The Issue Whether Respondent must repay $558.74 for alleged salary overpayment for the period between December 14, 1990 and April 26, 1991.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent Allen was a career service employee with the Department who was subject to the collective bargaining agreement. Respondent was designated as the Public Assistance Specialist I who would act in a supervisory capacity during her unit supervisor's maternity leave. Respondent accepted the temporary appointment and received a higher rate of pay from the Department during the time she was filling the position, in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement. Pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, a career service employee who performs the duties of a higher level position for a period of time more than twenty-two workdays within any six consecutive months, is eligible to receive a promotional pay increase. This pay increase should be granted in accordance with the Personnel Rules of the Career Service System, beginning with the twenty-third day. This type of temporary appointment is referred to within the Career Service System as "Out of Title" work, and is located in Article 21 of the agreement. Employees being paid at a higher rate while temporarily filling a position in a higher classification are returned to their regular rate of pay when the period of employment in the higher class is ended. Originally, Respondent's "Out of Title" status and increased pay were to be effective from June 1, 1990 until the supervisor returned from maternity leave. This time period began on June 1, 1990 and ended in some respects on December 14, 1990. The supervisor returned to work on a four-day basis, Tuesdays through Thursdays, for an additional three month period. Due to some special needs of the supervisor related to the birth of her child, the Department allowed her to continue to remain at home on Mondays after she was originally due back to work from maternity leave. This arrangement continued from December 14, 1990 to March 20, 1991. During these Mondays, Respondent continued to actively perform the duties of the higher level supervisory position for eleven consecutive weeks. In addition, Respondent acted as the unit supervisor during all other days her supervisor was unavailable for work. These additional days, however, were not arranged for in advance by the supervisor before returning to work from maternity leave, as were the consecutive Mondays. On April 29,1991, a Report of Personnel Action from the Department transferred Respondent from her higher "Out of Title" pay and status to her permanent position as a Public Assistance Specialist II [a promotion received April 12, 1991]. The effective date of the action was made retroactive to December 14, 1990, the day the supervisor on maternity leave returned to her job on a four-day a week basis. Prior to her receipt of the Report of Personnel Action on April 30, 1991, Respondent was unaware that her "Out of Title" job duties and the commensurate pay increase ceased on December 14, 1990. She had been performing supervisory duties on Mondays after that date under the belief that an overlap in position was permitted to assist the supervisor with her temporary special needs involved with childbirth and the baby's care. Respondent was not advised of the amount of the overpayment of salary the Department contends she received between December 14, 1990 and April 26, 1991, until July 25, 1991. The original amount of the salary overpayment the Department sought to recover from Respondent was $558.74. After the parties stipulated that Respondent performed supervisory functions on the eleven scheduled Mondays, the Department reduced its claim for overpayment to reflect a higher salary for Respondent on those dates. This reduced the claim for overpayment by $65.03, thus making the Department's total claim $493.71.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: Respondent is to be notified by the Department of the grievance procedures that can be used for the settlement of this dispute between employer and employee, along with the time deadline she has to elect the procedure to be used for the dispute resolution. The pending case is to be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and transferred to the correct forum timely elected by Respondent, without prejudice to either party. DONE and ENTERED this 27 day of January, 1992, 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 day of January, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE No. 91-6197 Respondent's Recommendation of Facts are addressed as follows: Rejected. Whether overpayment occurred needs to be resolved in a different forum, based on one or more of the following: an interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement; an interpretation of an overlap in position in this case; or an unfair labor practice. Accepted. See Finding of Fact #8 and Factual Stipulation #5. Rejected. Contrary to law. See Rue 3A-31.309(1)(d), Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 17, Florida Statutes. Accepted. See Factual Stipulation #7. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley Esq HRS District VI Legal Office Room 500 - Fifth Floor 4000 W Dr Martin Luther King Jr Blvd Tampa Fl 33614 Annie L Allen 6420 N 23rd St Tampa Fl 33610 John Slye Esq General Counsel Dept of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd Tallahassee Fl 32399 0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk Dept of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd Tallahassee Fl 32399 0700
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent is guilty of discrimination in employment on the basis of race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Leatharine Leon. She has been employed by Respondent, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, for more than 13 years. In the fall of 1988, Petitioner was employed in the position of Criminal Justice Administrator. Petitioner supervised a section within the Crime Information Bureau. In October, 1988, Martha Wright, a white female, became the Bureau Chief of the Crime Information Bureau. After evaluating the needs and personnel of the Bureau, Wright consulted with other Respondent management personnel and began the implementation of organizational changes within the Bureau. On or about November 22, 1988, Wright notified Petitioner that she was to be reassigned to duties as an Administrative Assistant II. The position was specifically created to provide administrative support to the Bureau. Wright wanted Petitioner to accept the transfer voluntarily. After thinking overnight about the matter, Petitioner refused and the reassignment was made on an involuntary basis. Upon the expiration of a required 14 day notice period to Petitioner, Respondent effectuated the reassignment of Petitioner in the early part of December, 1988, to the administrative assistant position. Petitioner continued to enjoy her same salary and pay grade. As established by the Final Order of the PERC Commission in Case No. CS-89-238, Respondent's transfer to the Administrative Assistant II position was warranted, comported with procedural requirements and served a legitimate governmental interest. At the time of Wright's action transferring Petitioner, Wright had already determined to make other organizational changes to the Bureau. Subsequently, implementation of those changes resulted in the merger of two sections of the Bureau; the criminal history input section formerly headed by Petitioner, a black female, and the criminal history bureau section headed by a white female. The white female head of the criminal history bureau section, Judi Croney, became a unit supervisor within the new section and was given additional special projects. Iris Morgan, a senior management analyst employed in a position with a higher pay grade than that held by Petitioner, assumed Petitioner's previous supervisory duties. Further, Morgan assumed additional duties and responsibilities associated with determining the viability of the merger of the two bureau sections and then supervising the merger. Respondent's management wanted to continue a higher level manager position over the enlarged section resulting from the merger action. Wright envisioned that the new section supervisor position would require an individual adept at conceptual work, as opposed to operational management. Since she met all minimum qualifications for the position, Morgan was selected to continue as the new section head. Petitioner did not adapt well to her position as the Administrative Assistant II. She was unable to perform duties of the position in an independent fashion. Consequently, she received below satisfactory performance evaluations on March 28, 1989, May 2, 1989, June 1, 1989, and July 28, 1989. After the last unsatisfactory performance evaluation, Petitioner was demoted from the Administrative Assistant II position, a pay grade 18 position, to a technician position with a pay grade of 14. However, Petitioner's salary was not reduced and has not been reduced to date. After Petitioner was removed from the Administrative Assistant II position in July or August of 1989, the position was filled by Jerrie Bell, a black female, who is still employed in that position. Bell has performed satisfactorily in the position and has the ability to work independently without constant instruction and supervision. As a result of reorganization, supervisory positions were reduced from ten to seven positions within the Bureau. All other affected supervisors, a total of five individuals, were white. All but one of them voiced objection to Respondent's actions; however, none of the objections varied or prevented implementation of Respondent's proposed changes. Respondent does not have a work practice which discriminates with regard to compensation, conditions and privileges of employment on the basis of an employee's race. Further, Petitioner has not been subjected to such discrimination by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this day of January, 1991, 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 7th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-4270 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-45. Adopted in substance, but not verbatim. 46.-48. Rejected as unnecessary to result. 49. Adopted by reference. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, Esq.. Acting Executive Director Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Leatharine Leon 1751 Centerville Road Tallahassee, FL 32317 Elsa Lopez Whitehurst, Esq. P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Clerk Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
Findings Of Fact The employee herein, the Petitioner, is employed by DEP as a park ranger. DEP is an agency of the State of Florida. The Petitioner failed to report for work after June 10, 1995. He apparently had some health problem or complaint and was on sick leave for a time. October of 1995 was the first month that he was on leave without pay. He was on leave without pay when he was terminated, which occurred on November 27, 1995. The Petitioner was not receiving workers compensation benefits between his last day of work on June 10, 1995 and the termination date of November 27, 1995. His monthly rate of pay was $1,627.23. He was paid $1,627.62 in gross wages for 176 hours on November 30, 1995. He received $1,319.18 in net wages for November of 1995. The Petitioner was entitled to $71.74 in wages for 10.75 hours for November of 1995. DEP calculated the amount of overpayment by offsetting the wages issued to him in November of 1995 by the amount he was actually entitled to receive for that month for the 10.75 hours. Thereafter, on December 12, 1995, DEP notified the Petitioner, by certified mail, return receipt requested, that he had been overpaid $1,247.44 in net wages for November of 1995. That return receipt reflected that the Petitioner received that letter on December 15, 1995. The Petitioner failed to refund the money to DEP during the 1995 tax year and as yet, has still not refunded the money. Because the money was not refunded during the 1995 tax year, the Petitioner also owes DEP an additional $163.87, which was withheld for taxes on the payment or overpayment in question. Thus, DEP overpaid the Petitioner a total of $1,411.31 in wages for November of 1995.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Department of Environmental Protection, enter a Final Order finding that the employee, the Petitioner, Eugene Breeze, owes $1,411.31 for a salary overpayment received by him in November of 1995. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Eugene Breeze 1110 Florida Avenue Lynn Haven, Florida 32444 Melease Jackson, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The ultimate issue for determination is whether the Petitioner's discharge by the Respondent constituted discrimination on the basis of handicap within the meaning of the Florida Human Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Having considered all of the evidence in the record, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: Petitioner was hired as a Mechanic II (Electrician) by Respondent on January 25, 1982 in the Plant Engineering Department. The term "Mechanic II" denoted Petitioner's pay grade. The term "Electrician" designated Petitioner's speciality. Petitioner's pay grade was changed to Electrician and the Mechanic II pay grade was eliminated by Respondent for all such employees on or about November 16, 1983. Petitioner's duties as an Electrician included ladder work, running conduit and wire, repairing laundry and laboratory equipment and appliances, changing ballasts, and repairing electrical beds and nurse-call equipment. Petitioner performed all of the duties of an electrician, including ladder work until approximately November 27, 1985. Three months after he was employed in 1982, Petitioner injured his back while repairing electrical beds. Repairing electrical beds required much bending and stooping. Petitioner filed for Worker's Compensation benefits for the injury he sustained in repairing electrical beds. Petitioner suffered an off-the-job injury in 1983. Respondent permitted Petitioner to go on medical leave for two months. Petitioner again injured his back while working at the Hospital on or about November 27, 1985. Due to his injury, Petitioner was on leave of absence from November 30, 1985, through December 11, 1985. Petitioner returned to work but again went on leave of absence from January 9, 1986, through February 17, 1986. Petitioner returned to work subject to a "light duty" restriction imposed by his physician. On or about June 10, 1986, Petitioner's physician released him for full duty subject to a 15 pound restriction on any lifting. In September, 1986, Petitioner's physician indicated that it was "probably best" for Petitioner to work only 4 hours per day. The Respondent again allowed Petitioner to work 4 hours per day even though he occupied a full-time, 8 hour per day position. In early October, 1986, Petitioner was released by his physician to perform full duty work, even though Petitioner was restricted to half days. Frank Kleese, Petitioner's foreman, asked Petitioner to investigate a problem with an overhead light. Petitioner refused Kleese's directive and stated that, even though he had been released for full duty work, he would not climb a ladder unless his doctor approved it. Petitioner argued with Kleese and used "strong language". Petitioner became belligerent. Petitioner received reprimands for insubordination. When Petitioner refused Kleese's second request to do ladder work, Petitioner received a reprimand for refusing to do the job assigned to him. Both reprimands were discussed with Petitioner. Petitioner later presented a doctor's note stating he could "return to full active duty," but could work only half days with no ladder work. As a result of Petitioner's half day schedule, other electricians were required to do more work. The department as a whole fell behind in its work. Furthermore, light duty work was not always available for Petitioner. While working half days in late 1986, Petitioner was late to work on three occasions. Petitioner's reason for being late, as explained to Frank Kleese, his foreman, was that Petitioner's injury made it difficult for him to get out of bed in the morning. In November, 1986, Clark, Kleese, and Kunz met with Petitioner and advised him that he could not remain on half days indefinitely. Petitioner was advised that unless his condition was found to have improved by his upcoming doctor's appointment on December 1, 1986, he would be placed on medical leave. On December 1, 1986, Petitioner visited his physician, Dr. Richard D. Strain, Jr. Dr. Strain stated that there was no reason to think that Petitioner's condition would change quickly. Dr. Strain was going to send Petitioner home and put him on physician therapy (i.e., not allow him to work at all). Petitioner asked Dr. Strain if he could work half days, and Dr. Strain agreed. Kleese, Kunz, and Clark met with Petitioner and informed him that he would be placed on medical leave as a result of the Petitioner's medical condition. Continuation of his half-day status without any foreseeable cutoff date was not acceptable to the Respondent. On December 4, 1986, Respondent Benefits Supervisor Ralph Rettig advised Dr. Strain that Petitioner had been placed on medical leave of absence because there were no part-time positions available in Petitioner's department. Rettig requested Dr. Strain to advise him as to whether Petitioner's condition was the result of his injury at work and whether Petitioner would ever improve to the level where he could work more than half day duty. Dr. Strain responded to Mr. Rettig in a letter dated December 22, 1986, which indicated that Petitioner's condition was partially caused by degenerative changes. Dr. Strain further stated: Mr. Cabany tells me he is unable to work more than a half day, and I think that is a reasonable thing for him to do. Certainly, a man of his elderly years with the degenerative changes that he has, with super imposed trauma, that would be a good way to go. Petitioner went on medical leave beginning December 17, 1986. Prior to the beginning of his leave, Petitioner failed to fill out the leave of absence request form. When this came to Rettig's attention, Rettig requested that Vernon Clark send Petitioner the form. Clark wrote to Petitioner and informed him that he must fill out the leave of absence request form Clark had enclosed. Clark further informed Petitioner that he would have to request renewal of his leave when it expired in mid-January, 1987, in accordance with Respondent policies. During a telephone conversation several days prior to the expiration of Petitioner's leave, Clark reminded Petitioner that he still had not sent in the original request form for the leave he was then under. Clark also reminded Petitioner that, if he wished to extend his leave, Petitioner would have to submit a written request for extension. Petitioner eventually sent in the signed request form for the leave of absence which he was then under. The signed form stated: "If I do not request an extension of my Leave prior to expiration . . . my employment at Memorial Respondent will be terminated. . . ." Petitioner never submitted a request for an extension of his leave, and Petitioner was terminated. In February, 1987, Ralph Rettig became aware of a part-time porter position in the Respondent's Dietary Department. Mr. Rettig contacted Petitioner and asked him to meet with Joseph Marino, Administrative Director of Food and Nutrition Services, with regard to a job in the Dietary Department. Marino offered Petitioner a porter position which required only half days and involved no bending or lifting of heavy objects. Marino explained the duties and responsibilities of the position to Petitioner and showed him the work area. Petitioner refused the position because he felt it was "beneath his dignity". Petitioner said virtually the same thing to Rettig. Hospital Benefits Supervisor Rettig, a quadriplegic, was involved throughout in dealing with Petitioner's medical situation. Rettig testified that he has never witnessed discrimination by the Respondent based upon handicap and felt that the Respondent reasonably accommodated Petitioner's back problem. Eighty percent of an Electrician's work at the Respondent involved the use of a ladder. Petitioner could not do ladder work. Petitioner also could not work on ceilings or do much bending or lifting. Petitioner cannot work at all now, still has pain, and has not worked since leaving the Respondent's employ. Petitioner did not know of any available half-day jobs he could have performed at the Hospital other than the porter position that was offered to Petitioner by Mr. Marino. Prior to his 1985 injury, Petitioner had repeatedly requested to work part time as an Electrician because his wife had arthritis and he needed to care for her. Petitioner was consistently turned down because no such part-time position existed in his department. During his employment with Respondent, a few half-day positions existed throughout the Hospital as PBX Operators, Cashiers, and Porters. No part-time Electrician positions in the Plant Engineering Department where Petitioner was employed were ever available. Petitioner occupied a full-time position even though he worked only part-time. Sandy McNeil, a former Electrician, is now a Systems Technician/Welder who works full days on a part-time basis. Mr. McNeil operates a lathe and works full weeks when needed. Petitioner is not a welder and could not perform the duties required of Mr. McNeil. Richmond Blatch is a painter who works a full week every other week. Petitioner is not a painter and could not perform Mr. Blatch's duties. Tom Nottage, another individual who had been working in the Engineering Department, obtained a courier position with the Hospital. For a brief period, Mr. Nottage worked 2 full days a week in the Engineering Department and 3 days week as a courier. Since mid-January, 1987, Mr. Nottage has worked full-time as a courier. His job requires driving over 25,000 miles per year, lifting mail tubs weighing between 20 and 50 pounds, often lifting heavier packages, and getting in and out of his car between 20 and 40 times per day. Petitioner could not perform the duties required of Mr. Nottage. A part-time position could not be created for an Electrician. Electricians are given jobs which frequently carry through from day to day. Permanently employing someone on a half-day, health-restricted basis presented scheduling and work load problems. Jobs that do not carry through from day to day are frequently comprised of so-called bench work. Some bench work requires an entire day to complete. There was not always a half-day's worth of bench work available. During his employment with the Respondent, Petitioner had been receiving Social Security pension benefits. In 1987, Petitioner would have been required to reimburse Social Security for a portion of his pension benefits if he earned more than $8,000,00. Half day employment would have afforded Petitioner the ability to earn the maximum allowed by Social Security. Because Petitioner refused to accept a job for which he was physically qualified, the worker's compensation benefits begun as a result of his injury on the job in 1982, were stopped. If Petitioner had accepted the porter position offered to him by Mr. Marino, his worker's compensation benefits would have compensated him for the wage loss resulting from the lower paying job. Petitioner's termination had no effect on the worker's compensation benefits Respondent was paying Petitioner. Respondent would have gained a financial benefit from retaining Petitioner as a part time Electrician because there would have been less of a wage loss to make up through worker's compensation benefits. Glen Mora and Luis Villanueva, two other Electricians, were injured while Petitioner was working half days. Both individuals were allowed to take medical leave, and return to work on light duty until they returned to full duty status. Both individuals in fact returned to full duty status. Petitioner received a merit pay check from Respondent in 1986 even though Petitioner had not achieved the requisite "fully proficient" rating in his evaluation. Vernon Clark, Director of Plant Engineering, intervened on behalf of Petitioner. Mr. Clark recommended that Petitioner receive the merit pay because Petitioner would have received a higher rating had it not been for Petitioner's injury.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Human Rights Commission issue a Final Order that Respondent is not guilty of discharging Petitioner in violation of the Human Rights Act. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of October, 1989. DANIEL MANRY 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 5th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX Petitioner submitted no proposed findings of fact. Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection NONE The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 Included in Findings 1, 2 2-3 Rejected as irrelevant 4-9 Included in Findings 3-10 Included in Finding 35 Included in Finding 11 Included in Finding 25 Included in Finding 26 Included in Finding 31 15-17 Included in Findings 27-30 Included in Finding 17 Included in Finding 36 Included in Finding 32 21-28 Included in Findings 12-21 29 Included in Finding 22 30-31 Included in Findings 33-34 Included in Finding 22 Included in Findings 15, 17 34-35 Included in Findings 23, 24 COPIES FURNISHED: George Cabany 3905 Garfield Street Hollywood, Florida 33021 James S. Bramnick Muller, Mintz, Kornreich, Caldwell, Casey, Crosland & Bramnick, P. A. Hollywood Memorial Respondent Suite 3600 Southeast Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2338 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Alfred Greenberg, has held the position of a veterinary aide since approximately November, 1967. During October 1974, he was converted from OPS status to a regular career service employee subject to the normal six month probationary period. By letter dated June 24, 1976, from J. Patrick McCann, Division Director, Petitioner was advised that based on "action by the 1976 legislature, we most regretfully inform you that it will be necessary to abolish your position effective the close of business, June 30, 1976. In lieu of two weeks notice, you will receive two weeks termination pay." (See Respondent's Composite Exhibit Number 1). Within a few days, the Petitioner was converted back to an OPS position receiving the same hourly pay and was advised that he would be offered any vacancy which occurred within the department to which he qualified within the following 12 month period. Petitioner, through his attorney, timely appealed the Respondent's actions essentially contesting his conversion from the career service status to the OPS status and thereby losing social security benefits, retirement benefits and the accrual of vacation and sick leave. He further complained about the manner in which he was served his layoff notice. Specifically, he complained that his letter was hand delivered whereas personnel rules and regulations require that layoff notices etc. be sent by certified mail. In this regard, evidence reveals that by letter dated August 3, 1976, by certified mail, return receipt requested, Petitioner was advised that he was then being provided notice in accordance with the requirement in the department's personnel rules and regulations. Pursuant to emergency rules governing the layoff of career service employees, 22AER76-1, the Petitioner was advised that his position was abolished pursuant to action taken by the 1976 legislature. Evidence adduced during the course of the hearing reveals that the Petitioner's layoff was effected via the procedures as outlined in the above referred emergency rule and he was immediately converted to an OPS position, a position he now holds, at the same rate of pay. Evidence clearly reveals that Petitioner's layoff was effected pursuant to and authorized by the foregoing emergency rule. In view thereof, and in the absence of any evidence which would provide basis for a contrary finding, the action of the Department in effecting the Petitioner's layoff was proper and I shall accordingly recommend that such action be sustained. It is therefore recommended that the action of the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, in effecting the layoff of the Petitioner, Alfred Greenberg, pursuant to emergency rule 22AER76-1, as published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on June 11, 1976, and adopted by the Administration Commission that same date, be sustained. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 James W. Pritchard, Esquire 1038 Alfred I. DuPont Building 169 East Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33131 Mrs. Dorothy B. Roberts Room 443, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice, to wit: constructively discharging Petitioner on the basis of handicap discrimination without reasonable accommodation.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Lake County Sheriff's Office (LCSO), constitutes an "employer" as defined in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Chris Daniels took office as the elected Sheriff of Lake County, Florida, in January 2005. He had been with Respondent LCSO for 18 years. The sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer for Lake County; operates the Lake County Jail for the Board of County Commissioners; and manages security and bailiffs for the Lake County Courthouse. His responsibilities also include providing final approval for staffing levels at the Lake County Jail. In 2005, Petitioner had been employed as a detention officer at the Lake County Jail for 16 years. He is a certified corrections officer. Corrections/detention officers assigned to the inmate housing/security areas at the jail work 12-hour shifts from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. They are assigned to either "A," "B," "C," or "D" Squads. The squads rotate from day to night, and from night to day, shifts every four months. Officers assigned to inmate security are not normally assigned permanent shifts. Petitioner was such an officer. Working on rotating shifts is an essential function of working in the inmate housing area of the jail, as detailed in the job description for corrections officers as follows: . . . ensures a timely transmission of pertinent information and materials to other correctional personnel assigned to the same and/or the next shift. Petitioner understood at the beginning of his employment with LCSO that he was expected to work rotating shifts, and he did, in fact, work rotating shifts until 1996. Other corrections officers assigned to laundry, the jail kitchen, inmate transportation and other administrative functions permanently work days from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, without shift changes. Such positions with permanent day shifts have become available over the years. However, Petitioner last sought such a position in 1997 or 1998. Petitioner was working as a detention/corrections officer for Respondent when he was diagnosed with diabetes in 1996. Petitioner's diabetes causes tingling in his hands and feet, impotence, floaters in his eyes, dizziness, profuse sweating, frequent urination, a weakening immune system and occasional outbreaks of boils. Petitioner’s Exhibit 4 reveals that he takes multiple oral medications and that each kind of medication ideally should be taken at the same time of day, each day, but there are instructions on how to compensate if a dose is missed. With the exception of working rotating shifts, Petitioner was able at all times to perform the essential functions of a corrections officer for Respondent. The Veterans’ Administration pays Petitioner $218.00 per month because it believes his diabetes was induced by Agent Orange he encountered while in Viet Nam. At Petitioner's request, Respondent allowed Petitioner to work a permanent day shift from 1996 to June 30, 2005, when he retired. Petitioner testified he has worked in the past as a military medic and as a physician's assistant in correction facilities, so he is knowledgeable about the horrific, and sometimes fatal, effects of uncontrolled diabetes. Petitioner expected to live a normal life so long as he controlled his diabetes. Petitioner claims to have explained over the years to all his superiors that he needed to consistently take his medications at the same time of day. However, he did not offer any evidence in the present proceeding to explain why he could not take his medications consistently on a 24-hour clock, e.g. during nights, as opposed to during days. There have been periods when he experienced problems with his diabetes while working a permanent day shift. His medications have been adjusted several times since 1996. All witnesses agreed that Petitioner spent 18 months alone in a permanent day position in the third-floor control room. Petitioner claimed that he was assigned this long period of duty on the third-floor as “punishment” for being allowed to permanently work a day shift. He maintained, without any supporting evidence, that being assigned to a single position for more than a few months this way was unusual. However, although Respondent assigned Petitioner to the third-floor control room alone for a duration of 18 months, Respondent also assigned a non-diabetic employee alone there for about one year. Petitioner speculated, again without any supporting evidence, that the non-diabetic employee was also being punished for something. Both Petitioner and the non-diabetic employee experienced being confined to the control room without a restroom. Having to urinate when no other officer could stand- in for them created a hardship on both men. On one occasion, the non-diabetic employee urinated in a garbage can. At the date of hearing, Gary Borders had been with LCSO for 17 years and served as its Chief Deputy.1/ On the date of hearing, and at all times material, Chief Borders’ duties included responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the Lake County Jail and the Lake County Courthouse and for training. Petitioner claims to have frequently protested to many superiors about not having a restroom on the third-floor and not being allowed to bring food in for his diabetes. He also claimed to have specifically asked Chief Borders to be transferred from service on the third-floor, but Chief Borders did not recall more than one vague conversation concerning Petitioner’s complaint about how long Petitioner had been posted there and that he had told Petitioner he, Borders, had no problem with Petitioner’s being transferred elsewhere in the jail. It is not clear when, precisely, this 18 month-period occurred. Because Petitioner was on a permanent day shift from 1996-1997 to 2005 (eight years), and Petitioner testified his 18-month posting on the third-floor was "over" and was from 2003-2005, his time on the third-floor was not affirmatively shown to have occurred within the 365 days immediately preceding the filing of his Charge of Discrimination with FCHR on December 8, 2005. When Sheriff Daniels took office in January 2005, Chief Borders advised him that because the date for the squads to rotate shifts (see Finding of Fact 4) was due to occur on May 1, 2005, the number of persons assigned to permanent shifts was affecting Chief Borders' ability to make assignments. When corrections officers working in inmate housing of the jail are assigned permanent shifts, staff shortages can occur on other shifts. Chief Borders further advised the new sheriff that he, Borders, was receiving additional requests for permanent shifts. While discussing why there were so many employees assigned permanent shifts, and not subject to the standard four months' rollover of the squads from day-to-night and night-to- day shifts, Sheriff Daniels and Chief Borders concluded that LCSO needed a formal method of differentiating between those employees who genuinely needed a permanent day or night shift and those employees who merely wanted a permanent shift assignment. To determine which employees needed a permanent shift as an accommodation for their specific condition or situation, Sheriff Daniels instructed Chief Borders to send a memorandum to the 12-14 employees assigned to permanent shifts, requiring those employees to provide medical evidence of their need for a permanent shift assignment. On March 25, 2005, Chief Borders sent all employees assigned to permanent shifts the following memorandum: There is a requirement for rotating shift work for Detention Deputies, Auxiliary Detention Deputies and Deputy Sheriffs at the Lake County Sheriff's Office. Please ask your physician to review the Job Description for Detention Deputy (or Auxiliary) and ask if you can perform all the job requirements. If you are cross- sworn, also have your physician review the Deputy Sheriff job description and ask if you can perform all of the job requirements for that position. When your job description(s) have been reviewed, bring your physician's letter and all related supporting material (diagnosis, prognosis, treatment notes, test results and any other documents that would assist the agency in evaluating your request) to me so that our agency physician can review them for possible accommodation. Because shift changes will take place on May 1, 2005, you must have your documents to me no later than 5:00 P.M. on Friday, April 15, 2005. If I do not hear back from you by Friday, April 15, 2005 at 5:00 P.M., I will take it that you are available for rotating shift work assignment. The process envisioned by the Sheriff and Chief was that when an employee, who wanted an accommodation, provided the requested information from his own treating physician, that employee's supervisor would pass the information along to LCSO's physician, and an interactive process would begin. As of the date of hearing, LCSO had employees working in modified jobs, including job sharing, and an accommodation had been made for a person in a wheelchair. In 2005, LCSO also fully intended to accommodate those employees who provided proof from their physicians of their need for other accommodations. Petitioner testified that he did not want to repeatedly roll over from day-to-night shifts every four months because past experience had taught him that each time his shift changed, it took him at least two weeks to properly regulate and space his intake of food, liquids, and medications, in such a way that his diabetes was controlled and he felt alert and capable. In response to receiving the March 25, 2005, memorandum, Petitioner presented Chief Borders with a note from Petitioner's primary physician, Dr. Gelin, written on a prescription pad, stating: brittle diabetic pt needs to work day shift only. Petitioner did not present any other written information in response to Respondent LCSO’s detailed request. Petitioner testified that he discussed Dr. Gelin’s note with Chief Borders to the extent that he told Borders that if anyone on behalf of LCSO phoned Dr. Gelin, Dr. Gelin would discuss or fax further information to that person; Chief Borders does not recall this conversation. Chief Borders is a diabetic himself, but he had never heard the term, "brittle diabetic." It is Petitioner's position that because, in Dr. Gelin's private conversations with Petitioner, Dr. Gelin had told Petitioner that “any doctor” should know the sequelae and effects of "brittle diabetes," all Petitioner’s LCSO superiors needed to do was pass on Dr. Gelin’s prescription note to LCSO’s consulting physician in order for Petitioner to be accommodated. Petitioner believed it was his superiors' duty to make Dr. Gelin submit the written materials they wanted. Sheriff Daniels generally distrusted the information that physicians submitted on prescription pads, because, in his experience, when the employee or physician was pressed for details, there was often no supporting information forthcoming. Therefore, he did not believe the information on Petitioner's prescription slip, as described to him by Chief Borders, was sufficient to begin the interactive process with LCSO’s Human Resources Department or its consulting physician. Neither Sheriff Daniels nor Chief Borders presented Petitioner's prescription slip to them. It was decided between the Sheriff and the Chief, that Chief Borders would try to get more detailed information from Petitioner. Petitioner testified that he tried to get more information from his primary physician, Dr. Gelin, but Dr. Gelin would not provide in writing the detailed information requested by LCSO’s March 25, 2005, memorandum. On April 22, 2005, Chief Borders wrote Petitioner that Dr. Gelin's prescription pad note was insufficient and that Petitioner would not be reassigned to a permanent day shift position, stating: I have reviewed the information provided by your physician and find there is insufficient evidence presented to justify a permanent shift assignment. As such, your request is denied. You will rotate day/nights with your assigned shift during the normal rotation. None of the 12-14 employees assigned to permanent shifts, had submitted the requested information, so all of them, including Petitioner, were assigned to a rotating shift. The Sheriff and Chief received no report of complaints from any employee. However, on April 26, 2005, Petitioner received a memo stating that effective May 4, 2005, he would be assigned to "C" squad. "A" Squad, where Petitioner was then assigned, was scheduled to rotate from day shift to night shift on May 1, 2005, and "C" Squad was due to rotate from the night shift to the day shift on the same date. Accordingly, LCSO’s purpose in transferring Petitioner to “C” Squad was to provide him with four more months (until September 1, 2005) to obtain the required medical opinion and detailed supporting documentation from his treating physician. The "A" to "C" Squad change also would have allowed Petitioner to remain on a day shift, without interruption, and allow him an additional four months in which to gather medical information from any appropriate source to support his request to indefinitely remain on a permanent day shift. In fact, Petitioner was regularly seeing Dr. Flores, at the Veterans’ Administration, as well as Dr. Gelin. Dr. Flores coordinated oversight of Petitioner's medical condition with Dr. Gelin, who is Petitioner's private physician. However, Petitioner did not approach Dr. Flores, and he did not go back to Dr. Gelin, until after Petitioner retired. Petitioner had hoped to work another six years before retiring, but on May 13, 2005, while still assigned to the day shift, Petitioner submitted a letter of resignation, hoping that someone in his chain of command would try to talk him out of leaving. He expected his supervisors to "workout" a permanent day shift for him, instead of permitting him to retire.2/ Petitioner's resignation letter stated: Regrettable [sic] I am submitting my letter of resignation effective June 30, 2005. Your recent decision denying me permission to remain on the day shift in spite of my doctor's recommendation to remain on the day shift because of my medical condition (brittle diabetic) has forced me to retire earlier than I had planned to. There is no other way that I can regulate my medication switching from days to nights . . . Respondent never required Petitioner to work the night shift, and he never did work the night shift after 1996-1997. Petitioner gave notice of his retirement in May 2005, rather than work in "C" Squad on the day shift until September 1, 2005, or continue to try to obtain additional medical information that would allow him to indefinitely remain on a permanent day shift. Petitioner elected to retire effective June 30, 2005, because, upon advice of “Retirement” he believed it was more financially beneficial for him to retire in June 2005, rather than wait until January 2006.3/ Since January 1, 2006, Petitioner has been employed managing real property in Florida and Costa Rica. Petitioner testified that when he retired, he could perform all the duties required by his detention/corrections officer job description, and perhaps other duties as well, except for the rotating shifts. He believes, but offered no supporting documentation, that rotating shifts are counter- productive and are on their way out in most jails. He further testified that he could probably even work the rotating shifts required by this employer but he believed that to do so would have put him in a health crisis due to his diabetes and multiple medications.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 25th day of January, 2007.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was the subject of unlawful employment practices by her employer because of her race and age.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 28-year-old African-American female. Respondent operates one of the State’s largest psychiatric hospitals. In April 2004, Respondent had at least 3 openings for a full-time Secretary Specialist at different units of the hospital. In April 2004, Petitioner along with two other female applicants were contacted and asked if they were interested in being considered for three Secretary Specialist positions with Respondent. The positions’ duties involved, among other things, typing medical records and compiling reports on the units’ patients and recording, transcribing and disseminating all staff meetings held on these units. Petitioner and the two other women indicated that they would like to be considered for the positions. One of the women who applied for the positions was an older, white female who had worked at the hospital for at least 10 years. No evidence demonstrated the actual age of this older woman or how much older she was than Petitioner. The evidence also did not demonstrate if her work history extended beyond 10 years outside the hospital. The other applicant, like Petitioner, was a beginning employee at the hospital. Other than the fact she met the minimum qualifications for the positions, the evidence did not establish her race, age, or work experience. Petitioner’s application was not introduced into evidence. At the time, Petitioner had about 6 years of work experience as an office manager and /or an executive secretary. The experience does not appear to be in the medical or psychiatric field. As can be seen from a review of the evidence and pleadings in this case, Petitioner’s writing skills are very poor and are replete with poor grammar and incorrect word usage to the point of being almost incomprehensible. Therefore, the quality of her executive secretary skills are questionable. As part of her application packet, Petitioner submitted several educational/professional credentials to Respondent. The credentials consisted of certificates in the areas of Office Supervision II and III and Post Secondary Office Supervision and Administration. Petitioner claims that these credentials entitled her to a higher salary than she would have received as a beginning employee or at the least allowed her to negotiate for a higher salary. However, no evidence was offered that supported Petitioner’s contention that such credentials entitled her to a higher salary or that she lost her opportunity to negotiate for a higher salary. The fact that the position may have been advertised as “open-competitive” does not mean that an applicant is entitled to or will receive a higher salary offer. The classification only enables an employer or employee to negotiate a salary based on qualifications. The employer and employee are not required to negotiate and either may elect not to negotiate. Indeed, negotiation may be non-existent based on budget considerations and the availability of other applicants willing to work for less pay. At some point, an interview was scheduled for Petitioner by Deborah Joyce. In setting up the interview, Ms. Joyce advised Petitioner that the starting salary for the position was $766.52 every two weeks. Petitioner indicated that she wished to be interviewed for the positions. All three womens’ application packets were reviewed by a hiring committee. All three women were offered employment as Secretary Specialists at different units. Petitioner and the other beginning applicant were offered employment at $766.52 every 2 weeks. The older, white woman was allegedly offered employment at a higher salary than the two beginning employees. However, there was no evidence that demonstrated how much the older woman’s salary was, whether it differed from Petitioner’s and its relationship to the salary she had been receiving in her then current position at the hospital. Petitioner did not introduce into evidence the pay scale for the position to which she applied. Some evidence suggests that the offered salary was the beginning and lowest salary for that position. Petitioner testified that the offered salary was at the low-end of the scale for the position that she applied for. Her testimony in that regard is accepted. Petitioner was informed by telephone of the Respondent’s offer of employment to work on the unit known as Cypress Village. The telephone call was made by Lela Parker- Clark, a black female and the medical unit’s specialist (MUS). The unit’s treatment and rehabilitation director (UTRD) was Sateria Gunter, a black female. Ms. Gunter and Ms. Parker-Clark would be Petitioner’s supervisors. The evidence indicated that both women had been working on the unit for several years and apparently had done various routines and reports in the same manner for some time. No evidence was offered as to the actual age of Ms. Gunter or Ms. Parker-Clark, other than they were both older than Petitioner and had possibly worked their way up to their administrative positions from direct care staff. Because the offered salary was not what Petitioner desired, she inquired further of Ms. Parker-Clark about the salary. Petitioner learned that her educational credentials had been lost and possibly had not been reviewed by the committee. Ms. Gunter indicated that she would have the committee review its offer if Petitioner would fax her the documents. Petitioner faxed the documents to a fax machine at the hospital. It is unclear whether the documents were received and reviewed by the committee or whether the committee was made aware of Petitioner’s additional educational documents. The evidence conflicts on this point. At the time of the hearing, neither the original nor faxed documents were in Petitioner’s personnel file. Indeed, only copies of later-supplied documents that were specially marked by Petitioner are in Petitioner’s personnel file. In any event, the salary offer was not changed. No one from the committee testified at the hearing regarding the documents reviewed by the committee or otherwise made known to the committee. No evidence was offered that demonstrated that such added credentials would have made a difference in the salary offered to Petitioner. Petitioner offered no evidence that Respondent elected to negotiate any salaries with any of the people it hired as Secretary Specialists. The fact that a white, 10-year employee of Respondent may have been offered a higher salary than Petitioner does not demonstrate that the salary was negotiated or that Respondent otherwise discriminated against Petitioner based on her race or age since the employee in question was already an employee with more years of experience at the hospital. Without such evidence, it is impossible to determine whether the absence of the documents was deliberate or unintentional, motivated by Petitioner’s race or age or even caused an adverse impact in the conditions or terms of Petitioner’s employment. Ms. Gunter informed Petitioner that the position was still available at the original salary offer of $766.52. Instead of attempting to negotiate further by declining the offer, Petitioner accepted employment and began working at the unit on May 21, 2004. Petitioner accepted the offer because she needed the income. There was no evidence that demonstrated Petitioner, who is a competent adult, was somehow coerced into her decision to accept the offer by Respondent. In the beginning, the relationship between Ms. Gunter, Ms. Parker-Clark and Petitioner was reasonably good. However, once Petitioner began to question the manner in which Ms. Parker-Clark did things the relationship deteriorated. Ms. Parker-Clark became abrasive and, Petitioner claims, more strict regarding Petitioner’s leave than with co-workers. She would belittle Petitioner in front of co-workers. Ms. Parker- Clark had the security desk record when Petitioner arrived at work. Based on the recorded time, both women claimed Petitioner was falsifying her timesheet and forced her to change her claimed time on several occasions. Many of the accusations arose from the fact that Petitioner was often late because of difficulties with her daughter, who had learning disabilities. Additionally, Petitioner sometimes arrived early and sometimes stayed late; that, in Petitioner’s view, made up her time. However, per hospital policy, such early arrival or late stay was not credited unless pre-approved by Petitioner’s supervisor. Outside of Petitioner’s claims of forced time-sheet changes based on time she had to take to deal with her daughter’s disability or disallowed overtime, etc., there was no evidence that other similarly-situated employees were treated differently than Petitioner. In fact, the only testimony regarding Ms. Parker-Clark’s and Ms. Gunter’s treatment of other employees was that there were some employees they treated well and some employees they did not treat well and that there may have been ongoing “management problems” on the unit. There was no evidence that such treatment was based on the race or age of the individual employee. Petitioner assumes and asserts that she was entitled to family medical leave, credit for overtime for staying late or more flexible hours. However, she offers no proof that she was entitled to such. Without such evidence Petitioner cannot show that she has suffered an adverse impact in the terms or conditions of her employment. Petitioner also claims she received unwarranted disciplinary actions. Again there was no evidence offered that such discipline was unwarranted. Indeed Petitioner admits that actions she received written reprimands for occurred. Around September 28, 2004, relationships between Ms. Parker-Clark and Petitioner came to a head when Petitioner came to the conclusion that Ms. Parker-Clark had never placed her educational credentials in her personnel file. Petitioner based this conclusion on the fact that, while training herself to use the new computerized personnel system, Peoples First, adopted and, at the time, being implemented, by the State, she discovered that her educational credentials were not listed on the system. Petitioner was training herself because Ms. Parker– Clark refused to train her. Petitioner contacted the personnel office for the hospital and was told that her file was not in their office because it had been sent to Peoples First to be scanned into the system. Unfortunately, the Peoples First system is known for glitches and errors in its records. Petitioner met with Ms. Gunter and Ms. Parker-Clark in a very heated meeting to discuss the lack of information on the Peoples First system and her feelings that Ms. Parker-Clark had intentionally lost the educational documents. Petitioner also voiced her opinion that she was entitled to an increased salary based on her credentials. Petitioner was not satisfied with the response from Ms. Gunter in the meeting. Around October 5, 2004, Petitioner met with Ennis Harris, the assistant administrator of the hospital, over her “issues” with Ms. Parker-Clark and what she should do. Mr. Harris suggested she apply for a transfer to another unit. On October 7, 2004, Petitioner, applied for a transfer to the position of Internal Senior Clerk on another unit. He also indicated that he would approve flex-time for her if Petitioner requested it and that she might be entitled to leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. Around October 13, 2004, Petitioner requested flexible working hours. As promised, Mr. Ennis approved her schedule. At about the same time, Petitioner requested transfer to a Senior Clerk position on another unit. On October 18, 2004, Petitioner requested that her salary be increased by 16 1/2 percent and that she receive such increased pay from the beginning of her employment. There was no evidence that demonstrated the basis for a 16 1/2 percent increase or that such an increase was warranted. On October 21, 2004, the increase was denied by Ms. Gunter. On October 27, 2004, Petitioner grieved Ms. Gunter’s decision. Personnel policy requires that a grievance be filed within 14 days of the act that caused the grievance. The human resources manager returned the grievance without action because 14 days had passed since Petitioner began employment on May 21, 2004, and Petitioner had the opportunity to decline the offered salary if she so desired. On November 1, 2004, Petitioner’s request for transfer was declined because of personnel rules based on the Union contract with the State that prevented transfer of a probationary employee to a higher position. On November 10, 2004, Petitioner appealed the return of her grievance and appealed or grieved the denial of her requests for salary increase and transfer to the hospital administration. The denial was upheld. During this review, Ms. Gunter claimed that Petitioner’s educational/professional certificates had been reviewed by the committee and claimed that the documents in Petitioner’s file were the actual documents reviewed and considered. However, the documents were the certificates that had been specially marked by Petitioner and later placed in her file. Ms. Gunter was unaware of the special demarcation of the documents. Claims of dishonesty were now mutual. Eventually, Petitioner did not wish to deal with Ms. Parker-Clark, unless her job duties required such. Petitioner complained to various administrators of the facility often about her treatment on the unit. Mr. Harris told her that the salary issue was dead and all options to have her salary increased had been explored. On November 22, 2004, Petitioner submitted a letter of resignation at a future date not expected to go past December 13, 2004. In that letter, Petitioner requested overtime hours with pay to complete her job assignments. The same date, Ms. Gunter denied the requested overtime and requested Petitioner to supply a date certain for her resignation. On November 23, 2004, she filed complaints that Ms. Gunter and Ms. Parker-Clark discriminated against her based on her race and age with the hospital’s equal employment office and similar complaints at PERC. On December 7, 2004, Petitioner forwarded an e-mail to the hospital attorney that stated she was leaving early and did not know when she would be back because she was tired of the harassment she was receiving on the unit. Sometime after that e-mail, Petitioner met with the hospital attorney. The hospital did not want to lose Petitioner as an employee and in an effort to help Petitioner, on December 9, 2004, the administration transferred Petitioner to another unit where she has performed well. Even though Petitioner had been requesting a transfer, it is this transfer that Petitioner alleged as a discriminatory action by the hospital. On this point Petitioner’s claim of discrimination has no merit and was clearly not demonstrated by the evidence. Petitioner has also been approved for a promotion at a higher salary, but the promotion has not yet taken effect. The promotion has been on hold because the hospital administrator retired and his replacement had recently taken over prior to the hearing. No evidence demonstrated that the delay was due to any unlawful employment practice. There was no evidence offered regarding a paycheck discrepancy around December 10, 2004. Ultimately, Petitioner’s case rests on assumption and speculation about others’ intentions and terms of employment that she claims she was entitled to. The problem is that there was no or insufficient evidence offered to demonstrate such unlawful intentions or entitlement. Indeed, assuming that Petitioner’s treatment was unjustified, it is more likely that Ms. Gunter and Ms. Parker-Clark engaged in such treatment because Petitioner was a new employee who questioned the old way of doing things and did not hesitate to go around them when she felt a need to do so. Assumptions and speculations are not enough. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Viritti Jackson 2173 West 15th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Scott D. Leemis, Esquire Northeast Florida State Hospital 7487 South State Road 121 Macclenny, Florida 32063 Carolyn Dudley, Assistant Staff Director Department of Children and Family Services Building 6, Room 123 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 3239-9070 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to discrimination in the work environment by Respondent due to Petitioner's gender in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed as a payload operator by Respondent, a fertilizer manufacturer, at the time of her employment termination in August of 1996. Petitioner’s job duties included scooping fertilizer onto the pay loader, or front-end loader, and dropping the fertilizer into a “hopper” for subsequent loading into rail cars. Petitioner was expected, along with other payload operators, to perform other duties, including the cleaning of work areas when she ceased her loading function. During Petitioner's employment, a union contract existed between Respondent and the International Chemical Workers Union of which Petitioner was a member. The union contract governed overtime assignments, pay structure, shift structure, disciplinary/termination procedures and lay-offs, among other things. Respondent paid Petitioner and gave her breaks, contrary to her allegations, in the same manner as other employees. Governed by the union contract during the busy 1995-96 period, Respondent assigned work to employees on many different shifts. The plant operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Overtime requirements were based on business necessity. All employees worked the same number of hours regardless of the shift to which they were assigned. Petitioner never formally complained to anyone regarding displeasure with shift assignments. Neither salary nor number of work hours were affected by Petitioner’s assignments to different work shifts. Petitioner and other employees worked the same number of hours. Petitioner took breaks just like other employees. Changes from shift to shift experienced by Petitioner had nothing to do with her gender. The union contract governed how Respondent assigned overtime to its employees. The contract established a procedure that distributed overtime hours evenly and fairly among all of Respondent's employees. Those procedures were adhered to by Respondent and all employees were given overtime opportunities in an equal manner without regard to gender. On one occasion, Petitioner complained about her overtime assignment. She felt that she should have been called into work on a day when another operator (male) was called to come in and work. Respondent had attempted to contact Petitioner at contact numbers provided by Petitioner, without success. Safety equipment was distributed to all employees. Petitioner signed a check list indicating that she had received or knew how to request safety equipment. A pair of boots requested by Petitioner on one occasion had not yet arrived, but did arrive before the conclusion of the business day. The delay in delivery of Petitioner's requested boots to her was not related to her gender. Petitioner complained that adverse comments were made to her on the job by male workers. The alleged comments ranged from women should only do "clean up work" to "if you don't smoke or drink, we don't need you in this department." All of the alleged comments were roundly denied by Petitioner's co-workers at the final hearing. The credibility and candor of the testifying co-workers establishes that the adverse comments were not made. One incident in which Petitioner complained about her work assignment resulted in the general foreman's immediately contacting Respondent's human resource department. A meeting was then held with Petitioner to address the situation. The foreman felt confident that Petitioner would voice any additional concerns if the situation did not change. Petitioner never voiced further concerns to the foreman. Petitioner alleged that she was denied the right of free speech at a meeting attended by her, Respondent representatives, and union representatives. As established at the final hearing, she was told by the union representative to remain quiet and let him do the talking if Respondent representatives made Petitioner angry. However, the union representative did not instruct Petitioner to otherwise remain silent. Under the union contract, Respondent could terminate employees who received three reprimands within a 12-month period. Petitioner was aware of this procedure. Petitioner had numerous instances of work-related misconduct and received more than three reprimands in a 12-month period. Counseled on June 4, 1995, for damaging a payloader, Petitioner received a reprimand on July 18, 1995, for again damaging a payloader. Petitioner was counseled again on August 14, 1995, for failure to communicate with the shipping operator. On October 16, 1995, Petitioner received a second reprimand for poor work performance for mixing discarded product with good product, a violation of Respondent policy. Petitioner received her third reprimand on February 28, 1996, for loading hot fertilizer, a violation of Respondent's policy. The difficulty of loading fertilizer before it cooled was the later removal of the hot product which would harden upon cooling into a concrete-like substance. Petitioner was given a second chance and not fired upon receiving her third reprimand in a 12-month period. Management hoped that Petitioner would seek to improve her work performance. Petitioner refused to help clean the plant on July 10, 1996, and was counseled by her supervisor. On July 25, 1996, she received a verbal warning for failure to report an accident. In August of 1996, Petitioner received her final reprimand for failure to attend a company meeting at the proper time and for again loading hot product. Petitioner's employment was terminated. The various reprimands imposed on Petitioner were from different supervisors at different times. None of the reprimands were based on Petitioner's gender. After a complete review of Petitioner's case, the union representative determined that Respondent had properly terminated her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 12th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Azizi M. Dixon, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Artie Johnson 2672 Northwest 6th Drive Jennings, Florida 32053 Mary L. Wakeman, Esquire McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope, and Weaver, P.A. Post Office Drawer 229 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0229 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent has complied with the Final Order of the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Findings Of Fact On July 9, 1990 after an evidentiary hearing on the Petitioner’s charge of racial discrimination, a Recommended Order was issued in favor of Petitioner. On June 18, 1992, after reviewing Respondent’s exceptions to the Recommended Order and after argument of Respondent’s counsel at a hearing before the Commission, the Florida Commission on Human Relations entered a Final Order in favor of the Petitioner, Ronnie Wideman. The Final Order stated in part: That the Respondent cease and desist from engaging in unlawful employment practices of this nature; That Respondent offer to promote Petitioner to the next available Quality Support Process Engineer or substantially similar position; That Respondent pay Petitioner back pay and benefits to which he would have been entitled had he received the Quality Support Process Engineer position; That Respondent pay Petitioner reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in litigating this claim, and That the Respondent notify the Commission in writing within 20 calendar days of the date of filing this Order of the steps that have been taken to comply with this Order. The Final Order was received by Respondent, filed and forgotten. The person who was responsible for filing and notifying the Pensacola plant of the Order’s requirements was the same person who failed to show for the original hearing in 1990. No appeal of the Final Order was filed by the Respondent. There was no attempt by Respondent to comply with the provisions of the Final Order, including the reporting, promotional and salary requirements of the Final Order. There are two relevant categories of jobs at Respondent’s facilities. There are hourly paid or non-exempt jobs and salaried administrative or exempt jobs. The exemption refers to whether the job is exempt from the union contract and collective bargaining. All of the salaried jobs at Respondent’s facilities are graded based on job responsibilities. The grades range from Grade 8 to Grade 25. The grade of a position relates to a salary structure for each grade. The salary structure provides for a range of salaries divided into thirds. A salary range for a grade often overlaps the salary range for the adjoining grade levels. The salary grade schedules for 1988-1996 are contained in Appendix 1 of this Recommended Order. Petitioner has been continuously employed with Respondent since 1976. He has been employed as a “paper tester/technician” since before the original charge of discrimination was filed in this case and held such a position at the time of the final hearing in 1990. The actual position title has varied over the years and has been assigned to different work sections over the years. However, Petitioner’s work in his job has remained essentially one of testing the quality of the paper Respondent makes and entering the data in the computer for analysis. Although he has never been promoted to the position of shift supervisor, Respondent has at various times filled some of the duties of the shift supervisor’s position, Grade 14. Petitioner has been and continues to be considered a competent and capable employee by Respondent. The position of “paper tester/technician” was throughout the time period involved in the original charge of discrimination to the present an hourly-paid position. Hourly paid employees can be required to work overtime and are paid for overtime work at the rate of the employee’s hourly rate plus one-half the hourly rate. Hourly employees receive pension benefits through a non-contributory plan. Hourly employees also can participate in 401-K retirement plans. The hourly employee’s contributions to a 401-K plan are matched at .50 cents on the dollar by the Respondent. However, the maximum amount an hourly employee can contribute to that employee’s 401-K plan is capped at $800.00. Since 1988, Petitioner’s hourly rate of pay has been, as follows: Ronnie Wideman SSN 250-94-9677 Position Effective Date Hourly Rate of Pay Paper Test 3B 08/01/88 $13.39* Paper Test 4B 03/23/89 13.90* Paper Test 4B (GWI) 07/01/89 14.25* Paper Test 4B (GWI) 07/01/90 14.54* Paper Test 4B (GWI) 07/01/91 14.90* Paper Test 4BC 05/09/92 15.46* Paper Test 4BC (GWI) 07/01/92 15.85* Paper Test 4BC (GWI) 07/01/93 16.25* Central Lab D 12/13/93 16.67 Paper Test 4BC 05/10/94 16.25* Paper Test 4BC (GWI) 07/01/94 16.66* Central Lab D 07/18/94 17.09 Central Lab 2D 08/26/94 17.29 Paper Test 4BC 04/05/95 16.66* Paper Test 4BC (GWI) 07/01/95 17.16* Central Lab 2D 01/23/96 17.81 Central Lab 3D 03/04/96 18.04 Central Lab 4D 05/10/96 18.24 Central Lab 4D (GWI) 07/01/96 18.79 Central Lab Family E 10/03/96 19.71 Petitioner also received at various times throughout the time period shown above an additional $.73 cents an hour for every hour worked as a Continuous Process Allowance for the difficulties of maintaining a four-shift job schedule necessitating working approximately 2300 hours per year. The pay periods during which Petitioner received the added Continuous Process Allowance are marked with an asterisk. The position of Quality Support Process Engineer was the position to which Respondent unlawfully failed to promote Petitioner and formed the basis of the original charge of discrimination. In 1988, when Petitioner should have been promoted, there were two openings for a quality support process engineer. The grade level was not advertised, but Respondent was told by a lab technician that the salary would range from $40,000.00 to $45,000.00 per year. The $40,000.00 range would have caused the position to fall within the grades 11, 12, 13 or 14. 11. The position of Quality Support Process Engineer was a salaried position with an annual salary based on the position’s grade level and the employee’s credentials and experience. As a salaried employee, the employee does not receive overtime pay, but still may be expected to work overtime in order to perform all the responsibilities of the position. Salaried employees receive pension benefits and can make up to a 6 percent contribution to that employee’s 401-K retirement plan which is matched at .50 cents on the dollar by Respondent. There is no cap on the amount of the contribution other than the 6 percent contribution. The position involves the supervision of the work of the “paper testers/technicians” and the laboratory in which the paper testing is performed. The position also involves attempting to resolve poor paper quality issues, as well as coordinating paper quality problems or issues with senior and field engineers and customers. Respondent prefers a person with a science degree to fill this position, but, as is obvious from the promotions described later, also recognizes a person’s knowledge gained through work in the paper field. In the past, Respondent has promoted employees to the position of Quality Support Process Engineer or similar position’s based on field experience absent a scientific degree. The position has had various titles and been housed in different areas due to Respondent’s reorganization of the various processes of papermaking. Those processes are cutsize, offset, market pulp and pulp. Essentially, Respondent has reorganized its work force at least twice. Beginning in 1991, The technical (paper testers) department and the quality departments were combined into a centralized technical department. The reorganized department still had people which performed quality process engineer functions, shift supervisors and paper testers. In fact, the functions of each person’s job didn’t substantially change. In 1995, the centralized department was eliminated and the technicians, quality support and supervisors were distributed between the various systems of cutsize, offset, market pulp and pulp. At about the same time, the shift supervisor positions were eliminated. The people who filled those positions remained, but transferred to more defined quality support positions under a new engineer grade system. In August of 1988, Charles C. “Red” Bradford (white male) was promoted to one of the two Quality Support Process Engineer positions. Mr. Bradford had been employed at Champion since 1956. Considerably longer than Petitioner. For a year prior to his promotion, Mr. Bradford had worked as the shift supervisor. Prior to shift supervisor, he had been a paper tester along with Petitioner. Upon promotion he received a salary of $45,500.00, even though he did not have a college degree. The position carried a grade level of 14. Mr. Bradford’s promotion was not discriminatory because of his greater experience in papermaking. At the same time, Kathy Dyess (white female), who was hired in 1983 performed the duties of an administrative clerical secretary but had a college degree in biology, was promoted to the second opening for Quality Support Process Engineer. She received a salary of $26,500.00 The position carried a level of Grade 10. Her promotion was discriminatory because of her lesser qualifications for the position when compared to Respondent’s. Because she had fewer qualifications for the position her starting position and subsequent work history since 1988 cannot be used to establish the salary Petitioner should have had if he had been promoted instead of Ms. Dyess. Clearly, Petitioner was entitled to make more than Ms. Dyess given his greater qualifications. Promotions which occurred in later years to substantially similar quality support positions given to David Currey and William Findley reflect a salary and grade level of Neither David Curry, nor Charles Findley had a college degree in the hard sciences, David Currey was hired as an hourly employee in 1971, four years before Petitioner, but is the most similar to Petitioner. Charles Findley was hired as an hourly employee in 1959 and is more similar to Red Bradford based on his greater number of years of experience. Both Mr. Currey and Mr. Findley were shift supervisors prior to their promotions to positions similar to Quality Support Process Engineer. Thus, except for Kathy Dyess’ promotion to Quality Support Process engineer, the evidence demonstrates that the position of Quality Support Process Engineer to which Petitioner should have been promoted carried a grade level of 14 and in 1988 a salary range of $35,800.00 to $57,400.00.1 Moreover, what is very clear from the evidence is that even though Mr. Curry had considrably less work experience at Champion, both men received salaries around the mid-range of the grade 14 salary range throughout the years they were grade level 14 employees. As senior and junior employees the difference between their salaries varied but fell around $2300.00. Therefore, in 1988 Petioner was entitled to receive compensation approximately $2300.00 less than the compensation received by Mr. Bradford. Petitoner’s increase in salary should have been to an hourly rate based on an annual salary of $43,200.00 for a 40 hour work week and 52 weeks in a year, i.e. an hourly rate of $20.77. In the years following 1988, Petitioner should have received increases in his salary based on a mid-range performance rating of 3, utilizing the upper percentage increase for that performance rating. Generally, both Mr.Curry and Mr. Findley received slightly more than the highest percentage rate for their performance rating. The current equivalent positions to the Quality Support Process Engineer are spread over a grade 10 Assistant Engineer, grade 11 Associate Engineer, grade 12 Engineer, grade 13 Process Engineer and grade 14 Senior Process Engineer. The evidence demonstrated that both Findley and Curry were brought into the new job classifications at level 14 around 1995. Given the fact that David Curry’s career tract is simmilar to what Petitioner’s would have experienced if he had received the promotion he was entitled to, he would have in 1995 received a similar position to grade 14 Senior Process Engineer and is entitled to receive a salary within that range for 1995. However, by 1995, Findley and Curry both had the opportunity to increase their skills and maintain their salary grade level under the 1995 engineer grade positions. Had Petitioner been promoted in 1988, he to would have had the requisite experience and skills to qualify for a grade level 14 as defined in 1995. For that reason Petitioner is entitled to receive an equivalent level of pay. The issue is different as to what level of position would be substantially equivalent to what he should have received in 1988. The best evidence, reflects that such a position would fall into the Grade 12 Engineer category. The evidence did not show that such a position with the Grade 14 level of salary was offered to Petitioner, but were only discussed. Petitioner, therefore, remains entitled to the first available Engineer position or its substantial equivalent, but at the salary he should have received if he had been able to pursue a normal course of employment. Finally, Petitioner has had to pay attorney fees and costs for the original 1990 proceeding and this motion proceeding in the amount of $4,482.30 for attorney fees and $1,023.73 in costs. The costs for mail fees and car rental have been disallowed. These fees and costs are reasonable and Petitioner is entitled to receive them from Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
The Issue Whether Respondent resigned from her position in Career Service by abandonment while employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
Findings Of Fact Prior to August 7, 1989, Gladys Dozier was employed by HRS as a clerk typist. On this date she was absent without authorized leave. On August 7, Respondent called her supervisor to tell her that she wasn't feeling well and would be late coming in. She came in at 9:57 a.m., and at 11:15 a.m. told her supervisor she wasn't feeling well and needed to go home. She left work around 11:20 a.m. On August 8, Respondent again called her supervisor to advise her that she wasn't feeling well but would come in later that morning. Respondent did not come to work that day and was not authorized leave. On August 9, Respondent again called in to say she wasn't feeling well and would not be in for the remainder of the week, but would report to work on August 14, 1989. She was then advised that she needed to bring in a medical statement from her doctor that she was unable to come to work those days she had missed. On August 11, 1989, Respondent again called the office and was reminded that she needed a medical statement for the time she had been absent. By certified letter dated August 15, 1989, and received by Respondent on August 16, 1989, Respondent's immediate supervisor, Mary Simmons, advised Respondent that she was expected at work not later than August 17, 1989, that the medical statement she had sent to the office August 14, 1989 was insufficient to justify more than one day's absence and that if she did not return to work by August 17, 1989, action would be taken to terminate her employment with HRS. Respondent did not return to work. By certified mail dated September 6, 1989 Respondent was advised that she had been absent from work without approved leave since August 14, 1989 and that pursuant to Rule 22A-7.010(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code, she is deemed to have abandoned her position with HRS and to have resigned from the career service system as of the close of business September 7, 1989. Thereafter Respondent submitted her undated letter which was received at the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 26, 1989, and these proceedings followed.
Recommendation It is recommended that the appeal of Gladys Dozier from the determination by HRS that she abandoned her position with the department be dismissed and her resignation from the Career Service be affirmed. ENTERED this 17th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 17th day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas C. Caufman, Esquire Aletta Shutes Department of Health and Secretary Rehabilitative Services Department of Administration 701 94th Avenue North 435 Carlton Building St. Petersburg, FL 33702 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Gladys Dozier Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. 2032 Quincy Street General Counsel St. Petersburg, FL 33711 Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building William A. Frieder, Esquire Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
