The Issue In an order dated January 29, 1992, the State of Florida, Commission on Ethics found probable cause that the Respondent, as a city commissioner of the City of Cottondale, violated Section 112.313(7)(a), Florida Statutes, by having a contractual relationship with a business entity which was doing business with the city. The issue in this proceeding is whether the violation occurred and, if so, what penalty should be recommended.
Findings Of Fact Leonard Norsworthy served two two-year terms as a city commissioner for the City of Cottondale, a small community in the Florida panhandle. His tenure spanned from 1987 until July 1991. Mr. Norsworthy is sole proprietor of J. & L. Housepainting and Remodeling (J & L), a roofing and remodeling business. He has a State of Florida contractor's license. Sometime in 1990, the City of Cottondale, through its grants coordinator in Tallahassee, sought and obtained Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for various needed public works. The project was advertised, and a bid was awarded to T & A Utilities Contractors, Inc. (T & A), a Lynn Haven, Florida, firm owned by Charles Williams. The total contracted amount of $244,282 included resurfacing two streets, a parking lot, a children's park, 8-inch water lines, and renovations to the city hall. Not all of the work was done immediately, as the city needed to get various permits. Due to changes in the scope of work, additional money became available for other projects, including renovating a public bathroom to make it accessible for handicapped persons. Some of the work was subcontracted by T & A to other firms. Charles Williams did not advertise for bids for the subcontracted work, but obtained proposals. He had obtained proposals from some Panama City firms for the bathroom and city hall renovations because he was not aware of firms closer to Cottondale. "Pete" Hilton was Cottondale's Public Works Director for eight years until he left in October 1992 for medical reasons. He told Charles Williams that he knew someone who could do the work for a good price, and shortly thereafter Leonard Norsworthy called Williams. Mr. Norsworthy's proposal was less than the prices quoted by the Panama City firms, and on June 5, 1991, T & A subcontracted with J & L for the renovation work for a total amount of $8,460. The sum was paid in three releases. The jobs performed by Mr. Norsworthy under the subcontract included redoing the bathroom and a handicap ramp entrance, installing rain gutters, removing a wall and plastering and finishing a wall. At no charge for his labor, Mr. Norsworthy also painted the building. Leonard Norsworthy knew about the city's revitalization contract with T & A because he was a city commissioner at the time. While the city was a party to the contract, the specifications and the background work were handled by the city engineer, who recommended the award to T & A. Leonard Norsworthy admits that he did the work and says, "You live and learn." He concedes that there are others in the area who could have done the work, but believes he gave a good price for the job. He says that work is scarce in the area and you have to take it where you find it. He knew that the law prohibited doing business with one's own agency, but he had no idea that the prohibition extended to subcontracts as well.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Commission enter its final order and public report finding that Leonard Norsworthy violated Section 112.313(7), Florida Statutes, and recommending a penalty of $300.00. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of April 1993. MARY CLARK 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 12th day of April 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig Willis, Esquire Michael Ingraham, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1502 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Leonard Norsworthy Post Office Box 299 Cottondale, Florida 32431 Bonnie Williams, Executive Director Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Ethics Commission Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment act by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of age and retaliating against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Meikle is an African-American male. At hearing, Mr. Meikle withdrew his claim of age discrimination. Mr. Meikle is only pursuing the claim of retaliation. Mr. Meikle was employed with the Radisson Hotel (Radisson), which was owned by Hotels Unlimited. Mr. Meikle’s supervisor at the Radisson was Harland McPhun, who was the Assistant General Manager. Mr. McPhun’s supervisor at the Radisson was Diane Gray, who was the General Manager. During his employment at the Radisson, Mr. Meikle was promoted from a cook to the Kitchen Director. He was very proud of being in the position of Kitchen Director. Mr. McPhun had not encountered any problems with Mr. Meikle being on time for work or being a “no-show” for work as scheduled. However, Mr. McPhun had encountered problems with Mr. Meikle in other areas, such as Mr. Meikle's providing his sister, who was employed at the front desk of the Radisson, with larger portions of food than the other employees; and being in places other than the kitchen area talking, i.e., at or near the front desk. Mr. McPhun gave Mr. Meikle verbal warnings, regarding the incidents, but never documented any of the verbal warnings. At some point in time, Hotels Unlimited decided to convert the Radisson to a Double Tree Hotel (Double Tree). The Double Tree’s structure required the position of a Food and Beverage Manager, who would supervise the food and beverage personnel, kitchen staff, and restaurant servers. Gerald Brown was hired as the Food and Beverage Manager in January 2008. Mr. Brown began his employment before the completion of the conversion from the Radisson to the Double Tree. On February 14, 2008, Mr. Brown held his first staff meeting with the entire staff over whom he had supervision. Mr. Meikle was late for the staff meeting. On February 16, 2008, Mr. Brown issued a “Disciplinary Document” indicating that he was giving Mr. Meikle his first written warning for being late at the meeting. Mr. Meikle admits that he was late for the meeting. The Disciplinary Document was signed by Mr. Meikle (the date of the signature was not completed), by Mr. Brown, as the Manager (the date of the signature was not completed), and by Ms. Gray, as the General Manager, on February 18, 2008. Additionally, on February 16, 2008, Mr. Brown issued another Disciplinary Document indicating that he was giving Mr. Meikle his first written warning for failing to follow rules and direction involving four different matters about which Mr. Brown had repeatedly counseled Mr. Meikle on several occasions, but were not being adhered to by Mr. Meikle. The Disciplinary Document was signed by Mr. Meikle (the date of the signature was not completed), by Mr. Brown, as the Manager, on February 16, 2008, and by Ms. Gray, as the General Manager, on February 18, 2008. On February 25, 2008, Mr. Brown issued a Disciplinary Document for an incident that occurred on February 23, 2008, a Saturday night. Mr. Meikle was scheduled to work, but he departed the kitchen and the hotel property without informing and obtaining permission from the manager. Hotels Unlimited’s policy required the informing of the manager in order for the manager to take appropriate steps to make adjustments to accommodate the absence. Mr. Meikle was entitled to a break, but he failed to notify the manager of his absence in accordance with the policy. The Disciplinary Document included a statement that “Disciplinary Action to be decided by the General Manager.” The Disciplinary Document was signed by Mr. Meikle on February 26, 2008, by Mr. Brown, as the Manager, on February 25, 2008, and by Ms. Gray, as the General Manager, on February 26, 2008. Regarding Mr. Meikle’s absence from work on Saturday evening, February 23, 2008, he was working an 18-hour shift, without anyone to relieve him, which meant that he was unable to take a break. He was exhausted and needed to take a break. Before Mr. Brown was hired, Mr. Meikle was working the 18-hour shift, and after Mr. Brown was hired, Mr. Meikle agreed to continue working the 18-hour shift. Mr. Brown did not wish to disrupt what was already in place, so he agreed to allow Mr. Meikle to keep the 18-hour shift. It was not unreasonable for Mr. Brown to maintain Mr. Meikle on the 18-hour shift, as Mr. Meikle requested. On that same day, February 25, 2008, Mr. Brown issued a Disciplinary Document for an incident that occurred on February 25, 2008. Mr. Meikle raised his voice and became very loud, resulting in guests being disturbed. As Mr. Meikle had been absent from work on Saturday evening, February 23, 2008, Mr. Brown was inquiring of Mr. Meikle the reason for his (Mr. Meikle’s) absence. Further, during the conversation, Mr. Brown raised several other concerns. Mr. Meikle raised his voice and became very loud, which Mr. Brown determined was disturbing the guests. Mr. Brown requested Mr. Meikle to remove himself from the dining area. The Disciplinary Document was signed by Mr. Brown on February 26, 2008. Mr. Meikle refused to sign the Disciplinary Document where the employee’s signature is indicated; but, he (Mr. Meikle) noted on it, “Refuse to sign because I did what I was told,” and signed his name under the statement. Each Disciplinary Document indicated that Mr. Meikle’s termination was effective “2/29/08.” Mr. Brown did not indicate a date for termination on any Disciplinary Document and could offer no explanation as to why or how each Disciplinary Document contained such information. Furthermore, no testimony was presented as to why or how each Disciplinary Document contained such notation. Mr. Brown contacted Ms. Gray, recommending the termination of Mr. Meikle. Ms. Gray did not approve the recommendation; she wanted to continue to work with Mr. Meikle. On February 25, 2008, a letter, bearing the same date, from Mr. Meikle was faxed to Hotels Unlimited’s Human Resources. Among other things, Mr. Meikle notified Human Resources that he was working in a hostile work environment created by Mr. McPhun, providing examples of what he considered inappropriate action and conduct by Mr. McPhun; that Mr. McPhun “strongly dislike[s]” him “for whatever the reason”; that Mr. McPhun was taking food from the hotel and that he (Mr. Meikle) had reported it to the general manager; that all of his (Mr. Meikle’s) current problems at work stemmed from Mr. McPhun, providing examples of the problems that he (Mr. Meikle) had encountered2; that Mr. McPhun was the cause of all of his problems at work; that he (Mr. Meikle) had no one to ask for help; that Mr. McPhun was out to get him (Mr. Meikle) fired; that everyone was biased against him (Mr. Meikle) because of Mr. McPhun; and that a copy of the letter would be forwarded to the EEOC and the FCHR. Ms. Gray was notified by her superior that Human Resources had received a letter from Mr. Meikle, but she was not notified of the content of the letter nor did she receive or view a copy of the letter. Her superior told her to talk with Mr. Meikle and resolve the problem. Hotels Unlimited’s Employee Handbook, Employment Policies & Practices section, provides in pertinent part: Equal Employment * * * If you suspect discriminatory or harassing actions on the part of the Company or any other employee, you should immediately notify your General Manager or Corporate Department Head, as applicable, or, if you prefer, a Company Officer. Such notification will be held in confidence to the extent possible. Discriminatory behavior or action by any employee is cause for discharge. * * * Sexual and Other Forms of Harassment Policy Statement: Hotels Unlimited, Inc. is committed to a work environment in which all employees are treated with respect and dignity. It is the policy of Hotels Unlimited, Inc. to provide a work environment that is free from discrimination and harassment. Action, words or comments based on an individual’s sex, race, color, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, age, disability, marital status, citizenship or any other characteristic protected by law – either overt or subtle – are demeaning to another person and undermine the integrity of the employment relationship. . . . * * * Harassment on the basis of any other protected characteristic is also strictly prohibited. Such harassment is defined as verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility toward an individual because of his/her race, color religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, disability, marital status, citizenship or any other characteristic protected by law, and that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment; has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance; or otherwise adversely affects an individual’s employment opportunity. * * * Administration of Policy: * * * It is unlawful to retaliate in any way against anyone who has complained about harassment. Any incident of retaliation should be reported in the same manner as an incident of harassment. Any employee who engages in such retaliation will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including discharge. All allegations of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation will be subject to prompt, thorough and confidential investigation. All investigations will be designed to protect the privacy of, and minimize suspicion toward, all parties involved. . . . The Employee Handbook provided protection against employment practices for statuses beyond those set forth by law.3 In the early morning hours of February 29, 2008, Mr. Meikle was awoken by a telephone call from a co-worker inquiring as to why he (Mr. Meikle) was not at work. Mr. Meikle informed his co-worker that he was off that day, but his co- worker advised that he (Mr. Meikle) was scheduled to work. Mr. Meikle telephoned Mr. Brown, who informed Mr. Meikle to be at work. Mr. Meikle reported to work, but failed to report for his shift as scheduled. Regarding Mr. Meikle’s failure to report to work on time for his scheduled shift, all work schedules for Food and Beverage, during Mr. Brown’s tenure, were typed and posted, one week in advance. The work week for Food and Beverage was Monday through Sunday. The posted work schedule for the week of February 25, 2008, was prepared, typed, and posted by Mr. Brown and indicated that Mr. Meikle was required to work on Monday, February 25, 2008, and Tuesday, February 26, 2008; was not required to work on Wednesday, February 27, 2008, and Thursday, February 28, 2008; but, was required to work on Friday, February 29, 2008, specifically, from 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Mr. Meikle reviewed a work schedule for the week of February 25, 2008, that was typed and hand-written. The work schedule indicated that it was prepared by Mr. McPhun and that he (Mr. Meikle) was not required to work on Friday, February 29, 2008. Based on that work schedule, Mr. Meikle did not believe that he had to report to work on February 29, 2008. However, Mr. Meikle was required to report to work on February 29, 2008, and work from 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. He failed to report to work for his shift as scheduled.4 No dispute exists that, at no time previously, had Mr. Meikle failed to report to work for his shift as scheduled. On February 29, 2008, Mr. Meikle was terminated for failing “to be at work on time for [his] schedule [sic] shift.” A Termination Report dated February 29, 2008, was signed by Mr. Brown, by Mr. Meikle, and Ms. Gray. Mr. Brown made the determination to terminate the employment of Mr. Meikle, and Ms. Gray agreed. Mr. McPhun did not participate with Mr. Brown and Ms. Gray in the determination to terminate the employment of Mr. Meikle. At the time of Mr. Meikle’s termination, Mr. Brown was not aware of Mr. Meikle’s letter to Hotels Unlimited’s Human Resources.
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 finding that Hotels Unlimited/Double Tree did not retaliate against Marshall Meikle in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended and dismissing his petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 2009.
The Issue Whether Respondent Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (the Department or DEO) engaged in discriminatory practices, concerning Petitioner’s disability, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), as alleged in the Petition for Relief; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Wright was an Employment Program Specialist with the Department’s Reemployment Assistance Division. Although she primarily worked in the Special Programs Child Support unit, she was also assigned to the Benefit Records unit during her employment with the Department. Ms. Wright testified that her issues with the Department started in 2014, and continued until her resignation on August 15, 2018. In 2014, Ms. Wright began experiencing serious medical issues, including bowel and bladder trouble, fatigue, and fibromyalgia. In September 2014, she took a month of leave from her employment because of these medical issues. Upon her return, Ms. Lampkin, who worked in DEO’s human resources department (HR), primarily focused on payroll, and Ms. Wright’s then-supervisor, Ayman Youseff, instructed her to use “leave without pay” for additional absences. Ms. Wright testified that after her return in 2014, Mr. Youseff began harassing her after she took another leave from employment, in the form of requiring her to provide additional supporting medical documentation for the leave. When Ms. Wright informed Mr. Youseff that his request was incorrect, he apologized and advised his supervisors of the mistake. Ms. Wright and her former co-worker, Ms. Milton, both testified that Mr. Youseff was rude and unprofessional. Ms. Milton testified that Mr. Youseff also had issues with Ms. Wright concerning her absences due to illnesses, and with other employees donating leave to Ms. Wright. Ms. Wright also testified that Mr. Youseff made her turn in her timesheets to him directly, as opposed to HR. Ms. Wright testified that she viewed this request, as well as requests from HR to use donated sick leave after she had exhausted all other remaining leave, and ultimately to use leave without pay—which she acknowledged were prompted by her absences from work during this time period—as harassment. In February 2015, Ms. Wright requested a transfer back to a previous unit within DEO, under a supervisor she liked, because she felt she was being harassed. DEO granted her transfer request in less than two weeks. Ms. Wright’s new supervisor was Mr. Leonard. However, after her transfer, Ms. Wright’s medical conditions did not go away. In September 2016, she submitted a request for a modified schedule accommodation to Mr. Huddleston, in DEO’s Office for Civil Rights, which noted that she had issues in the mornings because of her medical condition. DEO granted this request, and changed Ms. Wright’s work schedule to 10:30 a.m. through 6:30 p.m. Beginning in early 2017, DEO overpaid Ms. Wright several times because she failed to complete her timesheet and failed to timely document her use of leave without pay. In August 2017, Ms. Wright took a one-month absence from employment because of her medical issues, and was frequently absent from work during the following few months. During this time period, an HR employee accepted Ms. Wright’s incorrect timesheets for those time periods, and recouped each month’s overpayment from the following month’s pay. This became an issue for DEO because Ms. Wright utilized leave without pay for most of the month of August; however, the resulting lack of funds owed to her precluded DEO from immediate recoupment. Ms. Lampkin, who had left her employment with DEO but returned to her position in August 2017, recognized the payment issue with Ms. Wright. Ms. Lampkin testified that, because of Ms. Wright’s submittal of timesheets that utilize leave without pay after the payroll deadline for correcting timesheets, DEO’s HR department began paying Ms. Wright “on-demand,” i.e., payment for hours that she actually worked, to avoid overpaying Ms. Wright month after month. DEO introduced into evidence the Bureau of State Payroll Manual (Manual), which governs DEO’s handling of payroll issues. With respect to salary overpayment, the Manual states that “Agencies are responsible for identifying and preventing salary overpayments ” Although Ms. Wright contends that this switch from recoupment (which resulted in salary overpayment) to payment on-demand was evidence of harassment based on her disability, she also testified, on cross-examination, that “it’s verified in [the Manual] that it could be done that way.” Ms. Lampkin also credibly explained an issue that arose with Ms. Wright’s allegation that DEO canceled her insurance benefits, which Ms. Wright considered additional harassment. Ms. Lampkin testified: The term canceled is kind of an overstatement. There is a glitch in their insurance if I have to cancel their check and pay them on demand, because that means that the payment doesn’t go over when the regular payroll runs, and it gets paid on supplemental, and it’s usually on the same date that their payday is, but then it’s—the payment to the insurance companies would be sent at a later date than the other ones. It would be a lag time there. * * * If I canceled their monthly paycheck, that stops payment going to any pretax deductions; it would stop them. And then by paying them on demand, that would create the payment and send it over, but the difference in an on-demand and the regular payroll is processed approximately one week before payday. And on-demand is processed three days before payday. Technically two days, because the third day is when they get paid so—so it’s that lag time from a week to down to three days. Ms. Wright also testified that DEO engaged in harassment in discouraging other employees from donating sick leave to her. For example, in 2018, Ms. Wright testified that DEO hindered Charlie Davis, a DEO management level employee, from donating hours to her. DEO presented evidence that Ms. Wright was the recipient of many sick leave donations during her employment; all told, she received and used over 1,000 hours between 2014 and her resignation. Although Mr. Davis had donated sick leave hours to Ms. Wright previously, Ms. Pottle, who was Ms. Lampkin’s supervisor in DEO’s HR Department, explained that DEO employees in a supervisory or management position “are highly discouraged from donating to employees because it – it could be construed as favoritism.” Ms. Wright testified that she discussed Mr. Davis’s intention to donate additional sick leave hours with another DEO employee, and Mr. Davis was ultimately permitted to donate sick leave to Ms. Wright. On February 6, 2018, in response to Ms. Wright’s expressed concerns, individuals in Ms. Wright’s supervisory chain and Ms. Lampkin, met with Ms. Wright to discuss two options she could use in an attempt to resolve her leave and payroll issues: (a) be paid on-demand early, with the balance paid after she finalized her timesheet at the end of the month; or (b) remain on automatic pay, but provide donated leave hours and any necessary medical certification supporting their use by the 15th of each month. Following the February 6, 2018, meeting, Ms. Wright began providing medical certifications, which stated that she needed time off from work intermittently to attend medical appointments. Ms. Wright testified that she believed that these medical certifications allowed her to arrive for work as late as she felt necessary due to her medical condition. Ms. Wright, during a June 5, 2018 meeting with Mr. Leonard, expressed this belief; Mr. Leonard, in an email to Ms. Wright that same day, asked her “to provide supporting documentation regarding the need to arrive at work after 10:30 a.m. since the most recent documentation reflects a schedule of 10:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.” Mr. Leonard also testified about his team’s experience covering for Ms. Wright when she was absent. He stated that Ms. Wright cross-trained other members of this team to complete her work in her absence. However, when covering for Ms. Wright, these team members would then have work duties above and beyond their regular work duties. On June 8, 2018, Ms. Wright submitted a request to Mr. Huddleston in DEO’s Office for Civil Rights requesting a flexible, part-time schedule that would allow her to arrive for work between 10:30 a.m. and noon, and end her workday at 6:30 p.m. (Second Accommodation Request). With this Second Accommodation Request, Ms. Wright also submitted a letter from her physician stating that she was unable to arrive to work and do her job before 10:30 a.m., and would benefit from the flexible schedule she requested. At the time of Ms. Wright’s Second Accommodation Request, DEO’s Reemployment Assistance program was undergoing a significant reorganization. Ms. Wright worked in the Special Programs unit of DEO’s Reemployment Assistance program at that time. Mr. Huddleston testified that, after receiving Ms. Wright’s Second Accommodation Request, DEO decided to deny it. In an email dated July 11, 2018, Mr. Huddleston wrote: After reviewing your request, at this time, your request, to modify your accommodation of a flexible part-time work schedule is denied. Currently your accommodation allows you to work at 10:30 AM instead of your regularly scheduled start time of 8:00 AM. Your new accommodation request asks that you be allowed to arrive at work after 10:30 AM but before 12:00 PM. In making this decision our office has spoken with your management team and has determined that this modification would cause an undue hardship. This modification to your existing accommodation would also require a lowering of performance or production standards. Based on these two factors, we have determined that you would not be able to perform the essential functions of your position if this modification were to be put into place. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission states that essential functions are basic job duties that an employee must be able to perform, with or without a reasonable accommodation. These duties must be performed to achieve the objectives of the job. As part of this, and all accommodation request reviews, our office analyzed your position to determine its purpose and essential functions, consulted with your management team, and researched and explored accommodation options to assess the effectiveness of the accommodation. During this interactive process we explored the possibility of reassigning you to another position that was as close as possible to your current position in status and pay; however, we were unable to find a suitable position. There are no part-time positions currently available and the essential functions of your position can not be completed working the hours you requested. Our office would be more than happy to meet with you to discuss this further and to explore other accommodation options that you and/or your medical professional come up with. However, on July 10, 2018—the day before Mr. Huddleston sent the email denying the Second Accommodation Request—Ms. Wright went on another month-long leave of absence from her employment because of her worsening medical condition. Ms. Wright testified that she believed that DEO would approve of her Second Accommodation Request and that, after returning to work, she would start the new schedule. Ms. Wright testified that she did not know the status of her Second Accommodation Request until she returned to work (after her month-long leave of absence) on August 13, 2018, and read Mr. Huddleston’s email. She sent him the following email response later that afternoon: Thanks for reviewing my request to modify my work schedule. I understand that there is no part- time positions available; but I was referring to me working at least 30 hours per week. When I met with my supervisor Marche and Joel in June concerning me arriving later than my scheduled time 10:30 AM, I advised them that I needed to request a modification to my previous work schedule because I moved back home with my mom which is outside of Quincy due to my health. I also advised them that it was impossible for me to arrive to work at 10:30 AM due to the distance I had to travel and the medications I take. I informed them that 11:15 or 11:30 would work better for me because I understand that my job consists of duties that must be performed in order to achieve the objectives outlined for the job. Please let me know when there’s a good time for us to meet. Thanks again for your help concerning this matter. Rather than wait for Mr. Huddleston’s response, Ms. Wright resigned on August 15, 2018, by a letter that she left in a co-worker’s chair. This resignation letter does not identify any reason for her resignation. On August 20, 2018, Mr. Huddleston—unaware of Ms. Wright’s resignation—actually responded to Ms. Wright’s August 13, 2018, email, inviting her to meet with him about her concerns. Ms. Wright testified that she has not sought out employment after her resignation from DEO because of her medical condition. Ms. Wright presented no persuasive evidence that DEO’s actions subjected her to harassment based on her disability, or that such actions were sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment to create a hostile work environment. There is no competent, substantial evidence in the record upon which the undersigned could make a finding of unlawful disability harassment or hostile work environment. Ms. Wright presented no persuasive evidence that, at the time of her resignation, her working conditions were so intolerable that a reasonable person in her position would have felt compelled to resign.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Angela Wright’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III 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 January, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Angela Michelle Wright 4102 Greensboro Highway Quincy, Florida 32351 (eServed) Dominique Gabrielle Young, Assistant General Counsel Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Brandon W. White, Esquire Department of Economic Opportunity 107 East Madison Street, MSC 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Petitioner was wrongfully terminated from his position at the City because of his physical handicap, diabetes, in violation of Section 760.10(1(a), Florida Statutes. Whether Petitioner could be reasonably accommodated to perform the essential functions of his duties as an Engineer I position with the City Sewer Department.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 40 year old male. Petitioner was diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus in 1979. This is a Type I Classification of diabetes which required that Petitioner must take insulin from its onset. Petitioner is further classified as a "brittle" diabetic, which is a type that is difficult to control. Additionally, Petitioner has hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid) and an adrenal insufficiency. This combination is rare. Petitioner is a handicapped person. Petitioner worked steadily at a variety of jobs in the engineering construction field from 1979 to the time he was hired by the City of Tampa on December 12, 1990. Petitioner's diabetic condition did not place any restrictions on his ability to fulfill his job responsibilities at any of his places of employment between 1979 and December 12, 1990. Petitioner was hired by the City of Tampa, an employer, as an Engineer Tech 2 on December 12, 1990. As an Engineer Tech 2, Petitioner was responsible for monitoring the electrical and instrumentation construction at a sanitary sewage treatment plant, and for sewage pumping stations throughout the city. He was essentially an inspector. Prior to accepting employment with the City, Petitioner talked with his prospective supervisors, Jack Kulik and Jeff Taylor, about his diabetic condition. During the period Petitioner was employed as an Engineer Tech 2, he had some insulin reactions on the job in the office. Those reactions were caused by a lowering of Petitioner's blood sugar level. When these reactions occurred, office personnel would assist Petitioner by encouraging him to eat a food product containing sugar. The episodes would take 15-30 minutes to subside. During the period Petitioner was employed as an Engineer Tech 2, he drove a City car alone while at work, and drove his personal car to and from work. When at a construction site, Petitioner went near high voltage panels, into manholes, and also into open pits with open wells on a regular basis. The supervisor, Jack Kulik, did not have any concerns about Petitioner's ability to drive a car. Petitioner received a good performance evaluation for his work as an Engineer Tech 2 on June 12, 1990. He was rated as either "Excellent" or "Fully meets Expectations" in all 13 rating categories. Petitioner's diabetes did not prevent him from performing the essential functions of his job. Petitioner was promoted to an Engineer I position in August 1990. From August 1990 through early February 1991, Petitioner worked half- days at the Hookers Point facility, and then commuted to downtown Tampa to work a half-day. The Engineer I position was primarily an office job, with 80% of the responsibilities in-office and 20% at various job sites. During the period between August 1990 and February 1991, Petitioner had several insulin reactions in the office of the Engineer I position. His new supervisor Korchak did not recognize the symptoms of Petitioner's reaction. He characterized Petitioner as being "asleep" on the job on three occasions, and was impaired on numerous other occasions. Due to his physical handicap, Korchak lost confidence in Petitioner's ability as an engineer. Petitioner ate food to counteract the reactions, which took 20 to 30 minutes to subside. In August 1990, shortly after Petitioner was promoted to an Engineer I position, he was involved in an automobile accident, while driving his personal car. The accident resulted from a diabetic reaction. When he was able, Petitioner called his supervisor, Mr. Korchak, and reported the accident. Mr. Korchak relayed the information about the accident to Andy Cronberg, a deputy director, second in command of the department, who was in an office adjacent to Mr. Korchak when he received the call from Petitioner. Mr. Cronberg made a decision, at that moment, in August 1990, based solely on his conversation with Mr. Korchak, to revoke petitioner's privilege to drive a City car. The decision to revoke Petitioner's driving privileges was made in accordance with a general policy of the City, and not on individualized analysis of Petitioner's condition. The decision to restrict Petitioner's driving privileges was not communicated to Petitioner until a performance review on February 8, 1991. In addition, during this same period, Korchek began tailoring and limiting Petitioner's position to in-office functions only, based on what Korchek believed Petitioner could accomplish safely, and downgraded his evaluation when he rated him on his performance review. Prior to the implementation of the decision to restrict Petitioner's driving privileges on February 8, 1991, the City's representatives did not speak to Petitioner about his driving abilities; they did not speak or consult in any way with Petitioner's doctors; nor did they speak with Petitioner's previous supervisor with the City, Jack Kulik. The first contact the City had with Petitioner's doctor was a response to a questionnaire sent to Dr. Sumesh Chandra and, received by the City on February 27, 1991, wherein Dr. Chandra indicated that Petitioner could safely and effectively operate an automobile. The City's representative Mr. Rice indicated that Dr. Chandra's response raised more questions than it answered, and the City did not restore Petitioner's driving privileges. Neither Mr. Rice, nor any other City employee ever consulted with Dr. Chandra to clear up the confusion they had over Dr. Chandra's statement that Petitioner could safely and effectively drive a car. Petitioner is licensed to drive by the State of Florida. His license has never been revoked, either in Florida or any other state. Dr. Chandra stated that, in his opinion, Petitioner could safely and effectively operate an automobile because, "He's capable, dexterous, and coordinated. He's like any normal individual except that he is unfortunately diabetic. So for routine capacity his skills are like any other normal individual." Twenty percent of the Engineer I position required travel to various job sites. Because Petitioner was not allowed to drive an automobile on city time, and was restricted in in-office functions while performing his Engineer I position, he was not able to fulfill the essential functions of the Engineer I position. Following a request by Phil Rice of the Sewer Department, the City received a letter from Dr. Jai H. Cho, a physician on May 15, 1991, that Petitioner had seen for a short period of time. Dr. Cho's letter indicated, among other things, ". . . it is inevitable, that he will develop hypoglycemia with loss of consciousness in the future because of his concurrent illness with diabetes and adrenal insufficiency." Dr. Cho never specifically addressed the issue of whether Petitioner could safely drive an automobile or work alone at job sites, either in writing or in phone conversations with Mr. Rice. No City representatives ever discussed Petitioner's ability to drive a car or work alone on a job site with Petitioner, Dr. Chandra, Dr. Cho, Petitioner's previous supervisors with the City, or Petitioner's previous supervisors with other employers. On May 20, 1991, the City terminated Petitioner's employment. Petitioner was informed of his termination by Mr. Korchak, Mr. Hoel, and Mr. Rice. Mr. Rice told Petitioner that the reason for the termination was the City's concern about its potential liability. Following his termination, Petitioner was unemployed for nine months. Petitioner was then hired in September, 1992, by Omega Tech in Hardee County, Florida, to work at the Hardee Power Station, performing the same duties as he performed as an Engineer Tech 2 for the City of Tampa. Petitioner commutes the 68 miles each way from Tampa to Hardee County every day in his own car. At the Hardee Power Plant, Petitioner is exposed to the same conditions to which he was exposed while working for the City of Tampa. During the 13 years since Petitioner was diagnosed with diabetes, he has never injured any other person as a result of his diabetes, nor received any serious injury to himself. At the present time, the position of Engineer I with the City of Tampa has been eliminated, and has been replaced by a person holding a contractors license. If Petitioner had remained employed with the City of Tampa, he would have earned $36,294.44 from the period June 20, 1991, through September 18, 1992, exclusive of health benefits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: A Final Order be entered that Petitioner was discriminated against on the basis of his handicap when his employment was terminated; The Petitioner receive back pay and health benefits in accordance with applicable law; and The Petitioner be awarded the attorney's fees and costs incurred as a result of this action. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, 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 28th day of December, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39(in part), 40, 41, 42, 43 Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraph 15, 39 (Petitioners was hired by Omega Tech) Rejected as hearsay: paragraph 33 Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10,11(in part), 12,13,14(in part),15,17,18,19,20(in part),22(in part),23,25,26,30,31 Rejected as irrelevant or immaterial or argument: paragraphs 8,9,11(in part),14(in part), 20(Petitioner's written comment),21,24(in part),27,28,29 Rejected as hearsay: paragraphs 16,22(in part),24(in part) COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire KELLY, McKEE, HERDMAN & RAMUS, P.A. 1724 E. Seventh Avenue Tampa, Florida 323605 Margaret A. Jones, Clerk Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Rd. Building F Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4113 Mr. Kenneth C. Perry City of Tampa 306 East Jackson Street 7N Tampa, Florida 33602 Dana Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4113
The Issue In this proceeding, the issues are: (1) Whether William Kleinschmidt ("Petitioner" or "Kleinschmidt") possesses or demonstrates a mental or physical impairment that qualifies Petitioner as a disabled person within the meaning of the Fair Housing Act, and therefore establishes that Petitioner belongs to a protected class of persons whom the Fair Housing Act protects from unlawful discrimination; (2) Whether Three Horizons North Condominium, Inc. ("Respondent" or "Three Horizons"), discriminated against Petitioner by enforcing the no pet restriction policy and requiring Petitioner to remove his cat(s); and (3) Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner by failing to properly call a plumber in a timely manner after Petitioner notified Respondent of raw sewage seeping into his unit, No. 206.
Findings Of Fact In January 1999, Petitioner purchased a condominium ("condo") at Three Horizons. He has resided in Unit 206 continuously since he purchased the condo. Three Horizons Association is the entity responsible for operating and managing the condo property in which Kleinschmidt's unit is located. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent had a no pets policy. When Kleinschmidt moved into Three Horizons, he had two cats. His pet cats are named Princess and Marischa. He keeps the pets in his unit. He considers them to be his family and feels like they are more like his children than cats since he is alone. His pets make him feel good. The pets were trained by his mother. Petitioner wants to keep his cats because they provide companionship and comfort, which makes Petitioner happy. In addition, the cats have made life tolerable for Kleinschmidt. Kleinschmidt has an emotional bond with his cats. Petitioner has filed two prior housing discrimination complaints against Three Horizons.1 From July 5, 2008, to July 6, 2009,2 Kleinschmidt neither notified Respondent of an alleged handicap nor requested an accommodation either verbally or in writing from Three Horizons. Specifically during the year, Kleinschmidt never asked for a waiver of Respondent's no pet rule or asked that the Petitioner's cats remain as service animals.3 Over about a nine-month period, two different main sewer lines backed up raw sewage into Petitioner's unit seven times. Each time a back up occurred in unit 206 and Respondent was notified of the problem, Three Horizons called a plumber and had the main lines and pipes fixed the same day, expending a total of $2,630.00 for all the repairs. Three Horizons' policy is to maintain and fix the common area of the facilities outside of individual units, and unit owners are responsible to fix any problems within their unit. On October 3, 2008, at around 4:00 p.m. Petitioner first noticed a leak in the main line under his unit in the parking garage. Kleinschmidt informed Ruth Pearson, Three Horizons' day-to-day operations manager and treasurer of the association. Pearson went to look at it and informed Petitioner that she would take care of it. When Kleinschmidt returned home that same day sewage was flowing into his unit from the toilet. Petitioner called Jeffrey Humes ("Humes"), a masonry contractor, and made an appointment for Humes to come to unit 206 the next day, which was on October 4, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. to handle the backflow problem since it was not a huge amount. During the night, the backflow stopped. On October 4, 2008, Humes reported to unit 206 around 1:00 p.m. and determined that the backflow was a main line problem. Pearson was notified that it was the main line that was causing the problem, and she called Feliz Fera Plumbing Company ("Feliz"). Feliz came out that same evening and fixed the problem by providing "emergency plumbing service to clear main line using K-60 machine and cable."4 Feliz billed Three Horizons $320.00. On October 6, 2008, Petitioner had a second backflow of sewage into his unit. Upon discovering it, Kleinschmidt called Pearson and informed her of the problem. Respondent immediately contacted Felix again to work on the main line. Petitioner also called Humes back to assist him with his unit's backflow. To prevent any future backflows into Petitioner's toilet, Humes plugged it and capped it off separating it from the main sewer line so sewage would not come in anymore. Humes also helped Kleinschmidt wet vac and clean up the unit. Three Horizons' invoice from Feliz for October 6, 2008, services stated, "Plumbing service to clear main stoppage line for Unit Number 206 and test the drain in Unit Number 206. All is clear at this time."5 Respondent was charged $225.00 for Feliz's services. On or about November 29, 2008, Petitioner's kitchen backflowed from a different main line. His floors and cabinets underneath the sink flooded, and Petitioner reported the sewage back up to Pearson who contacted Feliz again to check the main line. Felix repaired the problem the same day and the invoice stated, "Emergency plumbing service to clear stoppage in Apartment 206. After troubleshooting found line to be clear. Called in by Ms. Pearson."6 The cost to Respondent was $195.00 for the services. On December 3, 2008, Pearson contacted Felix again after being notified by Petitioner that his sink was backing up with sewage. Felix returned to Three Horizons and fixed the problem outlining the services in the invoice as "Plumbing service to cut 4" cast iron in parking garage for unit #206, installed new clean out and jetted sink stack."7 Respondent was charged $950.00 for the service. On May 2, 2009, sewage backed up into Petitioner's kitchen. When Petitioner notified Pearson of the problem she called Felix. That same day, Felix serviced Three Horizons and detailed the services on the invoice stating, "Emergency plumbing service to clear stoppage in kitchen stack per Ruth."8 Respondent was charged $295 for the plumbing services. On or about July 7, 2009, Petitioner's unit had a back up of sewage again. Kleinschmit contacted Pearson about the problem, and Pearson called Felix, but the company had other jobs and could not get to Three Horizons immediately. After several hours of not having a response, Petitioner called Pearson again. Pearson became impatient because Felix had not arrived immediately and called Enzo Bellanca ("Bellanca"), Three Horizons' maintenance man,9 to come check out the problem. Bellanca fixed the common line plumbing problem on the same date and wrote on the invoice, "Obstruction in drain line, 4" undercover parking lot. Remove 2 feet of cast iron pipe replaced with P[V]C pipe 4" and clean sn[ake]d, thru all pipe drainage s[ys]tem and clean up the blockage."10 Bellanca charged Three Horizons $385.00 for labor and materials. When Petitioner notified Pearson of another sewage back up in unit 206 on July 15, 2009, Pearson called Bellanca back again. Another stoppage had occurred under unit 206. Bellanca fixed the problem and detailed his services on the invoice as "Drainage systems for Apartment 206 under cover parking area, remove elbow four inch clear blockage, replace a new P[V]C four inch elbow, plus a [clear-[out] Labor and materials, $260.00"11 Petitioner's doctors are Drs. Gottlieb and Siegal. Kleinschmidt takes medicine daily. Kleinschmidt receives Social Security benefits. Kleinschmidt has asthma and was once told that he had post traumatic stress. However, no evidence was presented that Kleinschmidt's life activities are substantially limited or that he is incapable of performing all life activities he chooses.
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 Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 26th day of April, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Scott Rhodes, should be terminated from employment with Petitioner, City of Clearwater (City), for violating City policies as alleged in the City's Termination and Dismissal Notice dated February 16, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Parties and Jurisdiction The City is a government employer governed by a City Council. A City Manager oversees the City’s operations. Pursuant to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Clearwater (City Code), the Clearwater Civil Service Board has adopted policies and rules regulating all aspects of the civil service employee positions within the City.1/ Mr. Rhodes began his employment with the City as a Solid Waste worker on September 6, 2004. He worked in the same position until his termination effective February 20, 2018. Approximately 85 percent of the current Solid Waste staff is African-American. Mr. Rhodes describes himself as “white” and “not black.” At all times relevant, Mr. Rhodes’ supervisor was Joseph Farrar, who is Caucasian. Mr. Farrar’s ultimate supervisor is Earl Gloster, an African-American. Mr. Gloster is the department head of Solid Waste and reports directly to the City Manager. Mr. Rhodes’ Disciplinary History Prior to his termination, Mr. Rhodes had been involved in a number of incidents with co-workers requiring counseling or discipline. In late November 2011 and early 2012, Mr. Rhodes reported he was being harassed by a co-worker in Solid Waste, Feth Benbelgacem. His complaint was investigated by the City’s HR Department and a report was issued. Although the City found Mr. Benbelgacem had violated the City’s Workplace Violence Policy, the report concluded: No one was able to corroborate the specific claim that Mr. Rhodes made that Mr. Benbelgacem [threatened him]. A number of those interviewed feel that Mr. Rhodes has animosity because Mr. Benbelgacem is permitted to operate the equipment which causes Mr. Rhodes to “nitpick” Mr. Benbelgacem’s work performance, thereby instigating their interaction. This behavior on the part of Mr. Rhodes has been reported to the supervisors and although Mr. Rhodes has been directed to cease the behavior and worry about himself, the behavior allegedly continues. * * * Although Mr. Rhodes has been instructed by his supervisors to stop delegating and criticizing tasks relating to Mr. Benbelgacem, the behavior seems to continue and should it not stop, the supervisor should address it through the Performance and Behavior Process. In November 2016, Mr. Farrar issued Respondent a coaching and counseling form for “violence in the workplace” based on a verbal altercation Mr. Rhodes had with an African-American co-worker. The form signed by Mr. Rhodes states: Outcome of Meeting: Mr. Rhodes understands that verbal misconduct is as serious as physical conduct. Verbal attacks can lead to physical confrontations just as this situation did. In the future, verbal attacks on a co-worker’s family or loved ones will not be tolerated. At some point after the November 2016 counseling, when someone did something he did not like, Mr. Rhodes would either tell that person that he was going to give that person a specific number of lashes or he would direct a co-worker to distribute a specific number of lashes to that person. Mr. Rhodes also told his co-workers to “kiss the ring,” implying they were subservient to him. Mr. Rhodes would talk about certain co-workers being on his “hit list.” When asked who was on his “hit list,” Mr. Rhodes named the same African-American co-worker involved in the November 2016 incident. In early 2017, Mr. Farrar overheard Mr. Rhodes saying he would give certain co-workers lashes. Mr. Farrar believed these comments were inappropriate and could have been interpreted as racially offensive. He also overheard Mr. Rhodes talking about his “list.” As a result, Mr. Farrar met with Mr. Rhodes and instructed him to stop making such remarks. Although Mr. Farrar did not specifically tell Mr. Rhodes these comments violated any specific policy, he did tell Mr. Rhodes “that he needed to watch what he was saying around newer people because they might not know how to take it the way people that had been around him do.” At the final hearing, Mr. Rhodes admitted he told other employees he would give them lashes, they were on his hit list, and they should kiss the ring, but claimed he was joking. In April 2017, Mr. Farrar placed Mr. Rhodes on a “Development Plan” after repeatedly being warned by Mr. Farrar about failing to properly clock in and out, and accruing unauthorized overtime. The Development Plan was to remain in effect from April 28 to October 28, 2017, and required Mr. Rhodes to meet personally with Mr. Farrar on “Payday” Fridays and comply with the City’s timeclock regulations. Mr. Rhodes defied orders to meet with Mr. Farrar and otherwise failed to adhere to the Development Plan. As a result, Mr. Rhodes received a one-day suspension (referred to as a “decision-making leave day”) and was referred to the Employee Assistance Program. The Development Plan was also revised and extended to remain in effect until March 2018. Meanwhile, Mr. Rhodes continued to make the same type of inappropriate remarks referring to “lashes” and the “hit list.” In October or November 2017, Mr. Farrar had a second meeting with Mr. Rhodes and again instructed him to stop making these types of remarks. The Terminating Incident On January 17, 2018, Mr. Farrar received a complaint from Allan Craig, an African-American Solid Waste worker, that Mr. Rhodes claimed he was the “emperor of all black people.” According to Mr. Farrar, Mr. Craig reported the incident just after it was made and was visibly shocked. Mr. Farrar referred the incident to the City’s Office of Diversity and Equity Services (“ODES”), a division within the HR department tasked with handling and investigating complaints of the City’s anti-discrimination policies, as well as potential employee violations of state and federal employment laws. Mr. Craig testified that on the day in question, Mr. Rhodes did not like something an African-American co-worker said. In turn, Mr. Rhodes told Mr. Craig to give this co-worker “50 lashes,” which Mr. Craig understood to be a whipping. Mr. Craig, said, “no, we [have] to stick together.” It is unclear to whom Mr. Craig is referring when he said “we”--“Solid Waste workers” or “African-Americans.” Regardless, in response, Mr. Rhodes made the statement, “I’m the emperor of black people.” Mr. Craig did not respond, but instead immediately left the worksite to report the comment to Mr. Farrar. Although Mr. Rhodes corroborates Mr. Craig’s version of events, he disputes saying “I’m the emperor of black people.” Instead he claims he told Mr. Craig “I am the emperor of Solid Waste”; and after Mr. Craig said, “no, we [have] to stick together,” Mr. Rhodes replied, “Allan, even black people have to answer to somebody.” Mr. Rhodes saying, “I’m the emperor of black people” is more believable than him saying “Allan, even black people have to answer to somebody.” The undersigned rejects Mr. Rhodes’ version of events for a number of reasons.2/ First, Mr. Rhodes statements do not seem to flow naturally. Second, Mr. Craig’s demeanor was more credible, and his version of the facts leading up to the “emperor” statement was consistent with the testimony of the other witnesses. Moreover, Mr. Deris, the ODES investigator, testified that Mr. Rhodes admitted to making the statement, “I am the emperor of black people” when questioned during the investigation. Mr. Gloster testified that during the pre-termination meeting he had with Mr. Rhodes, “I asked him specifically as to the comment that was made . . . that he was the emperor over all black people, and he said, yes, that he said it.” Even assuming Mr. Rhodes’ version is correct, it is equally offensive; it still implies African-Americans at Solid Waste need to answer to him. Based on the competent and credible evidence, the undersigned finds that Mr. Rhodes made the statement, “I am the emperor of black people,” and this statement was reasonably offensive to Mr. Craig. Grounds for Dismissal Based on the ODES investigation and after meeting with Mr. Rhodes, Mr. Gloster made the decision to terminate Petitioner. Thereafter, the City issued the Dismissal Notice citing numerous violations of City policy and regulations: City Policy 3201.2, Equal Employment Opportunity Policies (EEO); City Policy 3704.1, Workplace Violence Prevention Policy; and Relevant portions of the City’s Performance and Behavior Management Program Manual (PBMP), which set standards for City workers in the areas of personal responsibility, excellence, and integrity. Chapter 13, section 3, of the Civil Service Board Rules and Regulations outlines the grounds for discipline, including terminations. That section provides in pertinent part: Reasons for Suspension, Demotion, and Dismissal--Whenever practical, employees will be given reasonable opportunity to bring their performance and/or behavior up to acceptable standards pursuant to the procedures and rules of the City’s performance and behavior management programs. However, employees may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including immediate dismissal for the following acts, including but not limited to specifically cited examples: * * * (e) Commitment of a flagrant offense, including harassment or discrimination or abusive conduct or language toward coworkers, City officers, or the public. * * * (l) Failure to conform to the dictates of corrective action, including but not limited to failure or inability to comply with an agreed-upon “development plan,” or when the City believes that an employee is willful in refusing to adhere to establish rules, regulations, or guidelines. (emphasis added). Violation of EEO Policy The City’s EEO policy states in relevant part: It is the policy of the City of Clearwater that no person shall be unlawfully discriminated against with regard to recruitment, selection, appointment, training, promotion, retention, discipline or other aspects of employment because of any consideration of race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, marital status, or gender (including conditions of pregnancy and sexual harassment), or genetic or family medical history information as defined by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Mr. Rhodes’ “lashes” comments could reasonably be interpreted as a reference to slavery, and be racially offensive to African-American (and other) employees. As such, Mr. Rhodes continued references to “lashes,” even after being warned, violated the City’s EEO policy. Mr. Rhodes statement that he, a white person, was the “emperor of black people” clearly violates the City’s EEO policy. Violation of the City’s Workplace Violence Prevention Policy The City’s Workplace Violence Prevention Policy states in relevant part: Policy: The City of Clearwater will not tolerate violence, threats, harassment, intimidation, and other disruptive behavior in our workplace [.] All reports of incidents will be taken seriously and will be dealt with appropriately. Individuals who commit such acts may be removed from the premises and may be subject to disciplinary action, criminal penalties, or both. Definitions: Workplace violence is any physical assault, threatening behavior, or verbal abuse occurring in the workplace. Such behavior can include oral or written statements, gestures, or expressions that communicate a direct or indirect threat of physical harm. Although there was no evidence anyone believed Mr. Rhodes’ “lashes” or “hit-list” statements were real threats of violence, these statements could be considered a form of intimidation, disruptive behavior, and verbal abuse under the policy. These comments, however, when taken in the context of Respondent’s history of verbal altercations with co-workers, and coupled with the fact he was told that these statements may be misinterpreted, constitute violations of the City’s Workplace Violence Prevention Policy. Violation of the City’s Employee Standards The PBMP contains the following relevant standards and instructions: INTEGRITY STANDARDS The following standards represent Integrity issues of such a serious nature that immediate formal discipline, up to and including termination, may be recommended. Violation of the City Workplace Violence Policy. Violation of the City Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Policy. * * * EXCELLENCE STANDARDS We will present a professional image through actions, dress, speech and behavior. We will strive for excellence and continuously learn and make improvements. We will learn from mistakes, modify behavior and recommend procedural changes to improve operations and processes. Again, Mr. Rhodes’ statements described above when considered cumulatively and in context clearly violate the standards for employee integrity. Mr. Rhodes’ continued use of these comments, even after being repeatedly counseled, violates the standards for professional image through actions and speech; continuously learning and improving; and modifying behavior.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board make a determination that the charges in the Dismissal Notice are sustained, and that Respondent be terminated as a City employee. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2018, 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 6th day of September, 2018.
