Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner, a black male, was hired by Respondent on February 11, 1985. Petitioner was employed as a wet mill laborer at Respondent's Florida Plant located in Bradford County, Florida. Petitioner's primary duties consisted of washing spirals and performing general housekeeping. Petitioner, like all newly hired employees, was hired subject to a ninety (90) day probationary period. Petitioner was provided an orientation period, given training, and was informed verbally during his employment about the importance of good job performance during his probation period. Petitioner was terminated by Respondent on April 1, 1985 during Petitioner's probationary period. Petitioner reported to four (4) first-line supervisors during his short period of employment which was the result of Petitioner being primarily on the day shift while the supervisors worked on a rotating shift basis. Petitioner's supervisors and the dates under each supervisor are as follows: C. A. Baldree during the weeks ending February 17, 1985 and March 17, 1985; J. W. Sherrill during the weeks ending February 24, 1985 and March 31, 1985; D. W. Baldree during the weeks ending March 3, 1985 and March 24, 1985 and; W. J. Frick during the week ending March 10, 1985. Although Petitioner's testimony conflicted with all three (3) first- line supervisors who testified concerning the fact surrounding the incidents which eventually gave rise to Petitioner's termination, the more credible evidence shows: During the week ending March 17, 1985, Supervisor C. A. Baldree instructed Petitioner and another employee to clean handrails in a specific area where a management visitation group would be observing. Petitioner proceeded to clean handrails in an area other than the one specified by the supervisor and when the supervisor attempted to advise Petitioner of his failure to follow instructions, Petitioner became abusive toward the supervisor and argued that he was following instructions. The Area Supervisor Gilberto Valazquez observed the incident and tried to resolve the matter with a meeting between Petitioner and Supervisor C. A. Baldree but Petitioner declined, commenting that he was afraid of losing his job. During the week ending March 24, 1985, Supervisor D. W. Baldree assigned Petitioner and another employee to wash some spirals in a specific area where visiting management would be observing. Again, Petitioner took it upon himself to clean spirals in a different area and when the supervisor attempted to advise Petitioner of his failure to follow instructions, Petitioner responded that he felt that where he had started was as good as any place to start, notwithstanding that Petitioner was aware of the reason for starting where the supervisor had instructed him to start cleaning. Also, during the week ending March 24, 1985, Supervisor D. W. Baldree repeatedly instructed Petitioner concerning the replacement of hoses and cutters that may be disconnected during the washing of the spirals. However, on several occasions Petitioner failed to replace the hoses and cutters that were disconnected during the washing process as instructed. During the week ending March 31, 1985, Supervisor J. W. Sherrill instructed Petitioner to clean out a tail box that was plugged with sand and adversely affecting production. When the supervisor returned in approximately 20-30 minutes he found the tail box still plugged. When the supervisor attempted to inform Petitioner of his failure to unplug the tail box, Petitioner became argumentative and pointed out that he had unplugged the tail box and that it was only water from a clear water hose that was dripping, notwithstanding the fact that a large amount of sand had accumulated and that muddy water rather than clean water was running from the tail box. At the end of the work week ending March 31, 1985, Supervisor Valazquez met with Petitioner and Supervisor Sherrill concerning an alleged promise made by Supervisor Sherrill to allow Petitioner to leave work early which Petitioner felt Supervisor Sherrill had reneged on, notwithstanding that supervisor had explained to Petitioner why he could not leave early. During the course of the discussion, Petitioner became very belligerent towards Supervisor Sherrill which prompted Supervisor Valazquez to review Petitioner's overall employment record to determine whether Petitioner should continue in the employment of Respondent. Supervisor Valazquez, in investigating Petitioner's overall performance, discussed Petitioner's employment record with all of Petitioner's first-line supervisors and also asked each of them for written comments. Based upon his own observations of Petitioner's job performance and his attitude toward supervision, the supervisors' comments, and the fact that as a short service probationary employee Petitioner was making no effort to improve his job performance or his attitude toward supervision, Supervisor Valazquez felt that Petitioner may not be salvageable as an employee and questioned Petitioner's continued employment with Respondent. Supervisor Valazquez reviewed Petitioner's performance record with his superiors and the site's Employee Relations Supervisor L. H. Wood, who was the site's Affirmative Action Officer. Wood found no evidence of discriminatory motivation. Valazquez's superiors concurred in the discharge recommendation. On April 1, 1985, Valazquez met with Petitioner to discuss the potential discharge action but approached the meeting with the view that should Petitioner show a change in his attitude in regard to his job performance and in accepting supervision, then Valazquez would change his mind and give the Petitioner another chance. When Valazquez attempted to review Petitioner's poor job performance and attitude problems with Petitioner, Petitioner again became very defensive and argumentative. As a result of Petitioner's attitude in this meeting, Valazquez proceeded with the discharge action that had been approved by management. Although the record reflects that Petitioner did not receive any written or verbal warnings from any of his shift- supervisors that his performance was so unsatisfactory that if improvement was not made he would be terminated, Petitioner was made aware, by his shift-supervisors and area supervisor that poor job performance was a basis for termination, particularly during his probationary period. There was at least one (1) occasion, the incident which occurred during the week ending February 17, 1985 with C. A. Baldree, where Petitioner commented about the possibility of losing his job and Valazquez advised him that he would not lose his job so long as he performed properly and showed respect for his supervisors. On three (3) other occasions, his supervisors made the Petitioner aware of his poor job performance and poor attitude. Petitioner was not advised of any written memorandums concerning his job performance or possible termination had been prepared until April 1, 1985, the date Petitioner had a conference with Valazquez and, due to his defensive and argumentative attitude, was not allowed further opportunity to improve his job performance or his attitude and was terminated. No formal employee/supervisor conferences were held with Petitioner until April 1, 985, the date Petitioner was terminated. On the same date that Petitioner was hired, Robert McGee, a white male, was hired by Respondent as a laborer. McGee was assigned to a field laborer position, reporting almost exclusively to one (1) supervisor, Doris Cole. Field laborers work in an area separate and apart from the wet mill and report to different first-line supervisors than the wet mill laborers. On April 25, 1985, within McGee's probationary period, McGee received a formal employee/supervisor conference concerning his unsatisfactory job performance and his damaging of company equipment, warned that definite improvement in his job performance was expected or probation or possibly termination could be expected. On July 3, 1985, McGee received another employee/supervisor conference which involved McGee, Doris Cole and Valazquez and McGee was informed that his performance had improved slightly but significant improvement was expected in the next two (2) weeks or he could expect termination. McGee was placed on probation at this time. On August 2, 1985, another formal employee/supervisor conference was held with McGee wherein it was noted that McGee had demonstrated that- he could perform at a satisfactory level but that continued improvement was expected and that McGee would remain on probation until October 3, 1985. The final employee/supervisor conference record dated October 4, 1985 concluded that McGee could not consistently perform satisfactorily, therefore termination was recommended. McGee did not attend this conference but resigned by telephone on that date in lieu of being terminated. McGee reviewed each of the employee/supervisor conference reports with the exception of the one on October 4, 1985 and each of the reports were included in his personnel file, including the one for October 4, 1985. McGee was a marginal employee who tried to perform his job properly and was receptive to constructive criticism; however, he was unable to improve his performance to a point that was acceptable to Respondent's management. McGee worked on the wet mill for brief periods without incident. McGee had no history of refusing to follow instructions of his supervisor or of being argumentative with the supervisors. The Respondent had no stated policy that required written warnings of poor job performance to employees by their respective supervisors. It was the general policy of the -shift supervisors that during the probationary period, especially during the early part of the probationary period, warnings of poor job performance were given verbally to the employee and that a formal employee/supervisor conference was reserved for more severe matters such as violation of safety rules. However, the manner in which a supervisor handled a particular warning of poor job performance during an employee's probationary period was left to the discretion of the individual supervisor. The record reflects only two (2) other incidents where an employee/supervisor conference was held with an employee during the employee's initial probationary period: Kathy D. Sanders, a black female, on June 5, 1985 and; Bernard Brown, a black male, on March 27, 1984. C. A. Baldree, D. W. Baldree and J. W. Sherrill, three (3) of Petitioner's shift supervisors, were all white as were the supervisors of McGee. Respondent has, and had during Petitioner's employment, an aggressive Affirmative Action program which applied to all aspects of the employment environment. Respondent has in the past received national and local recognition for its Affirmative Action efforts. Respondent's employment of minorities has exceeded the availability of minorities in the labor supply area. Although the local availability of minorities was fifteen percent (15 percent), twenty to twenty-one percent (20-21 percent) of employees at the site were minorities. Of the forty three (43) individuals hired, closely related in time to Petitioner's dates of employment, ten (10) or twenty-three percent (23 percent) were black. Although at the time of Petitioner's initial employment, Respondent had some misgivings about Petitioner's failure to disclose certain information on his employment application, Respondent decided to hire Petitioner anyway because of its Affirmative Action efforts and Petitioner's tests results. The clear weight of the evidence shows that Respondent's reasons for discharging Petitioner was his poor job performance and his argumentative and abusive behavior towards the supervisors when instructed to correct a situation where Petitioner had failed to follow instructions, either intentionally or because he had misunderstood the instructions. The clear weight of the evidence establishes that Petitioner was treated in a dissimilar manner from the white employee, but the disparity of treatment resulted from a dissimilar attitude toward job performance and supervision rather than racial motivation. Area Supervisor Valazquez, the supervisor primarily involved in the decision to discharge Petitioner, is Hispanic.
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, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding that the Petitioner, Milton Baker, was not discharged due to his race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1985), and that the Petition for Relief be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 16th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3623 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. The first sentence adopted in Finding of Fact 4. The second sentence rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 6.(a-c) Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 (a-d) but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 through 9 and 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 13, 14 and 17. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 18. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16 and 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Respondent had no Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5(a) but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5(b) but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5(c) but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5(d) but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6 but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7 but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8 but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Facts 17 and 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 11 and 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14, 15 and 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25 but clarified. COPIES FURNISHED: John F. MacLennan, Esquire Kattman, Eshelman & MacLennan 1920 San Marco Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Jerry H. Brenner, Esquire Legal Department E. I. du Point de Nemours and Company 100 West 10th Street Wilmington, DE 19898 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue The issue for determination at the final hearing was whether the Respondent, City of Largo, as employer of Petitioner, Cleareather B. Gross, committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of race.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Petitioner, a black female, was hired as a Clerical Assistant I for the City of Largo's City Clerk's Office on September 21, 1981 and was assigned to the mail room. The Petitioner was hired for the position by City Clerk Kay Klinsport, a white female. The interview went well and, although there were other candidates for the position, the Petitioner was hired. Shortly after commencing work with the City Clerk's Office, the relationship between the Petitioner and her supervisor, Kay Klinsport, began to turn sour. Ms. Klinsport utilized very strict management and supervisory techniques and was not considered a very good personnel manager by many of her subordinates. The Petitioner is an extremely assertive person and takes pride in her willingness to "speak her mind" in all situations. Ms. Darlene Trowell, a white female, worked as a secretary in the City Clerk's Department during the time in question. Ms. Trowell also had trouble with Ms. Klinsport's management and supervisory techniques, but decided that the best way to deal with her was by keeping quiet and having limited contact. Ms. Klinsport antagonized several of her subordinates, both white and black. Ms. Klinsport decided that the Petitioner should be watched especially close and asked Ms. Trowell to "keep an eye on her (Petitioner)." This occurred as a result of Ms. Klinsport's management techniques, the Petitioner's overall assertive attitude and several complaints that were received regarding the Petitioner. Ms. Klinsport no longer works for the City of Largo. Darlene Trowell frequently complained to the City Manager regarding Ms. Klinsport's managerial techniques. The City of Largo has written guidelines governing employee conduct and discipline; those guidelines are titled "Code of Conduct and Disciplinary Measures" and a copy is provided to all employees. The guidelines require that supervisors pursue a philosophy of "progressive discipline" by administering gradually increasing disciplinary actions for each successive instance of employee misconduct. Possible disciplinary actions include oral reprimand, written reprimand, suspension, and ultimately, dismissal. Kay Klinsport received several complaints regarding the Petitioner, at least one of these complaints came from the Fire Chief and one complaint came from an employee of the Police Department. In her position with the City Clerk's Office, the Petitioner had occasion to come into contact with employees of the Police and Fire Departments. One of the complaints about Petitioner came from a black employee of the Police Department. On December 3, 1981, J. G. Knight, Fire Chief, sent an interoffice memorandum to Kay Klinsport complaining of the Petitioner's behavior. Specifically, the complaint alleged that Mr. Knight had received numerous verbal complaints and at least two written complaints of confrontations and harrassments by the Petitioner when it becomes necessary for fire department clerical employees to conduct business in or around the mail room. In addition, the complaint alleged that the Petitioner wrongfully opened a sealed envelope addressed to an employee of the fire department concerning the death of a member of his immediate family. On January 29, 1982 Kay Klinsport, City Clerk, issued the Petitioner a written reprimand. The reprimand specifically addressed friction between the Petitioner and other employees and noted the following: 11-16-81 - Failure to complete a project from personnel; 12-1-81 - A confrontation with Becky from the Fire Department; 12-10-81 - A confrontation with Barbara from Public Works Department Refusal to stamp signatures on annexation notices; A confrontation with Bonnie concerning Vivian and Marlene; Problem involving mail from P. O. Box 137 and directions given from Lynn in Finance; A confrontation with Charlotte regarding mail pick-up during distribution; 1-25-82 - Compensatory time confrontation as to date used; 1-26-82 - Attitude involved throughout day and into next.' The written reprimand stated that if Petitioner received another reprimand for the same reason, she would be suspended without pay for five days in accordance with personnel rules and regulations. On February 16, 1982 Kay Klinsport, City Clerk, issued a written reprimand to the Petitioner. This reprimand involved a complaint that Ms. Klinsport had received from the Police Department concerning the Petitioner's use (or rather misuse) of the microfilming equipment. The Police Department allows the City Clerk's Office to use certain camera equipment for microfilming records. Specifically, the reprimand alleged that the Petitioner continued to run documents through the machine without proper preparation (i.e., removing staples and paperclips) despite being instructed as to the proper use of the equipment. Improper use of the machine by failing to remove staples and paperclips can cause the machine to malfunction because the staples and paperclips accumulate in the bottom of the machine. The written reprimand warned Petitioner that if she continued to misuse the camera equipment at the Police Department, she would be suspended for three days. On October 8, 1982 Kay Klinsport, City Clerk, issued a written reprimand to the Petitioner. The written reprimand cited the following: 10-1-82 - Incident involving Lynn McKenzle, Finance Department, in failure to readily relinquish use of the computer; 10-6-82 - Copy paper incident with Brenda stemming from incorrect certificate of indebtedness turned into supervisor, department head; and Verbal complaints from several other employees. On the basis of this written reprimand, the Petitioner was suspended for five days without pay. The Petitioner was warned that should her attitude continue to interfere with subordinate and/or fellow employee relationships, she would be dismissed. On November 12, 1982, the Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination against the City of Largo with the Equal Opportunity Commission (case #025830181). On November 30, 1982 Kay Klinsport issued a written reprimand to Petitioner, Specifically, the reprimand addressed the Petitioner's poor attitude and ability to deal with subordinates and/or fellow employees and noted a confrontation between the Petitioner and "Kay and Leah." On the basis of this written reprimand, the Petitioner was suspended without pay for five days, with termination of employment to take effect on December 7, 1982. Effective July 4, 1982, the Petitioner was moved from Clerical Assistant I to Acting Clerical Assistant II. On September 29, 1982, the Petitioner sent a memo to Kay Klinsport indicating her desire to apply for the permanent position of Clerical Assistant II. On November 21, 1982, the Petitioner was returned to her permanent position of Clerical Assistant I. Lynn McKenzie, a white female, was hired to fill the Clerical Assistant II position. The Petitioner performed poorly on the Clerical Assistant II written test and was not hired for the vacant position. Of the five people that took the examination, the Petitioner placed last; however, Ms. McKenzie did not make the highest score. On March 21, 1982, the Petitioner's probationary appraisal was made by Kay Klinsport. In the evaluation, the Petitioner was rated "satisfactory" on overall performance. With the exception of "attitude," all factors were rated "satisfactory;" attitude was indicated as "generally neutral; disposition and outlook varied with mood." On September 21, 1982, the Petitioner received her "anniversary performance appraisal" which was completed by Kay Klinsport. The Petitioner's overall performance was rated as "satisfactory." Ms. Klinsport did, however, mention that the Petitioner's attitude varied with her mood. The Petitioner appealed her discharge and on September 19, 1983, an order of the Federal Mediation and Faciliation Service was issued directing that the City of Largo reinstate the Petitioner without any back pay to the position held by her on the date of her discharge. The Mediation order found that the Petitioner's conduct warranted a disciplinary penalty short of discharge. The Petitioner returned to work on October 5, 1983. However, the Petitioner resigned on February 4, 1984.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner's Petition for Relief be denied in that no unlawful employment practice has been shown. DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of December 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303 Aurelio Durana, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303 Ms. Patricia Catalano Personnel Analyst City of Largo Post Office Box 296 Largo, FL 33540 Ms. Cleareather B. Gross 915 North Garden Avenue Clearwater, FL 33515 Thomas M. Gonzalez, Esq. P. O. Box 639 201 E. Kennedy Blvd. Suite 838 Tampa, FL 33601
The Issue Whether the City of Ocala (the City or Respondent), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01- 760.11, Florida Statutes,1/ by discriminating against Nyleah Jackson (Petitioner) because of her race.
Findings Of Fact On May 2, 2016, Petitioner, who is an African-American female, was hired by the City as an Administrative Specialist II in its Electric Utility Department. On October 10, 2016, Petitioner moved to a lateral Administrative Specialist II position with the City’s Public Works Department to perform generally the same type of duties in that department’s sanitation division. An Administrative Specialist II is expected to regularly and competently prepare correspondence, maintain records, provide customer service, compile reports, and prepare schedules and payroll. As an Administrative Specialist II, Petitioner received mostly satisfactory, although never exceptional, ratings in her performance evaluation reviews in both the City’s Electric and Public Works Departments. In each of Petitioner’s performance evaluation reviews, her rater or supervisor was tasked with assigning a 1, 2, or 3 rating for each of 10 different tasks, examples of which include “Quality of Work,” “Efficiency,” “Responsibility,” and “Customer Focus.” A rating of 1 means that the employee performed a task below the standard. A rating of means that the employee meets task requirements. A rating of means the employee exceeds standards. Petitioner received a rating of 2 (Meets Standard) for every task on every review produced by the City, except for her April 19, 2017, evaluation on which Petitioner received a 1 in the category of “Responsibility” due to alleged problems related to tardiness and failure to properly notify her supervisors of absences. During January 2017, an Administrative Specialist III position became available within the City’s sanitation division because the person previously filling that position moved into another position. In accordance with the City’s hiring process governed by its City Employee Handbook, the City’s Human Resources Department (HR) reviewed the vacant Administrative Specialist III position, confirmed that it was budgeted and set to be filled, and evaluated whether it was governed by any collective bargaining agreements. Upon determining that the position was governed by the City’s collective bargaining agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, on January 13, 2017, the City posted the job internally for five days to allow existing City employees to apply for the position before allowing external applications. Similar to the Administrative Specialist II position, the City’s Administrative Specialist III position is required to regularly and competently prepare correspondence, maintain records, provide customer service, compile reports, and prepare schedules and payroll. An Administrative Specialist III, however, has expanded duties and responsibilities. While all administrative specialists throughout the City perform similar tasks, each division in the City may have a different distribution of duties for its employees due to the kind of work required for that division’s services. These differences would not be reflected in the listing for an open Administrative Specialist III position. Such listings were drafted by an outside consultant to generally describe the Administrative Specialist III position for all departments throughout the City. For the sanitation division, the Administrative Specialist III position has a substantial customer service component. Specifically, the Administrative Specialist III position in the sanitation division is required to answer a large volume of phone calls from angry citizens for various sanitation complaints. For that reason, the hiring managers placed importance on the applicants’ people skills, patience, and ability to maintain a calm, customer-friendly demeanor when dealing with angry citizens. Petitioner testified that the director of the City’s Public Works Department, Darren Park, suggested that she apply for the open Administrative Specialist III position due to Mr. Park’s belief that she had performed well in a previous interview. Therefore, Petitioner explained, on January 23, 2017, she applied for the City’s vacant Administrative Specialist III position in the sanitation division. In accordance with City policy, HR reviewed all of the internal applications for the position to preliminarily screen applicants who did not meet the minimal qualifications. Petitioner’s application and three other internal candidates’ applications were found to have met the minimal qualifications and were forwarded to the department’s hiring managers for interviews. Of the four internal applicants forwarded by HR to the hiring managers, the only other minority applicant was a Hispanic male. Shortly after the internal applications were submitted, the two hiring managers, Dwayne Drake and Cloretha McReynolds, reviewed the applications and interviewed the City’s internal applicants. Dwayne Drake, a Caucasian male, was the division head of sanitation. Cloretha McReynolds, an African-American female, was a supervisor in the sanitation division. A few days after the City received Petitioner’s application, Mr. Drake and Ms. McReynolds interviewed Petitioner for the open position. During Petitioner’s interview, as well as in all of the other interviews for the position, the hiring managers used a list of prepared questions, entitled “Sanitation Administrative Specialist III Behavioral Interview Questions.” The questions were designed to allow the hiring managers to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of an applicant’s personality traits, people skills, and behavioral characteristics. During her interview for the position, Petitioner admitted that one of her weaknesses was that her assertiveness could sometimes be mistaken for aggressiveness. This comment by Petitioner concerned Mr. Drake because the sanitation division has many callers already upset when they call. Mr. Drake felt that Petitioner’s comment was a “big hurdle” that Petitioner would have to overcome in order to be selected for the Administrative Specialist III position. Similarly, Ms. McReynolds testified that Petitioner’s response that her assertiveness could be misinterpreted as aggressiveness concerned her because “we were looking for a specific – we were looking for someone with a great personality.” When further pressed by Petitioner why customer service was valued so highly for the Administrative Specialist III position, Ms. McReynolds testified: Q. Okay. Are there different weights that you hold for one question than the other? For example, someone said they don’t have experience in payroll, but they also said that they are very well with handling customers, is there a system for you that you say: “Hey, well, this is more important than the other one? This one holds more weight than the other one”? A. Anyone can be taught to do payroll. Q. Right. A. Anyone can’t be taught to be respectful on the phone and customer friendly. I can teach someone how to do payroll, I can teach someone to do billing. I can teach someone how to do that position, but I can’t teach someone to be nice to the customers. And I needed a nice person, a person who is going to be able to, when they get yelled at, better keep calm and deal with it, calm the customer down. And that’s what I was looking for. After the internal interviews, and as provided for by the City Employee Handbook and its collective bargaining agreements, the hiring managers decided to list the available Administrative Specialist III position externally. Petitioner testified that, following her interview, Mr. Drake came to her office and told her that the hiring managers were looking for a “better fit” for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position and that the City would advertise the position externally. Petitioner testified that, based on this statement, she inferred that the hiring managers had already determined that the City would not hire any of the internal applicants for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position because they had already determined that none of the internal applicants were qualified. In his testimony, Mr. Drake confirmed that he spoke with Petitioner following her interview, but denied that he told Petitioner, or any other City employee applicant, that they were already disqualified. Instead, Mr. Drake explained that, following the internal applicant interviews, he spoke to Petitioner because she was a Public Works employee and he wanted to tell her in person that they were going to look for external applicants. Mr. Drake’s testimony is credited. After the open Administrative Specialist III position was listed externally, three external applications were forwarded to the hiring managers, who interviewed those candidates consistent with City policy, using the same prepared questions as used in the internal interviews. After completing the external interviews, the managers both decided Jenna Hylkema, a Caucasian female and external applicant, to be the best applicant, and she was hired for the position. Ms. Hylkema had a high school diploma, a bachelor degree in criminal justice and had previously worked for the City as a dispatcher for the Ocala Police Department. At the time she was hired for the Administrative Specialist III position, Ms. Hylkema was working at the Department of Children and Families investigating child abuse cases and related issues. Both of the hiring managers agreed that Ms. Hylkema’s employment history and performance in her interview made her the strongest candidate for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position. Notably, Ms. McReynolds testified that Ms. Hylkema “was a call – a 911 call person [at the police department], and she was able to deal with - I thought she would be better to deal with the stress level, as far as – and also her personality in accepting calls.” Both Mr. Drake and Ms. McReynolds confirmed that their ranking preference was informal and not reduced to writing, but that, after all of the interviews, they discussed each of their orders of preference out of the seven applicants. According to both hiring managers, Petitioner ranked third or fourth of the seven applicants. Although they believed Petitioner was qualified, the hiring managers thought that Jenna Hylkema’s work experience and performance in her interview made her the most qualified applicant for the position. Also notable, Ms. Hylkema performed better on the objective components of the interview process. Petitioner herself confirmed that Ms. Hylkema performed better than she had in the objective portions of the interview, including scoring twice as high in an objective typing speed test. Both hiring managers credibly testified that neither Petitioner’s race, Jenna Hylkema’s race, nor anyone else’s race influenced their decision to hire Ms. Hylkema for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position. A few months after Ms. Hylkema was hired for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position, another Administrative Specialist III position opened in the Public Works Street Division, which was filled by Erica Wilson, an African-American woman who, like Petitioner, was working as an Administrative Specialist II when she applied. Petitioner did not apply for this position. Petitioner confirmed this, but failed to provide any explanation as to why the City’s policies discriminated against her, as an African-American woman, but apparently did not discriminate against Erica Wilson in their decision to hire her for another open Administrative Specialist III only a few months later. When asked why she did not apply for the other Administrative Specialist III position, Petitioner testified that she wanted the Administrative Specialist III position in the sanitation division. Despite evidence indicating that there was no illegal discrimination in the City’s process of filling the position for which Petitioner had applied, Petitioner alleged that there were irregularities in the selection process. For example, Petitioner contends that Ms. Hylkema was not qualified because Ms. Hylkema held a criminal justice degree that did not include advanced business or secretarial classes in college. The evidence, however, demonstrated that the City’s hiring process was flexible enough to allow certain criteria to be waived in favor of other experience, and that all applicants who were interviewed met the minimal qualifications for the position. Petitioner also alleged improprieties in the hiring process on the grounds that the City’s hiring managers did not use a formal numerical scoring in their evaluations and failed to keep complete notes during their interviews to confirm that each question was asked to every candidate. The City’s hiring process for vacant positions, however, does not require any specific numerical scoring system or prescribed notation process. Rather, the evidence demonstrated that the hiring managers appropriately weighed their impressions of the candidates through their interviews and the other materials provided to determine who would be best to respond to angry phone calls that the City’s sanitation department would receive. Throughout that process, and with no evidence of illegal discrimination, the managers appropriately ranked Petitioner as the third or fourth best candidate for the Administrative Specialist III position. The evidence at the hearing did not reasonably suggest that the process used during the selection process was suspicious, vulnerable to arbitrariness, or indicative of illegal discrimination. When asked about the City’s interview procedure, Petitioner said that she had no objection to the City asking questions to discern whether or not, subjectively, the interviewers thought an applicant was a good fit for the job. In sum, the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner was not hired for the open position for which she applied because of her race, or that the City otherwise engaged in illegal discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner in this case is K. Kristine Nowacki. She was employed as an attorney in the office of the legal counsel for Respondent's District One in Pensacola, Florida, from November 14, 1988, until termination of her employment on June 9, 1989. Respondent is the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Rodney Johnson, the district's chief legal counsel. Cheleene Schembera was Johnson's immediate supervisor and chief administrator of District One. Upon commencement of Petitioner's employment, the work force in the legal office consisted of Johnson, a male, and Teresa Goodson, another female attorney. Another attorney, Randy Werre, was male and began employment in March of 1989. Since Petitioner had never used a dictaphone and could type exceedingly fast, 140 words per minute, she was given a word processor to prepare preliminary drafts of her work products. Word processing equipment was limited in the office. Johnson considered the provision of such equipment to Petitioner to be an exceptional employee benefit, as opposed to a burden or impairment. Petitioner never requested that she be provided with a dictaphone. Both Johnson and Schembera were concerned about Petitioner's dress and appearance. On separate occasions, both individuals spoke with Petitioner about a need to effect changes in her personal dress and grooming habits. When Johnson offered employment to Petitioner, he discussed with her the need to do something with her long, bushy and unkempt hair style. Prior to his employment offer to Petitioner, Johnson was told by Schembera that he should counsel with Petitioner about her hair style if he intended to hire Petitioner. However, the need to change dress or hair style was not a condition of employment. On January 11, 1989, Johnson spoke with Petitioner and noted that she had handled a difficult evidentiary matter in a hearing that day. However, Johnson's comments did not amount to an endorsement of Petitioner as a person with potential to become a great trial attorney. Petitioner was hired to serve as Johnson's "backup" and to effectively take Johnson's place in the event of his absence. Petitioner never developed such capability in the course of her employment with Respondent. Although Schembera spoke with Petitioner on April 21, 1989, regarding the need for Petitioner to adopt a more conservative hairstyle and dress, Schembera sought to provide Petitioner with guidance in order that Petitioner might retain the respect of her peers. Schembera told Petitioner that the discussion had no significance with regard to Petitioner's job. Such counselling by Schembera is not unusual. She has counseled with other employees concerning dress or hair styles when she considered such action to be appropriate. On at least one occasion in proximity to Petitioner's employment, Schembera counselled a male employee regarding the necessity of that employee obtaining a hair cut. Schembera even-handedly applied her grooming code to both male and female employees. Petitioner was unable to properly perform her job duties. In the judgement of her supervisors, she did not adequately prepare for hearing or otherwise adequately present Respondent's position in numerous hearings. As an attorney in Respondent's employment, Nowacki was a select exempt employee serving at the pleasure of Respondent. As such an employee, Petitioner's employment could be terminated at any time by Respondent. By letter dated June 9, 1989, Johnson informed Petitioner that her employment had been terminated. Her gross wages at the time of discharge from employment were $788.46 biweekly. The testimony of Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Rodney Johnson, was candid, consistent and creditable. That testimony establishes that Petitioner's employment was terminated because of her work performance. Neither dress nor hair length or style were factors in her termination. Johnson felt that Petitioner's appearance had begun to improve at the time of her employment termination. Petitioner's testimony, as a result of inconsistencies in that testimony and her demeanor while testifying, is not credited and fails to establish that her supervisors unlawfully terminated her employment. During the course of her seven months of employment, Petitioner made extensive use of sick leave. From an initial allotment of 104 hours, Petitioner used all but 17 hours of that leave amount. On June 27, 1989, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination against Respondent alleging termination of employment on the basis of sex.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of August, 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 26th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-6600 The following constitutes my ruling on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in substance. Rejected with regard to pregnancy comment, credibility. Rejected, legal conclusion, argumentative and a mere restatement of Petitioner's position. The creditable evidence establishes that Petitioner was hired and retained in employment until her lack of capability was demonstrated. Rejected, Petitioner's testimony in this regard is not credited. As established by Johnson's testimony, which is credited, one of Petitioner's asserted strengths was her typing capability and she was provided a word processor as a benefit. Petitioner did not establish that she objected to this arrangement at the time. Rejected, creditability, insofar as grooming and dress requirements comprising employment conditions. Adopted in substance. 7.-8. Rejected, relevancy. Rejected, Petitioner's version is not supported by weight of the evidence, creditability. Rejected, relevancy. Adopted in substance, but not verbatim. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 13.-16. Rejected, relevancy. 17. While Schembera frankly admitted her dislike for Petitioner's dress and grooming and also accepted responsibility for the ultimate approval of the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment, this testimony does not establish that the basis for employment termination was other than Petitioner's job performance. This proposed finding must be rejected as a mischaracterization of Schembera's testimony. 18.-19. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 22.-24. Rejected, unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-21. Adopted, although not verbatim. 22.-25. Rejected, relevancy. 26.-28. Adopted by reference. 29.-30. Rejected, relevancy. 31. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: John Barry Kelly,II, Esq. 15 West Main Street Pensacola, FL 32501 Peter S. Fleitman, Esq. Lynda Quillen, Esq. Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol-Suite 1501 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Ronald M. McElrath Executive Director Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Clerk Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
The Issue : The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by being allegedly retaliated against by termination from employment for purportedly making complaints concerning alleged discriminatory practices toward Hispanic employees.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was hired by the Escambia County Health Department (Department) the Respondent herein, as a Community Health Nursing Supervisor. It was the Petitioner's duty to supervise nursing staff under her direction and to perform their employee evaluations. She, in turn, was responsible to her supervisor, Jennifer Carter. The Petitioner maintains that she was retaliated against by the Respondent, in the employment action taken, because she complained to her supervisors concerning what she claimed was discriminatory conduct toward Hispanic employees by other employees of the Respondent. The Petitioner, for instance, made reference to an employee, Annette Thrasher, who purportedly made reference to "those people" in a meeting when referring to Hispanic people or employees. The Petitioner, however, did not make a formal complaint about that matter when offered the opportunity to do so. Maribel Reyes is a Hispanic employee. She testified that another employee, possibly employee Thrasher, criticized her as well as Esperanza Rietz, also a Hispanic employee, for speaking the Spanish language at work. Ms. Reyes and/or Ms. Rietz took a complaint about this matter to the Petitioner. The Petitioner did not act to resolve it, however, and therefore Ms. Reitz took her concerns about criticism of her speaking in Spanish to the Petitioner's supervisor, Ms. Carter. The issue was then resolved quickly by Ms. Carter, who assured Ms. Rietz that she could speak any language she wished; that there was no prohibition against that. The Respondent had contended that this was one of the instances of purported discrimination against Hispanic employees which she purportedly defended against and made complaint about to the Respondent's management. In fact, the complaint had been made to her by the Hispanic employee referenced above and she had done nothing about it. In any event, the fact that the Petitioner's supervisor, Ms. Carter, acted quickly to assure Ms. Reyes and indeed Ms. Rietz, that the Respondent's management did not tolerate employment conduct indicative of such discrimination, tends to belie the Petitioner's contention that the Respondent retaliated against her for making a complaint about discrimination against Hispanic employees. Rather, it was her supervisor, and the Respondent's management who acted to ensure that such potentially discriminatory conduct was not condoned. This belies any likelihood that the Respondent would have retaliated against the Petitioner for following the same policy, had she done so. When she was hired the Petitioner's supervisor, Ms. Carter, instructed her to include Ms. Carter in any meetings and/or discussions with employees concerning those employees' performance evaluations, especially if the evaluations were contemplated to be negative ones. The Petitioner was still a probationary employee herself, and Ms. Carter, as her supervisor wanted to ascertain that she had followed instructions and was doing the employee performance evaluations in accordance with the Respondent's relevant personnel rules and policies. In fact, however, the Petitioner failed to follow Ms. Carter's instructions and completed a number of performance evaluations and meetings with the affected employees without informing Ms. Carter or securing her presence at those discussions. The testimony of witnesses Jessie Wilson and Jennifer Carter, established that the Petitioner gave Jessie Wilson an unfair and inaccurate employee performance evaluation. She excessively criticized and was rude toward Jessie Wilson. The Petitioner apparently made a comment somewhat to the effect that Ms. Wilson, who is white, had a "Jim Crow" attitude or an "overseer" mentality. The Petitioner was overly critical, demeaning, and rude toward employees at various times. She embarrassed and criticized Esperanza Rietz, an employee she supervised, in front of the employee's co-workers and disclosed her personal medical information improperly to Ms. Rietz's co-workers. Velda Gardner is a Health Technician in the health unit. Ms. Gardner took a long lunch period one day, taking an extra hour. She took the extra hour from administrative leave she was entitled to as "compensation time." The Petitioner wrongfully docked her the hour of administrative leave time. Ms. Gardner demonstrated to the Petitioner, with a witness, that she was entitled to the hour of administrative leave time or compensation time but the Petitioner refused to accept her truthful explanation. She effectively and wrongfully accused Ms. Gardner of lying. In addition to prompting employee Jessie Wilson to file a grievance against the Petitioner because of the untrue, inaccurate, and overly disparaging evaluation concerning Ms. Wilson's performance, the Petitioner yelled at and criticized Ms. Wilson in front of her peers. She also treated other employees in front of peers in a similar fashion at various times. Ms. Rietz worked as a Spanish language interpreter for the Respondent. The Petitioner disparaged her in front of other employees. Ms. Rietz felt demeaned by this. On another occasion the Petitioner approached a physician, Dr. Tamalo, in the hallway outside her office and commenced yelling at him and berating him in a loud, rude manner. This was overheard by witnesses Virginia Howard and Gracie Stovall, employed, respectively, in the nearby Family Planning Clinic and Family Health Clinic. According to these two witnesses, "everyone in adjoining rooms could hear it." The Petitioner behaved in a very loud, rude disparaging way to Dr. Tamalo and another physician. Jennifer Carter, as referenced above, is employed by the Family Health Clinic and is the Petitioner's supervisor. She corroborated the testimony of witness Jessie Wilson concerning the Petitioner's "Jim Crow" reference and described the above-named witnesses' and employees' complaints concerning the Petitioner's conduct towards them, corroborating the nature of their complaints. Witness Carter described Respondent's Exhibit A, which is Jessie Wilson's performance evaluation, as being in some respect harsh and demeaning, with the same sort of criticisms directed at the Respondent's Exhibit B, the performance evaluation of Tammy Buckney. These evaluations were not done in accordance with Ms. Carter's instruction. Ms. Carter, in fact, had to re-formulate and re-draft three of the six employee evaluations she received from the Petitioner because they were inaccurate, overly disparaging, and not done according to her instructions. Ms. Carter is the Assistant Community Health Nurse of the Escambia County Health Department. Ms. Carter thus corroborated the testimony of other employees that the Petitioner's treatment of staff members under her supervision was frequently rude and demeaning. Ms. Carter also corroborated the testimony of Ms. Reyes in establishing that no discrimination against Hispanic people was tolerated by the Respondent, nor to the knowledge of Ms. Carter had occurred. Dr. John Lanza is director of the Escambia County Health Department. He is the ultimate supervisor of the Petitioner as well as all other employees of the Department, including Jennifer Carter. Dr. Lanza has been with the Department of Health for 15 years. He has never heard any reports of discrimination against Hispanics or as to Ms. Rubin herself. Ms. Rubin is Black. Dr. Lanza became aware through reports of his management team, such as Dr. Susan Turner, Barbara McCullough, and Jennifer Carter of the Petitioner's disparaging, and rude treatment of employees under her supervision. He also learned that she failed to participate in her clinic duties. Dr. Lanza, as director of the health department, is authorized to dismiss Department personnel. He dismissed the Petitioner because she failed to follow her supervisor's instructions, was unacceptably rude and overly critical of employees under her supervision. She was demeaning at times toward employees and even was rude to two physicians at the Department whom she had no authority to supervise. These criticisms, which have been established as true by the preponderant evidence in this record, and the fact that all this deficient conduct occurred while the Petitioner was still in her probationary period after her hiring, motivated Dr. Lanza to dismiss the Petitioner from employment. When Dr. Lanza made this decision he was unaware of any allegation of any discrimination directed toward Hispanic employees anywhere in the Escambia County Health Department. Because he was unaware of such allegations of discrimination, akin to that complained of in the Petition for Relief, he could not have retaliated against the Petitioner for taking a stand or making complaints about alleged discriminatory conduct directed toward Hispanic employees.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and the arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Edna M. Rubin 1140 East Baars Street Pensacola, Florida 32503 Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 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 issues in this case are whether Respondent, A-1 Block Corp., discriminated against Petitioner, Harold E. Ford, Jr., on the basis of his race and/or color and in retaliation, and, if so, what remedy should be ordered.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a family-owned business that manufactures concrete products, ready-mix concrete, concrete block, and precast concrete. Mr. Freeman has been the president of Respondent for approximately 10 years. Petitioner is an African-American male who was employed by Respondent at two different times. Petitioner was hired to work in several different capacities which included: ready-mix driver; block driver; dump truck driver; and/or loader operator. Mr. Caviglia serves Respondent in a supervisory position, and Mr. Caviglia made the decision to hire Petitioner as a truck driver in December 2009 (first employment). Respondent hired Petitioner at $12.00 an hour. Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment in July 2011 (first employment termination). Mr. Freeman described the circumstances under which Petitioner was terminated as: Petitioner failed to unhook some type of ladder or other apparatus at a self-loading dock, and drove off causing approximately $4,000 to $5,000 of damage to Respondent’s truck and/or the dock. Respondent was responsible for making the repairs. At the time of his first employment termination, Petitioner was making $13.00 an hour. Approximately five months later, in December 2011, Mr. Caviglia re-hired Petitioner to be a truck driver for Respondent. The other drivers employed by Respondent wanted Petitioner to return. Petitioner was hired at $13.00 an hour (second employment). At various times during Petitioner’s employment with Respondent, Petitioner inquired about becoming a “dispatcher” for Respondent. Mr. Freeman indicated to Petitioner that he (Mr. Freeman) would think about Petitioner’s dispatcher request. However, one of the requirements for Respondent’s dispatcher position was the availability to work on Saturdays. Mr. Freeman knew that Petitioner had a second job which required Petitioner to work on Saturdays. Since 2004, Petitioner worked part-time as an attendant at a local funeral home, which required Petitioner to work some Saturdays. Petitioner was paid $75 per funeral; however, he did not know how much he had been paid since his second employment termination. Petitioner did not have any pay-stubs to reflect how much he had been paid by the funeral home. Petitioner continues to work for the funeral home. In October 2013, Petitioner caused damage to tires on a truck belonging to Respondent. Respondent incurred a financial loss as a result of the damaged tires. Petitioner was terminated from his second employment with Respondent on November 20, 2013. Petitioner alleged and testified that Mr. Caviglia threatened Petitioner at various times during Respondent’s operational meetings.3/ Two other witnesses, Mr. Timmons and Mr. Sandy, testified that they did not observe Petitioner being threatened at these meetings. Petitioner alleged that he was retaliated against based on his race. Petitioner claimed that he was directed to wash a white man’s truck. Petitioner refused to wash the truck. Respondent requires its drivers to wash the trucks that they drive each day. However, there was no evidence of any retaliation against Petitioner when he did not wash the other man’s truck. Petitioner alleged he asked for raises when he thought it appropriate, and was refused. Mr. Freeman paid his employees the going rate, and it was established that Petitioner was being paid $14 an hour when he was terminated. Mr. Timmons, a former employee of Respondent, received the same rate of pay for working as a driver or as a dispatcher for Respondent. Petitioner’s resumé was admitted into evidence as Exhibit C. Petitioner created this resumé in 2011, and revised it one time to assist in the preparation for the hearing. The resumé does not accurately reflect Petitioner’s separate employment periods at Respondent, nor does it contain a two-week period of employment at another construction company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations DISMISSING the Petition for Relief filed by Mr. Ford. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of December, 2014.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice as envisioned in Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2005), on the basis of the Petitioner's disability or handicap, and his age. It must also be determined whether the Respondent committed retaliation against the Petitioner for the Petitioner's alleged exercise of statutorily protected rights in complaining about health, or safety concerns, regarding his operation of a machine or device while an employee of the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Jimmy D. Forehand was hired by the Department of Management Services or its predecessor on January 21, 1977. He was employed at that Agency for approximately 27 and one-half years through June 30, 2004. For the last 19 years of his tenure he was classed as an electrician. This is the entry level electrician trade position and has fewer complex duties and skills required for its performance, as opposed to the more complex position of master electrician, in terms of working with complex wiring, wiring problems, electrical devices, and so forth associated with that latter position. It has been stipulated that through his termination date of June 30, 2004, Mr. Forehand, was qualified to perform the duties and functions of his job. The Respondent is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with managing all state government agency resources, services, properties, benefits, and procurement. It manages state-owned facilities, handles state human resources or personnel matters, employee benefit matters, as well as procurement of such things as office space and office supplies. It maintains the physical integrity of all state-owned properties. The Petitioner was employed for the Respondent by the Division of Facilities Management and Building Construction (Division of Facilities) which is responsible for managing and maintaining office complexes and other properties owned by the state. The Petitioner specifically worked for the electrician unit of that Division. The Disability Claim The Petitioner experienced several purported medical conditions which resulted in workers' compensation claims during his tenure as an employee. The ones relevant to this case commenced in approximately 1992. In 1992 the Petitioner was engaged in a repair work assignment at a DMS-administered office building in downtown Tallahassee. He allegedly became exposed to asbestos during that job. The Petitioner and the employer, DMS, initiated a First Report of Injury and a workers' compensation claim ensued regarding the asbestos incident. The progress of that workers' compensation claim and its disposition are not relevant to this case, aside from the diagnosis concerning that claim as a part of the predicate for showing a disability for purposes of the case at bar. In any event, in 1992, the Petitioner was diagnosed by a physician with asbestosis. Because of that diagnosis, through the workers' compensation process, the employer and carrier have authorized the Petitioner, in all the years since, to have an annual medical examination and chest X-ray under the auspices of the Division of Workers' Compensation, Department of Financial Services. This is for the purpose of monitoring the status of the asbestosis. The Respondent has stipulated that it was aware of the diagnosis of asbestosis. It does not agree that the asbestosis constitutes a disability for purposes of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (i.e. handicap). The Petitioner was released from the physician with regard to the asbestosis situation without work limitations or restrictions due to that diagnosis. Sometime in 1999 the Petitioner injured his left knee on the job, apparently a severe sprain. A workers' compensation notice of injury was filed and a workers' compensation claim process ensued whereby he received treatment for his knee problem. When he reached maximum medical improvement he returned to work with a light duty recommendation from his treating physician, on a temporary basis. In fact, the Respondent accorded him a temporary light duty assignment after he returned to work from the knee injury. The Respondent, through the Petitioner's supervisors, particularly Joe Jacobson, generally made an effort to try to find the Petitioner a light duty assignment when he returned from illness or injury, based upon a doctor's recommendation and/or the Petitioner's own request for light duty. His supervisor, Mr. Jacobson, would customarily call other building managers, the "OP/CON Center" and other agencies in an effort to find a light duty post Mr. Forehand could perform in until he was ready for the full duties of his regular position. Thus, on several occasions Mr. Forehand was placed in light duty as a janitor or answering phones. It was not always possible to find temporary light duty for Mr. Forehand when he requested it or when a doctor recommended it. Apparently Mr. Forehand was on leave without pay for a number of months on at least one occasion when no light duty was available for him. In this connection, however, the Respondent, throughout Mr. Forehand's tenure as an employee or at least since his 1992 asbestosis diagnosis, has shown a penchant for allowing Mr. Forehand to occupy and perform his duties in his regular position of electrician by working at his own pace, without regard to any time limit for performing his duties, without prohibition on his taking frequent rest breaks, and with tolerance for his late arrival at work, if tardiness was related to his physical condition. Thus, in a defacto fashion, the Respondent accommodated what it knew of Mr. Forehand's impairments, as he related them to the Respondent, or as they learned of them from reports from his physicians and from the workers' compensation process (i.e., breathing difficulties and to some extent left knee impairment after 1999). In any event, the preponderant evidence establishes that when the Petitioner requested light duty and/or his physician recommended it, the Respondent would provide him with light duty if it was available, although it was not always available. It accommodated what it knew of his impairments when he worked in his regular position, performing his regular duties, by the means described above; even though the Petitioner did not for the most part request rest periods, frequent breaks from his duties, additional time to complete his assignments, or for permission to trade assignments with another worker who might have a less physically taxing job. In fact, when the matter of his physical difficulties came up, or was raised by the Petitioner in a conversation with his supervisor on at least one occasion, his supervisor told him in effect to "do the best you can." The implication thus clearly was that if the Petitioner needed rest breaks, needed additional time to do assignments, that the Respondent would accommodate him by not holding him to a strict standard as to when his job duties got performed. Since approximately the year 2000 or the fiscal year 2000-2001 the Respondent, like other state agencies, have been under a mandate from the Legislature and the Office of the Governor to save on costs and to become more efficient in its operations. One of the primary means of accomplishing this has been to require a reduction in the Agency's workforce. The Respondent has thus experienced a loss of employment positions since that fiscal year in each budget year and session of the Legislature. It has thus lost approximately 635 full-time positions over a four-year period ending with the 2005 Legislature and Appropriations Act. In fiscal year 2000-2001, the Petitioner's position was identified by the year 2000 Florida Legislature to be eliminated, by making it "non-recurring," such that his position would be cut or eliminated effective July 1, 2001. The Respondent's supervisors did not want him to be laid off. Therefore, they avoided his lay-off in that fiscal year by re- classifying him or his position into a vacant position within the Division of Facilities. They made the decision to retain him even with knowledge of his past workers' compensation claims, his asbestosis diagnosis and his knee injury of 1999 with related occasional light duty and time off from work. When the 2000 Legislature identified his position as being one which would be non-recurring or deleted after July 1, 2001, the Respondent held a meeting with the Petitioner and all other employees whose positions had been deemed non-critical and subject to deletion in the job force reduction. What had occurred was explained and their options and procedures to remain employed or become re-employed were explained. Because his supervisors wanted to save him from lay-off, and re- classified a different position to place him in, he was protected when the 2001 Legislature carried through with its previous year alteration of his position to non-recurring funding by withdrawing all funding and rate supporting his original position. In continuation of its mandate to reduce the work force, the 2003 Legislature made 20 positions non-recurring, including the Petitioner's. This meant that the funding was determined to be non-recurring, meaning that the positions would be funded one more year, but at the end of the fiscal year, on June 30, 2004, these positions would no longer be funded and would be abolished. In the Governor's and agency's budget preparation process thereafter, in 2003 and early 2004, the Legislatively- mandated reduction of 20 positions was incorporated. The Agency, however, in late 2003 or early 2004, arrived at the conclusion that it needed 15 of those 20 positions to be re- classified as critical positions necessary to its mission. Therefore, in the Legislative budget-making process, beginning in February and early March 2004, it sought to convince the Legislature's Appropriations staff and members that 15 of the positions were critical. It was successful in doing that during the Legislative session. The Petitioner's position was not re-established as a recurring, critical position. This was because his position had previously been determined to be non-critical in the 2000-2001 fiscal year, and, since his job duties and responsibilities had not changed since that time, his position was again deemed to be no longer critical to continued division operation. It was determined by the Respondent that the functions of his position could be performed by including them in the duties of other positions, to be performed by persons who qualified for and occupied those positions (such as master electricians). Although Mr. Jacobson, his supervisor, wanted to find a vacant position to place the Petitioner in as he had done in the 2000-2001 fiscal year job force reduction, there were no vacant positions available in which to place the Petitioner. Mr. Jacobson's testimony establishes this, as does that of Clint Sibille and Cherri Linn (Mr. Jacobson's supervisors). The fact that Mr. Jacobson had a desire to try to find a way to retain the Petitioner is somewhat corroborated by the statement or message from Ms. Linn to Mr. Jacobson to the effect that "you can't save him this time." This meant that, unlike the situation in 2000-2001, there were no vacant positions which could be converted to a position in which to place the Petitioner. Moreover, the testimony of the supervisory lead worker, Bill Kerr, corroborated that of Joe Jacobson and Clint Sibille that there were no vacant positions to place the Petitioner in or to convert to a position suitable for his qualifications. Their testimony shows that the Petitioner's position was not a critical one in the division, especially because it did not involve duties concerned with intricate electrical wiring, wiring repairs, working on complex electrical devices and other complex electrical work. This testimony established that it made no sense to convert a master electrician position into one which met Mr. Forehand's lesser qualifications because a qualified person in a master electrician position, can perform the Petitioner's duties and many more duties in terms of complexity and critical importance than can a person with the Petitioner's lesser qualifications in an entry-level electrician position. Mr. Forehand is not a licensed electrician. The Respondent thus determined that there were no positions which were vacant and sufficiently less critical to its operation as to justify it in converting such to one which met the Petitioner's qualifications (in a managerial context). The Petitioner was not told of his lay-off until June 14, 2004. In fact, Mr. Jacobson, his supervisor, did not know that it was certain to occur until immediately before Mr. Forehand was told, several days before at the most. Clint Sibille had told Mr. Jacobson before the Legislative session convened that Mr. Forehand's position might be eliminated but he was not certain at that time (approximately in December 2003 or January 2004). It is not clear which supervisor or manager made the initial decision that the Petitioner's position was not critical. It apparently was the recommendation of Clint Sibille, in concert with Cherri Linn, and with the final approval of the Division Director, then LeeAnn Korst. Mr. Jacobson, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor, did not request that his position be deleted. During most of 2003, the Petitioner's job duties included operation of a florescent bulb or lamp crushing system. This was a device known as a VRS Bulb Crusher also known as the "bulb eater." It had apparently been purchased by the Agency sometime in 2002. The device consists of a large drum with a vertical tube through which burned-out florescent light bulbs are inserted so that they fall into the large drum where a mechanical device is operated which crushes the bulbs for disposal. The Petitioner performed a large portion of the bulb crusher's operation. This was particularly true during early 2004, when the Petitioner used the machine at a more intense level. Sometime in February 2004, the exhaust or filtration system of the machine sustained damage, or a break, so that dust and particulate matter and any gaseous or chemical contents of the broken bulbs had the opportunity to leak out of the area of the break into the ambient air. A temporary repair was made and a permanent replacement part was ordered from the manufacturer. The machine continued to malfunction, however, and the repair did not hold. The Petitioner complained to Bill Kerr, his lead worker, concerning the dust and particulate matter the machine apparently sprayed into the air. He also complained to his supervisor, Joe Jacobson. The Petitioner stated that he believed that the dust and particulate matter and other unknown contents of the broken florescent bulbs might aggravate the breathing problems he professed to have, which he related to his original asbestosis diagnosis. These complaints began in early March 2004. The Petitioner also complained to Dave Wiggins, the Respondent's Environmental Supervisor in March of 2004. When the complaints were made and the temporary repair was not successful, the Respondent stopped all use of the bulb machine in early March 2004. This was contemporaneous with the time or occasion when the Petitioner refused to use the machine any longer. The complaints about the bulb crushing machine were reported up the "chain of command" so that on March 16, 2004, Glen Abbott, the Employee Relations Specialist of the Bureau of Personnel Management Services, made a written "medical report" (according to the Petitioner's testimony) concerning the Petitioner's reported exposure to "poisonous chemicals" in the fluorescent bulbs being crushed through operation of the machine. This report was apparently required for workers' compensation purposes. The Petitioner also told Clint Sibille, Mr. Jacobson's supervisor, of the machine's purported malfunction. Mr. Sibille asked Dave Wiggins, the Environmental Specialist, to investigate the machine to determine if the machine was malfunctioning or if the problem reported by the Petitioner was caused by operator error. Mr. Wiggins and Joe Jacobson, after investigating the matter, believed it to be caused by operator error in the manner in which the bulbs were inserted into the vertical tube of the machine. The Petitioner maintains that he asked Clint Sibille to send him to a doctor concerning his fears of heath problems related to the machine and states that Clint Sibille told him to "see his own doctor." Mr. Sibille did confer with Cherri Linn about the Petitioner's request and Cherri Linn informed him that the Petitioner would have to engage in the workers' compensation report and claim process in order to see a doctor concerning his health-related fears about the bulb crushing machine. Mr. Sibille then told the Petitioner's supervisor Joe Jacobson to tell the Petitioner of this. Thereafter, at some point during the period of March through June 2004, after the Petitioner reported his complaints concerning the use of the bulb crusher, Glenn Abbott told all the electricians and carpenters who had worked with the machine to obtain medical examinations under the normal workers' compensation procedure, to try to ascertain if there are any deleterious effects caused by these persons' operation of the machine. Sometime in early May of 2004, the Petitioner called the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and spoke to someone there and made a verbal report of his belief concerning unsafe conditions regarding operation of the bulb crushing machine. After the Petitioner left employment with the Respondent Agency in July of 2004, the machine and the warehouse space where it was located was examined by a representative of the DEP and samples were taken, in an effort to ascertain if any hazardous materials had been produced by the machine or were present in that working area. On May 18, 2004, the Petitioner re-injured the same knee which he had injured in 1999. A Notice of Injury concerning this knee injury was filed to trigger the workers' compensation process and the Petitioner saw a doctor through the workers' compensation procedure who examined and treated his knee problem (severe sprain). He was off work for a few days and then was sent back to work by the physician with a prescription of "light duty." He thus became available for work with light duty, at the doctor's recommendation, on or about June 1, 2004. At about this time he told his lead worker Bill Kerr, of his blood clot and showed him the doctor's report concerning leg swelling. He also informed Joe Jacobson of this. He sought light duty and indeed Joe Jacobson made substantial efforts to find light duty available for him by calling the various building managers and the "opcon" center to see if any light duty was available. Mr. Jacobson went so far as to try to ascertain if there were any office filing duties that the Petitioner could perform. He was unable to locate any light duty work for the Petitioner at this time. Joe Jacobson took annual leave in early June and while he was on annual leave, he received a call from his employer, (apparently Cherri Linn) around June 10th or 11, 2004, requiring him to come back to work because the job force reduction lay-off was going to be imposed on the Petitioner and his presence as his supervisor was apparently needed. On June 11, 2004, the Petitioner was called and told to report to work on Monday morning, June 14, 2004. On Monday the Petitioner was called in to a meeting with Joe Jacobson and Tim Carlisle and told of his lay-off. He was immediately required by the Department's Inspector General, Tim Carlisle, to take boxes and pack up his belongings and to leave the premises. Carlisle helped him pack his belongings and ushered him off the Respondent's premises. The Petitioner maintains that he did not know of his lay-off until that same day, which happened to be his fifty-fifth birthday. He was placed on leave with pay until June 30, 2004, his actual termination date. In July of 2004, apparently on or about July 2, 2004, he filed a formal written complaint to the Chief Inspector General regarding his concerns and feared health consequences of the operation of the bulb crushing machine. On or about July 20, 2004, Mr. Forehand visited a walk-in medical facility because he contends he was experiencing shortness of breath, chest pains, and tightness in his chest. He attributed these symptoms to use of the bulb crusher back in March and earlier. He testified that he was diagnosed with silicosis and that he physician determined that he could not tolerate walking 30 to 60 minutes at a time or lifting more than 15 or 20 pounds. Neither this physician nor any other testified, nor was non-hearing medical information admitted into evidence in this regard. Interestingly, Mr. Forehand's testimony indicates he was diagnosed with a heart condition, apparently based on these symptoms, and in late 2004 underwent insertion of an arterial stint. The Petitioner thus complained to his supervisors beginning in about early March 2004, concerning the fears he had about the results of the machine operations. He complained verbally to DEP in early May of 2004, but made no written formal complaint, to any agency or person, until after his termination in July 2004. The Petitioner was not asked to participate in an investigation, hearing or inquiry concerning the operation of the bulb crushing machine and made no written complaint to any supervisory officials of the Respondent, who could then themselves submit a complaint to the Inspector General or to the Human Relations Commission. In fact, in his own testimony the Petitioner admits that he made a written complaint in July of 2004. In an apparent effort to show that the Respondent's proffered non-discriminatory reason for his termination was pretextual, the Petitioner advanced testimony from a number of witnesses, including himself, which he maintains shows a pattern and practice by the Respondent of retaliating against, and, if necessary, effectively firing older, disabled employees or employees who complain of safety hazards. In this regard, of the five positions selected to be eliminated in the job force reduction of 2004, four had incumbents when the decision was made. All four of those incumbents were over 40 years of age. Two of those four positions, however, became vacant before they were eliminated by the job force reduction. Ms. Ashraf Achtchi was fired by the Respondent before her position became officially eliminated in the job force reduction and Preston Booth voluntarily resigned from his position for unknown reasons. Ms. Achtchi testified to the general effect that she felt she had been discriminated against because of being ill and under medical treatment, yet she was still singled out (in her view) for being absent or tardy. Although the record may establish that she is over 40 years of age, there is no persuasive evidence that she suffered from a legally cognizable disability as that condition or term is defined below, even if she was under a doctor's care, was ill, and had frequent tardiness or absentness due to illness or a doctor's visit during her employment tenure. In any event, other than her own subjective opinion and Mr. Forehand's speculations based upon hearsay, there is no persuasive, competent evidence to show that she was terminated for any reasons based upon an unproven disability, her age or due to any retaliation regarding any protected status within the purview of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner maintains that both he and Mr. Feizi were over 40 and disabled. Whether or not the Petitioner established proof of disability will be dealt with in the conclusions of law below. Mr. Feizi apparently suffered from a disease of the nervous system (AMS) and was confined to a wheel chair much of the time. It may thus be inferred that, for purposes of the legal elements of disability referenced below, that Mr. Feizi was disabled. Other than his subjective opinion and Mr. Forehand's subjective testimonial speculation, based upon hearsay, however, there is no competent, persuasive evidence concerning the reasons Mr. Feizi was terminated, other than that his position was simply eliminated through a job force reduction in the manner described in the above findings of fact. There is no persuasive, credible evidence to show that he was dismissed from employment based upon his age or due to his disability or as retaliation, nor was that proven with regard to Ms Achtchi. Other employees testified concerning alleged retaliatory conduct on the part of the Respondent. Sid Palladino and John Corbin opined that they had been retaliated against for making safety complaints of various kinds, as well as for testifying on behalf of the Petitioner in this proceeding. Ralph Cleaver testified that he left the Department to work for the Department of Agriculture because he had filed a "whistle blower" claim and that the Respondent, in his view, would use retaliation for his taking such an action. Barry McDaniel was 60 years old when hired and, abruptly soon thereafter, was asked to resign, according to his testimony, without any given reason. He testified that Mr. Sibille had him read a book purportedly advocating hard work and the hiring of young workers. The book was entitled "The Go Getter." According to Mr. McDaniel's testimony, the book was required to be read by all employees under Mr. Sibille's supervision. There was no evidence, however, that although Mr. McDaniel was asked to resign, that any other employee was so treated. The book was not in evidence and the undersigned has only Mr. McDaniel's subjective testimony concerning his thoughts regarding the theme and content of the book, in relation to his subjective belief that his age was the reason he was asked to resign. He testified that his immediate superior, who was also 60 years of age, was "gone" shortly thereafter. There is no evidence of any circumstances or facts concerning why Mr. McDaniel or his supervisor were actually asked to resign or in the case of his supervisor, may have voluntarily resigned. There are insufficient facts and circumstances established by the evidence to show any discriminatory motive related to age or otherwise with regard to the terminations of either of these men. Sid Palladino testified that he was reprimanded for not wearing his uniform and that other employees were not reprimanded when they had not worn uniforms either. He also testified that he felt he was retaliated against for making safety complaints as well as for testifying in support of the Petitioner in this proceeding. In fact, his reprimand was rescinded shortly after it was given him when it was learned that he had not worn his uniform or worn it properly because the uniform supplied him did not fit. Additionally, other than their anecdotal comments in their testimony, there is no persuasive evidence that Mr. Palladino or Mr. Corbin were retaliated against for complaining of safety issues and the same is true of Ralph Cleaver opining that he was about to be retaliated against for being a whistle blower, and Barry McDaniel as well. There is simply no definitive, credible proof, other than these employees' own subjective opinions, upon which to base a finding that there was any pattern and practice of retaliation against employees for complaining about safety hazards, for supporting other employees' discrimination claims, for making whistle blower claims, for being disabled or on account of their age, which could be persuasively probative of the discrimination and retaliation claims of the Petitioner.1/ In this connection, it is also found that there are a number of remaining employees in the Petitioner's division, who were his age or older. Indeed, Mr. Robert Smith had retired and then was later re-hired by the Department and the Division after suffering at least one episode of injury and medically prescribed light duty. Likewise, there are an unknown number of disabled or physically impaired persons remaining employed by the Department, after the dates and circumstances occurred with regard to the Petitioner's discriminatory claims. At least two of them testified in this proceeding. These facts belie the existence of a systematic policy or practice of eliminating employees over age 40 or of Mr. Forehand's age or older, or those who might be disabled or suffering from physical or medical impairments.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 29th day of August, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Petitioner was an employee of the state of Florida employed by the Department. On May 10, 1991 the Petitioner was arrested and placed in isolation without any outside contact except in the evenings by phone. By letter dated May 15, 1991, mailed to Petitioner's home address, the Department advised Petitioner that having been absence from work for three consecutive days without authorized leave of absence the Department assumed that the Petitioner had abandoned his position and resigned from career services. Additionally, this letter advised the Petitioner that he had 20 calendar days from receipt of the notice to petition the State Personnel Director for a review of the facts to determine if the circumstances constituted abandonment of position. The return receipt for this letter appears to be signed by Vickie Carpenter but does not indicate the date it was signed by her. A copy of this same letter was mailed by the Department to the Petitioner at the jail but no return receipt was ever received by the Department. However, the Petitioner testified at having received the letter around May 23, 1991. On May 23, 1991 the Respondent was released from jail and was available for work beginning on May 24, 1991. However, the Department had already terminated the Petitioner based on abandonment of position. By letter dated June 6, 1991 the Petitioner requested the State Personnel Director to review his case. By letter dated June 12, 1991 and received by Petitioner on June 14, 1991, the Department again advised Petitioner that the Department assumed that he had abandoned his position and again outlined the review process. On June 20, 1991 the Secretary of the Department of Administration entered an Order Accepting Petition and Assignment to the Division of Administrative Hearings. By letter dated August 27, 1991 the Department advised Petitioner that it was withdrawing the action of abandonment of position, and that he was reinstated to his position effective August 30, 1991. However, by letter dated August 29, 1991 the Department advised Petitioner that he was to report for work on September 3, 1991 rather than August 30, 1991, and that he was to report to Ft. Myers rather than to his old job in Punta Gorda. Additionally, Mark M. Geisler, Subdistrict Administrator, the author of the letter, advised the Petitioner that since the issue of back pay had been discussed with DeLuccia it was best for Petitioner to contact him in that regard. Petitioner was reinstated by the Department on September 3, 1991. Petitioner did not at any time agree to forego any back pay in order for the Department to reinstate him. The Petitioner has never received any back pay for the period beginning Friday, May 24, 1991 (the day he was able and ready to return to work) through Monday, September 2, 1991 (the day before Petitioner returned to work). Petitioner's wife, Vickie L. Carpenter was, at all times material to this proceeding, employed by the state of Florida, and because she and Petitioner both were employed by the state of Florida their health insurance was furnished by the state of Florida at no cost to them. Upon the Department terminating the Petitioner his wife was required to pay for her health insurance until Petitioner was reinstated on September 3, 1991. Petitioner was unable to report to work during the period from May 10, 1991 through May 23, 1991, inclusive, due to being incarcerated, and was on unauthorized leave of absence during this period. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to any back pay for this period, and so stipulated at the hearing. However, Petitioner is entitled to receive back pay for the period from May 24, 1991 through September 2, 1991, inclusive. There is sufficient competent substantial evidence to establish that the Department was aware of Petitioner's incarceration and that it was not Petitioner's intent to abandon his position with the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Administration enter a Final Order (1) confirming the action of the Department that Petitioner did not abandon his position with the Department, and (2) reimbursing Petitioner for back pay for the period from May 24, 1991 through September 2, 1991, inclusive, and for any other benefit that Petitioner was entitled to during this period, including, but not limited to, health insurance benefits. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 12th day of December, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Carpenter 1669 Flamingo Blvd. Bradenton, FL 34207 Susan E. Vacca, Qualified Representative Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services P.O. Box 1415 Punta Gorda, FL 33951-1415 Augustus D. Aikens, General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 John A. Pieno, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Robert B. Williams, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Anthony N. DeLuccia, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services P.O. Box 06085 Fort Myers, FL 33906
