The Issue Whether respondent discriminated against petitioner on account of his race in terminating his employment?
Findings Of Fact Larry Drake, who is black, began his employment at Whataburger, Inc., on May 2, 1983, as a management trainee in Pensacola. He trained first under June Bell at Unit No. 168, then under Kin Pearson at Unit No. 42. New Warrington Road On July 17, 1983, he became assistant manager at Unit No. 25, Whataburger's restaurant on New Warrington Road, where he was put in charge of the "early bird" or late night shift, from eleven at night to seven in the morning. Randall Potts occasionally worked the late night shift, and, during his tenure as assistant manager in charge of the shift, Mr. Drake supervised Elijah Johnson and Randy Cotton, as well. He initially supervised only one employee, but when Linda Blevins began on the late night shift, he also supervised her. As manager of Unit No. 25, Byron Reno was Mr. Drake's supervisor while Mr. Drake worked there. Mr. Reno came in at six or seven in the morning and left before the late night shift began, but he saw petitioner when the night shift started on numerous occasions, in addition to occasionally overlapping petitioner's shift in the morning. He worked with Mr. Drake when, as sometimes happened after Mr. Drake's initial three months at Unit No. 25, Mr. Drake worked the day shift. On October 30, 1983, Mr. Reno prepared a written evaluation of petitioner's job performance on a form calling for a "CLASSIFICATION EVALUATION" and for a separate "PERFORMANCE EVALUATION." Respondent's Exhibit B-2. On the "CLASSIFICATION EVALUATION" section, he gave hid a total score in the "needs improvement" range, although written comments indicated he was "FULLY ADEQUATE IN MOST AREAS." On the "PERFORMANCE EVALUATION, he gave him a score of 41.4, half a point from the "needs improvement" cut-off. These ratings may be lower than those for "the bulk of the" (T.i27) assistant managers. By May 5, 1904, when Mr. Reno prepared a second evaluation using the same format, he rated petitioner fully adequate overall, and gave him a score in the outstanding range for "CLASSIFICATION EVALUATION." Respondent's Exhibit A-2. Sometimes petitioner complained he was tired when he reported for work at Unit No. 25, and Mr. Reno felt his energy level was low in general. Mr. Reno also felt that inaccuracies in the daily reports and in inventory reports should be eliminated. During the time Mr. Drake worked at Unit No. 25, Sonya Jarman worked, at various times, on both day shifts. On the later shift, she was sometimes unable to leave at eleven, because petitioner had not yet arrived at work. Sometimes she telephoned petitioner to wake him up so he would relieve her. On the other hand, Mr. Drake also "stayed over plenty of times" (T.75, 76) for late replacements. On the earlier day shift, Ms. Jarman sometimes arrived to find that the night shift's paperwork had not been done. Mr. Drake asked her more than once to do the paperwork for the night shift, saying he would help serve customers. Sometimes he sat in his office, reading the paper and smoking cigarettes, while Ms. Jarman completed reports which night shift personnel were charged with filling out. One night Mr. Drake was on duty, Ms. Jarman was summoned "to fix the register because the drawer had jammed." (T.149). When she arrived, she found petitioner had left the premises, leaving the cash register with open drawer in the care of a subordinate. In general, Ms. Jarman characterized her experience working with petitioner as "wild." In her opinion, "Larry ... just wasn't Whataburger material." (T.14i) He did not pitch in when things got busy. He was slow on the grill ... and even on the board he wasn't fast (T. 148). For part of the time petitioner worked as assistant manager at Unit No. 25, Elijah Johnson worked under his supervision as a crew leader. Mr. Johnson once left the premises to buy Krispy Kreme doughnuts. Petitioner once left to buy cigarettes. Gregory Street When Mr. Drake tired of working the graveyard shift, he asked the senior area supervisor, Mr. Turbeville, for a new assignment. Mr. Turbeville obliged and petitioner began work at the Gregory Street Whataburger, Unit No. 42, as assistant manager for the day shift, on August 12, 1984, under the supervision of Bob Echois, a long-time Whataburger manager and a former marine. The third time in eight days that petitioner reported late for work, Mr. Echois, who had come to view petitioner as incompetent after he sent to the bank $100 more in cash than the deposit slip reflected, made a written report of Mr. Drake's tardiness and forwarded it to Mr. Turbeville, the area supervisor, who counselled petitioner, urging him to come to work on time. Mr. Turbeville was present on August 28, 1984, when petitioner arrived or 30 minutes late, his fourth late appearance for work at Unit No. 42. He had had a flat tire on his way to work, abandoned the car, and run the rest of the way. Mr. Turbeville asked for directions to the abandoned car, confirmed that the tire was flat, and asked Mr. Drake to report to his office the following day. At the meeting the following day, Mr. Turbeville placed him on disciplinary leave for four days for "excessive tardiness," Respondent's Exhibit A-30, after first, however, telling him he was going to fire him. To this, petitioner had responded with a claim that another employee, Ronnie Hill, had an even less satisfactory record for prompt arrivals which, he said, the time cards would bear out; and he threatened to retain a lawyer. It was true that Ronnie Hill arrived late some days, but it was because Mr. Echois instructed him to pick up certain supplies on his way to work. (T.157) Ronnie Hill is white. Unit No. 21 Instead of returning to Mr. Echois' supervision, petitioner reported to Unit No. 21 on September 2, 1994. He chose this assignment over returning to Unit No. 25, the alternative Mr. Turbeville offered. Petitioner felt the manager of Unit No. 21, Kim Pearson, did not back him up properly in his dealings with a subordinate, who was also a friend of the manager. In any event, the manager of Unit 21 gave petitioner a written reprimand for "[f]ailure to use proper set out procedure for breakfast items," Respondent's Exhibit A-28, on October 29, 1984, but, on November 3, 1984, rated him fully adequate in his overall classification and performance evaluations, while indicating that improvement was needed in certain categories, including dependability. Jack Riley replaced Don Turbeville as Whataburger's senior area supervisor. In speaking to managers in the area, he asked most of them, including Pearson, how he could help improve day-to-day operations. In reply, Mr. Pearson complained that Mr. Drake would not take directions. Mr. Riley had not received a good report from Mr. Turbeville about Mr. Drake, and, in visiting Whataburger outlets, had not been favorably impressed with petitioner. Once he walked in the unit... "[and] was probably in the unit ten to fifteen minutes before Larry even knew ... [H]e was busy reading the newspaper." (T.163) One Sunday afternoon he found petitioner watching a basketball game on a television set he had brought to work. (T.62). Unit No. 169 In order, he testified, to see how petitioner Drake would do in a "clean environment," Mr. Riley transferred him to Unit No. 169, where Jamie Harrelson was manager, and assigned him to the late night shift. The transfer was effective March 3, 1985. Respondent's Exhibit A-32. Some two weeks later, Mr. Riley terminated petitioner's employment, effective March 16, 1905. In the interim, Messrs. Drake and Riley spoke three times, the first at Mr. Riley's office when petitioner asked why he had been transferred. As reasons for discharge, Mr. Riley cited "poor attitude, failure to follow orders and being late for work on several occasions." Petitioner did not do his job well at Unit No. 169. He ignored instructions the manager left for him in a notebook, refused to look at her when she spoke to him, called the manager at home at 10:30 or 11:00 at night to complain about his schedule, called her at two in the morning to ask her permission to lend another Whataburger unit a CO2 tank which, as assistant manager, he might well have lent without special authorization, and arrived late for work by, at least on one occasion, well over an hour. That night he called to say "he was having his car repaired at almost 9:00 o'clock at night." (T. 203). Assistant managers who were white have been terminated "for being late to work in the same situation. (T.169) Mr. Riley believed that no Whataburger manager in Pensacola was willing to accept petitioner as an assistant manager. Employees' Race On June 2, 1985, Whataburger promoted Elijah Johnson, a black assistant manager, to manager. On January 27, 1985, Whataburger promoted Sandra Mack, another black assistant manager, to manager. Under Mr. Riley, who is white and still works as the senior area supervisor, Whataburger's employment of black persons reached a peak in the Tallahassee-Pensacola area. Of the 174 persons Whataburger employs in the area as "team members," 45, or 26 percent, are black. About 26 percent of the assistant managers in the area are also black and, since the recent promotions, three of eleven (or 33 percent) of the managers are black. Fifty-eight percent of the area's "team leaders" and 67 percent of the "breakfast coordinators" in the area are black. Until Mr. Drake made these accusations, neither Whataburger nor any of the managers with whom he worked had been accused of discriminating on grounds of race. Nor, however, was there a black manager in Pensacola until after petitioner was fired and complained to the FCHR.
The Issue Did the Respondent engage in a discriminatory employment practice by suspending the Petitioner from work?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Joeann F. Nelson, is a Black female. In 1997, she was employed as an aide working with developmentally disabled persons at Sunrise Community, Inc. The Respondent, Sunrise Community, Inc. (hereafter “Sunrise”) is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. On or about April 24, 1997, the Petitioner was suspended from her employment for a number of days by Sunrise. The Petitioner filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (hereafter “the Commission”) on May 8, 1997, alleging that her suspension was racially motivated, and a violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. The staff of the Commission investigated the complaint, and issued its Determination of No Cause on May 16, 2000. At the same time, the Commission gave the Petitioner notice of her right to an administrative hearing on the Commission’s findings. The Petitioner, while employed by the Respondent, was asked by her immediate supervisor to participate in taking residents of the facility to their group home. The Petitioner refused to take the residents complaining that another co-worker was scheduled to take the residents on the day in question. The supervisor told the Petitioner that the person who was scheduled to take the residents was too old to handle that job, and the Petitioner got into an argument about this matter. As a result of this refusal to take the residents and the argument, the Petitioner was suspended for a number of days. The refusal to follow the directions of her supervisor regarding her work and the confrontational argument with the supervisor over being asked to do a specific task that was within her job duties generally were sufficient cause for discipline. The Petitioner did not show that she was singled out or treated differently because of her race, either in being asked to perform the task or in being suspended for refusing to do the task. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a second complaint with the Commission on June 30, 1997, and raised additional issues regarding her discharge when she asked for her formal hearing on the Commission’s determination of no cause on the original complaint. However, the only matter properly before the undersigned in these proceedings is her suspension.
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 complaint upon a finding that there was no cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2000, 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 30th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: JoeAnne Nelson Post Office Box 76 Crawfordville, Florida 32326 Steven M. Weinger, Esquire Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, Tetzeli, P.A. 2650 Southwest 27th Avenue Second Floor Miami, Florida 33133 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact Respondent Pace is an employer who is subject to the provisions of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, in its Florida operations. The company sells retail goods at discount prices to buyers who qualify for membership in the shopping program. During the Christmas merchandising season, it was decided that Respondent Pace would add temporary security staff in Tampa, Florida, until the close of the season. Six people were to be recruited for the positions. Petitioner White, a black male, was hired to fill one of these temporary positions beginning October 25, 1989. The employment contract clearly advised Petitioner the position was temporary, but it was anticipated that the job would last approximately ten weeks. Pursuant to the contract, Petitioner could resign at any time and Respondent could terminate the relationship at any time, with or without cause. Three of the people hired were black, one was Hispanic and two were white. All six temporary employees signed the same type of employment contract. About one month after Petitioner was hired, the front end supervisor observed that the store did not need all six temporary security guards for the season as originally anticipated. It was decided that one of these employees would be terminated. During Petitioner's employment, both the front end supervisor and the assistant front end supervisor found working with him to be difficult. Petitioner often challenged the directives given to him by his two supervisors and was critical and argumentative. He complained about scheduling, objected to break procedures and voiced protest about the small amount of time allowed for breaks. Of all of the temporary employees, Petitioner White was the most obstreperous in his relationship with supervisors and other employees. After discussion between the two supervisors, it was decided that he would be the employee asked to leave. On Friday, December 1, 1989, the front end supervisor resolved that Petitioner would be dismissed before the week was out. The work week ran from Monday through Sunday. In an unrelated event that took place after the termination decision was made, Petitioner White and another temporary security employee had an argument during their shift together. The squabble took place in the presence of customers at the front of the store. It was quickly suppressed by the assistant front end supervisor. After the front end supervisor became aware of the incident, she decided to complete the planned dismissal of Petitioner before his shift ended on that day because his disruptiveness was interfering with employee relations to a greater degree. Her decision was communicated to the store manager and he agreed to be close by when she discharged the Petitioner. When Petitioner was told that his employment was terminated because there was not enough work for six temporary employees, he did not believe the stated reason. He erroneously assumed the adverse personnel action was based solely upon the earlier embroilment with his co-worker. This argument hastened the planned termination by two days, but it was not the deciding factor. Overhiring of temporary seasonal employees is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination of temporary employees. There has been no showing that the reason stated for the termination was pretextual. The store manager approached Petitioner and the supervisor after the termination was announced but before the Petitioner had ended his loud protest of his supervisor's decision. The store manager told Petitioner to keep quiet and that he was "damn fired." Petitioner responded to the store manager's pronouncement by saying, "Brother, don't use no damn to me." The store manager then asserted they were not brothers. He called Petitioner a "damn nigger." Petitioner left the workplace, even though he had not cleaned out his locker and his shift had not ended. The derogatory comments relating to race were abusive and took place in the working environment while Petitioner was still in the status of an employee who was going through the discharge process. The use of the racial epithet by the store manager was demeaning and disconcerting. The next day, when Petitioner returned to clean out his locker, the store manager attempted to apologize for his derogatory comment. Petitioner did not accept the apology. Respondent Pace has well established policies which prohibit harassment in the work place. These policies include a prohibition against verbal comments that are derogatory in nature relating to another's race. Harassment of this type is not tolerated at any level of the company and will result in severe disciplinary action, up to an including termination of offending persons. Respondent Pace was not made aware of the store manager's use of the racial epithet except through this proceeding. The front end supervisor removed herself from the discussion between Petitioner and the store manager. She did not overhear the racial epithet. The use of the racial epithet was an isolated event, according to the facts adduced at hearing.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is recommended that the Human Relations commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition as an unlawful employment practice has not been demonstrated in this case. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of September, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 17th day of September, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3618 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #9. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5 - #7. Accepted. See HO #6. Rejected. Irrelevant. Petitioner was a temporary at will employee who was not subject to the company's personnel guidelines for company employees. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #7 and #9. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #15. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #9. Rejected. It was not proved that additional security employees were hired after Petitioner was terminated. In addition, seniority was not the criteria used for termination. The proposed finding is contrary to fact. See HO #5 - #6. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. See HO #3. 3. Accepted. 4. Accepted. See HO #6. 5. Accepted. See HO #7. 6. Accepted. See HO #8. 7. Accepted. See HO #10. 8. Accepted. See HO #13. 9. Accepted. See HO #14 and #15. COPIES FURNISHED: ALBERT A WHITE 809 GRANITE RD BRANDON FL 33510 DONALD C WORKS III ESQ RUDEN BARNETT McCLOSKY SMITH SCHUSTER & RUSSELL 200 E BROWARD BLVD PO BOX 1900 FT LAUDERDALE FL 33302 RONALD M McELRATH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BLDG F SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE FL 32399-1570 DANA BAIRD ESQ GENERAL COUNSEL FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BLDG F SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE FL 32399-1570
The Issue The issues are whether the Respondents committed unlawful employment practices against Petitioner, and if so, to what relief is she entitled.
Findings Of Fact In the spring of 1994, Respondent CSD began operating a residential detention program for juvenile offenders pursuant to a contract with the Department of Juvenile Justice. The purpose of the program, commonly known as Hamilton House, was to provide redirection to the lives of its youthful residents/clients. Hamilton House had 48 beds divided between two dormitories. Respondent CSD assigned each resident to the appropriate dormitory, level six or level eight, depending on the type of security and rehabilitative services required. The program included an educational program as well as facilities for vocational and recreational activities. Respondent CSD employed Petitioner, a 51 year-old white female, as a resident advisor at Hamilton House from March 24, 1994 through June 30, 1996. Petitioner initially worked the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift in the level six dormitory. At times she served as the acting shift supervisor though she was not paid a supervisor's wages. When Petitioner began working for Respondent CSD, she lived with her elderly mother, Lotus Musgrove, whose colon cancer was in remission. At that time, Mrs. Musgrove was able to live independently and did not need a caretaker. On April 24, 1994, some of the clients managed to gain access to a bottle containing an alcoholic beverage. Petitioner and other employees received a verbal warning for failing to adequately monitor the behavior and movement of the clients. A training letter was placed in each employee's personnel file. In May of 1995, Respondent CSD hired Bobby Williams, Sr., as a resident advisor in the level eight dormitory. Mr. Williams is a black male. He eventually assumed the position of shift supervisor for the entire facility. There is no evidence that Petitioner sought this full-time position or a similar supervisory position at any time during her employment with Respondent CSD. In October of 1995, some of the clients accused Petitioner and another staff member of inappropriate conduct including, but not limited to, furnishing them with prohibited magazines and movies. As a result of the allegations, Respondent CSD suspended Petitioner and her co-worker without pay on October 18, 1995. By letter dated October 20, 1995, Respondent CSD advised Petitioner in writing that there was insufficient evidence of misconduct to warrant termination of her employment. However, the letter stated that Petitioner had violated company policy and procedure by allowing a youth to leave his room for extended periods after curfew. Respondent CSD paid Petitioner and her co- worker for the time they were suspended during the internal investigation. Respondent CSD subsequently reassigned Petitioner and her co-worker to work in a different dormitory and on a different shift. The change in time and location of their work shift was necessary to ensure there was no contact between them and the clients who had accused them of improper conduct. Petitioner was assigned to work the 3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. shift in the level eight dormitory. In a written statement dated October 23, 1995, Petitioner objected to the change in her shift. She preferred to continue working the 11:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. shift. She asserted that, during the day, she took care of her 78 year-old mother who had cancer. Respondent CSD did not immediately honor Petitioner's request. On or about November 24, 1995, Petitioner voluntarily purchased some supplies in the amount of $20.98 from a retail store. The supplies included the following: hand sprayers, cotton swabs, hydrogen peroxide, rubbing alcohol, highlighters, marker, Sharpies, and other miscellaneous items. Petitioner requested reimbursement from Respondent CSD because she intended to use the supplies at work. Respondent CSD declined to reimburse Petitioner for the supplies. There is no evidence that Respondent CSD ever authorized the purchase of the supplies. On December 11, 1995, a resident in the level eight dormitory attempted to discard a container of contraband tobacco. Petitioner detected his effort and responded appropriately. She received a letter of commendation for exemplary action which was placed in her personnel file. On January 23, 1996, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Juvenile Justice made a formal and final determination that "[i]t is inconclusive that staff members Julie Toughton and Alice Musgrove engaged in improper conduct with clients." On or about February 1, 1996, Petitioner took a box of pens and pencils from a client's desk. The client became upset and exhibited inappropriate behavior toward Petitioner. As a result of the client's tantrum, Petitioner took token-economy points from the client. Petitioner filed a written complaint dated February 4, 1996, with Respondent CSD after learning that one of her supervisors, Mike Myers, changed the client's point sheet. Petitioner's February 4, 1996, statement also asserted that Supervisor Myers was mishandling clients' mail. She complained that he was logging clients' mail and making the clients read their personnel mail to him. According to Petitioner, handling client mail was the responsibility of "line staff." On one occasion in February 1996, Petitioner was 30 minutes late reporting to her assigned duty station in the dormitory. She spent that time in the administration building because she refused to work with one of her co-workers. Supervisor Myers was responsible for changing Petitioner's time sheet to reflect a 30-minute deduction in regular time. On another occasion in February 1996, Petitioner and other employees worked two hours of overtime due to a crisis situation with one of the clients. Petitioner elected to "bank" the overtime rather than receive time-and-one-half of overtime pay. The other employees chose to receive overtime pay. Petitioner was off from work on February 22-23, 1996. When Petitioner arrived at work on February 24, 1996, her time sheet was not with the time sheets of other employees. Petitioner's time sheet was locked in a supervisor's office until February 26, 1996, because the supervisor was not at work. There is no indication in the record whether Petitioner's time sheet was locked up inadvertently or due to a dispute over Petitioner's wages. On March 1, 1996, Petitioner filed a written grievance with Respondent CSD regarding her pay. She claimed that Supervisor Myers was harassing her and discriminating against her by changing her time sheet without her knowledge. Specifically, Petitioner complained that Mr. Myers cheated her out of 30 minutes of regular time on one occasion and two hours of overtime on another occasion. She complained that her time sheet was locked in a supervisor's office for four days. On March 4, 1996, the Program Director, Dale Edwards, agreed that Petitioner should not be penalized for one-half hour of regular pay because she was in the administration building during the disputed time. Additionally, Mr. Edwards directed Supervisor Myers not to change an employee's time sheet without prior approval. He also requested that Petitioner furnish documentation that the company owed her for the two hours of overtime. Mr. Edwards was under the mistaken impression that the dispute over Petitioner's time sheet had been resolved. In March of 1996, Petitioner was working the midnight shift in dormitory eight consistent with her written request dated October 23, 1995. On March 18, 1996 and March 27, 1996, Petitioner made written requests for a change to the 7:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. shift. Petitioner specifically wanted to replace a Ms. Aikens on the morning shift. Respondent CSD did not honor Petitioner's request. However, there is no evidence showing that Ms. Aiken's position was ever filled, and if so, whether Respondent CSD selected a person of a different race or a younger to file the position. Petitioner was absent from work between April 8, 1996, and April 16, 1996, on April 22, 1996, and on April 29, 1996, due to illness and/or medical appointments. While she was absent, her inner-office mail box became so full that the mail had to be removed. The administrative manager gave Petitioner's mail to her supervisor. On April 23, 1996, Supervisor Myers completed Petitioner's annual performance appraisal for the period March 14, 1995 through March 14, 1996. Petitioner disagreed with the determination that she had difficulty communicating with others. Petitioner's mental health counselor, Christine Clark, sent Mr. Edwards an unsolicited letter dated April 23, 1996. According to the letter, Ms. Clark was treating Petitioner for family/employment related stress reduction. The letter states as follows in pertinent part: Due to the demands of her home environment, caretaking of her elderly mother who is dying from colon cancer, I am recommending that Ms. Musgrove be reassigned new working hours, namely a day schedule of approximately 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM in order to effectively and efficiently facilitate the evening and night care of her mother. In addition, Ms. Musgrove appears to have unresolved issues regarding her personnel file and salary still due to her for 30 minutes or .5 hour pay as well as two hours uncompensated work from several weeks ago. I personally read your approval for this compensation but apparently this has still not yet been indicated on her pay check. There also remain the allegations of her misconduct charges that appears not to be fully resolved. As an employee she does have the legal right to have these fully addressed and challenged. From my understanding that although the misconduct charges have been dropped, there are still areas that compromise Ms. Musgrove's reputation as a resident advisor. Mr. Edwards did not disclose the contents of Ms. Clark's letter to any employee of Respondent CSD other than his superiors, who advised him to get a release from Petitioner before responding to the letter. After receiving Ms. Clark's letter, Mr. Edwards had a telephone conversation with Petitioner's mother because Petitioner was not at work or at home. During the conversation, Mr. Edwards inquired about the mother's health. Mr. Edwards learned that Mrs. Musgrove's cancer had been in remission since 1993 and that she no longer required assistance with daily living activities. Mr. Edwards did not disclose any information regarding Petitioner's employment status, medical condition, or personal business to Mrs. Musgrove. Petitioner's sister placed an unsolicited telephone call to Mr. Edwards several days after he talked to Mrs. Musgrove. The purpose of the call was to thank Mr. Edwards for his concern over Mrs. Musgrove's health. During the telephone call, Mr. Edwards and Petitioner's sister did not exchange any information relating to Petitioner's employment, medical condition, or personal business. On April 29, 1996, all staff at Hamilton House received a memorandum advising them as follows, in pertinent part: As a result of the recent competitive bid conducted by District 3, Department of Juvenile Justice, Gator Human Services has been awarded the contract to operate the Hamilton County Youth Treatment Complex starting July 1, 1996. The memorandum also included information regarding the transfer of operations to the new service provider. Respondent CSD advised employees that, if requested, it would supply Gator Human Services the name, position title, hire date, and current salary of each employee of record. Respondent CSD stated that no other information would be given to the new organization without the consent of the employee. On May 1, 1996, Mr. Edwards wrote two memoranda regarding Petitioner's pay. First, Mr. Edwards directed the administrative manager to pay Petitioner for .5 hours of regular wages out of the company's petty cash fund and to get a receipt for the payment. Second, he directed the resident life manager to allow Petitioner to leave work two hours early (with pay) at a time of her choosing within the next work week. Petitioner could not "bank" the time indefinitely because Respondent CSD's contract was scheduled to expire on June 30, 1996. Mr. Edwards phoned Petitioner at home on May 2, 1996, to request a written release so that he could respond to Ms. Clark's letter. Petitioner wrote that release on May 3, 1996. The release gave Mr. Edwards permission to disclose confidential information to Ms. Clark. On May 3, 1996, Petitioner signed a written acknowledgment that receipt of $4.06 in payment for .5 regular hours would end the issue of the .5 regular hours owed to her. On May 10, 1996, Respondent Gator informed the staff at Hamilton House of the procedure for handling applications for employment with Respondent Gator's new program, Tiger Success Center. Applications were due on or before May 28, 1996. Interviews were to be scheduled between May 28, 1996, and June 7, 1996. Applicants would be advised of the final selections and employment offers by June 14, 1996. Respondent Gator requested that each applicant take a copy of their most recent performance appraisal to their employment interview. By letter dated May 13, 1996, Mr. Edwards responded to Ms. Clark's inquiry. First, he explained that questions regarding Petitioner's compensation had been resolved. Second, he stated that letters from the Department of Juvenile Justice and from the Office of the Inspector General had been added to Petitioner's personnel file, clearing her of all misconduct allegations. Third, he explained that the day shift would be the least desirable shift in terms of stress reduction because the activity level of the residents is highest during the day. Mr. Edwards also revealed that Petitioner's mother was treated successfully for cancer in 1993 and that her current health failed to support the need for a change in Petitioner's shift. Finally, Mr. Edwards noted that he had to consider the needs of the residents and other staff. A copy of Ms. Clark's inquiry and Mr. Edwards' response were placed in Petitioner's personnel file. Neither of the documents were disclosed to unauthorized persons. On May 22, 1996, the employees at Hamilton House received another memorandum advising them that after June 30, 1996, Respondent CSD would no longer operate the facility. The employees were encouraged to apply for employment with the new organization. Petitioner was scheduled for an employment interview on May 30, 1996. However, the interview was rescheduled because she was unable to keep the appointment. Petitioner's application for employment with Respondent Gator is dated May 31, 1996. She also furnished Respondent Gator with copies of three performance appraisals. Petitioner's signature on the application authorized Respondent Gator to make inquiries of references and former employers regarding her general character and past performance. There is no evidence that Respondent Gator ever made any such inquiries about Petitioner. A panel of three people representing Respondent Gator interviewed Petitioner. The panel asked her the same questions that they asked other applicants. Petitioner was very negative and critical of the existing program and Respondent CSD during her interview. After the interview, each member of the interview panel tallied their score sheets independently. All three agreed that Petitioner should not be given further consideration for employment with Respondent Gator because of her negative attitude and low interview scores. On June 13, 1996, Petitioner received a memorandum from Respondent Gator stating that the company was unable to offer her a position of employment. That same day, Respondent Gator offered employment to every other Hamilton House staff applicant except one black male, Mr. Humphrey. Respondent Gator hired a black female, Latasha Bristol, who worked in the level eight dormitory with Petitioner. Ms. Bristol is younger than Petitioner. However, she was not hired to replace Petitioner. Respondent Gator hired Ms. Bristol to work in the level six dormitory. Respondent Gator offered an employment position to a white female, Lucy Oxendine. Ms. Oxendine was over 60 years old at the time. She declined to accept a job with Respondent Gator for personal reasons. Mr. Edwards was hired by Respondent Gator to continue as program director after July 1, 1996. However, neither he nor any other employee of Respondent CSD shared any information about Petitioner with Respondent Gator or had any input into Respondent Gator's decision not to hire Petitioner. Respondent Gator based its decision not to employ Petitioner solely on the results of her interview which was very negative. On June 14, 1996, the staff at Hamilton House received a memorandum stating that anyone interested in accepting employment with Respondent Gator must sign up on June 19, 1996. On June 14, 1996, Petitioner's doctor faxed a medical excuse to Respondent CSD stating that Petitioner could not return to work for an undetermined period of time. The document indicates that Petitioner's diagnosis involved anxiety, depression, and work-related stress. The doctor commented that Petitioner was the primary caretaker of her mother who was terminally ill with cancer. The doctor's June 14, 1996, fax was received by Respondent CSD in the administrative manager's office. It was on her desk for a brief period of time before it was delivered to Mr. Edwards. There is no credible evidence that any employee of Respondent CSD disclosed the contents of the fax to unauthorized persons. Petitioner's doctor did not give her permission to return to work until after July 1, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that FCHR enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's Charges of Discrimination against both Respondent CSD and Respondent Gator. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: H. B. Stivers, Esquire Levine and Stivers 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Faye Musgrove Post Office Box 657 Live Oak, Florida 32064 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether the Respondent discriminated against Ruby D. Johnson on the basis of a handicap in violation of the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner began employment with the Respondent at its Lake City, Florida, plant during 1977 or 1978. The Respondent manufactures metal parts for automobiles. The Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as a parts assembly worker. At the time the Petitioner began employment with the Respondent, she informed the Respondent that she did not have any handicap. On June 28, 1984, the Petitioner was accidently struck on the head with a broom by another employee while at work. She was struck with the straw end of the broom. The Petitioner did not return to her job for approximately two months after being struck on the head. The Petitioner was treated by George G. Feussner, M.D. When Dr. Feussner authorized the Petitioner's return to work, he recommended that she not be required to perform any work requiring standing or leaning, climbing or operation of dangerous equipment for approximately three to four weeks. In September, 1985, the Petitioner experienced dizziness and fell while at work. In a letter dated October 2, 1985, Dr. Feussner informed the Respondent of the following: Despite and [sic] extensive evaluation of this lady, I cannot find objective findings to go along with her symptoms. I believe that she should be able to return to work at her regular job, but I still think that it would be dangerous considering her emotional dedication to her symptoms she is likely to injure herself if she works around dangerous equipment or at heights. She should therefore find a job that does not involve these activities... The Petitioner, when she tried to return to work, was not allowed to work because she had filed a workmen's compensation claim as a result of her alleged condition. This claim was being disputed by the Respondent's workmen compensation insurance carrier. On October 31, 1985, the Respondent laid off several employees with seniority equal to or greater than the Petitioner's seniority. Employees were laid off because of a lack of work. The Petitioner would have been laid off also, but was not because of the disputed claim over workmen's compensation. In November, 1985, the Petitioner's workmen compensation claim was denied. At that time the Petitioner was informed that she was also being laid off. In October, 1986, the Respondent began recalling the employees it had laid off in November, 1985. The Petitioner was not recalled, however, because of the restrictions on the Petitioner's ability to work. The Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice with the Commission in October, 1986. On November 13, 1987, the Commission issued a Notice of Determination: No Cause.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying the Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of September, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Ruby D. Johnson 1802 North Georgia Street Lake City, Florida 32055 William B. Hatfield Supervisor of Human Relations ITT Thompson Industries - Metal Division Post Office Box 928 Valdosta, Georgia 31603-0928 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission On Human Relations, Florida 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission On Human Relations, Florida 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1025 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Petitioner abandoned his position with the Respondent and resigned from Career Service pursuant to the personnel rules of the Career Service System?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee of the Respondent for more than five years. At all times relevant hereto, the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent. During the month of December, 1986, and the portion of January, 1987, prior to the date the Petitioner was removed from his position, the Petitioner was assigned to the Blountstown, Florida, road maintenance office. The Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Mr. Gustavev Goodwin. Mr. Goodwin was an HMT-3 with the Respondent and supervised a maintenance crew of three men, including the Petitioner. Mr. Goodwin was the Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Mr. Lloyd Blackburn, a Highway Maintenance Supervisor with the Respondent, was Mr. Goodwin's immediate supervisor. Mr. Blackburn supervises all crews operating out of the Blountstown office. The Petitioner and his crew worked a 10-hour day, 4 days a week. Mr. Goodwin prepares a weekly crew report on a daily basis. Mr. Goodwin records the hours a crew member worked or, if a crew member was not present, Mr. Goodwin notes the absence and the reason for the absence. Mr. Blackburn transfers the information recorded on the weekly crew reports to timesheets which are used for payroll purposes. If approval of a request for leave is required, employees are required to report to their crew supervisor or Mr. Blackburn. The Petitioner would have been required to obtain approval of leave from Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn, if prior approval had been required. In cases of sick leave, employees were expected to call by telephone on the day of the illness or injury and inform Mr. Blackburn. Mr. Blackburn was at the office each work day in the morning before the crews completed fueling their trucks and departed for the day. Mr. Blackburn was then out of the office during most of the remainder of the day. During the last week of December, 1986, Mr. Goodwin, the Petitioner and the other members of Mr. Goodwin's crew were "bull skating" (joking and talking). The Petitioner told Mr. Goodwin in response to some comment, probably pertaining to the work that would be done the first week of January, 1987, that "I won't be here next week anyway. I be in the hospital." Although Mr. Goodwin did not remember the Petitioner having made these comments, the Petitioner and one of the crew members, Mr. Arthur Jackson, both testified that the comments were made. Neither Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn told the Petitioner that he could be absent from work during the first week of January, 1987. The Petitioner was absent from work during the first week of January, 1987 -- January 5, 6, 7 and 8, 1987. Neither Mr. Goodwin nor Mr. Blackburn were contacted on January 5-8, 1987, by the Petitioner or anyone on behalf of the Petitioner, about the Petitioner's absence. Neither Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn told the Petitioner that his absence on January 5-8, 1937, was approved. The Petitioner had obtained approval of annual leave prior to the period at issue in this case. The Petitioner had planned to go to the hospital on January 5, 1987, because of problems he has had with his legs, and to remain in the hospital for the remainder of the week. Because of the problems with his legs and his automobile, the Petitioner did not go to the hospital or see a doctor on January 5, 1987. On January 8, 1987, the Petitioner had a friend drive him to Panama City, Florida, where he remained under the care of Dr. Ernest G. Haslam, M.D., in the hospital, until January 12, 1987. Although the Petitioner does not have a telephone at his residence, Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn could have been contacted by Petitioner's wife, who works at Hardees, or by a friend. The Petitioner acknowledged receipt on April 14, 1983, of the Florida Department of Transportation Employee Handbook and his responsibility to review the handbook in detail and to request clarification, if necessary. On page 43 of the handbook it is provided that "[a]fter an unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from Career Service ..." On page 22 of the handbook it is provided that "[i]f a medical appointment is necessary during work hours, you should obtain `approval, in advance, to use your earned sick leave." By certified letter from Allen Potter, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department, dated January 8, 1976, the Petitioner was informed that he was deemed to have abandoned his position with the Respondent and to have resigned from the Career Service because of his absence from work during the first week of January, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration rule that the Petitioner, Albert T. Smith, has not abandoned his position with the Respondent, the Department of Transportation, and has not resigned from the Career Service. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0450 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s), if any, in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RD ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The Petitioner has filed a letter dated April 10, 1987. The only proposed finding of fact contained in this letter concerns the question of whether the Petitioner told his supervisor, Mr. Goodwin, that he would not be at work during the period of time at issue in this case. The proposed finding of fact has been accepted in RD 10. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding RD Number of Acceptance of Fact Number or Reason for Rejection 1 RD 1-4 and 8. 2 RD 5-7 and 9. 3 RD 10-11. 4 RD 11 and 13. The evidence did not prove that the Petitioner had obtained prior approval for sick leave subsequent to the period of time involved in this case. The evidence only proved that the Petitioner had on other occasions received prior approval of annual leave. 5 RD 19-20. RD 16 and 18. The evidence does not prove that the Petitioner got into a car and drove to town. RD 21. The Petitioner was not, however, "absent from his position without authorized leave ..." COPIES FURNISHED: Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Kay N. Henderson, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, MS 58 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Mr. Albert T. Smith Route 1, Box 135, B 69A Blountstown, Florida 32424 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent is guilty of discrimination in employment on the basis of race or sex.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Valerie Miller-Moskowitz. She was employed by Respondent from August 4, 1987 until termination of her employment on September 9, 1987. Respondent is the Tom James Company, an interstate mail order clothing business based in Brentwood, Tennessee with an area sales office in Tampa, Florida. Respondent sells garments through its salespersons as opposed to operation of a retail store. These salespersons, including the office manager, are generally in the office only in the late afternoon in order to make telephonecalls and arrange appointments with customers for the following day. The manager of Respondent's Tampa office, with authority to fire, hire and impose disciplinary actions upon employees at all times pertinent to these proceedings, was Mark Dunphy. Through a process of interviews, Petitioner became a finalist for Respondent's vacant position of "operations manager" in the Tampa office. In the final interview, Petitioner went to Dunphy's home where he and his wife observed Petitioner's operation of a personal computer. Skill in the usage of the personal computer was important to Dunphy since he expected the new operations manager to prepare letters for mass mailing to potential customers through the use of a software program on the computer. The letters, extolling the company's products, would be mailed to potential customers after preparation by the operations manager. Following completion of all interviews, including a psychological evaluation of Petitioner conducted over the telephone with Petitioner by an individual hired by Respondent for that purpose, Dunphy formally hired Petitioner. This occurred sometime around the first of August of 1987. Petitioner's duties as operations manager consisted of being a "jack of all trades" with responsibility for typing, telephone answering and meeting with customers in the absence of salespersons in the office. She was also expected to operate the computer, now moved to the office from Dunphy's home, and to prepare mass mailings. Petitioner initially reported for work on August 4, 1987. At the conclusion of Petitioner's first day on the job, Dunphy went by Petitioner's home at her request. Petitioner was upset as the result of a telephone call from her husband and talked with Dunphy regarding her martial problems. After some discussion, Dunphy, who was growing hungry, asked Petitioner to have a drink and dinner at a local Mexican restaurant. Petitioner consented. The two went to the restaurant, had dinner and continued to discuss their personal backgrounds and experiences. Petitioner, who is black, related her disappointment with her present separation from her husband, who is white. Dunphy is also white. At the conclusion of the dinner, both left for their respective homes in their separate automobiles. As her employment progressed in the following days, Petitioner experienced some difficulty operating the personal computer at the office and called Dunphy's wife on several occasions for guidance in the effective use of the machine. While she managed accounting matters in the office quite well, Petitioner was unable at any time during her brief employment to produce mass mailing letters in a quantity sufficient to meet Dunphy's expectations. Although he was becoming aware that Petitioner's computer skills were not as proficient as he desired, Dunphy continued an amicable relationship with Petitioner. On August 6, 1987, he again invited Petitioner to go out for drinks, but she refused. There were subsequent invitations from Dunphy during thenext week to go out for drinks, to go jogging, and to go dancing. Petitioner declined all these invitations from Dunphy. Approximately two weeks after beginning her employment, Petitioner went to Jacksonville, Florida, for a job related training session sponsored by Respondent. Upon conclusion of the training session on or about August 14, 1987, she and Dunphy agreed in the course of a telephone conversation that Dunphy would meet her at the airport and give her a ride to her home. Dunphy complied and upon arriving at Petitioner's residence, Dunphy escorted her inside where he attempted to embrace and kiss her. Petitioner told him "you shouldn't do this to your wife." Dunphy did not attempt to press his affections further and left Petitioner's home. One day during the next week, in the course of conversation, Petitioner told Dunphy that the day, August 18, 1987, was her birthday. Dunphy proceeded to give her a birthday card in which he inscribed the following: Happy B. Day Val- you inspire me with your attitude toward life, and what life throws at us from time to time. Your[sic] tough in your determination to make a success of your self even in tough personal times. I know you will help me in achieveing[sic] my goals while we are associated together. I know I will be helpful to you in achieveing[sic] your dreams & goals. --This good for one marguerita. Mark In the ensuing days, Petitioner began to be late for work at various times, although Dunphy did not formally document this deterioration of Petitioner's attendance in any time records. Petitioner's car was burglarized during the week of August 24, 1987, and she took time from work to replace her driver's license, credit cards and other documents that were stolen from the vehicle. Dunphy became concerned about Petitioner's attendance at work and the two of them quarreled. Petitioner's husband contacted her in the early part of September, 1987. He was ready to conclude their separation and needed her to come to New York and assist in his move to Florida. Petitioner met with Dunphy on the morning of September 9, 1987, and informed him of her intention to take the following two work days (Thursday and Friday) off in order to go to New York to deal with family business matters. When Dunphy expressed reluctance to authorize the time off for Petitioner, she became angry and declared that she would be taking the time off anyway because her "family came first." Dunphy, already disappointed with Petitioner's failure to meet expectations regarding operation of the personal computer and preparation of mass mailing materials, also became angry and told Petitioner to leave since she was going anyway. Petitioner took Dunphy's response to mean that she was fired and left the business premises. Later in the day, Petitioner contacted an accountant in the company's home office for assistance in persuading Dunphy to reconsider and continue her employment. Those efforts were unsuccessful. After conclusion of her trip to New York, Petitioner wrote to Respondent's president at the company's home office on September 16, 1987, and complained of Dunphy's verbal abuse and unprofessional displays of anger. In the letter, she opined that Dunphy was a good salesman, but needed additional training in order to become a "people oriented supervisor." Notably, she made no specific reference to racial discrimination or sexual harassment in the letter, although she noted Dunphy's attempts "to pressure the Operations Manager into going out for drinks, when both parties are married."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my ruling on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. Rejected, a mere restatement of Petitioner's position. To the extent that this proposed finding seeks to establish that Petitioner rejected advances of Mark Dunphy, the proposed finding has been substantially adopted with regard to one occasion, but not verbatim. Adopted in substance. Rejected, argumentative as to legal conclusion regarding burden of proof rather than proposed finding of fact. 6 Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected, relevancy, conclusion of law. Adopted in substance as to firing and date of same. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence, legal conclusion and argumentative. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-3. Rejected, unnecessary. Modified to extent that Dunphy operated Respondent's Tampa office. Addressed in substance as to Respondent Tom James Company. 6.-10. Adopted in substance, but not verbatim. Petitioner's hiring found to have occurred on August 4, 1987, otherwise this proposed finding is adopted in substance. Adopted by reference. Not supported by weight of the evidence with regard to lack of capability of Petitioner, adopted in substance with regard to Dunphy's disappointment with her performance abilities. Adopted in substance. Petitioner's version that August 4, 1987, was her first day of work is adopted on the basis of the witness' credibility as opposed to Dunphy's testimony on this point. 16.-19. Adopted in substance. 20. Rejected, relevancy. 21.-23. Rejected, relevancy. 24. Adopted by reference. 26. Rejected, relevancy and cumulative. 27.-28. Adopted in substance. 29.-30. Rejected, relevancy. Rejected, cumulative. Rejected, cumulative. 33.-34. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. Rejected as to Dunphy's version of these events on the basis of the comparative creditability of the witnesses on this particular point. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. 38.-41. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. 42.-44. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 45.-48. Rejected, unnecessary. 49.-66. Rejected as argumentative of proposed findings postulated by Petitioner. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin Executi
The Issue The issue at the hearing was whether Petitioner is delinquent in the progress of State Project Number 72160-3553 pursuant to Rule 14-23.001, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact On September 30, 1987, the Department received bids on Stat Project number 72160-3553. On November 16, 1987, the Department awarded the project to Petitioner. The project consisted of the expansion and improvement of the Godby Lake Bridge on State Road 13 near Orange Park, Florida. In addition to widening the bridge, the project entailed curbs, sidewalks and relocating high tension power lines and poles from the west side of the bridge to the east side of the bridge. Because of the power poles and the location of the bridge in the surrounding area the work had to be performed on the east side of the bridge first. The power poles and lines would be moved from the west side of the bridge to the east side of the bridge second. The work on the west side of the bridge would be completed third. Additionally, the work had to performed without shutting down the lanes to traffic. However, later in the project, the Department decided to waive the lane requirement in order to facilitate the remaining work on the project. Under the contract, time was of the essence for the project. Contract time extensions for the project were governed in the contract as follows: The Department may grant an extension of contract time when a controlling time of work is delayed by factors determined to be beyond the Contractor's control which could not be reasonably anticipated at the time bids for the project were received. Such extension of time may be allowed only for delays occurring during the contract time period or authorized extensions of the contract time period... A preliminary request for an extension of contract time shall be made in writing to the Engineer within ten calendar days after commencement of a delay to a controlling item of work or the Contractor shall waive any rights to an extension of the contract time for that delay. In the case of a continuing delay only one request is necessary. Each request for extension of time shall include a description of the dates and cause of the delay, a complete description of the magnitude of the delay, and a list of the controlling items of work affected by the delay. Within 30 days after elimination of the delay, or receipt of a written request from the Engineer, the Contractor shall submit all documentation for the delay and a request of the exact number of days justified to be added to the contract time. If the Contractor claims additional compensation in addition to a time extension, the documentation must also include detailed cost analysis of the claimed extra compensation. Failure to deliver the required notice or documentation within the required period shall constitute an irrevocable waiver of an extension to the contract time for that delay. Failure by the Contractor to provide sufficient documentation, justification, records, etc., to support a request for additional contract time shall be a valid basis for denial of the request by the Department, either in part or entirely. The plans and specifications for the project required the project to be completed within 355 days. The first chargeable day under the contract was January 21, 1988. The resulting completion date would, therefore, have been January 9, 1989. However two supplemental agreements provided additional contract days. The agreements extended the contract time period by 45 days. As a result, the project completion date was March 11, 1989. Up to the date of the hearing Petitioner did not indicate to Respondent that it considered the contract time period with extensions to be inadequate or unreasonable. At the hearing Petitioner indicated such a belief. Additionally, the plans and specifications for the project clearly showed the Department's right of way for the bridge and the Department's construction easements for the bridge. Other than what was shown on the project plans and specifications, the plans and specifications did not provide for any additional right of way or construction easements. The contract incorporated The 1986 Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. The specifications provide for access as follows: Right of Way Furnished by Department. Except as otherwise stipulated in these Specifications or as may be shown in the plans, all right of way necessary for the proper completion of the work will be furnished by the Department, without cost to the Contractor. The present case clearly falls within the exception in the above language since the plans and specifications disclosed the limits of the right of way and construction easements being supplied by DOT. The burden was therefore on Petitioner to supply any additional easements it felt were necessary to properly complete the project. Prior to bidding the project, Petitioner studied the bid blank, proposed plans and specifications for the project. Additionally, Petitioner viewed the project site and the surrounding area prior to submitting its bid. Petitioner observed that the work area for the project would be "tight" due to the limited right of way and construction easements provided by DOT in the plans and specifications and due to the obstruction of private docks in close proximity to the bridge. However, Petitioner did not protest or otherwise inform DOT of its concerns regarding the work space prior to the award of the bid. Instead, Petitioner elected to gamble on being able to do the job as specified. Likewise, Petitioner observed, prior to bidding the project that water access would be required. Petitioner had noticed that the property adjacent to the southeast corner of the project was for sale. Petitioner also knew that the owner of that property had previously granted DOT a construction easement over part of the property. Based on the above facts, Petitioner assumed that river access could be acquired over the adjacent property and included approximately $15,000 in its bid for acquisition of such water access. Petitioner did not contact the landowner to see if such an arrangement was possible prior to submitting its bid or prior to the award of the bid Petitioner elected to gamble on such access being available. Once the project was awarded to Petitioner on November 16, 1988, Petitioner immediately began its attempts to obtain a water access. After the award of the bid to Petitioner but prior to commencement of the contract, the Jacksonville Electrical Authority (JEA) erected its utility poles on the east side of the bridge. The work was performed out of order. The utility poles' placement was such that the poles partially blocked the right of way and construction easements supplied by DOT and made it impossible to drive pilings at the ends of the bridge. Petitioner complained about the utility poles and their effect to Respondent at the preconstruction conference on December 9, 1987. The poles were eventually removed and the project was officially commenced on January 9, 1988, almost two months after the award of the bid. Petitioner was granted 14 additional contract days for the interference with the pile driving caused by the power poles' premature placement. However, Petitioner did not receive any additional days for the partial blockage of the right of way and construction easements since no delay was caused by that blockage. The partial blockage only interfered with light equipment being delivered to the job site. The poles did not interfere with the delivery of the crane and barge to the job site since the easement was too steep for the heavier equipment to traverse. A separate water access would still be required for the crane and barge to be delivered to the project site. Petitioner had not acquired such an access on January 9, 1988. Petitioner did not begin work on the project until March 2, 1988, some two months after the project period had commenced. Petitioner did not move any heavy equipment onto the project site during this period. Instead, Petitioner continued to seek a water access to the project site which could handle the heavy equipment and barges Petitioner determined it would need to adequately perform the work on the project. The search for access was necessitated by Petitioner's inability to contract for such access with the landowner whose land was immediately adjacent to the project site. The landowner demanded a price of $75,000 for Petitioner's use of its property. The price was grossly out of line with the usual charge for access in the area. DOT refuse to obtain any additional right of way or construction easements. 1/ Petitioner eventually contracted for access to the river with a landowner whose property was located approximately 500 feet east of the project site. The land was such that it required Petitioner to build a road sturdy enough to carry its crane and barge sections. As soon as access was obtained and the road was complete, the equipment was floated down river to the bridge and the project work was immediately begun. Other delays in the performance of the work were experienced by Petitioner due to the location of privately owned docks which extended into the waterway and boat traffic. A portion of one dock had to be removed by Petitioner in order to gain enough room for the barge next to the bridge. The total effect of these problems was to slow work on the project. However, Petitioner was aware of the private docks and the boat traffic from its earlier visit to the project site prior to submitting its bid. Likewise, Petitioner was aware of the limitations of the work space provided by DOT. The evidence did not demonstrate that the work space was inadequate. The project work has been performed in the area provided by DOT. The space, however, is limited. From March, 1988, through the date of the hearing problem associated with the limitations of the work space at the project site prevented work from being timely performed on the project site. However, no evidence was presented by Petitioner that it had ever made a request of DOT for an extension of time due to the limited work space. In fact, the evidence showed that in March and July, 1988, Petitioner believe and so represented to DOT that it could complete the project on time. Additionally, no evidence was presented as to the amount of time incurred by Petitioner attributable to the limited work space. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to an award of additional contract days for any delays caused by the limited work space provided by DOT. As of May 4, 1989, the date of the formal hearing in this matter, the project had not been completed by Petitioner. The project completion date had passed on March 11, 1989. Therefore, Petitioner was delinquent under Rule 14- 23, Florida Administrative Code. On March 21, 1989, the Department sent a Communication Terminal Message Sending Blank to Petitioner, indicating that a final notice of delinquency would be issued on the project. On March 27, 1989, Petitioner received the Department's letter informing Petitioner that it was delinquent in the performance of the project work since the time for completion had passed and the project remained uncompleted. By letter dated March 31, 1989, Petitioner advised Respondent that it did not feel that it was delinquent on the project since it had a request for a 120 day extension of time pending before Respondent. No evidence was submitted by Petitioner on the contents of that requested extension. However at the hearing the evidence demonstrated that the request was made based on the untimely move of the power poles 2/ and the initial lack of access to the project site. 3/ Petitioner further requested that if the extension should be denied then it wanted an administrative hearing on whether it was delinquent. Respondent tacitly denied Petitioner's requested 120 day extension and granted Petitioner's request for an administrative hearing. At the hearing Petitioner for the firs time associated the 120 day extension with its claim of inadequate work space at the project site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding Petitioner delinquent on the project and suspending Petitioner's Certificate of Qualification for the period defined in Rule 14-23, Florida Administrative Code. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 23rd day of June, 1989.
