The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice and, if so, determination of the relief to which the Petitioner is entitled.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Allison M. Huth, is an adult female person. At all times material to this proceeding the Petitioner has been a resident of the State of Florida. The Respondent, National Admark Corporation, is an advertising agency and publishing company. At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent was doing business from offices located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On the morning of June 12, 1998, a Mr. William Rufrano, who was at that time a boyfriend of the Petitioner, took the Petitioner with him to the Fort Lauderdale offices of the Respondent. At that time, Mr. Rufrano had some type of arrangement with the Respondent pursuant to which he worked in the field making sales calls in an effort to sell the Respondent's products.1 The Petitioner's reason for going with her boyfriend to the Respondent's offices on June 12, 1998, was to find out more about the company in order to decide whether she wanted to work for the company. Upon arriving at the Respondent's offices on June 12, 1998, Mr. Rufrano introduced the Petitioner to his "boss" and to several of the other people who worked in the Respondent's offices. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Rufrano left the Respondent's offices and spent most of the rest of the day meeting prospective customers and making sales presentations outside of the Respondent's offices. The Petitioner remained at the Respondent's offices for most of the day. The Petitioner spent the day making calls to prospective customers. She attempted to have each of the prospective customers make an appointment for a salesperson to visit and make a sales presentation for the Respondent's products.2 The Petitioner never signed any paper work with the Respondent regarding any business relationship between herself and the Respondent. Specifically, she did not sign or submit an application for employment with the Respondent, she did not sign or enter into an employment contract with the Respondent, and she did not sign or enter into an independent contractor agreement with the Respondent. The Petitioner did not have an understanding with the Respondent as to what her hours of work would be or as to how many hours she would work each day, each week, or each month. The Petitioner did not have an understanding with the Respondent as to what her compensation would be for making telephone calls.3 In sum: The Petitioner and the Respondent never entered into any agreement by means of which the Petitioner became either an employee or an independent contractor of the Respondent. During the course of her day at the Respondent's offices, the Petitioner had occasion to seek assistance from Mr. Anthony Tundo, who was the Respondent's Sales Manager, and was the person the Petitioner had been told to contact if she had any questions. Following the Petitioner's request for assistance, Mr. Tundo engaged in a number of inappropriate, unwanted, and ungentlemanly acts that caused the Petitioner to become very upset and uncomfortable. The worst of Mr. Tundo's acts that day are described as follows in the Petitioner's Exhibit 8, a letter signed by the Petitioner and her boyfriend a few days after the events on June 12, 1998: Mr. Tundo began stroking Allison's [Petitioner's] head very softly and used the excuse that he was trying to pick something out of her hair. Mr. Tundo trapped Allison against the coffee counter in the hallway. He then pressed himself, including his erection [,] against her body which was against the counter. He then proceeded to kiss her on her forehead and cheeks. When Allison was in Mr. Tundo's office, he told her to take a look at something he was doing. Not wanting to go behind the desk, Allison leaned over the front of the desk to look. As she did so, Mr. Tundo stared directly down Allison's blouse and commented[,] "what a nice pair of tits you have." Allison quickly stood up, and proceeded to walk around behind Mr. Tundo's desk figuring he couldn't look down her blouse. As she was leaning on his desk watching what he was doing, he began to stroke her fingers and hands. He then told her to turn around. Allison did so thinking there was a flaw or something wrong with her outfit. He then grabbed her firmly by the backs of her arms and positioned her[,] which made her feel extremely uncomfortable. After doing so, he uttered the word[,] "there." He then told Allison[,] "You have very, very nice legs," and "You have a very beautiful ass[,]" and proceeded to pat Allison on her rear end. When Allison was sitting on the couch in Mr. Tundo's office, she got up to go to the ladies' room. Mr. Tundo told her to sit back down. Presuming Mr. Tundo wanted to tell her some more things related to business, she sat back down. Mr. Tundo told her to "do that again." When Allison questioned what he meant, Mr. Tundo told her that he wanted her to uncross her legs (like she would have to do in order to stand up) again so he could see what it looks like inside her legs and up her skirt. Mr. Tundo was also moving his hands in an outward motion as he was telling her these things. After Allison left Mr. Tundo's office, he continued to follow her around the office building. As he was following her, he continually told her that she has "such a sexy walk," and "such a nice ass." He followed her into the conference room next to the coffee maker. He then proceeded to rub her shoulders, moaning softly and breathing heavy as he did so. He then told her that she seemed "tense." There is no competent substantial evidence that Mr. Tundo had ever previously engaged in conduct such as that to which he subjected the Petitioner. There is no competent substantial evidence that Mr. Tundo had ever previously engaged in any type of conduct that would create a sexually hostile or abusive work environment. There is no competent substantial evidence that the Respondent's management had ever been advised that Mr. Tundo had previously engaged in any conduct that would create a sexually hostile or abusive work environment. There is no competent substantial evidence that the Respondent's management had ever received any prior complaints that Mr. Tundo had engaged in conduct such as that to which he subjected the Petitioner, or that he had engaged in any other type of conduct that would create a sexually hostile or abusive work environment.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order in this case dismissing the Petition for Relief and denying all relief sought by the Petitioner. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of May, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 30th day of May, 2001.
The Issue Whether the Respondent intentionally committed an unlawful employment practice against the Petitioner on the basis on her national origin/Hispanic (Puerto Rican) or gender/female (sexual harassment). Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was removed from her position with the Respondent in retaliation for her filing of a sexual harassment complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on March 12, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of these proceedings and the parties involved. All procedural prerequisites and requirements have been duly accomplished or satisfied. Respondent, Martin-Marietta Electronics Information and Missiles Group, is a foreign corporation licensed to do business in Florida which employs more than fifteen employees. Respondent is an "employer" within the definition found in Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Margarita Coll, is a female, hispanic, citizen of the United States who resides in the State of Florida. Petitioner is a member of a protected class. Petitioner was an employee of Hi-Tec Associates, Inc., during all relevant periods, and was a de facto employee of Respondent for approximately four and one-half years. Petitioner was employed at Respondent company through a temporary agency called Associated Temporary Services and placed with the Respondent on January 5, 1987 as a receptionist/secretary in Martin-Marietta's Fleet Administration Department off Sand Lake Road, Orlando, Florida. Her responsibilities included record keeping, filing and helping Respondent's employees with company vehicles. Petitioner reported to the Respondent's Fleet Manager, Linda Reilly. Her day to day work assignments and supervision were received exclusively from the Fleet Manager. Petitioner worked in her position at the pleasure of the Respondent. She was assigned a "buyer" at Martin- Marietta who worked with the requesting department to fashion a position to meet the department's needs. The work was bidded out and awarded to the temporary employment agency who best met Respondent's criteria, on an annual basis. Over time, Petitioner assumed additional job responsibilities and in June, 1988 received a commendation for exceptional performance from Respondent's supervisors. In an effort to reward her efforts, Reilly successfully upgraded her position, first to Administrative Assistant and then to Fleet Analyst. When she was reclassified as a Fleet Analyst, the contract for her position was awarded to Hi-Tec Associates, Inc., since Associated Temporary Services did not provide technical employees under their contract with Respondent. Petitioner always worked at Martin-Marietta as a temporary employee and was never employed as a regular employee of the company. As such, she had no company benefits; she was classified as a contract laborer and her services were purchased by purchase order. Petitioner completed no company employment application, was not subject to Martin-Marietta performance appraisals and had no Martin-Marietta employment records or personnel file, other than her contract labor time slips. Petitioner received her pay from Hi-Tec. In June, 1990, Marilyn Quinonez was placed in the Fleet Administration Department as a Fleet Administrative Assistant by a temporary employment agency. Friction quickly developed between Petitioner and Quinonez. Petitioner believed that Quinonez was hired to assist her and became upset when she would not follow Petitioner's supervision or directions. Quinonez understood that she was to report to the Fleet Manager, and objected to the way Petitioner treated her. On November 15, 1990, Reilly was laid off by Respondent as part of a reduction in force and was replaced by Joseph LaPak. LaPak observed the bickering between Petitioner and Quinonez and that it continued to escalate over time. In December, 1990, the temporary positions in the department were reevaluated and the contract requirements for both positions were rewritten. The titles of both Petitioner and Quinonez were changed to that of Fleet Administrative Assistant. Any language in the contract which called for Petitioner to direct the clerical duties of the department were eliminated. In the fall of 1991, Quinonez met with LaPak and Wally DuBose to clarify her reporting responsibilities. It was confirmed that Quinonez and Petitioner were to report to the Fleet Manager, and that Petitioner did not have supervisory authority over Quinonez. Nevertheless, disputes between Petitioner and Quinonez continued. Attempts by management to resolve the problems were unsuccessful. On February 17, 1992, during the normal lunch hour, an altercation occurred between Petitioner and Quinonez. When Quinonez returned from lunch, she found Petitioner at her computer terminal. Quinonez asked for it back. Petitioner refused and an argument ensued. The two women became so angry and loud that a neighboring supervisor had to come over and separate them. Wally DuBose sent both Petitioner and Quinonez home for the day. Petitioner's immediate supervisor, LaPak was not in the office at the time. DuBose then discussed the matter with his supervisor, Paul Smilgen, and it was decided that Petitioner would be removed from the contract for her failure to work with fellow employees and management, and for general insubordination. LaPak was not involved in the decision to remove Petitioner. The decision was communicated to Hi-Tec. They, in turn, notified Petitioner that same evening that she was being replaced on the contract and not return to the Fleet Administration Department. Hi-Tec offered to attempt to place Petitioner elsewhere at Martin-Marietta but Petitioner refused because the openings available at the time paid less that the Fleet Administrative Assistant position. When LaPak first became the Fleet Manager in November of 1990, Petitioner and Quinonez worked in a very small work space. While Petitioner was training LaPak and working on the computer, LaPak's body was frequently close to Petitioner's and she felt pinned in a corner by him. After the initial working relationship was established and LaPak came into Petitioner's work area, he would touch her on her arms or shoulder in order to get her attention. In December, 1990, Petitioner complained to DuBose about LaPak touching her and making her uncomfortable. Both Petitioner and DuBose talked to LaPak about the fact that Petitioner did not want LaPak to touch her. LaPak honored that request and did not touch her again. He made every reasonable effort to get her attention when he needed to talk to her without touching her. In October, 1991, Petitioner complained to the Martin-Marietta EEO office that LaPak was sexually harassing her by inappropriate touching. Respondent then conducted an immediate investigation into the allegations and attempted to resolve the matter through internal mediation. Petitioner's testimony and other witnesses' testimony concerning sexual comments, innuendoes or propositions and inappropriate touching allegedly made by LaPak that occurred between December, 1990 and October, 1991 were inconsistent and are not credible. Petitioner presented no relevant or material evidence to show that Petitioner was the victim of national origin discrimination. Respondent's articulated reason for its decision to remove Petitioner from her contract labor position was not based on gender discrimination or national origin discrimination, nor was it pretextual. Petitioner failed to prove that her termination of employment at the Respondent's company was in retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment or national origin discrimination.
Recommendation Based upon the testimony and evidence submitted on the record in the formal hearings on this matter and by application of the relevant or governing principles of law to the findings of facts established on such record, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be issued in which the Charge of Discrimination is DENIED and the Petition for Relief is DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5(in part), 6(in part), 7(in part), 8(in part), 9(in part), 10(in part), 13, 14(except as to date of hire), 15(in part), 16(in part), 18(except as to the date of the counseling session), 19(except as to the date of the counseling session), 20, 21(in part). Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 5(in part: Petitioner was first a contract employee with Associated Temporary Services), 6(in part), 7(in part), 8(in part), 9(in part), 10(in part), 15(in part), 16(in part), 17. Rejected as immaterial, irrelevant or subsumed: paragraphs 11, 12, 21(in part). Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4(in part), 5, 6(in part), 7, 11(in part), 12, 13, 14(in part). Rejected as argument or a conclusion of law: paragraphs: 9, 10, 15, 16, 17. Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or subsumed: paragraphs 4(in part), 8, 11(in part), 14(in part). Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraph 6(in part). COPIES FURNISHED: Kay L. Wolf, Esquire John M. Finnigan, Esquire GARWOOD, MCKENNA & MCKENNA, P.A. 815 North Garland Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 James Sweeting, III, Esquire 2111 East Michigan Street Suite 100 Orlando, Florida 32806 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent should be disciplined, to include a three day suspension without pay, because of the misconduct alleged in the Notification of Suspension issued herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, William T. Mooney, worked as a laboratory technician for the City of Clearwater's Public Works/Water Pollution Control Division. On April 15, 1993, Doreen Spano, the City's utility lab supervisor, held a meeting of her division personnel at which she identified Iracema Drysdale as the lead worker and, in order to clarify any misconceptions among lab workers as to work deadlines, presented a policy letter for the lab, entitled "New Work Schedule". The schedule set guidelines and deadlines for the daily workload. The memorandum contains inconsistent statements, however. For example, while Ms. Spano indicated both in the memo and at hearing that the instructions therein are merely guidelines, she also used such imperatives as "must" and "will" in the memo. Specifically, the memorandum indicates the daily plant BOD must be in the incubator by 12:00 PM, and the daily plant bacteria must be in the incubator by 12:30 PM. Respondent has worked in this City laboratory for approximately 14 years. During this time he has developed a method of accomplishing his tasks which is described by Ms. Drysdale as less than efficient. She indicates he frequently misses his time deadlines and works at his own pace. Respondent, on the other hand, claims he has always completed his tasks according to the Standard Methods Manual, but, due to the time the samples are received in the lab, could not accomplish both the BOD and the bacteria procedures within the guidelines set in that manual and the Environmental Protection Agency standards manual. Either one or both would be late. This controversy, much of which was made by both sides, is, in reality, only peripherally related to the issue in controversy here which is whether Respondent was insubordinate or not on September 9, 1993. Both Ms. Drysdale and the Respondent signed the memorandum in question here indicating their receipt and understanding of the directions contained therein. Thereafter, on September 9, 1993, Ms. Drysdale entered the lab shortly before the lunch period to find the bacteria procedure not done and Respondent working on the BOD procedure. It appears that the bacteria sample was taken at 6:00 AM on this day and, under EPA guidelines, had to be preserved in the incubator within six hours or the results of the procedure would be invalid and not eligible for reporting to the EPA. When Ms. Drysdale asked Respondent why he was doing the BOD when the bacteria procedure had not been accomplished, he indicated that Ms. Spano's memorandum required the BOD to be done by 12:00 noon and the bacteria not until 12:30 PM. He considered this a directive and indicated he would complete his work consistent therewith. Again, there is a contradiction in the testimony as to the nature of the conversation between Ms. Drysdale and the Respondent. Ms. Drysdale asserts that about noon on the day in question, she suggested to Respondent that he start the bacteria procedure first and then do the BOD procedure. Respondent refused because he believed he had to follow the new work schedule prepared by Ms. Spano. Ms. Drysdale then told him to do the bacteria procedure first and she would assume the responsibility. Respondent still refused and, raising his voice to her, completed the BOD procedure. When he finished that, he did the bacteria procedure but by that time, the sample was too old and had to be discarded. Respondent's recounting of the incident is somewhat different. He claims he was approached by Ms. Drysdale who asked him why he did the bacteria procedure after the BOD procedure. When he pointed out the dictates of the memorandum, she claimed to know nothing about it even though her signature, along with that of Respondent and Mr. Olson, appears on the bottom thereof. Nonetheless, according to Respondent, Ms. Drysdale said she would check on it. After lunch, according to Respondent, Ms. Drysdale came back with the Standard Methods book. When he showed her the new work rules, he claims, she admitted she was aware that Ms. Spano had written them. When he asked her what Ms. Spano had said about the situation, she allegedly replied, "Why don't you do it the way I say and if Doreen (Ms. Spano) asks, I'll take the responsibility." Respondent was upset because, he contends, things like this always happen. Respondent, in subsequent testimony, denied ever getting a direct order from Ms. Drysdale or that she indicated she would assume responsibility. On balance, while there is little doubt in Ms. Drysdale's testimony as to what happened, Respondent tells two different stories regarding the conversation. At one point he claims she asked him why he didn't do it her way and that if he did, she'd assume responsibility. At another, he claims she merely asked why he was doing the procedures as he was and made no mention of assuming responsibility. It is clear that Ms. Drysdale wanted the bacteria procedure done first, and while she might not have couched her request in directory language, there can be little doubt she communicated her desires to Respondent, albeit in a perhaps more gentle manner. In any case, she was Respondent's supervisor and he knew it. She wanted the work done as she indicated and her request, made under the authority she had to get the work done as she desired, had the force and effect of a direct order which Respondent disobeyed at his peril. Ms. Spano indicated she discussed not only the appointment of Ms. Drysdale as lead worker at the April 15, 1993 meeting, but also the six hour requirement for specimens. Respondent denies this, but it is found he knew exactly what the requirements were. He claims he has been doing things the way the memorandum calls for ever since it was promulgated and this is not inconsistent with his current position on doing the BOD procedure first. When this incident took place, Mr. Reckenwald, the superintendent of the water and pollution control division, and the overall supervisor of the laboratory operation in question, received a recommendation for discipline, primarily because of Respondent's failure to follow orders. In addition, however, the incident created a problem for the City which has to report to the EPA and other federal agencies. Because of this report requirement, it is imperative the work be done properly. If it is not done properly, the work is worthless and may result in sanction action against the city by federal regulatory agencies. Not the least of concerns, also, is the public health consideration since effluent, the source of samples for both BOD and bacteria procedures, is discharged into the public waterways. On the basis of the above, a recommendations was made that Respondent receive a three day suspension. This is consistent with disciplinary guidelines contained in the City's Guidelines For Disciplinary Action. Respondent appealed the action to the City Manager who reviewed his submittal but nonetheless upheld the disciplinary action proposed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the City of Clearwater take final action in this matter to consist of suspension of the Respondent without pay for three days and imposition of 40 disciplinary action points. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 24th day of May, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Miles A. Lance, Esquire Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618 William T. Mooney 1433 Laura Street Clearwater, Florida 34615 Michael J. Wright City Manager City of Clearwater P.O. Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4748
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on May 10, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male1/ who was employed by Respondent from 1998 until his resignation on May 13, 2004. Respondent, the City of Deland (City), is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. At all times while he was employed by Respondent, Petitioner worked in the City's Utilities Department, Water Production Division. Petitioner began his employment as a Maintenance Worker I and was promoted to Maintenance Worker II in 2003. A Maintenance Worker II is responsible for the upkeep of the wells and plants and performs a variety of semi-skilled manual tasks including laying pipe, pouring and forming concrete, installing water meters, mowing, fence maintenance, digging, cleaning, painting, simple maintenance on vehicles and equipment, yard maintenance, routine custodial work, and minor repairs. The Water Production Division is responsible for the care and maintenance of the City's drinking water wells. The City owns 11 wells and seven water production plants. The plants are drinking water class "C" plants. John Stanberry is the Chief Water Plant Operator for the City. He has been in that position since 1999 and has worked for the City for 19 years. At all times material to this proceeding he has been either Petitioner's immediate supervisor or his second-level supervisor. Petitioner received "above standard" ratings from Mr. Stanberry on his 1999, 2000, and 2001 performance appraisals. These ratings were endorsed (given a second-level rating) by Robert Harrison, the Deputy Utilities Director. On each of his performance appraisals, the City encouraged Petitioner to begin a class "C" drinking water course to obtain a drinking water certification or license. Petitioner was also encouraged verbally by his supervisors to obtain this certification. In order to obtain this certification, a person must pass a state examination and obtain one year's experience in actual plant operations. Obtaining this certification would have allowed Petitioner to advance within the Department and become a plant operator. The "well route" is a daily operation that must be performed by a person holding at least a class "C" license. Lloyd Joiner holds such a license and is directly responsible for the well routes. He is required to take daily well readings and note the well pumpage and the chemicals used at each water plant. He is also required to perform daily well functions, such as maintenance, repairs and hauling away hazardous materials. Because of the hazards involved in this work, a second person is required to accompany Mr. Joiner on the well route. If the plant operator is out sick or on vacation, the position is temporarily filled by a maintenance worker. During 2001, the plant operator position which served as the second person on the well route became vacant. The position was advertised, but the City did not receive any applications as there was a shortage of water operators in the state. Petitioner was assigned to temporarily fill-in on the well route. Consequently, Petitioner's primary focus changed from performing regular maintenance work to performing day-to- day well route operations. Petitioner was informed by his supervisors that he would be permitted to study for the class "C" drinking water exam during work hours and that he would not be able to stay on the well route permanently if he did not get the class "C" certificate. In 2002, Petitioner's performance appraisal was completed by Lloyd Joiner, Assistant Chief Plant Operator and was endorsed by John Stanberry. Again, Petitioner received an "above standard" rating. Petitioner was then promoted to Maintenance Worker II in 2003. In 2003, Petitioner had gained the necessary work experience to obtain the drinking water license but had not enrolled in any course to enable him to take the certification examination. Mr. Stanberry removed Petitioner from the well route and returned him to regular maintenance duties. At that time, another Maintenance Worker II, Leo Woulard, had enrolled in a course to obtain his drinking water certificate but needed the necessary work experience to obtain his certificate. The decision was made by Deputy Director Robert Harrison and Mr. Stanberry to replace Petitioner on the well route with Mr. Woulard. Mr. Woulard is an African- American. Petitioner was not pleased that he was taken off the well route and returned to regular maintenance duties. After Petitioner was returned to regular maintenance duties, Mr. Stanberry observed what he believed to be unsatisfactory work by Petitioner. Petitioner's 2003 job performance evaluation was again completed by Mr. Joiner and endorsed by Mr. Stanberry. Mr. Joiner gave Petitioner high scores on the well route work. Mr. Stanberry, however, rated Petitioner's work in performing his regular maintenance duties and gave him low scores in three areas. This was the first time since Petitioner began his employment for the City that Mr. Stanberry gave him below standard scores. Notwithstanding these lower scores, Petitioner received an "above standard" rating on his 2003 performance appraisal and received a merit pay increase. Petitioner did not regard this performance appraisal as discriminatory. On September 9, 2003, which was immediately after the 2003 performance appraisal, Mr. Stanberry wrote a memo to Petitioner as a written backup to verbal counseling he had given to Petitioner: This memo is to inform you of your responsibility when assigned work duties. When I give you a task to do, I expect the job to be done. I want the job completed in a timely manner with good results. I don't want corners to be cut or jobs to be avoided because you don't feel it's your responsibility. If you have questions about a task, you need to ask me and make sure you understand what is expected of you in the assigned job or make sure it's done better than what I expect. I don't feel like you do projects to the best of your abilities and I would like to see improvement. This memo was not considered formal disciplinary action and was, therefore, not placed in Petitioner's personnel file. The September 9, 2003, memo was the first time that Mr. Stanberry had issued a counseling memo to Petitioner and is what Petitioner perceives to be the first incident of discrimination by Mr. Stanberry towards him. Petitioner's allegations regarding discrimination involve only Mr. Stanberry. Petitioner asked Mr. Stanberry to clarify the September 9, 2003, memo. The next day, Mr. Stanberry wrote a follow-up memo which read as follows: This memo is to clarify the previous memo. You were assigned to clean well houses for three days on August 27, 28, and 29 upon my inspection on Sunday, August 31st I found that you had done very little cleaning and had not cleaned three well sites at all. In three days time all of the wells should have been spotless. I have told you time and again what to clean and how, and you failed to do this completely again. It is my opinion that your performance related to this assignment does not meet minimum standards. Mr. Stanberry gave this memo to Petitioner in person at a meeting with Petitioner and Mr. Joiner. At this point, things began to deteriorate between Petitioner and Mr. Stanberry. Mr. Stanberry asked Petitioner to mow the grass at the main water plant but Petitioner refused. Petitioner made reference in this meeting to the Taliban either hiring or looking for fighters. Mr. Stanberry felt threatened by this statement. On the afternoon of September 10, 2003, Petitioner met with Mr. Stanberry, Mr. Joiner, and Mr. Harrison to discuss what happened that morning. Petitioner was belligerent at this meeting and stated that he did not want to work for Mr. Stanberry any longer and would not report back to work until he had been transferred to another department. On September 11, 2003, Petitioner reported to work at 7:00 but refused to work for Mr. Stanberry. Instead, Petitioner waited for Mr. Harrison to arrive. Mr. Harrison allowed Petitioner to complete a Leave of Absence request form for six days of vacation to begin the next day. Petitioner then left the work premises without permission and without clocking out and did not return to work that day. On September 11, 2003, Mr. Stanberry wrote a memo to Jim Ailes, Utility Director, informing him of the events of the past two days regarding Petitioner's evaluation and meeting with supervisors. On September 16, 2003, Mr. Stanberry wrote another memorandum to Mr. Ailes outlining violations of personnel rules committed by Petitioner and requesting a meeting with Mr. Ailes to get recommendations as to what disciplinary actions should be taken against Petitioner. After returning from his vacation on September 23, 2003, Petitioner again refused to perform work assigned to him by Mr. Stanberry. Mr. Stanberry informed Mr. Ailes of this. As a result, Mr. Ailes issued Petitioner a written reprimand for "insubordination by disobeying or refusing to follow a direct order or by refusing to perform assigned work or to comply with an official and legal supervisory directive or by demonstrating an antagonistic, insolent, disrespectful or belligerent attitude toward management." It was Mr. Ailes' decision to issue the written reprimand. Under the City's disciplinary guidelines, insubordination is an offense for which an employee may be discharged upon the first offense. However, Mr. Ailes decided to issue a written reprimand in conformance with the City's step disciplinary action process. Mr. Stanberry's memos to Petitioner were considered written confirmation of oral reprimands. This written reprimand was the next step of discipline. On September 24, 2003, another incident occurred in which Petitioner again refused a work assignment. Mr. Stanberry reported this to Mr. Ailes. As a result, Mr. Ailes suggested that Petitioner receive his work assignments from Mr. Joiner instead of Mr. Stanberry in an attempt to diffuse this situation. However, this did not solve the matter. Petitioner requested a transfer. Mr. Ailes inquired of other department heads as to whether there were any available positions and whether or not the other department heads were willing to take Petitioner as an employee. There were no positions in the other branches in the utilities department to which Mr. Ailes could transfer Petitioner. He also attempted to transfer Petitioner outside the Utilities Department, including Mr. Davenport of the Public Works Department. However, Mr. Davenport was not willing to allow the transfer. Mr. Davenport is an African-American. Further, Mr. Ailes directed Petitioner to visit the City's employee assistance program (EAP) in a memo dated October 1, 2003. A series of incidents happened during the first half of October 2003 in which Petitioner continued to refuse or challenge assignments made to him by his supervisors. On October 13, 2003, Petitioner met with Mr. Stanberry, Mr. Harrison and plant operator Jeff Hunter. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss and resolve allegations of an incident that occurred a year prior to this time. The incident concerned a telephone call made by Petitioner's girlfriend, Jane Wilkinson. According to Ms. Wilkinson, she called Petitioner's workplace for Petitioner, and the phone was answered by Mr. Hunter, who asked her whether or not she and Petitioner were married and would have children. Mr. Hunter had been counseled not to make inappropriate comments to anyone when answering the phone shortly after the incident occurred. However, in this meeting on October 13, 2003, Petitioner told Mr. Hunter that he would "kick his ass" if he ever spoke to his girlfriend again and made other inappropriate comments. Another incident happened on October 14, 2003, when Petitioner dropped a weed-eater spool on Mr. Stanberry's desk. Mr. Stanberry instructed Petitioner to work on something else until a new spool was purchased but Petitioner refused. Petitioner made inappropriate comments to Mr. Stanberry. In response, Mr. Stanberry told Petitioner that he was acting like a "damn fool." Mr. Stanberry received a verbal reprimand from Mr. Ailes for making that statement to Petitioner. Mr. Ailes informed Mr. Stanberry that if any further similar conduct occurred that progressive disciplinary action would be taken. On October 15, 2003, Mr. Ailes issued a Notice of Proposed Discipline to Petitioner in which Mr. Ailes proposed a three-day suspension without pay and a letter of reprimand and warning for violations of the City's personnel rules on October 9, 10, 13, and 14, 2003. The notice listed several offenses, including four which were identified as dismissal offenses, and instructed Petitioner, "[Y]our continuous challenge of every assignment given to you must stop. The disrespectful, belligerent, threatening, and defamation of character of your immediate supervisor must stop." The letter also noted that Petitioner had refused to contact the City's EAP despite having been instructed to do so on three occasions. Petitioner did not contest the proposed disciplinary action and served the three-day suspension. Another incident occurred on October 27, 2003, resulting from a disagreement between Mr. Stanberry and Petitioner concerning an assignment of mowing the grass at a well station. Petitioner told Mr. Stanberry that he was acting "freaked out" and that Petitioner could not understand why. Petitioner said that he would understand Mr. Stanberry being "freaked out" if he got a call about his son being run over by a truck or turning up missing. Mr. Stanberry was alarmed about this comment and believed it to be a threat against his family. Based upon the October 27, 2003, incident, Petitioner was placed on paid administrative leave pending an investigation. Mr. Ailes made an appointment for Petitioner with the EAP that day in an effort to diffuse the situation. Mr. Ailes recommended that Petitioner be terminated from employment in a Notice of Proposed Discipline. A predetermination hearing was held on November 7, 2003, in which Mr. Ailes concluded that Petitioner committed all of the offenses outlined in the October 27, 2003, Notice of Proposed Discipline. However, Petitioner was not terminated. Petitioner was required to write a letter of apology to Mr. Stanberry, refrain from making threats to co-workers and supervisors, and report to another supervisor, Mr. Hadley, for his work assignment. Additionally, Petitioner was placed on probation for a 90-day period and warned that if any further occurrence happened during that period, he would be terminated immediately. On May 3, 2004, Mr. Stanberry went to Mr. Hadley, another supervisor, to discuss daily duties. Petitioner was in Mr. Hadley's office at the time. Mr. Stanberry wanted Petitioner to do painting and other tasks within his job description, but Petitioner responded that it was not his job to do so. Mr. Stanberry told Petitioner that these duties were his assignment for the day, and that if he did not want to complete them, he could leave. Petitioner and Mr. Stanberry argued. Petitioner called Mr. Stanberry a "faggot" and a "fucking faggot" and threatened to "whip [Mr. Stanberry's] ass." Mr. Stanberry responded by telling Petitioner that if Petitioner came anywhere near him or his family that Mr. Stanberry would kill him. As a result of this altercation, Mr. Ailes determined that both Petitioner and Mr. Stanberry should be disciplined. As for Mr. Stanberry, Mr. Ailes determined that Mr. Stanberry should receive a three-day suspension without pay. Mr. Stanberry waived his predetermination hearing and wrote a letter of apology. Based upon Mr. Stanberry's apology letter and his years of service to the city, Mr. Ailes reduced the suspension to a two-day suspension and required Mr. Stanberry to attend a conflict management and confrontational skills seminar. He further advised Mr. Stanberry that if further incidents occurred, it could lead to termination. As for Petitioner, Mr. Ailes issued a Notice of Proposed Disciplinary Action on May 6, 2004, in which he recommended that Petitioner be terminated and setting a date of May 14, 2004, for a predetermination hearing. Prior to a final decision on the proposed termination, Petitioner resigned from his employment from the City. He did not request a predetermination hearing. Mr. Stanberry played no role in the decision to discipline Petitioner for either the October 27, 2003, incident for which he was suspended, nor for the May 3, 2004, incident. Those decisions to discipline Petitioner were solely Mr. Ailes'. Mr. Ailes proposed different levels of discipline for Mr. Stanberry and Petitioner because they were at different levels of the progressive discipline process. Petitioner had already received both oral and written reprimands and had been suspended for misconduct. Further, Petitioner had been recommended for termination as a result of the October 27, 2003, incident, but was instead placed on probation and allowed to return to work. In contrast, Mr. Stanberry had received only one previous verbal warning. Although the next step in the progressive discipline process for Mr. Stanberry would have been a written reprimand, Mr. Ailes believed the circumstances warranted an unpaid suspension. There was no evidence presented that establishes or even suggests that Mr. Ailes' decision to impose discipline on Petitioner was based on race. The only disciplinary actions imposed on Petitioner from Mr. Stanberry were the verbal and written counseling memo on September 9, 2003. Mr. Stanberry had written memos of a similar nature on at least two occasions to Caucasian employees. There is no evidence that Mr. Stanberry's actions toward Petitioner were based on race. On August 2, 2004, Petitioner threw a cinder block through the front glass doors of City Hall. Petitioner was charged with Throwing a Deadly Weapon. Petitioner pled nolo contendere to the charge. Adjudication was withheld and the court placed him on probation. He was later charged with violation of his probation. Petitioner ultimately pled guilty to the probation violation and he was adjudicated guilty of throwing a deadly missile at a building.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of March, 2006.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unfair employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of race, in violation of chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2012), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Nepton is a Hispanic man who worked as a collector for CCS from November, 2011, to February, 2012. CCS is a collection agency that employs approximately 80 collectors, who are divided into departments based on the different accounts they service. Mr. Nepton was originally hired to work under the supervision of Julio Castellon, and then was transferred to a unit supervised by Danielle Santilli. All of the work collectors perform is via telephone; persons who have outstanding bills are called in order to attempt collection of the debt. During his training in Ms. Santilli's department, he received most of his training from Ms. Santilli. According to Mr. Nepton, during these training sessions, Ms. Santilli made derogatory comments about Hispanic people. If the person being called was Hispanic, she would mention that Hispanic people were stupid, dumb, and never paid their bills. Mr. Nepton claims that the comments were made throughout his entire training, which lasted approximately one month. He claims that he reported his dislike of the derogatory comments to Ariel Castellon, a supervisor. Ms. Santilli testified, and denied ever making any derogatory or inappropriate remarks about Hispanics. Mr. Castellon also denied any knowledge of Ms. Santilli making any such remarks, and testified that Mr. Nepton never complained of any such comments while he worked at CCS. Lori French testified that in her capacity as the Human Resources Director, she never received any type of complaint regarding Ms. Santilli from any employee. The undersigned credits the testimony of the CCS employees, finding it consistent and credible in light of the scant evidence produced by Mr. Nepton. Mr. Nepton did not produce a single witness who could corroborate his testimony, despite the fact that the collectors worked in an open area, in close proximity to each other. The employee handbook instructed employees to report any workplace harassment of any type with the Human Resources Department. Mr. Nepton never filed such a complaint with the Human Resources Department. On February 1, 2012, Mr. Nepton received a call from a patient of a hospital inquiring as to whether the account was paid in full. Mr. Nepton requested the patient's date of birth, but the patient asked why that information was necessary. Mr. Nepton raised his voice and became argumentative with the patient. When Mr. Nepton was asked about the phone call by his supervisor, he became argumentative in the presence of the other collectors. On February 2, 2012, Mr. Nepton met with management regarding the incident on the previous day. He became agitated, raised his voice, and pointed his finger in the supervisor's face. Mr. Nepton, who was on probationary status, was discharged from his employment on that date.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN 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 19th day of December, 2012.
The Issue Petitioner is charged pursuant to a Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance with a violation of Section 386.04(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1997), which describes conditions that are prima facie evidence of a sanitary nuisance injurious to health.
Findings Of Fact It was stipulated that Petitioner, Ann B. Harvey, through her company Harvey Enterprises and Company, Inc., owns the home at 102 Williams Street, Palatka, Florida. At all times relevant to the alleged violation, the home was occupied by tenants. The tenants vacated the house on or about October 13, 1998. Kenneth F. Burnett, Environmental Specialist I, with the Putnam County Health Department, first investigated a complaint regarding the property at 102 Williams Street, Palatka, Florida, on August 5, 1998. He witnessed faulty plumbing in the home and ponded wastewater at the back of the home. On August 11, 1998, Mr. Burnett drafted and mailed a Notice to Abate. The notice was mailed by certified mail return receipt requested and received by Ann B. Harvey on August 25, 1998. Ann B. Harvey signed the return receipt for the Notice to Abate on August 25, 1998. Mr. Burnett again inspected the property on September 2, 1998, and found no change in the status of the faulty plumbing and ponded wastewater. On September 9, 1998, Mr. Burnett again inspected the property and determined there had been no changes. David Flowers, Environmental Specialist II, became involved in the case on September 18, 1998, when he inspected the property. Mr. Flowers observed that wastewater ponded on the ground at the back of the home, and that the plumbing inside the home was in disrepair. Ms. Laurey Gauch, Environmental Health Director for Putnam County Health Department testified. She inspected the property in question on September 18, 25, and 28, 1998. Ms. Gauch observed ponded wastewater in the backyard and plumbing in disrepair inside the home on each visit. Ms. Gauch opined that the condition of the property was a sanitary nuisance in violation of Section 386.041(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1997), because the ponded wastewater would breed disease (bacteria, viruses, etc.) and contamination. A Citation for Violation was received and signed for by Ronald Harvey on September 25, 1998, pursuant to statutory authority at Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (1997). The citation cites the Petitioner for violation of Section 386.041(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (1997). On September 25, 1998, Mr. Flowers again inspected the property, and observed that the sewage remained on the ground at the rear of the home. Mr. Flowers flushed dye in the toilet to determine if the standing water was coming from the toilet inside the home. The dye would run out onto the ground if the ponded water was from the toilet. Mr. Flowers inspected the problem on September 28, 1998. Sewage remained ponded on the ground at the rear of the home and the water bubbled when the toilet was flushed. Mr. Flowers re-inspected the property on September 29, 1998, and flushed dye in the toilet. He documented that the dye came to the ground surface. During the visit, Mr. Flowers was accompanied by a County Codes Enforcement Officer who condemned the home. On October 6, 1998, Mr. Flowers returned to the property with his supervisor, Geoff Batteiger. The tenants were still living in the home, but were reported to be leaving. The plumbing in the home remained unrepaired. When the toilet was flushed, water bubbled onto the ground surface. The problem had neither been abated, nor were there any signs that the problem was being corrected. No repairs were made to the premises between August 25, 1998, and October 6, 1998, a period of one and one-half months during which tenants lived in the home. On November 17, 1998, the property was reinspected by Mr. Burnett and Mr. Batteiger. They observed that the sanitary nuisance had been remedied. Ms. Lucille Harvey, property manager and sister-in-law to the Petitioner, testified for Petitioner. She collects rents and arranges for repairs. She had contacted one handyman who came to the home, but refused to do the work because of foul odor in the yard and fleas. Ms. Lucille Harvey did not contact anyone else for repairs until after the tenants had vacated the premises. The tenants kept dogs in the backyard where the problem was, and were uncooperative with the landlord. Ms. Lucille Harvey testified that she notified the Petitioner of the sanitary nuisance at the end of August 1998, and the problems she was having making repairs. Petitioner, Ann Harvey, testified she commenced eviction proceedings for the tenant at 102 Williams Street on or about July 12, 1998. The proceedings were on-going due to various legal exigencies until the tenants vacated the premises on or about October 13, 1998. Ms. Harvey was out-of-town from approximately July 22, 1998, through August 15, 1998, during which time a judge dismissed the eviction action. The action was recommenced. The tenant made a partial payment of one month, which Petitioner accepted. The judge again dismissed the eviction action. The sanitary nuisance at the property in question was not remedied until the Petitioner evicted the tenants and gained access to the premises. Mr. Thomas Harvey, handyman and brother Ron Harvey, testified that he began working on the repairs at the home at 102 Williams Street, on November 2, 1998. He testified that he replaced broken lines, cleaned a grease trap, and snaked the kitchen and bathroom. These repairs concluded on or about November 12, 1998.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health enter a final order waiving the fine and payment as stated in the Citation for Violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Harvey Route 2, Box 1650 Palatka, Florida 32177 Ann B. Harvey 102 Williams Street Palatka, Florida 32177 Susan E. Lindgard, Esquire Department of Health 1000 Northeast 16th Avenue Box 19 Gainesville, Florida 32601 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner based on an alleged disability.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a Carnegie I residential and coeducational university of approximately 40,000 students and over 13,000 full and part-time faculty and staff located in Tallahassee, Florida. The Office of Financial Aid (OFA) is responsible for the overall administration of student financial aid, including federal, state, and institutional financial aid. Of the approximate 40,000 students, 25,000 on average receive some form of financial aid in the amount of approximately $300 million dollars per year. OFA hired Petitioner on August 7, 1990, as a secretary. Thereafter, Petitioner worked for OFA for almost 18 years. During her 18 years of employment, Petitioner resigned from OFA on three occasions. She resigned in 1996 and again in 2006, only to be rehired by the same OFA Director each time. Petitioner submitted her third resignation and notice of retirement on September 19, 2008, effective September 30, 2008. With one exception, Petitioner did not make Respondent aware of any complaints or allegations of unfair treatment prior to her ultimate retirement from OFA. She never complained to anyone that she was being stalked, monitored, or overworked more than her co-workers. She did complain on one occasion that Joann Clark, OFA's Assistant Director, was walking by her office/work station and knocking on the wall/desk/counter. All new employees receive Respondent's policies and procedures relative to retirement and employee benefits eligibility. The policies and procedures include sections on the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and Workers' Compensation (WC). On July 13, 2005, Petitioner had surgery for carpel tunnel of the wrist. Petitioner did not inform her immediate supervisor of the scheduled surgery until July 12, 2005, even though Petitioner's doctor scheduled the surgery on June 13, 2005. On July 12, 2005, Petitioner's supervisor was Lassandra Alexander. Ms. Alexander provided Petitioner with copies of, ADA, FMLA, and WC forms and reviewed them with her as soon as Ms. Alexander became aware of the surgery scheduled for the next day. Petitioner told Ms. Alexander that she was not going to worry about applying for an accommodation under the ADA, for leave under FMLA, or WC benefits. Petitioner failed to timely file for WC in July 2005. She was not eligible to receive Workers' Compensation benefits because she did not comply with the proper protocol and procedures. Petitioner returned to work on August 29, 2005, with a doctor's statement recommending her for "light duty." On September 23, 2005, Petitioner presented a doctor's statement recommending her to work half time, four days a week. Respondent complied with the doctor's recommendations. Respondent divided Petitioner's work among other co-workers and also allowed Petitioner to take breaks as needed. On October 26, 2005, Petitioner presented a doctor's statement, allowing her to return to work full time. After October 26, 2005, Petitioner never submitted any further medical documentation to indicate that she had continuing work restrictions. After October 26, 2005, Petitioner did not formally request an accommodation or furnish medical documentation indicating a need for an accommodation. Even so, Respondent continued to provide Petitioner with support and assistance as requested. On July 25, 2008, Petitioner signed a letter confirming her appointment to a full-time position. That same day, Petitioner signed a Memorandum of Understanding that advised her about the FMLA, Respondent's Sexual Harassment and Non-discrimination Policies, and Respondent's Workers' Compensation Program Guidelines. Petitioner's testimony that she never received copies of these documents and that she was unaware of benefits and eligibility forms at any time during her several hires by OFA is not persuasive. There is no competent evidence that Petitioner was substantially limited in performing the essential functions of her job or that she suffered from a disability as defined by the ADA after October 2005. Additionally, Petitioner never informed her supervisors of an alleged on-going disability and never provided medical certification to substantiate her current allegations. Therefore, it is clear that Petitioner's co- workers and supervisors did not regard her as having an impairment. Petitioner's work evaluations for her entire 18-year employment with OFS were above standards. Petitioner's supervisors valued her work ethic and production in the office. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent's staff did not intentionally discriminate against Petitioner. They did not harass Petitioner by any means, including stalking her, excessively monitoring her work habits, isolating her to her office, giving her more work than her co- workers, tampering with her office computer, refusing to investigate her allegations of vandalism to her car in the parking lot, and refusing to give her a new office chair and computer mouse that she requested on an office "wish list." Petitioner's testimony to the contrary is not credible. At some point in time, Petitioner complained to Willie Wideman, OFA's Associate Director, that Assistant Director Joanne Clark was knocking on the wall to her office/workspace/counter. Mr. Wideman spoke to Ms. Clark, determining there was no validity to Petitioner's allegations. Petitioner also complained to her friend and co- worker, Joann Smith, that she was irritated because people were knocking on her counter. Ms. Smith admitted she had knocked on Petitioner's counter as a means of friendly communication, a way to say hello in passing. Later, Ms. Smith became aware of the "no knocking" sign on Petitioner's desk. Petitioner's two letters of resignation and her notice of retirement clearly demonstrate that she did not perceive any discrimination, harassment or hostile work environment from her fellow employees or supervisors. All of Petitioner's colleagues were shocked when they learned about Petitioner's complaint and read the allegations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Cheryl Mask-Brockman 536 West 5th Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Brian F. McGrail, Esquire Florida State University 424 Wescott Building 222 South Copeland Street Tallahassee, Florida 32306 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
