Petitioner later returned to master control to "clock out" because he had apparently decided to leave the work place. Mr. Chambliss approached the Petitioner in the vicinity of the time clock and informed him that he would not be able to authorize him taking leave time that day if the Petitioner left the building. The Petitioner moved toward the time clock in order to carry out his intention to "clock out" of the building while Mr. Chambliss was standing between him and the time clock. Mr. Chambliss repeated his instructions to the Petitioner that if he clocked out, he would not approve his taking leave. The Petitioner ordered Mr. Chambliss to get out of his way, which Mr. Chambliss did not do. Then the Petitioner apparently swore at Mr. Chambliss and said something to the effect of "I am tired of this shit" and then struck Mr. Chambliss one or more times, inflicting a cut in the vicinity of his eye. The Petitioner then apparently left the immediate vicinity of Mr. Chambliss at the master control station. Mr. Chambliss called Supervisor II, Andrea Cash, on the intercom and she came to the area of the master control station where the incident occurred. He informed Ms. Cash of the details of the incident. When Ms. Cash arrived, the altercation was over and the Petitioner appeared relatively calm, although Mr. Chambliss was still upset. Ms. Cash then contacted District Administrator, Lucy Farley, who contacted her immediate supervisor, in turn, by telephone. On instructions from her superiors, Ms. Cash ordered the Petitioner to leave the facility and not to come back. She notified all shifts verbally and by memorandum that if the Petitioner should return to the facility, the Sheriff's Office should be summoned. Mr. Chambliss was advised by superiors to press charges and did so. Ultimately, however, he and the Petitioner entered into an agreement to drop the charges; and the State's Attorney did not prosecute the assault charge. On July 27, 1989, the Petitioner was notified by Administrator, Lucy Farley, that his dismissal would be effective at 5:00 p.m. on July 25, 1989. The Petitioner met with Ms. Farley in the company of an AFSME Union Representative on July 24, 1989 apparently to discuss some sort of resolution to the conflict; however, Ms. Farley terminated the Petitioner. The Department has a policy that any assault or striking of an employee or supervisor is adequate grounds for termination. Mr. Chambliss and other supervisory personnel consider an employee assault to be an unusual and severe incident. The Petitioner was terminated for assaulting another staff member and using abusive language toward that staff member. Because the Petitioner struck his supervisor three times, causing injury to him, in an unprovoked manner, it was determined by the employer to be reasonable grounds for termination. The Department's rules and policies allow for termination for such an offense, and whether or not mitigating circumstances are considered is discretionary with the employer. The Petitioner made no showing of any disparate treatment in this regard. He made no showing that other employees had assaulted a co-employee or supervisor and had not been terminated but, rather, had been subjected to either no discipline or some lesser degree of discipline. In fact, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that any other such assault incident had occurred. The Petitioner simply showed no instances where other employees similarly situated, involved in a similar incident had been subjected to less severe discipline. Consequently, the Petitioner made no showing of a prima facie case of disparate discriminatory treatment in connection with his termination.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petition of John W. Cohen, Jr. be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 31st day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-7300 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-4. Accepted, but not necessarily as probative of material issues presented. Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. 7-10. Accepted, but not as probative of material issues presented, standing alone. 11. Accepted, but not in itself probative of the material dispositive issues presented. 12-14. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 15. Accepted, but not itself dispositive of material issues presented. 16-23. Accepted, but not in themselves dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, but not itself dispositive of material issues presented. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 27-28. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as immaterial. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as being immaterial. Accepted as to the first clause, but as to the second, rejected as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as irrelevant. It was not demonstrated that other employees for whom mitigating circumstances may have been considered were similarly situated to the Petitioner in the instant case situation. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-11. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 D. Ola David Qualified Representative 600 Victory Gardens Drive Tallahassee, FL 32301 Scott Leemis, Esq. HRS District 4 Legal Office P.O. Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083
The Issue Whether this cause is barred by a release of all claims.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Undisputed Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing Maurice G. Hargrove, Sr.’s, Petition for Relief from employment discrimination due to a lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of September, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 28th day of September, 2016
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Robert F. Cameron, was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, Osceola County, based on his disability, race, or national origin in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act. 1 All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2020), unless otherwise noted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner brings this action alleging that the County discriminated against him based on his disability, race (white), and national origin (Canadian). Specifically, Petitioner asserts that the County failed to provide him a reasonable accommodation to allow him to participate in the application and selection process for a County job. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and under the governance of the Osceola County Board of County Commissioners. At the final hearing, Petitioner testified that he is a disabled individual with at least seven disabilities. Pertinent to this matter, Petitioner stated that he is partially deaf in one ear which limits his ability to hear.4 In addition, Petitioner relayed that his disability(ies) affect his normal life in that he has frequent medical appointments and requires an increased number of restroom breaks. On October 15, 2019, Petitioner, who is from Canada, applied for the position of Budget Analyst II (the "Analyst Position") with the County. The Analyst Position falls within the County's Office of Management and Budget Department ("OMB"). The OMB is responsible for preparing the County's 2 By requesting a deadline for filing a post-hearing submission beyond ten days after the filing of the hearing transcript, the 30-day time period for filing the Recommended Order was waived. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.216(2). 3 Petitioner filed a revised version of his post-hearing submittal on October 9, 2020, which the undersigned considered as Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order in writing this Recommended Order. 4 At the final hearing, Petitioner initially strenuously objected to identifying his specific disability, asserting that his right to privacy protects him from having to disclose personal medical information, except as requested by a medical professional. annual budget, as well as analyzing and evaluating budget transfers for the County Commissioners. The County initiated the recruitment process for the Analyst Position by posting the opening on the website www.governmentjobs.com on October 14, 2019. Petitioner found the posting on the website and submitted his application through the same. At total of 15 individuals applied for the position, including Petitioner. The application window for the Analyst Position closed on October 21, 2019. Thereafter, the County's Human Resources Department screened the 15 applications to ensure the interested persons met the minimum qualifications for the job. Eleven applicants, including Petitioner, possessed the required qualifications. The Human Resources Department forwarded those 11 applications to the OMB for consideration. The OMB reviewed the 11 applications and selected three individuals to interview. These applicants included Petitioner (a white male), Lizette Rivera (a Hispanic female), and Sean Lower (a white male). Thereafter, the Human Resources Department set up a panel of five County employees to interview the candidates. Petitioner learned that he was being considered for the job on Thursday, October 24, 2019. That morning, the County called Petitioner at his home in Canada to inquire whether he was available for an interview the next day, Friday, October 25, 2019. Damaris Morales, an administrative assistant in the OMB, made the call. This case centers around what was said during that morning phone call. Petitioner and Ms. Morales left the conversation with vastly different impressions of what transpired. The Phone Call According to Petitioner Petitioner testified that Ms. Morales called him at a most inopportune time. His home phone rang at 8:44 a.m. At that moment, Petitioner was rushing out of his apartment to reach a 9:00 a.m. doctor's appointment. In fact, Petitioner had already started his car with an automatic starter, and it was running in his driveway. After he heard his phone ring, however, he turned back to answer the call. Petitioner answered the phone and greeted the caller. The caller identified herself as "Tamaris" from Osceola County.5 Ms. Morales then informed Petitioner that she was calling to set up an interview for the Analyst Position. Petitioner initially expressed to Ms. Morales that her call was "great" news. He then explained that he was running out the door to a medical appointment. Therefore, he asked if she would email him details about the interview, and he would respond to her as soon as he returned home. Ms. Morales informed Petitioner that the interviews would take place the next day (Friday). Petitioner was alarmed at the short notice. He explained to Ms. Morales that he was currently at home in New York state and could not travel to Florida for an in person interview the next day. Ms. Morales replied that she could arrange a telephone interview. Petitioner then asked Ms. Morales when the interview on Friday was scheduled. Ms. Morales relayed that she would email him the specific information when she obtained the time from her manager. Petitioner stated that he would "clear my schedule tomorrow for that interview." Petitioner then signed off saying, "Thank you. I do have to run. Sorry." Ms. Morales hung up the phone first. The conversation lasted 1 minute and 30 seconds. As Petitioner left for his doctor's appointment, he was under the impression that Ms. Morales would email him imminently regarding available times for the Friday telephone interview. The Phone Call According to Ms. Morales At the final hearing, Ms. Morales described a vastly different conversation with Petitioner. As further discussed below, Ms. Morales's 5 At the final hearing, Petitioner testified that he heard Damaris Morales state her name as "Tamaris." initial impressions of Petitioner from that phone call ultimately led the OMB to decide not to interview Petitioner for the Analyst Position. When Petitioner answered the phone, Ms. Morales testified that Petitioner's "aggressive" tone quite startled her. In a "loud" voice, Petitioner declared, "Yeah. What do you want? I don't have time to talk right now. I've got to be somewhere." Ms. Morales was not expecting such an abrupt and jarring reception. After a few seconds of stunned silence, Ms. Morales explained to Petitioner that she was calling about his application for the Analyst Position. Continuing in his harsh tone, Petitioner replied, "I have somewhere I need to be right now. Send me all the information via email. I am in Niagara Falls, New York." Petitioner then hung up the phone first without providing Ms. Morales his availability for a Friday interview. The whole conversation took less than 30 seconds. At the final hearing, in response to Ms. Morales's testimony, Petitioner suggested that she may have overheard an exchange between him and his son, Stewart, with whom he lives. Petitioner explained that, as he was leaving his apartment, his son called out from his bedroom asking whether the bathroom was free. Petitioner yelled back, "What do you want, Stewart? I am leaving." Petitioner explained that his phone may have malfunctioned and engaged Ms. Morales' call without him actually picking up the receiver. Petitioner strongly denied that he directed the comment "what do you want?" at Ms. Morales. Petitioner also theorized that if he spoke in a loud tone with Ms. Morales, it may have been due to his disability. As indicated above, Petitioner testified that he is deaf in one ear. Petitioner explained that Ms. Morales was talking very fast during their phone call. In responding to her questions, Petitioner was not trying to be abrupt or argumentative. However, he was in a rush to reach his appointment and was frustrated at the delay. Continuing with Petitioner's story, after the phone call, as Thursday morning progressed into Thursday afternoon, Petitioner did not receive an email back from Ms. Morales. Therefore, around 2:15 p.m., Petitioner called the County to speak with her. He was forwarded to her office phone, where he left a voicemail. In his message, Petitioner expressed that he was available for an interview any time the next day (Friday). He also left his Skype contact information. Time continued to pass on Thursday. With no response over the next two hours, at 4:14 p.m., Petitioner again called for Ms. Morales. This time, he was able to reach her. Petitioner inquired about his interview time for Friday. Ms. Morales momentarily demurred, telling Petitioner that she had to check with her manager. After several minutes, Ms. Morales came back on the line. She then told Petitioner that the Friday interviews were "full up." When Petitioner asked about an interview on another day, Petitioner claims that Ms. Morales promptly "slammed the phone down in my ear." Ms. Morales, on the other hand, testified that after she informed Petitioner that no interview times were available on Friday, Petitioner got angry and threatened her with a "legal matter." Petitioner then hung up on her. Petitioner was not content to let the matter drop. Therefore, on Friday morning at 9:47 a.m., he emailed the County Manager, Don Fisher, to complain about the County's Human Resources Department and the OMB. In his email, Petitioner summarized the events from the previous day. Petitioner focused on the fact that Ms. Morales told him that she would provide him an interview time. Then, when he contacted her Thursday afternoon, Ms. Morales informed him that the interviews were "full up," and he would not be offered an opportunity to interview for the Analyst Position. Petitioner sent Mr. Fisher follow-up emails at 10:01 a.m. and 10:03 a.m. In the first follow-up email, Petitioner stated: I am disabled and covered under the ADA Act. I make this request for accommodation under the ADA Act. At 10:10 a.m., Petitioner sent an email to another County employee, Maria Colon, the Director of the Human Resources Department and the County's Americans with Disability Act ("ADA") coordinator. In this email, Petitioner stated: You are the designated ADA Act Coordinator, but you are discriminating against me and denying my ADA rights to accommodation under the ACT and Title VII. I formally ask for this interview to be rescheduled and Oscola [sic] County to stop this discrimination. Attached to this email, Petitioner included a copy of his Ontario Disability Support Program Certificate of Disability ("ODSP Certificate"). At the final hearing, Petitioner explained that the ODSP Certificate, which was determined in 2013, is proof of his disability. Petitioner's certificate states: Your file with the Disability Adjudication Unit has been adjudicated and you have been found to be a person with a disability as defined in the Ontario Disability Support Program Act. 1997. At the final hearing, Petitioner expounded on the reasons for his request, explaining that he sought an accommodation to enable him to conduct a telephonic interview because his disability prevented him from driving from Canada to Florida to interview in person. Furthermore, as a disabled person, he needed more time to prepare and participate in the recruitment process. The specific accommodation he desired was to be allowed to interview by telephone on Monday, October 28, 2019. Not hearing a response from Ms. Colon by Friday afternoon, at 3:03 p.m., Petitioner dispatched another email to her. He again attached his ODSP Certificate. In this email, Petitioner wrote that "your staff member Tamaris" refused to schedule an interview and then "hung up the phone on me." Petitioner also repeated that he was "requesting reasonable accommodation for the Budget Analyst II position." Ms. Colon called Petitioner shortly after his second email. During this call, Petitioner informed Ms. Colon that he was disabled, and he needed a telephone interview for the County job opening. Petitioner added that he was located out of state, and he could not travel to Florida in time for an in-person interview. Petitioner further declared that the County was discriminating against him because of his disability and his national origin. Ms. Colon advised Petitioner that she would look into his concerns and get back to him. Petitioner claims that Ms. Colon ended this conversation by slamming the phone in his ear. During this call, despite Ms. Colon's request, Petitioner refused to identify his specific disability. At the final hearing, Petitioner asserted that the law protects those with disabilities from having to disclose their actual medical conditions. He said that, to safeguard their privacy, the disabled do not have to reveal their disability, except to the limited extent necessary to relate the disability to the requested accommodation. At 6:01 p.m. on Friday evening, Ms. Colon emailed Petitioner stating, "Per our phone conversation, I will look into your concerns and get back with you on Monday." By late Monday morning, October 28, 2019, however, Petitioner had not heard from Ms. Colon. Therefore, he sent her two emails. At 11:43 a.m., Petitioner wrote, "When is my interview? I am not available tomorrow." With no response to this first email, at 3:48 p.m., Petitioner wrote, "As per your reply above, you indicated my accommodation request under the ADA and interview time would be dealt with today. It is 4 pm EST. Please respond." Petitioner then signed off, "I am available for an interview 10am to 11 am tomorrow and then on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday." Petitioner received a response from Ms. Colon at 6:10 p.m., Monday evening. In her email, Ms. Colon wrote: I had the opportunity to look into your concerns. To be honest, customer service is very important in the Budget Analyst II role, and we're assessing those skills in every contact with candidates. The OMB Department had concerns about the way you handled the call and treated the employee that contacted you on October 24th for the purpose of scheduling an interview. Therefore, the Department has moved forward with other candidates. Petitioner was most displeased at Ms. Colon's email, and at 6:54 p.m., he responded: I did nothing except indicate I was available for an interview. Regardless none of this over-rides the ADA and my rights to employment and accommodation. I will be discussing your actions, the "OMB" in denying my constitutional and ADA rights, my Title VII rights with [a County attorney] tomorrow. If they fail to resolve this, then I will be suing you personally, Tamaris, the OMB and the County on a substantial indemnity basis for well in excess of $500g. Petitioner ended the email with "See you soon in court." Six minutes later, at 7:01 p.m., Petitioner sent another email to Ms. Colon. In this message, Petitioner stated: I must commend you for trying to deflect the egregious violation of my rights through trying to claim my rights to an interview are somehow superceded [sic] by this department withdrawing an interview based on race, geography, nationality and disability … in a call in which this Tamaris said and I quote – "we are full up" … . I asked her to leave my interview time through an email. If that qualifies as "poor customer service" then you have a very BIG legal problem using that as a diversion for blantant [sic] discrimination based on race, color, nationality, and disability. Petitioner ended this email with, "I will be happy to take you to Federal Court not the Courthouse right across the street. See you soon in court." Petitioner wrote Ms. Colon once more at 7:03 p.m. In this email, Petitioner accused Ms. Colon of "a blatant discrimination of interest in applying the ACT. Your superiors told you to deny me my rights under the ADA and you did so." Petitioner then declared that he was going to "sue you personally. … Trust me on that." After Monday, October 28, 2019, Petitioner never heard back from Ms. Morales or Ms. Colon regarding his application for the Analyst Position. Consequently, Petitioner claims that the County, by refusing to respond to his request for a telephone interview, denied him his rights under the FCRA and the ADA. At the final hearing, Petitioner vehemently denied that he was rude to Ms. Morales or during his call with Ms. Colon. Petitioner professed that he was perfectly polite to Ms. Morales. In addition, he asserted that Ms. Morales's testimony that he hung up the phone on her is totally false. Petitioner also contended that he did not threaten Ms. Colon with legal action as a means of intimidation. He was just exercising his rights as a disabled person. Petitioner further charged that the County's excuse for removing him from consideration was based on a misconstrued comment overheard during a brief phone call. Petitioner insists that his single utterance, "What do you want (Stewart)," cannot and should not justify the County's discriminatory action. The County ultimately hired Lizette Rivera for the Analyst Position. Petitioner alleges that the decision to hire Ms. Rivera is evidence of the County's female employees working together to eliminate white, male candidates. Petitioner maintains that Ms. Morales, a Hispanic female, favored another Hispanic (nondisabled) female (Ms. Rivera) for the Analyst Position. Consequently, Petitioner claims that Ms. Morales rigged the process and discriminated against Petitioner. At the final hearing, the County did not dispute that, while the OMB initially considered Petitioner for the Analyst Position, it quickly decided not to interview him for the job. The County also confirmed that the OMB did interview, and ultimately hire, Ms. Rivera to fill the Analyst Position. Regarding the County's decision not to interview Petitioner, after the initial phone call, Ms. Morales testified that she was quite startled by Petitioner's rude and unprofessional conduct. She immediately reported the conversation to her supervisor, Sharon Chauharjasingh, who is the Director of the OMB. Ms. Morales expressed to Ms. Chauharjasingh how shocked she was by Petitioner's behavior. Ms. Morales further relayed that because Petitioner was "in a rush," he did not provide her his availability for a telephone interview. Consequently, she had no information which would allow her to schedule him for an interview on Friday. Ms. Morales's testimony describing the telephone interaction with Petitioner was credible and is credited. Petitioner admitted to parts of Ms. Morales's versions, including that fact that he was in a rush and that he yelled, "what do you want?" Other than the two phone calls with Petitioner on Thursday, October 24, 2019, Ms. Morales was not involved in the OMB's decision not to interview Petitioner or to hire Ms. Rivera. (Those decisions belonged to Ms. Chauharjasingh.) Ms. Morales did not participate on the interview panel for either Ms. Rivera or Mr. Lower. Ms. Morales further testified that at no time during her phone calls with Petitioner did he inform her that he had a disability, or that he needed an accommodation to participate in the interview process. Ms. Chauharjasingh also testified at the final hearing. Ms. Chauharjasingh initially explained that the OMB is tasked with preparing the County's annual budget of approximately $1 billion. The person who fills the Analyst Position will work in the OMB. The duties of the Analyst Position include reviewing the budgets of the different County departments, as well as assisting those departments with budget questions and preparation related tasks. The Analyst Position will also review budgetary impacts and projections, and be prepared to personally discuss these issues with County representatives. In addition, the Analyst Position will interact daily with other staff members and occasionally contact outside companies and the public. Regarding the hiring of Ms. Rivera, Ms. Chauharjasingh disclosed that, because she oversees the OMB, she was responsible for selecting the person to fill the Analyst Position. For this opening, Ms. Chauharjasingh was the individual who narrowed down the applicants to the shortlist of three individuals including Petitioner, Ms. Rivera, and Mr. Lower. In selecting these candidates, Ms. Chauharjasingh looked at each applicant's past experience as a budget analyst, as well as their aptitude to efficiently assume the job duties. Based on their resumes, Ms. Chauharjasingh believed that each finalist was qualified for the Analyst Position. After selecting the three candidates, Ms. Chauharjasingh asked her assistant, Ms. Morales, to call each applicant and set up an interview. Ms. Chauharjasingh asked Ms. Morales to schedule the interviews for either Friday, October 25, 2019, or Monday, October 28, 2019. At the final hearing, Ms. Chauharjasingh represented that the County routinely interviews job applicants by telephone. Ms. Chauharjasingh further testified that the decision not to continue the interview process with Petitioner was hers. Ms. Chauharjasingh recounted that on Thursday morning, October 24, 2019, Ms. Morales came into her office looking "shaken up." Ms. Morales reported that she had just spoken to Petitioner, and he yelled at her and was rude and unprofessional. Ms. Chauharjasingh had never heard of a job candidate reacting the way Ms. Morales described. Ms. Morales has never complained to her about any other applicant. Based on Ms. Morales's interaction with Petitioner, Ms. Chauharjasingh immediately decided to remove Petitioner from consideration for the Analyst Position. She therefore directed Ms. Morales to "move on" from Petitioner and not to communicate with him any further. Instead, Ms. Morales was to only schedule interviews with the other two candidates (Ms. Rivera and Mr. Lower). The County's panel of five interviewers, which included Ms. Chauharjasingh, conducted an in-person interview of Ms. Rivera on Friday, October 25, 2019, at 11:30 a.m. Mr. Lower was interviewed, in person, on Monday morning, October 28, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. Following the interviews, the panel ranked the candidates, and then sent the list to Ms. Chauharjasingh. Ms. Chauharjasingh extended the offer of employment to Ms. Rivera, who was the top-ranked candidate. Ms. Chauharjasingh concluded her testimony by asserting that Petitioner's disability played no role in her decision not to interview him. Ms. Chauharjasingh explained that, at the time she decided to terminate the interview process with him, neither she nor Ms. Morales had any knowledge or information regarding Petitioner's disability. Instead, the sole basis for removing Petitioner from the shortlist was Ms. Morales' interaction with him during her initial phone call. Ms. Chauharjasingh testified that, based on the specific responsibilities of the Analyst Position, personal traits such as good communication skills, decorum, and telephone etiquette are very important. For example, the Detailed Job Posting for the Analyst Position includes a Physical Demand Requirement of "Expressing or exchanging ideas by spoken word or perceiving sound by ear." Consequently, upon hearing Ms. Morales's description of Petitioner's attitude and behavior during the telephone call, Ms. Chauharjasingh decided that the County did not need to consider Petitioner's application any further. In her testimony, Ms. Colon expressed that she had no part in the OMB's decision not to interview Petitioner. She became involved in this matter only after she received Petitioner's email, addressed to her as the County's ADA coordinator, on Friday morning, October 25, 2019. Ms. Colon stated that after she read Petitioner's email, she did not immediately respond because she first wanted to determine what exactly had transpired between Petitioner and Ms. Morales the previous day. Ms. Colon spoke with both Ms. Morales and Ms. Chauharjasingh on Friday. From these conversations, Ms. Colon heard that Petitioner was "rude" during Ms. Morales's first telephone call. Further, Petitioner was so "abrupt" that Ms. Morales was not able to offer him an interview time. Ms. Morales also informed Ms. Colon that Petitioner did not mention a disability or request an accommodation during either of their calls. Regarding her own phone call with Petitioner on Friday afternoon, Ms. Colon described an experience very similar to Ms. Morales's. Ms. Colon testified that the conversation was "not pleasant." As with Ms. Morales, Ms. Colon recounted that Petitioner was "agitated," loud," and "extremely unprofessional." During the exchange, Petitioner also threatened to sue her and the County. Regarding her email to Petitioner on Monday evening, October 28, 2019, in which she wrote that, "The OMB Department had concerns about the way you handled the call and treated the employee that contacted you on October 24th," Ms. Colon stated that the decision not to schedule Petitioner for an interview was made on October 24, 2019. Specifically, after talking with Ms. Morales and Ms. Chauharjasingh, Ms. Colon learned that Ms. Chauharjasingh had decided not to interview Petitioner immediately after Ms. Morales reported to her regarding Petitioner's rude and unprofessional interaction with her during their first phone call. As a final witness, Ms. Fatima Lozano testified regarding her participation on the interview panel for the Analyst Position. Ms. Lozano described herself as a Human Resources "generalist" with the County. Ms. Lozano has taken part in a number of interviews of applicants for County employment. She relayed that the County routinely conducts telephonic interviews. Ms. Lozano repeated that, when hiring employees, the department responsible for the position sets up the interviews and selects the winner. For the Analyst Position, the OMB selected the applicants who would interview for the job. Regarding scheduling the interviews for the Analyst Position, Ms. Lozano testified that, on October 21, 2019, she received a calendar invite requesting her availability. The interviews then took place on Friday, October 25, 2019, at 11:30 a.m. and Monday, October 28, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. While the above findings chronical the key aspects of Petitioner's discrimination claim, Petitioner also raised several other complaints against the County. Petitioner was exceedingly frustrated by the County's failure to schedule his interview through the www.governmentjobs.com website. At the final hearing, Petitioner elicited testimony from several County employees that, although the County pays a hefty annual fee to recruit employees through governmentjobs.com, the County only uses the website to solicit applications. Petitioner was "shocked" to learn that the County did not take advantage of the website's functions to schedule interviews with candidates. Petitioner was also "stunned" at the County's attempt to schedule his interview with less than one day's notice. Petitioner found the practice unprofessional and unacceptable. Petitioner represented that the standard process used by governmentjobs.com is to email a notification to the job applicant at least four to seven days prior to the agreed interview time. Based on the competent substantial evidence in the record, the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the County discriminated against Petitioner based on his disability (handicap), race, or national origin. Instead, the credible evidence establishes that the decision not to interview Petitioner was made without knowledge of his disability prior to his request for an accommodation, and without regard to his race or national origin. The decision to not interview Petitioner was based solely on his own behavior, considered rude and unprofessional, effectively disqualifying him from the job. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving that the County committed an unlawful employment practice against him in violation of the FCRA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Petitioner, Robert F. Cameron, did not prove that Respondent, Osceola County, committed an unlawful employment practice against him, and dismissing his Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 12th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Robert Finley Cameron 1 Churchill Street, Apartment 10 St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L25 2-P3 C (eServed) Frank M. Townsend, Esquire Osceola County Attorney's Office 1 Courthouse Square, Suite 4700 Kissimmee, Florida 34741 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether Petitioner was terminated from his employment with Respondent because of his race, his alleged disability, and in alleged retaliation for his attempt to file a workers' compensation claim in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. Petitioner also has been diagnosed with obsessive/compulsive disorder and major depression. On March 21, 1997, Petitioner began his employment with Florida Department of Corrections as a substance abuse counselor at Lancaster Correctional Institution. Petitioner's employment status was in career service, probationary status for six months from the date of his employment. A probationary status employee can be terminated without cause. Petitioner's employment as a counselor required him to be present at the institution a reasonable amount of time in order to perform his counseling duties. From March 21, 1997 through September 2, 1997, Petitioner failed to report for work 39 full workdays out of a possible 115 workdays. In addition, Petitioner had five other workdays that he only worked part of the day, with a total of 16 hours of leave used over those days. Sixteen hours is the equivalent of two full workdays missed by Respondent. As a result, Petitioner was absent from work approximately 35 percent of the time. Thirty-five percent absence rate was excessive based on Petitioner's job duties. Most of the leave was without pay because Petitioner had not accumulated enough sick or annual leave to cover his absences. The leave was taken for various reasons, but a large part of the leave was taken when Petitioner was hospitalized due to his mental condition. Petitioner's doctor released him from his hospitalization on August 8, 1997; however, Petitioner did not return to work until August 20, 1997. The last pay period ran from Friday, August 22, 1997 to Thursday, September 4, 1997. Petitioner only worked 20 hours out of 40 the first week and two hours out of 40 the second week. Around September 1, 1997, Petitioner went to the personnel office to inquire about filing a workers' compensation claim based on his disability. The staff person he spoke to did not know the procedure for filing a workers' compensation claim. She told Petitioner she would find out the procedure and asked him to return the next day. Other than Petitioner's speculation about the events following his initial inquiry about filing a workers' compensation claim, other material evidence regarding the events following his initial inquiry and Respondent's response thereto was submitted into evidence. The evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions of a factual or legal nature regarding Petitioner's workers' compensation claim and his termination. Petitioner was terminated on September 2, 1997, the day following his initial inquiry about workers' compensation. Petitioner received his letter of termination on September 2, 1997. Petitioner was a probationary status employee when he was terminated. Eventually, Petitioner filed a workers' compensation claim. The claim was denied by the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security. In 1997, L.D. "Pete" Turner was the warden at Lancaster Correctional Institution. As warden, Mr. Turner supervised Petitioner. Mr. Turner made the decision to terminate Petitioner due to his excessive absences. Mr. Turner did not terminate Petitioner based on Petitioner's race, his alleged disability, or because of Petitioner's attempt to file a workers' compensation claim. Petitioner was needed at work and he was not there a sufficient amount of time to fulfill his job duties. In fact, there was no competent evidence that there was any connection between Petitioner's termination and/or his race, disability, or desire to file a workers' compensation claim. Petitioner alleged that two employees at the institution were excessively absent but were not terminated. The employees were Doris Jones and Victoria Englehart. Both individuals were career service employees with permanent status. They were not probationary status employees. Doris Jones is an African-American female. Victoria Englehart is a white female. No other evidence was produced at the hearing regarding these two employees, their attendance records, job duties or anything else of a comparative nature. Clearly, the evidence is insufficient to make any comparison between these two employees and Petitioner's employment and termination.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Otis Ware Post Office Box 2155 Trenton, Florida 32693 William J. Thurber, IV, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Azizi M. Dixon, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, as a covered employer under the Florida Civil Rights Act, Sections 760.01 through , Florida Statutes (2008),1 committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent is a constitutional officer and employer subject to the jurisdiction of the Florida Civil Rights Act. On or about July 2, 2001, Respondent, upon the recommendation of Tom Kay, then director of Respondent's Information Technology ("IT") Department, hired Petitioner as a desktop support analyst in the IT Department. The desktop support analyst position, like all positions with Respondent, is an at-will position. Petitioner was 64 years of age when he was hired by Respondent. During his initial years of employment with Respondent, until about late 2005, Petitioner reported to and was supervised by Mr. Kay. After Mr. Kay resigned in November or December 2005, Petitioner reported to Greg Brock, the IT director. Throughout his employment as an IT desktop support analyst, Petitioner was knowledgeable regarding computer applications and his employer's policies regarding use of computers. The essential functions of the desktop analyst position included adhering to and following the principles of the Clerk's Office, and complying with and supporting the mission of the Clerk's Office and the goals and objectives of the IT Department. The Policies and Guidelines Respondent established detailed Information Security Policy Guidelines regarding the use of network resources. Section 5.6 of the Security Guidelines prohibits employees from using network resources for "obscene or suggestive messages or offensive graphical images." Additionally, Section 5.7 of the Guidelines prohibits employees from deliberately downloading or uploading certain materials, including materials of a "sexually explicit nature" or "material which adversely affects the employee's or user's ability to do his or her job or . . . the [Clerk's] office's ability to carry out its assigned mission." Respondent developed and approved a Personnel Handbook which governs, among other matters, employee use of various types of equipment. Section 1.16 addresses the "Care and Use of Equipment," including computers, Internet access and email, which are the property of the Clerk's Office. The policy prohibits employees from using those computers for personal purposes and, specifically, prohibits the use of such equipment in ways "that may be disruptive, offensive, or harmful to morale." Section 1.16 further provides that Respondent's objective with regard to this policy is "to maintain a workplace free from harassment and sensitive to the diversity of its employees." IT Team Building Exercises While IT director, Mr. Kay instituted sports-based office games for team-building. Mr. Kay believed that these activities would boost morale, promote camaraderie, and facilitate communication among staff in the office. Mr. Kay considered the team-building activities to be an effective tool in leading a group of IT people, who typically are introverted by nature, prone to going to their "corners," and not interacting very much. JeanMarie Walsh, then assistant to Mr. Kay, coordinated some of the team-building activities, including the fantasy football game. While serving in that capacity, Ms. Walsh prepared football pool ballots at lunchtime on Friday for Monday morning bragging rights and temporary use of a team hat. She also occasionally used the office computer for email reminders and did so at the direction of Mr. Kay, believing it was not inconsistent with the Clerk's Office policies. The sports "picks" were done primarily during off-duty times and involved only incidental (five to ten minutes a day) use of staff time or the Clerk's Office equipment. This incidental use of equipment in connection with authorized team-building activities did not constitute unauthorized personal use of Respondent's equipment. Mr. Kay opined that the team building activities and use of staff and equipment in connection with those activities were within his rights as IT director. The Chief Deputy Clerk, Janet Cantees ("Chief Deputy Cantees"), knew that the IT Department employees participated in the sports-based team-building exercises initiated and implemented by Mr. Kay. Furthermore, at no time were these team-building activities proscribed by the employer. Respondent was generally aware of the team-building exercises in the IT Department and cautioned Mr. Kay to make sure no money was involved in the activities. She also advised him that employee participation in the team-building exercises was to be on a purely voluntary basis. In accordance with Respondent's instructions, no money was exchanged in regard to these sports team-building activities, and no IT employee was required to participate in the sports activities. The team-building sports activities in the IT Department concluded prior to July 2007. The use of team-building exercises is not unique to the IT Department, but is used with other employees in the Clerk's Office. For example, Chief Deputy Cantees had developed and used other team-building exercises for managers and staff who worked in different locations in the county. Some IT employees also participated in a "Clerk Shirt Everyday" activity, which was to encourage employees to wear their official "clerk shirts." The person who wore a "clerk shirt" that was a color not worn by anyone else that day was the winner of the activity. The winner was given one or two dollars by each participating employee to buy donuts the next day for the work group. Policy Violation Related to Use of Computers In or about early July 2007, Ms. Walsh, an employee in the IT Department telephoned Petitioner from her office. After he did not answer his phone, Ms. Walsh went to Petitioner's work area where she observed him on the computer in the Miami Hurricane football chat rooms. Ms. Walsh then reported to IT Director Brock that Petitioner was not answering his phone and told him what she had observed. On or about July 5, 2007, after Ms. Walsh reported seeing Petitioner in the Miami Hurricane chat rooms, Mr. Brock had Petitioner come to his office. Mr. Brock then told Petitioner that he should not be visiting what Brock believed to be the Miami Hurricanes football web chat rooms on Respondent's computer. During this meeting, Petitioner denied that he had visited such chat room as had been reported. On or about July 25, 2007, while in the area in which Petitioner worked, Ms. Walsh observed Petitioner at his computer. At that time, Ms. Walsh saw an inappropriate image on Petitioner's 24-inch computer screen. The inappropriate image was in clear view of Ms. Walsh and any other employee present in the adjacent working area. When Ms. Walsh saw the inappropriate image, she was concerned that a female vendor working nearby might be exposed to the explicit image. Ms. Walsh was embarrassed and shocked by the image she saw on Petitioner's computer screen and, thus, said nothing to Petitioner. Instead, Ms. Walsh immediately reported what she had witnessed to Mr. Brock. When Ms. Walsh initially told Mr. Brock about the image she had witnessed on Petitioner's computer screen, she described it as "offensive" to "a woman." During their brief conversation about the image on Petitioner's screen, Ms. Walsh was uncomfortable and embarrassed talking about the image. As a result, neither Mr. Brock, nor Ms. Walsh discussed the image in any detail other than confirming it was of a sexual nature. On July 25, 2007, after Ms. Walsh complained about the inappropriate image on Petitioner's computer screen, Mr. Brock conducted an inspection of Petitioner's computer. As a result of that inspection, Mr. Brock found on the hard drive two offensive photos, referenced as "Jugsy.jpg" and "cheappussy.jpg." The "Jugsy.jpg" photo found in Petitioner's computer depicts a young woman, mouth open, clad in a bra or bikini top, clutching her breasts, most of which were exposed, and pushing them together. The "cheappussy.jpg" photo found in Petitioner's computer depicts a man holding or dangling a hairless cat, which appears to be dead, in the air by its head. The offensive photos were found among other photos depicting Petitioner and his friends, and/or acquaintances of his, engaged in social or sports activities, including the University of Miami Hurricane events. The offensive photos found by Mr. Brock were located in a place on Petitioner's computer associated with his user name/login and were copied to the computer into Petitioner's profile or personal directory. Furthermore, based on Mr. Brock's inspection, there was no indication that the offensive pictures had been tampered with or modified by anyone else. At all times relevant hereto, there were ten or eleven employees in the IT Department, all of whom had administrative passwords that allowed them to access any of the Clerk's Office computers. The IT employees needed this access in order to perform their authorized job responsibilities. Because the IT employees had access to all computers, it is possible that any IT employee could have accessed Petitioner's computer. However, there is no evidence that this ever occurred. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Brock had the experience and expertise to run a report of computer activity and to conduct a forensic analysis of Petitioner's computer to determine the history of the images. However, based on the findings of Mr. Brock's initial investigation of Petitioner's computer, he determined that such analysis or report was not necessary. On July 26, 2007, Mr. Brock showed Ms. Walsh the images he found saved in Petitioner's computer. At that time, Ms. Walsh identified the picture labeled "Jugsy.jpg" as the offensive image she had seen on Petitioner's computer. At this proceeding, Ms. Walsh testified that the image she saw on Petitioner's computer screen in July 2007 was a topless female in partially unzipped jean shorts. Undoubtedly, there is a difference in the image Ms. Walsh described in her testimony, which was two years after the incident, and the "Jugsy.jpg" photo she identified the day after she saw the image. This difference or discrepancy may be attributed to several factors including the following: (1) the lapse of time, two years, between Ms. Walsh's seeing the image and testifying at this proceeding; (2) the brief time that Ms. Walsh actually saw the image on Petitioner's screen; and/or (3) the brief time she looked at the "Jugsy.jpg" photo when it was shown to her by Mr. Brock. Notwithstanding the foregoing difference in Ms. Walsh's description of the image she saw on Petitioner's computer screen and the photo she identified as that image, Ms. Walsh's testimony that she saw an offensive image of a woman on Petitioner's computer screen is found to be credible. Significantly, Ms. Walsh's complaint led to an investigation, which found that there were offensive photos stored in Petitioner's computer (the one provided to him by the Clerk's Office). Decision to Terminate Petitioner's Employment In personnel matters regarding employment termination, the process begins with the unit manager or director discussing and reviewing the situation with Edith Peacher, manager of Human Resources ("HR"). After the matter is reviewed, the director or manager typically makes a recommendation in consultation with HR Manager Peacher. That recommendation is then conveyed to Chief Deputy Cantees, a key decision maker, who reviews the matter and then communicates her decision/recommendation to Respondent. Ultimately, Respondent has "veto authority" over the recommendation and/or decision of the chief deputy clerk. Consistent with Respondent's personnel practices, after Ms. Walsh identified the picture that she believed she saw on Petitioner's computer screen, Mr. Brock conferred with the HR manager. During the meeting with HR Manager Peacher, Mr. Brock advised her of Ms. Walsh's complaint, his investigation, and the photos he had retrieved from Petitioner's computer. Mr. Brock also told HR Manager Peacher that a few weeks before, he had spoken to Petitioner about using his computer to go to chat rooms. HR Manager Peacher, with input from Mr. Brock, drafted a Termination Notice dated July 26, 2007, for violations of the Clerk's Office's policies, procedures and professional conduct and standards. HR Manager Peacher then recommended to Chief Deputy Cantees that Petitioner's employment be involuntarily dismissed from the Clerk's employ. The July 26, 2007, Notice of Termination cited the prior disciplinary action; the July 5, 2007 verbal counseling; and references the two photos/images described in paragraphs 24 and 25 as deliberate and inappropriate use by an IT employee of the Clerk's Office computer equipment, justifying termination of employment. Section 4.02 of the Clerk's Personnel Handbook provides that "[e]mployment with the Clerk . . . is on at will basis," but states that "the Clerk may utilize progressive discipline in an effort to work with the employee." Under this provision, the option of using progressive discipline is discretionary, not mandatory. In the instant case, HR Manager Peacher believed that the display of offensive images on Petitioner's computer screen was an "egregious" situation and one which warranted immediate termination. On July 26, 2007, Mr. Brock and HR Manager Peacher met with Petitioner and reviewed the Notice of Termination and the pending recommendation for dismissal with Petitioner. When confronted with the allegation regarding the offensive images found in his computer, Petitioner stated "matter of factly" that someone "may" have placed the photos on his computer. However, he offered no reason for his implication that someone else "may" have tampered with his computer. Nonetheless, HR Manager Peacher told Petitioner that Respondent could investigate and find out if someone else had placed the images in his computer, but Petitioner did not request further investigation. At the July 26, 2007, meeting, Petitioner signed the Notice of Termination and indicated that he "read the Notice but did not agree with it in any way, shape or form." HR Manager Peacher conveyed to Chief Deputy Cantees the substance of the meeting with Petitioner and her belief that no errors of fact had occurred. After listening to HR Manager Peacher's presentation of the facts, Chief Deputy Cantees asked HR Manager Peacher and Mr. Brock several follow-up questions about the incident (i.e., the validity of the complaint, if and how Petitioner's computer had been checked, etc.). Chief Deputy Cantees was satisfied with the information HR Manager Peacher provided to her, as well as the responses to her questions that were provided by HR Manager Peacher and Mr. Brock. Both HR Manager Peacher and the Chief Deputy Cantees relied on Mr. Brock's experience and expertise in computer forensics in determining the origin of the offensive images found on Petitioner's computer. Based on her discussions with HR Manager Peacher and Mr. Brock and her review of the record, Chief Deputy Cantees concurred with the recommendation of termination and the Clerk gave final approval. Petitioner was 71 years old when he was terminated from his employment with Respondent. The person hired to replace Petitioner was an individual estimated to be in the mid-40 to mid-50 range. Prior to the incident involving Petitioner, neither Respondent, nor the HR manager had received reports of, or knew of incidents of, employees having inappropriate (sexual) images on their computers. Therefore, no employees in the Clerk's Office have ever been disciplined for that offense. Medical Condition of Petitioner In 2002, Petitioner was diagnosed with a melanoma that required office surgery and other pre-cancerous lesions that also required treatment. The surgery and all other treatments were performed in the doctor's office and required no hospitalization. Between 2002, when he was first diagnosed with a melanoma and through July 2007, Petitioner has continued to be treated for skin cancer. During this five-year period, Petitioner's condition and his treatments for that condition have not significantly affected or, otherwise, limited Petitioner's ability to work or to engage in most activities. During the five-year period since he was diagnosed with skin cancer, Petitioner had regular check-ups, some of which may have resulted in his doctor's performing certain in-office medical procedures. Other than those in-office procedures, Petitioner's treatment for his condition consists of applying various salves, creams, and/or lotions to his skin. Finally, as a result of his medical condition, Petitioner had been directed to stay out of the sun. Because Petitioner must now stay out of the sun, he is no longer able to participate in daytime activities that he previously enjoyed doing and/or had been able to do (i.e., going to the beach and to his grandson's soccer and softball games). During his employment with the Clerk's IT Department, Petitioner never requested leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. Moreover, there is no indication that his medical condition affected his attendance at work. In fact, between January and July 2007, Petitioner saw his physician only about six times. Petitioner never notified Respondent, Mr. Brock, or Chief Deputy Cantees that he had skin cancer. Furthermore, none of them knew or suspected that Petitioner had skin cancer or any other medical condition. Finally, Petitioner's co-workers were unaware of his medical condition. While employed in the IT Department, Petitioner had several conversations with HR Manager Peacher. Petitioner recalled that during one of those conversations, HR Manager Peacher referred him to a dermatologist or assisted him with a medical referral. At this proceeding, HR Manager Peacher did not recall giving Petitioner the name of a dermatologist, but acknowledged that she may have done so. HR Manager Peacher explained that she speaks to numerous employees throughout the workday about various personnel-related matters and provides them with such assistance when requested to do so. Despite having several discussions with Petitioner during his employment with the Clerk's Office, HR Manager Peacher was unaware of his medical condition. Alleged Disability Discrimination Respondent conducted general meetings with employees every other month. During those meetings, Respondent covers a variety of topics with employees, all of which are on a printed agenda and later sent to employees by e-mail. The Agenda for the June 22, 2007, employee meeting included a three-page overview of the employee compensation package offered to Respondent's employees that included the following introductory statement: "Part of offering a competitive benefits plan is being proactive in maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Each of us must take the responsibility to live healthy lives, and, in return, our insurance costs will be minimized." During that meeting, Respondent read that language verbatim. In reading the above-quoted language, Respondent's intent was to encourage employees to address "preventable issues," such as smoking, overeating, and not exercising. However, in the charging document, Petitioner alleges that the above-quoted language meant Respondent wanted to hire only "healthy employees." Petitioner's interpretation distorts and misconstrues the above-quoted comments made by Respondent. Further, there is no evidence to support Petitioner's allegation that Respondent wanted to hire only healthy employees. Also, those comments do not, in any way, relate or refer to employees with disabilities and cannot reasonably be construed to do so. Claim of Age Discrimination Petitioner received such inquiries periodically and complained about the practice from time to time. For example, in a June 8, 2007, email to HR Manager Peacher, Petitioner complained about a phone call from ACS Recovery Service ("ACS"), a third-party health benefits coordinator. Petitioner perceived the ACS inquiries regarding Medicare eligibility as age discrimination. Sarasota County Government Benefits Manager Steve Marcinko testified credibly that ACS provides coordination of benefits services for Aetna, Sarasota County Government's third-party administrator. To carry out its responsibility, ACS is authorized to contact the employees to determine whether alternate insurance coverage, including Medicare, may be available to cover a claim that is otherwise the responsibility of the Sarasota County Government. Among those contacted by ACS are group health plan participants who are "post-65 and Medicare-eligible." The purpose of these contacts is to verify whether the participants are "active" or "retired" employees. Such verification assists in determining whether the group health plan or Medicare has primary or secondary responsibility for the benefits of those individuals. The inquiries by ACS are not age-based, except as they relate to an individual's Medicare eligibility, and are not conducted at the direction of the Clerk. When conducting these inquiries, ACS does not copy the individual's employer or former employer about such inquiries.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner, Michael L. Coyle's, Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2010.
Findings Of Fact Based on all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves a claim by petitioner, William C. Eagle (petitioner or Eagle), that in February 1994 he was denied employment as a delivery helper by respondent, S. R. Perrott, Inc., on account of a real or perceived handicap. According to the complaint, at the time the alleged discriminatory practice occurred, petitioner was suffering from a "soft tissue injury" from a "work related accident with his former employer." Because the evidence shows that in February 1994 petitioner did not enjoy in some measure the full and normal use of his physical facilities, he was a handicapped person, at least temporarily, within the meaning of the law. A preliminary investigation by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) found no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. Respondent is a beer distributor in Ormond Beach, Florida. Whether respondent employs "fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" so as to be subject to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, is not of record. In February 1994, petitioner learned of an opening for a delivery helper at respondent's plant. The position required that the employee unload beer kegs weighing 167 pounds from a delivery truck onto a dolly and then push the dolly into the business establishment. At that point, the employee would have to bend over and lift the keg off of the dolly to a waist-high position and place it in the desired location. Empty kegs would then be loaded onto the dolly and taken back to the truck and loaded. Since a truck would typically make up to 30 to 40 stops per day, the helper was required to engage in repetitious bending, twisting and lifting of heavy objects. After filing an application with respondent, petitioner was interviewed by respondent's general manager, Gary Connors, on February 23, 1994. During the interview, petitioner failed to disclose that he had suffered a back injury on a previous job, he was receiving worker's compensation benefits, he was then being treated by a doctor, and because of the injury, he was, at least arguably and temporarily, a handicapped individual. Without these undisclosed facts, Connors believed Eagle was qualified for the job and told him to report to work the next morning as a delivery helper. Like every other applicant, however, Eagle was also told that the job was contingent on his successfully passing a pre- employment physical examination. On the same morning that petitioner began work, or February 24, 1994, Connors contacted the office of Dr. James W. Bennett, a local chiropractic physician who conducted employment physicals for respondent, to set up an appointment for Eagle. During his telephone conversation with Dr. Bennett, Connors learned that Eagle was being treated by Dr. Bennett for a back injury suffered on his previous job, and that he had been examined by Dr. Bennett on February 14, 1994, or ten days earlier. Dr. Bennett accordingly saw no need to re-examine Eagle, and he advised Connors that Eagle could aggravate "an existing, active injury," and that he could not pass the pre-employment physical examination. Based on this information, Connors immediately spoke with the plant manager, Richard Shaffer, and instructed him to recall Eagle from his route and terminate his employment. In making this employment decision, Connors was not motivated by discriminatory animus, but rather he made the decision solely because of Eagle's inability to pass a pre-employment physical examination, a prerequisite for employment for all job applicants. Indeed, at that time, while Connors knew that Eagle had a pre-existing back injury through conversations with Dr. Bennett, he neither knew, or had reason to believe, that the injury constituted a handicap under the law. Shaffer recalled Eagle from his route and discharged him around noon on February 24, 1994. Since Shaffer did not know the reason for the termination, he told Eagle to check back in a few days and he would find out the specific reason for his discharge. A few days later, Eagle returned and met with Connors who told him that he was discharged because he could not pass the pre-employment physical examination. Several months later, Eagle filed his charge of discrimination. At hearing, Eagle denied that he was handicapped and asserted that as of February 1994 he "felt fine" physically. Indeed, he described in some detail the type of heavy manual labor he had performed with another employer up to the time he applied for the position. He also contended that the injury was minor and would not interfere with a delivery helper's tasks. But testimony from Dr. Bennett established that as of February 24, 1994, Eagle had "a current, precarious injury," namely, moderate chronic lumbar sprain strain, that work restrictions with his former employer had been recommended, and that Eagle was "highly likely" to worsen that injury should he engage in the job activities required of a delivery helper. This testimony was not credibly contradicted. Although Eagle was later discharged from Dr. Bennett's care on April 1, 1994, Eagle could not pass the pre-employment physical examination on February 24, 1994, when the employment decision was made, and thus he did not qualify for the job. Eagle further suggested at hearing that, assuming he was handicapped, respondent failed to take reasonable steps to accommodate his disability. But Eagle made no request for accommodation either at the time he sought the position or after he learned the reason for his termination. Even if Eagle had requested accommodation, respondent had no positions in the business that did not require some heavy lifting except for a secretarial slot, for which Eagle was not qualified. Moreover, respondent's general manager did not know, or even believe, that Eagle was handicapped and thus may have required accommodation. Then, too, in order to accommodate Eagle, respondent would have had to make fundamental alterations in its work program or even create a new job. Eagle did not rebut this showing at hearing, and he failed to respond with any evidence regarding his individual capabilities and suggestions for possible accommodations by respondent within the restrictions imposed by Dr. Bennett. There is no evidence regarding the compensation Eagle would have received as a delivery helper. The record also fails to establish his compensation since that time, and thus there is no basis on which to make a finding as to lost wages. Whether petitioner seeks reinstatement as a delivery helper is also not of record.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the petition for relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of August, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 95-1788 Petitioner: Petitioner filed an "order" with nine unnumbered paragraphs containing a mixture of proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law. Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5 and 8. 6-8. Rejected as being a conclusion of law. 9. Rejected as being contrary to the evidence or a conclusion of law. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary for a resolution of the issues, not supported by the more credible evidence, cumulative, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: P. Daniel Williams, Esquire P. O. Box 1007 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115 Winston K. Borkowski, Esquire P. O. Box 1725 Ormond Beach, Florida 32175 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
