Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Larry Zeigler, started working for the Quincy Telephone Company as a lineman in the cable maintenance section in 1976 or 1977. His duties include the installing of telephone cable, both buried and aerial. He worked on the job with Claude Butler, Cleveland Zeigler, and Melton W. (Toby) Bruce. These four men, with several others, made up the entire cable and construction section. Among the men in that section, Butler had the most seniority and as a result did most of the paperwork. The job assignments were banded out to the crews by the supervisor of the section and it was company practice that the senior individual was the one in charge and normally responsible for accomplishing the paperwork. Telephone installation at this Company is primarily divided into two major sections. Cable and construction (C&C) is responsible for the outside installation of cable and telephone lines up to a building. Installation and repair (I&R) is a separate department which deals with inside wiring and the actual connection of the telephone instruments. C&C is and was at the time in question supervised by Bruce Gaston. I&R was not. In early May, 1983, Petitioner was transferred for a period of time to I&R to help out though he was still assigned to C&C. Right after lunch on May 27, 1983, he was directed to go to see Bruce Gaston, his supervisor, who advised him that the company was being forced to lay off a number of employees and that he, petitioner, had been selected as one of those. Petitioner contends that neither Gaston nor any other company official ever gave him a reason for discharge other than the force reduction, but this is not so. He claims, however, Gaston did advise at that time that he was aware of petitioner's previous discrimination complaint and that petitioner should not file one this time. Petitioner was confused over these developments. When he was sent over to I&R to help out, he was told that he was the only one in C&C with the skills needed at I&R. If that were the case, he reasoned, why should he be laid off without warning. In addition, at one point during 1982, Petitioner had asked Gaston for a transfer to I&R but was refused at that time because, according to petitioner, Gaston said he was needed in C&C. Petitioner was one of three individuals from the C&C section who were laid off. The others were Horace Jenkins, who is black, and Toby Bruce, who is white. Several individuals from I&R were also laid off and in the interim since the layoff, at least one new employee has been hired. Petitioner is convinced that he could do the job either in C&C or in I&R which was filled by outside recruitment since he was laid off. When a new parent company took over the operation of the Quincy Telephone Company in early 1983, there was a meeting held for all company employees at which a senior management official advised the employees that no layoffs were anticipated. Petitioner denies having any serious trouble with his employment while working for the company. To be sure, there were some rough spots, however. He had some trouble working with Melvin Locke, a more senior employee. According to Petitioner, Locke was lazy and did not want to work, pushing his work off on the Petitioner. They had words and Petitioner brought the matter up with Mr. Gaston. The following day, Mr. Forshay talked with Petitioner about it and advised him to do whatever Locke directed. Though Petitioner did not consider this to be particularly fair, nonetheless, he did as he was told. According to Gaston, however, Petitioner was assigned to work with Locke for on-the-job training in maintenance. It appeared he was selective as to what orders he would follow, refusing to learn how to do maintenance in those areas that did not interest him. On another occasion, according to Petitioner, when he drove a company vehicle into the work lot, Forshay told him he was driving too fast. In doing so, he says, Forshay cursed him in front of outsiders. On still another occasion, he disagreed with the way Forshay handled one of his absences. In summary of Petitioner's position, he feels that he was discriminated against when discharged because: he was there longer than others who were not discharged; less experienced people were retained instead of him; he had several disputes with Mr. Forshay; and, he filed a prior discrimination complaint which he won and had to be rehired. In May, 1983, Gaston was advised by Mrs. Corbin, the general manager of the company, that there was going to be a reduction in force. He was instructed how to identify those to be retained and those to be discharged. The emphasis was to be placed on selecting the best people for retention - not the worst people for discharge. In other words, supervisors were to examine their people closely with a positive attitude to identify those with the best records and the best potential rather than looking for reasons to discharge those with lesser records or potential. He was advised that of the 9 technicians working for him he would be allowed to retain only 6. Using the criteria given him he selected the 6 he would be able to keep which resulted in Petitioner, Mr. H. Jenkins, and Toby Bruce being identified as those not to be retained. Gaston then discussed his selections with Mr. Forshay who in turn forwarded them to Mrs. Corbin with his concurrence. Mrs. Corbin made the ultimate selection and decision. In going over the personnel records of the people in his section, Gaston made a memo on each one which he subsequently placed in each employee's file. There were several significant factors on the memo about Mr. Zeigler which contributed to his being one of the lowest three rated individuals in the section. These were: He frequently missed work for reasons other than illness. Review of Petitioner's time records kept by Mr. Gaston showed that in 1980. Petitioner was late 6 times and absent 11 times. All absences referred to here are unexcused absences wherein the employee did not call in advance to let anyone know he would not be in. This required a readjustment of the work schedule made up in advance on the expectation of the employee's presence. In 1981, he was late 5 times and absent 4 days. Gaston considered this to be an abuse of time off and Petitioner's absentee and tardy rates were much higher than those of the other employees in the section. Other disciplinary problems: On October 5, 1981, Petitioner requested that his time sheet be falsified (that time taken off as personal time be reported as sick leave). Petitioner did not deny this which, according to the company personnel handbook is grounds for dismissal. Though Gaston recommended this, dismissal action was not taken because it appeared to be an isolated incident. Petitioner broke his arm and took time off to see the doctor with the understanding he would call to report when he would be back to work. He failed to call and could not be reached by phone because his service had been disconnected for nonpayment of the bill even though, as a company employee, he got local service free and a discount on toll service. At this point in time, the company required employees to have a phone so that they could be reached in an emergency. Petitioner knew this. Again, here, Gaston recommended disciplinary action and again none was taken even though this was the second time this had happened. Employee conflict with Mr. Locke referenced above. Petitioner's training scores in courses which, though not required, would be beneficial to him in the performance of his duties, were below standard. He was given the opportunity to take the same material on two separate occasions: once at a company school in Winter Park where his scores were unsatisfactory, and again, from a black instructor in Quincy where, again, his score was unsatisfactory. No other student failed to achieve a satisfactory score. Error rate. The reports for January through May, 1983 and after the force reduction, kept by Gaston on the basis of checks made at random with full knowledge of the employees, reveal that the three employees who were laid off from this section were weak with Petitioner having a very high error rate. After the lay off the remaining people doing the same amount of work as before, made fewer errors than while these three were still employed. Paperwork. From time to time, Petitioner was in charge of details which required the completion of paperwork. His paperwork was unsatisfactory. He would let other people on the job do the paperwork. In making the decision as to who was to be retained and who was to be released, seniority was not the key element. Performance and capability were more important and seniority was important only if it carried with it the experience and competence needed. On the basis of the above factors, Gaston felt, and it is clear that his judgment was accurate, that Petitioner's record, not considering his seniority, reflected limited potential and competence. Mr. Gaston did not want to lay off any employees, black or white, because he felt there was ample work to do to keep the entire work force occupied. The work has not let up since the lay off but has increased. Notwithstanding Petitioner's comments that he was not given a reason for his lay off, Mr. Gaston fully explained to each terminated employee why he was being laid off. Mr. Bruce indicates that Gaston told him that if he had his choice, Bruce would still be working. This is true. A similar comment was made to each of the three men being discharged and it had no racial connotation at all. Gaston did want to keep each employee if he could. Race has never been an issue in the department and he always felt race relations were good. Mr. Gaston discharged Petitioner because he was the weakest employee in the section. He was the employee with the least potential for being able to accomplish all the tasks anticipated after the cutback. There are some minor inconsistencies in the official records as reflected by the employee performance appraisal forms rendered on the Petitioner and the personal work records kept by Gaston in his department. They are such things as tardiness and absences and some of the factors relied upon by Gaston in his analysis of the employee which he testified to at the hearing do not specifically appear on the appraisal forms. Gaston justified not putting them there by contending that he felt that at the time the deficiencies were noted, the appropriate corrective action was taken and the matter would not have been raised again had it not been for the cutback. Use of these factors was appropriate in weighing Petitioner's future use to the company in a comparison against other employees. Mr. Gaston's evaluation of Petitioner appears to have been accurate as other employees with whom he worked, such as Evant Jenkins, indicating that when Petitioner was assigned to him for training for several weeks, Petitioner did well in those areas in which he had an interest, but completely failed to learn anything that did not interest him. Mr. Butler also worked with Petitioner frequently and felt that though Petitioner could do the work, there were times he was difficult to work with and insisted on doing things his own way. Petitioner's uncle, Cleveland Zeigler, knows Petitioner's work and rates him as an acceptable worker. He states, however, that the people hired since the lay off in 1983 are high quality people and the work standards and performance have improved since that time. Toby Bruce feels that both Petitioner and Jenkins were highly qualified, perhaps even more so than he. He also feels that the layoffs were not appropriately done in some case with the wrong people being let go. He feels that he was not treated fairly because he had a house mortgage on which to pay, two cars on which to pay, and a family to support and with that, he was let go without notice with only two weeks severance pay. His obvious bias makes his credibility questionable. Mrs. Corbin made her ultimate decision on who would be retained and who would not on the basis of the entire personnel record of each employee which she reviewed over the several weeks prior to the cutback. She contends she had no choice in implementing the layoffs - that though she fought against them, she was directed by higher headquarters to put them into effect. She is convinced that Petitioner is a good construction man but his performance reports showed that he needs training in maintenance and it is her confirmed opinion that he could not compete with those identified for retention. It was on this basis and not on race that the decision was made to let him go. Race has not been an issue with the company and in fact there is a very active and strong equal opportunity program in effect. Of the 11 people cut from the total work force, 6 were white and 5 were black. Even after the cutback, blacks still accounted for 32 percent of the staff of 65.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, therefore, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitioner, Larry Zeigler's Petition for Relief be denied. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida, this 29th day of March, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 29th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul D. Srygley, Esquire 1030 East Lafayette Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Blutcher B. Lines, Esquire P.O. Box 5500 Quincy, Florida 32351 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on his race contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2009).
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates a lumber mill in a community known as Cypress near Marianna, Florida. In 2007, Respondent hired Petitioner, an African-American male, to operate a 966 Caterpillar loader (the loader) at the mill. Melvin Lewis is an African-American male. Mr. Lewis is a second-shift supervisor. At all times relevant here, Mr. Lewis was Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Mr. Lewis reports directly to Ross Jackson, a white male. Mr. Jackson has been Respondent's general manager since January 2008. In May 2008, Mr. Lewis told Petitioner that the loader was slowly leaking brake fluid. Mr. Lewis instructed Petitioner to always check the loader to ensure that it had brake fluid. On or about Thursday, May 28, 2009, between 2:30 a.m. and 3:00 a.m., Petitioner was involved in an accident while operating the loader. Petitioner told Mr. Lewis that a log fell onto the loader, the brakes failed, and the loader went over a retaining wall. After the accident, Mr. Lewis immediately checked the brake fluid reservoir. He found the reservoir empty. Petitioner knew or should have known the standard procedure to follow when, and if, a log rolled onto a loader. In that event, the loader operator was supposed to immediately call his supervisor on the two-way radio and request help. At the time of the accident, Petitioner and Mr. Lewis had working two-way radios. Petitioner used the radio to call Mr. Lewis right after the accident. He did not call for help when the log first rolled onto the loader. On May 28, 2009, Petitioner was operating the 966 loader on a ramp that is 75-feet long and 40-feet wide with a retaining wall on each side of the ramp. At the high end of the ramp is a flat area where Petitioner was picking up logs from a pile. To get off of the flat part of the ramp, Petitioner had to accelerate backwards to then go down the ramp. When the accident occurred, Petitioner had traveled almost all of the way down the 75-foot ramp and then turned the loader 90 degrees toward the retaining wall. To go over the one and one-half foot retaining wall, the loader must have been traveling at a fairly high rate of speed. The accident tore the transmission off of the loader. The loader was inoperable and had to be repaired. The cost of the repairs was over $14,000. After the accident, Mr. Lewis told Petitioner that "this is really bad." Mr. Lewis first directed Petitioner to clock-out and go home. Mr. Lewis then told Petitioner to stay until Mr. Jackson arrived at work at 5:00 a.m. When Mr. Jackson came in to work, he told Petitioner that he would be suspended until Mr. Jackson and Mr. Lewis had a chance to review the situation. Mr. Jackson told Petitioner to report back on Monday, June 1, 2009. Mr. Lewis decided that Petitioner should not be allowed to operate equipment for the following reasons: (a) Petitioner failed to keep brake fluid in the loader as instructed; (b) Petitioner failed to call for help on his radio when the log rolled onto the loader; and (c) with the log on the loader, Petitioner accelerated backward down the ramp, turned the loader 90 degrees, and drove the loader fast enough to hit the retaining wall and bounce over it. Mr. Lewis recommended termination of Petitioner's employment. Mr. Jackson concurred. Petitioner was terminated on June 1, 2009. No evidence indicates that the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment was based on his race. There was no persuasive evidence that Respondent gave any white employee more favorable treatment under similar circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric J. Holshouser, Esquire Fowler, White and Boggs, P.A. 50 North Laura Street, Suite 2800 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Gary Powell 6782 Bumpy Lane Grand Ridge, Florida 32442 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact No findings are made in this case. Petitioner did not appear and did not submit any evidence to support findings of fact.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding that Respondent did not unlawfully discriminate against Petitioner and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Greg Chapman 2727 Frontage Road Davenport, Florida 33837 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Laura I. Korson, Esquire John Baird & Associates 360 Campus Lane, Suite 201 Fairfield, California 94533-1400 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner was terminated from her position with Respondent as a picker/stock keeper on or about September 26, 2001, on the basis of her race (African-American) and/or gender (female), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as that term is defined under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a temporary employee to perform the job of picker/stock keeper at its Parts Distribution Center in Orlando, Florida, during the time period from September 12, 2001, to September 26, 2001, the date she was terminated. Petitioner worked a total of 14 days for Respondent. Petitioner is an African-American female, a member of a protected class. The Parts Distribution Center for Respondent in Orlando, Florida, is a facility that holds automotive parts that are then shipped to dealerships. All temporary employees at Respondent are at-will employees. Temporary employees are told during their orientation that they are at-will employees who can be terminated at any time, for any reason. Temporary employees at Respondent are only eligible to work 119 days. Most temporary employees are not offered full time permanent employment. There is no guarantee that a temporary employee will receive an offer to work as a permanent employee. Petitioner was hired to perform the job of picker/stock keeper. A picker/stock keeper takes parts off of shelves to be shipped to dealerships. Petitioner participated in an orientation, and Petitioner received the same training as every other temporary employee. Petitioner worked the night shift. Respondent maintains written Standards of Conduct to which all employees must adhere. The Standards of Conduct apply to both temporary and permanent employees. The Standards of Conduct were in effect in September 2001, when Petitioner worked as a temporary employee. All employees are given a copy of the Standards of Conduct when they are hired. Petitioner received a copy of the Standards of Conduct when she was hired, and the Standards of Conduct are posted throughout the plant. The Standards of Conduct provide that an employee's "[f]ailure or refusal to follow the instructions of supervision" is grounds for "disciplinary action up to and including discharge." The supervisors who worked at Respondent's Distribution Center during Petitioner's employment were Richard Alvarez ("Alvarez") (Hispanic male), Lenier Sweeting ("Sweeting") (Black male), and Joe Bromley (White male). Alvarez was temporary supervisor for the night shift from June 2001 until December 2001. Alvarez was Petitioner's direct supervisor. Sweeting was a supervisor in September 2001. Sweeting was chosen to become a supervisor by Hal McDougle, a Black male. Sweeting was the supervisor on the day shift when Petitioner worked at the Distribution Center. His shift ended at 3:30 p.m. but he stayed in the building to help with the transition to the night shift. Alvarez would normally walk Sweeting to the front door to discuss what had occurred during the day shift. On September 25, 2001, Sweeting was walking past the bathroom with Alvarez and heard two women talking and laughing in the bathroom. Alvarez recognized one of the voices to be that of Petitioner. Alvarez had heard rumors that Petitioner had been taking a lot of extended breaks and told Sweeting about the complaints he had been receiving. Alvarez received at least two complaints, and possibly four or five, from Petitioner's co- workers that she was taking extended breaks and not on the floor working. Alvarez wanted to wait and see how long Petitioner remained in the bathroom. Sweeting and Alvarez waited outside the bathroom until they saw Petitioner exit the bathroom with Maria Dejesus. Alvarez believes that he and Sweeting waited outside the bathroom for approximately ten to 15 minutes. Alvarez told Petitioner that she had been taking an extensive break and needed to go back to work. Sweeting witnessed Alvarez tell Petitioner to go back to work in a professional tone. Alvarez also told Petitioner that he had heard rumors that she was taking extended breaks. He told her that since he saw it first hand, he wanted to mention it to her and let her know it would not be tolerated. Petitioner asked Alvarez which bathroom she could use in a very sarcastic tone. Sweeting observed Petitioner ask this question. Alvarez told Petitioner that he did not care which bathroom she used, as long as she did not abuse the break period. Petitioner proceeded to ask Alvarez in a sarcastic tone which bathroom she could use several times throughout the night. Despite Petitioner's sarcastic tone, Alvarez answered her questions professionally. Alvarez never asked Petitioner how old she was, whether she was married or how many children she had. Sweeting asked Maria Dejesus to go back to work as well. Sweeting and Alvarez have told other employees to go back to work when they have observed employees taking extended breaks. They have spoken to employees of both genders and all racial groups. On September 26, 2001, Alvarez assigned Petitioner to the "fast rack" area. Petitioner had never previously worked in the fast rack area. Alvarez personally instructed Petitioner in how to perform the assignment. Alvarez told Petitioner to pick the parts and put them on a rack float. After Alvarez gave Petitioner her instructions, Petitioner began her assignment. Petitioner never asked Alvarez any questions about her assignment or expressed that she was having difficulty with the job. Wanda Carithers ("Carithers") saw Petitioner using the wrong equipment to complete her assignment. Petitioner was using a bin cart instead of a float to pick the items. Alvarez noticed that Petitioner's assignment was running late. Alvarez walked over to the fast rack area and asked Petitioner two questions. Alvarez asked Petitioner whether she was going to be able to pick the whole assignment using the bin cart that she was using. Petitioner did not respond to or acknowledge Alvarez. Alvarez then asked Petitioner if she was almost done with her assignment. Petitioner rolled her eyes and said, "Your first question, yes, second question, no." Alvarez was very uncomfortable with Petitioner's response and demeanor. Alvarez told Petitioner that perhaps they had gotten off on the wrong foot. Petitioner asked Alvarez something about her union rights. Alvarez saw Petitioner's co-worker, Carithers, who was a union representative, driving by. Alvarez asked Carithers to explain to Petitioner her union rights as a temporary employee. During this conversation, Alvarez tried repeatedly to talk to Petitioner and on each occasion, Petitioner cut Alvarez off and would not let him speak. When Alvarez realized that he was not making any progress with Petitioner, he asked her to go to the warehouse office so that they could talk to a senior supervisor, Al White ("White") (Black male). Alvarez hoped that they could work out their differences with White's help. Alvarez started to walk approximately ten steps. He turned back and realized that Petitioner was not moving towards the office. Alvarez walked back to Petitioner and asked her a second time to go to the office. Once again, Petitioner did not move. Alvarez told Petitioner, "This is your last chance; go to the warehouse office." Once again, Petitioner did not move. Alvarez, after asking Petitioner to go to the office three times with no response, told Petitioner that her services were no longer needed, that she should gather up her things, and that she was terminated. Alvarez terminated Petitioner for her failure to follow a direct order of her supervisor in violation of Respondent's Standards of Conduct No. 6. Petitioner refused to move even after she was terminated. Petitioner asked Alvarez to reconsider, and he said that he had made up his mind. Alvarez started to walk away. When he saw that Petitioner was still not moving, he told her that he could call law enforcement to escort Petitioner off the property. Alvarez, and ultimately Petitioner, walked to the office. White asked Petitioner if she knew why she was terminated. Petitioner never asked to have someone from the union with her in the office until after she was terminated. At that time, Alvarez and White complied with her request and paged Rodney Witt, a union official, to come to the office. Carithers observed Petitioner fail to follow Alvarez's instruction to go to the office. Carithers recalls that Petitioner told Alvarez that Petitioner did not have to listen to Alvarez. Amber McPherson heard Alvarez call Petitioner to the office several times. Petitioner did not respond to Alvarez's requests. Sweeting has never experienced discrimination from management while working for Respondent for over seven years. Sweeting has never heard Alvarez make any gender or race-related comments or slurs. Sweeting has never heard any management employee at Respondent make a gender or race related comment or slur. Alvarez did not consider Petitioner's gender or race when he made the decision to terminate Petitioner. In addition, Petitioner lied on her application to Respondent and failed to indicate that she had been terminated from a prior employment. Petitioner had been terminated from Walt Disney World Company for theft. If Respondent had known that Petitioner had lied on her application or had been terminated for theft from a prior employer, it would not have hired her. Had Respondent learned that she had lied on her application after she was hired, she would have been terminated. Petitioner had no idea why she thinks she was treated differently based upon her gender or race. She just had a "feeling" or a "hunch." Petitioner had no evidence or information that her termination was based on her gender or race. Petitioner had no idea why she was terminated. She did not believe that it was because she failed to follow a command. Petitioner had no idea whether her supervisor, Alvarez, considered her gender or race when he terminated her employment with Respondent. Petitioner bases her claims that Respondent discriminated against her on the fact that there is general racism and sexism in society. Petitioner checked the "sex" and "race" box on her FCHR Charge of Discrimination simply because she is female and African-American. Petitioner felt as though she was harassed but cannot articulate a reason for it.
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 which DENIES the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 8th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie L. Adler, Esquire Susan K. McKenna, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP 390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1285 Orlando, Florida 32801 Dorothy J. McCrimmon 5361 Commander Drive Number 304 Orlando, Florida 32822 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, American Cable Systems of Florida, Ltd., d/b/a Continental Cablevision of Broward County (Continental), is a supplier of cable television services. Petitioner, Daniel J. Cellucci (Cellucci), filed an application for employment as a Service Technician I with Continental on or about January 13, 1993. Cellucci gave the receptionist at Continental his completed application form, his resume, and letters of reference. Bernard Dorsett (Dorsett) and Richard Jacobi (Jacobi), both Supervisors of Technical Operations at Continental, shared the responsibility for interviewing applicants for the position of Service Technician I. Dorsett called Cellucci and set up an interview. Cellucci was interviewed by Dorsett and Jacobi on January 15, 1993. During the interview, Cellucci wore a back brace underneath a loose fitting shirt. Dorsett and Jacobi explained the requirements and the benefits of the position to Cellucci. It was standard practice of Continental to show all applicants a copy of the position description during the interview. Dorsett showed Cellucci a copy of the position description for a Service Technician I during the interview. The position description listed the following as essential job functions of a Service Tech I: Monitors customer's reception and radio frequency with test meters to ensure cable is in proper working condition. Replaces any or all parts of drop as necessary to resolve customer problems or leaks, back to the line extender. Makes necessary adjustments and repairs to equipment to resolve customer problems or leaks. Handles difficult or confrontational customer situations tactfully. The position description required that the applicant possess the following skills: Ability to lift and climb 70 pound ladders, ability to climb a pole and work at heights up to 25 feet, basic mathematics skills, good verbal and written communications skills. Needs tack and ability to handle difficult customers. Ability to crawl, bend, stoop, crouch. The 70 pound ladder, which is used by a Service Technician I throughout his workday, is transported to the job site on top of a service van. In order to remove the ladder from the top of the service van, the Service Technician I must lift the ladder from the top of the service van. The Service Technician I then carries the ladder to the location where the work is to be performed and puts the ladder in position. In addition to being able to lift a 70 pound ladder, a Service Technician I must be able to lift spools of cable which weigh from 25 to 50 pounds. Service Technician I's work alone. Being able to lift up to 70 pounds is an essential function of the job of a Service Technician I. Based on his past experience in the cable industry, Cellucci knew that he would have to be able to lift ladders which could weigh up to 70 pounds in order to carry out the functions of a Service Technician I. Sometime during the interview, Cellucci voluntarily advised Dorsett and Jacobi that he had a back problem and provided them with a letter dated January 4, 1993, from his treating physician, Dr. George Bonis. The letter stated, "Lifting is limited to 25 pounds at the present time and he should be able to change positions between standing, walking and sitting at will." At the time of the interview, Cellucci could lift more than 25 pounds; however he did not advise either Jacobi or Dorsett that he could lift more than 25 pounds at that time. Cellucci did advise them that he was undergoing physical therapy, that he was improving and that he expected the lifting restriction to be a temporary one. At the time of the interview Cellucci, Jacobi, and Dorsett, viewed Cellucci's lifting restrictions to be temporary. Neither Dorsett nor Jacobi perceived Cellucci's back injury or his lifting restrictions to be a disability. On January 30, 1993, Dr. Bonis discharged Cellucci. Cellucci was able to lift more than 70 pounds at the time he was discharged. Additionally, he was no longer required to wear the back brace which he had worn during his interview. He did not advise anyone at Continental that he no longer had a lifting restriction after he was discharged by Dr. Bonis. Cellucci was not hired because he could not meet the 70 pound lifting requirement. Cellucci's back injury does not limit one or more major life activities. When asked at hearing whether his disability prohibited him from doing any major life activities, Cellucci replied, "None whatsoever. In fact I work out on a day-to-day basis. I run every evening, I swim." In June of 1993, Cellucci became employed as a sales manager for Inter-Continental at a rate of pay of $17.00 per hour plus commissions. In November of 1993, Petitioner became a full-time student and became employed by Production Arts at a rate of pay of $10.00 per hour. In that job, Cellucci currently lifts objects which weigh up to 200 pounds.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Daniel Cellucci's claim of handicap discrimination against American Cable Systems of Florida, Ltd., d/b/a Continental Cablevision of Broward County. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1614 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: The first part of the paragraph is accepted in substance. The second half of the paragraph is rejected as constituting a conclusion of law. Paragraphs 2-12: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 13: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as unnecessary. Paragraph 14: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 15-17: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 18-31: Accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Ronald Renzy, Esquire Ronald Thomas Spann, Esquire 1600 Southeast 17th Causeway, Suite 414 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 William C. Thomas, III, Esquire 120 East Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a resident life, variable annuity, and health insurance agent should be denied or approved.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 71-year-old man, who has been licensed to sell insurance since 1974. He was licensed in the State of Ohio to sell variable annuities, life, and health insurance; the same license he is now seeking in the State of Florida. The Department is the governmental agency responsible for, inter alia, licensing and monitoring persons wishing to sell insurance in the State of Florida. Petitioner obtained a license to sell insurance in the State of Ohio in 1974. He made his living selling insurance and expressed an appreciation of his occupation as being very fulfilling. He wishes to continue selling insurance at this time. While residing in Ohio, Petitioner began selling limited partnerships in cable funds for an entity called CabTel. Before doing so, Petitioner inquired of the Ohio Department of Securities whether he would need a securities license to market the cable funds. He was told no such license was required as long as his employer (CabTel) duly-registered the funds. CabTel would purchase the rights to sell cable services in small towns, trailer parks, and other areas around the mid- West. These rights would be packaged in individual "funds," which were numbered. Petitioner sold limited partnerships in funds from five different groups of cable funds numbered XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XVIII, and XXIX. Each of those funds was duly- registered by CabTel, and Petitioner's sales of those limited partnerships are not a concern. However, for some reason, CabTel then failed to register cable funds numbers XXX and XXXI. Petitioner has not been able to ascertain from CabTel why the funds were not registered. The owner of CabTel, a Mr. Wilson, has not returned Petitioner's repeated telephone calls. During his residency in Ohio, Petitioner sold limited partnerships to the two non-registered cable funds. He was not aware the funds had not been registered and, in fact, presumed that they were registered just like the prior groups of funds. It was CabTel's responsibility, not Petitioner's, to register the funds. Then, during calendar year 2000, Petitioner moved to Florida. Upon arrival in Florida, Petitioner applied for and was issued a non-resident license to sell variable annuities, life, and health insurance. His application for licensure was full and complete at that time. In January 2003, the State of Ohio sent Petitioner a Notice of Intent to issue a cease and desist order, requiring him to stop selling limited partnerships in the cable funds. Inasmuch as Petitioner had resigned from CabTel and had no intention to sell additional partnerships, he agreed to a Consent Order with the State of Ohio. The Cease and Desist Order was entered on February 23, 2007. The Order gave Petitioner a right to appeal, but he did not do so because he was in agreement with the terms of the Order, i.e., that he stop selling the limited partnerships. Meanwhile, Petitioner continued to legally sell insurance in Ohio and Florida. Despite Florida regulations requiring him to do so, Petitioner failed to notify the State of Florida concerning the Cease and Desist Order entered in Ohio. There is no evidence in the record as to why Petitioner failed to notify the State of Florida about the Ohio Consent Order. Florida then offered Petitioner a settlement stipulation for Consent Order wherein Petitioner would admit he had failed to provide notice and agree to pay a fine of $500. Petitioner agreed to the stipulation and duly-paid the fine. The Florida Consent Order stated that it was intended to "resolve all issues which pertain to the matters raised in the Department's investigation." Under the Consent Order, Petitioner's license remained in force and effect. On September 15, 2005, the State of Ohio issued a second Consent Order. This one permanently revoked Petitioner's license to sell insurance in Ohio (based on the same issues as in the previous Consent Order). Petitioner initially challenged that Consent Order. Petitioner then made the decision to remain permanently in Florida, so he withdrew his challenge to the revocation of his Ohio license. As a result of losing his Ohio license, Petitioner was no longer eligible for a non-resident license in Florida. He therefore applied for a resident license so he could continue to sell insurance in this state as he had been doing since 2000. The Department denied Petitioner's license application on the basis of three cited statutory sections: Sections 626.611, 626.785, and 626.831, Florida Statutes (2007). No testimony or evidence was introduced at final hearing to explain facts which would make those statutory references pertinent to this case. It may be reasonably inferred that the entry of two consent orders in Ohio forms the basis for the Department's action. Petitioner's unrefuted testimony at final hearing is credible. His demeanor and frankness lead to the conclusion that his improper sale of securities in Ohio was unintentional, excusable, and absent any intent to deceive or mislead anyone. Petitioner has admitted all aspects of his licensure history in Ohio to the Department. He has voluntarily paid the fine imposed by the Department for failing to timely disclose the existence of the Ohio Consent Order. There has been no showing of untrustworthiness by the evidence presented at final hearing. There is no credible evidence in this proceeding that Petitioner's actions in Ohio and/or Florida indicate a lack of trustworthiness. To the contrary, Petitioner's actions were at worst negligent or due to carelessness.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services granting Petitioner a license as a resident life, variable annuity, and health insurance agent. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 2nd day of November, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Pelham, Esquire Robin Levy, Law Clerk Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 William J. Burkett 10177 Sailwinds Boulevard, South Unit J101 Largo, Florida 33773-2375 Honorable Alex Sink Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Sumner, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue Whether Respondent, Coastal Properties (“Respondent” or “Coastal Properties”), discriminated against Petitioner, Harry (Hal) Hingson (“Petitioner”), based upon his age and race in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01-760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Caucasian male who was 60 years old in May of 2014, when Respondent allegedly discriminated against him by terminating his employment because of his age. Respondent is a management company for third-party owners of apartment communities, home owners associations, and condominium associations. Respondent employed Petitioner as a maintenance worker at the Twin Oaks apartment complex, a 242-unit apartment complex in Tallahassee, Florida. On May 6, 2014, after work, Petitioner and his supervisor, Clint Creel, were involved in a physical altercation off the job site, while fishing together on a boat. After the boat returned to the dock, Petitioner went inside his home. Rather than securing himself in his residence and calling law enforcement, Petitioner retrieved a gun from his residence, exited his residence, and fired the gun multiple times at Mr. Creel. Mr. Creel was struck in the back of the leg by a bullet and received medical treatment for his gunshot wound. Although he was shot, Mr. Creel returned to work the next day. Petitioner did not return to work the day after the incident as he was seeking medical treatment for the injuries he sustained during the physical altercation. Two days after the shooting, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment. The decision to terminate Petitioner was made by the Respondent's Vice-President, Ray Allen, in consultation with the President, Dennis Fuller, after Mr. Allen spoke to both Mr. Creel, and Petitioner, about the shooting. Respondent presented the undisputed testimony of Mr. Allen and Mr. Ray that Petitioner's employment was terminated to protect the safety of the other employees and the residents at the Twin Oaks property. Mr. Creel expressed concern about his safety to Mr. Allen if he had to continue working with Petitioner. Mr. Allen and Mr. Fuller also were concerned about the safety of Mr. Creel, as well as the other employees and residents, if Petitioner and Mr. Creel continued to work together. Petitioner's Discrimination Complaint alleges that Petitioner was discriminated against based on race and age. In particular, Petitioner alleges that he was discriminated against because he was terminated after the off-the-job altercation, but his younger supervisor was not. The evidence adduced at the final hearing, however, failed to substantiate Petitioner's claim of discrimination. Other than testifying that he at one time, prior to the incident, was told that he was moving slow and at another time was told he was acting feeble, Petitioner did not present any direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to reasonably suggest that Respondent discriminated against him in employment because of his age. Even if Petitioner had presented evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, Respondent provided a legitimate non- discriminatory reason for terminating Petitioner's employment. Petitioner admitted that Mr. Allen advised him that he was being terminated because he no longer wanted Petitioner and Mr. Creel to work together. Petitioner admitted Mr. Allen told him that he would have continued to employ Petitioner by moving him to another property, but there were no other openings. Respondent’s evidence demonstrated that the day after Petitioner was terminated, of its 59 employees, 25 were over the age of 40, 11 were over the age of 50, and one employee was older than Petitioner. The evidence also showed that 54 days after Petitioner was terminated, of Respondent’s 64 employees, 25 were over the age of 40, 10 were over the age of 50, and one employee was older than Petitioner. Petitioner failed to establish Respondent's reason for terminating his employment was a pretext for age discrimination. Petitioner's Discrimination Complaint further alleges he was discriminated against based on his race because another employee, a younger African-American, was arrested for DUI but was not terminated. Petitioner presented no evidence at the final hearing to substantiate that allegation, and Petitioner failed to present any evidence whatsoever to show that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner because of his race. In sum, Petitioner failed to show that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner by treating him differently, or terminating his employment because of his race or age.
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 Discrimination Complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida32399-3060 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 2015.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was wrongfully terminated from her position as a human resource assistant with Respondent because of her perceived handicap, in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, a 33-year-old female, was hired by Respondent on or about February 6, 1995, as a temporary employee as a human resource assistant in the Personnel Services Department of the School Board of Orange County. Petitioner received the same training given to all new employees in her position. One employee in the department served as the primary trainer and Petitioner relied on her for training and assistance. On April 10, 1995, Petitioner was evaluated on her ability to perform in her temporary assignment. The assessment reflected satisfactory performance for the period February 6, 1995, through April 10, 1995. Petitioner demonstrated the ability to provide good telephone skills when dealing with customers. Petitioner did not notify Respondent that she was disabled or that she required a reasonable accommodation in order to perform her job. During this period, Petitioner was recommended to fill a regular position in the same department to replace an employee who had retired. Petitioner's regular position was effective May 1, 1995. As was customary, Petitioner was on probationary status for a six-month period following that appointment. The new position required Petitioner to work more independently than the temporary position had required. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner successfully completed her formal training and was responsible for her own workload and prioritized work tasks. At the time Petitioner assumed her new position all work in the area was current with no tasks pending. Shortly after her appointment to her new position, Petitioner demonstrated she was experiencing extreme difficulty in handling the detailed process that is required in order to complete tasks of the position. Petitioner received limited assistance to help her better understand the process; however, her skill level continued to deteriorate. During the period May 1, 1995, through July 14, 1995, Petitioner showed signs of stress and nervousness while at work and was late four times and took sick leave on two occasions. Petitioner did not discuss her "disability" or that she was having "psychological" problems with her supervisors. Petitioner was not regarded as having a physical or mental impairment while on probationary status. On July 14, 1995, Petitioner was terminated from her position while on probation. Petitioner was given the option of taking a probationary letter of termination or resigning. Petitioner submitted a letter of resignation. The basis for Petitioner's termination was that she was unable to effectively manage the technical aspects of the position; deterioration in her communication skills; and concern for the reasons for her absence and tardiness during her probationary period. Petitioner is not a disabled person, nor was she perceived to be disabled by her employer.
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 Charge of Discrimination with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 31st day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Kyle McNeil 523 Hicksmore Drive Apartment A Winter Park, Florida 32792 Frank Kruppenbacher, Esquire Orange County School Board 445 West Amelia Street Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Robert F. Cameron, was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, Osceola County, based on his disability, race, or national origin in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act. 1 All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2020), unless otherwise noted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner brings this action alleging that the County discriminated against him based on his disability, race (white), and national origin (Canadian). Specifically, Petitioner asserts that the County failed to provide him a reasonable accommodation to allow him to participate in the application and selection process for a County job. The County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida and under the governance of the Osceola County Board of County Commissioners. At the final hearing, Petitioner testified that he is a disabled individual with at least seven disabilities. Pertinent to this matter, Petitioner stated that he is partially deaf in one ear which limits his ability to hear.4 In addition, Petitioner relayed that his disability(ies) affect his normal life in that he has frequent medical appointments and requires an increased number of restroom breaks. On October 15, 2019, Petitioner, who is from Canada, applied for the position of Budget Analyst II (the "Analyst Position") with the County. The Analyst Position falls within the County's Office of Management and Budget Department ("OMB"). The OMB is responsible for preparing the County's 2 By requesting a deadline for filing a post-hearing submission beyond ten days after the filing of the hearing transcript, the 30-day time period for filing the Recommended Order was waived. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 28-106.216(2). 3 Petitioner filed a revised version of his post-hearing submittal on October 9, 2020, which the undersigned considered as Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order in writing this Recommended Order. 4 At the final hearing, Petitioner initially strenuously objected to identifying his specific disability, asserting that his right to privacy protects him from having to disclose personal medical information, except as requested by a medical professional. annual budget, as well as analyzing and evaluating budget transfers for the County Commissioners. The County initiated the recruitment process for the Analyst Position by posting the opening on the website www.governmentjobs.com on October 14, 2019. Petitioner found the posting on the website and submitted his application through the same. At total of 15 individuals applied for the position, including Petitioner. The application window for the Analyst Position closed on October 21, 2019. Thereafter, the County's Human Resources Department screened the 15 applications to ensure the interested persons met the minimum qualifications for the job. Eleven applicants, including Petitioner, possessed the required qualifications. The Human Resources Department forwarded those 11 applications to the OMB for consideration. The OMB reviewed the 11 applications and selected three individuals to interview. These applicants included Petitioner (a white male), Lizette Rivera (a Hispanic female), and Sean Lower (a white male). Thereafter, the Human Resources Department set up a panel of five County employees to interview the candidates. Petitioner learned that he was being considered for the job on Thursday, October 24, 2019. That morning, the County called Petitioner at his home in Canada to inquire whether he was available for an interview the next day, Friday, October 25, 2019. Damaris Morales, an administrative assistant in the OMB, made the call. This case centers around what was said during that morning phone call. Petitioner and Ms. Morales left the conversation with vastly different impressions of what transpired. The Phone Call According to Petitioner Petitioner testified that Ms. Morales called him at a most inopportune time. His home phone rang at 8:44 a.m. At that moment, Petitioner was rushing out of his apartment to reach a 9:00 a.m. doctor's appointment. In fact, Petitioner had already started his car with an automatic starter, and it was running in his driveway. After he heard his phone ring, however, he turned back to answer the call. Petitioner answered the phone and greeted the caller. The caller identified herself as "Tamaris" from Osceola County.5 Ms. Morales then informed Petitioner that she was calling to set up an interview for the Analyst Position. Petitioner initially expressed to Ms. Morales that her call was "great" news. He then explained that he was running out the door to a medical appointment. Therefore, he asked if she would email him details about the interview, and he would respond to her as soon as he returned home. Ms. Morales informed Petitioner that the interviews would take place the next day (Friday). Petitioner was alarmed at the short notice. He explained to Ms. Morales that he was currently at home in New York state and could not travel to Florida for an in person interview the next day. Ms. Morales replied that she could arrange a telephone interview. Petitioner then asked Ms. Morales when the interview on Friday was scheduled. Ms. Morales relayed that she would email him the specific information when she obtained the time from her manager. Petitioner stated that he would "clear my schedule tomorrow for that interview." Petitioner then signed off saying, "Thank you. I do have to run. Sorry." Ms. Morales hung up the phone first. The conversation lasted 1 minute and 30 seconds. As Petitioner left for his doctor's appointment, he was under the impression that Ms. Morales would email him imminently regarding available times for the Friday telephone interview. The Phone Call According to Ms. Morales At the final hearing, Ms. Morales described a vastly different conversation with Petitioner. As further discussed below, Ms. Morales's 5 At the final hearing, Petitioner testified that he heard Damaris Morales state her name as "Tamaris." initial impressions of Petitioner from that phone call ultimately led the OMB to decide not to interview Petitioner for the Analyst Position. When Petitioner answered the phone, Ms. Morales testified that Petitioner's "aggressive" tone quite startled her. In a "loud" voice, Petitioner declared, "Yeah. What do you want? I don't have time to talk right now. I've got to be somewhere." Ms. Morales was not expecting such an abrupt and jarring reception. After a few seconds of stunned silence, Ms. Morales explained to Petitioner that she was calling about his application for the Analyst Position. Continuing in his harsh tone, Petitioner replied, "I have somewhere I need to be right now. Send me all the information via email. I am in Niagara Falls, New York." Petitioner then hung up the phone first without providing Ms. Morales his availability for a Friday interview. The whole conversation took less than 30 seconds. At the final hearing, in response to Ms. Morales's testimony, Petitioner suggested that she may have overheard an exchange between him and his son, Stewart, with whom he lives. Petitioner explained that, as he was leaving his apartment, his son called out from his bedroom asking whether the bathroom was free. Petitioner yelled back, "What do you want, Stewart? I am leaving." Petitioner explained that his phone may have malfunctioned and engaged Ms. Morales' call without him actually picking up the receiver. Petitioner strongly denied that he directed the comment "what do you want?" at Ms. Morales. Petitioner also theorized that if he spoke in a loud tone with Ms. Morales, it may have been due to his disability. As indicated above, Petitioner testified that he is deaf in one ear. Petitioner explained that Ms. Morales was talking very fast during their phone call. In responding to her questions, Petitioner was not trying to be abrupt or argumentative. However, he was in a rush to reach his appointment and was frustrated at the delay. Continuing with Petitioner's story, after the phone call, as Thursday morning progressed into Thursday afternoon, Petitioner did not receive an email back from Ms. Morales. Therefore, around 2:15 p.m., Petitioner called the County to speak with her. He was forwarded to her office phone, where he left a voicemail. In his message, Petitioner expressed that he was available for an interview any time the next day (Friday). He also left his Skype contact information. Time continued to pass on Thursday. With no response over the next two hours, at 4:14 p.m., Petitioner again called for Ms. Morales. This time, he was able to reach her. Petitioner inquired about his interview time for Friday. Ms. Morales momentarily demurred, telling Petitioner that she had to check with her manager. After several minutes, Ms. Morales came back on the line. She then told Petitioner that the Friday interviews were "full up." When Petitioner asked about an interview on another day, Petitioner claims that Ms. Morales promptly "slammed the phone down in my ear." Ms. Morales, on the other hand, testified that after she informed Petitioner that no interview times were available on Friday, Petitioner got angry and threatened her with a "legal matter." Petitioner then hung up on her. Petitioner was not content to let the matter drop. Therefore, on Friday morning at 9:47 a.m., he emailed the County Manager, Don Fisher, to complain about the County's Human Resources Department and the OMB. In his email, Petitioner summarized the events from the previous day. Petitioner focused on the fact that Ms. Morales told him that she would provide him an interview time. Then, when he contacted her Thursday afternoon, Ms. Morales informed him that the interviews were "full up," and he would not be offered an opportunity to interview for the Analyst Position. Petitioner sent Mr. Fisher follow-up emails at 10:01 a.m. and 10:03 a.m. In the first follow-up email, Petitioner stated: I am disabled and covered under the ADA Act. I make this request for accommodation under the ADA Act. At 10:10 a.m., Petitioner sent an email to another County employee, Maria Colon, the Director of the Human Resources Department and the County's Americans with Disability Act ("ADA") coordinator. In this email, Petitioner stated: You are the designated ADA Act Coordinator, but you are discriminating against me and denying my ADA rights to accommodation under the ACT and Title VII. I formally ask for this interview to be rescheduled and Oscola [sic] County to stop this discrimination. Attached to this email, Petitioner included a copy of his Ontario Disability Support Program Certificate of Disability ("ODSP Certificate"). At the final hearing, Petitioner explained that the ODSP Certificate, which was determined in 2013, is proof of his disability. Petitioner's certificate states: Your file with the Disability Adjudication Unit has been adjudicated and you have been found to be a person with a disability as defined in the Ontario Disability Support Program Act. 1997. At the final hearing, Petitioner expounded on the reasons for his request, explaining that he sought an accommodation to enable him to conduct a telephonic interview because his disability prevented him from driving from Canada to Florida to interview in person. Furthermore, as a disabled person, he needed more time to prepare and participate in the recruitment process. The specific accommodation he desired was to be allowed to interview by telephone on Monday, October 28, 2019. Not hearing a response from Ms. Colon by Friday afternoon, at 3:03 p.m., Petitioner dispatched another email to her. He again attached his ODSP Certificate. In this email, Petitioner wrote that "your staff member Tamaris" refused to schedule an interview and then "hung up the phone on me." Petitioner also repeated that he was "requesting reasonable accommodation for the Budget Analyst II position." Ms. Colon called Petitioner shortly after his second email. During this call, Petitioner informed Ms. Colon that he was disabled, and he needed a telephone interview for the County job opening. Petitioner added that he was located out of state, and he could not travel to Florida in time for an in-person interview. Petitioner further declared that the County was discriminating against him because of his disability and his national origin. Ms. Colon advised Petitioner that she would look into his concerns and get back to him. Petitioner claims that Ms. Colon ended this conversation by slamming the phone in his ear. During this call, despite Ms. Colon's request, Petitioner refused to identify his specific disability. At the final hearing, Petitioner asserted that the law protects those with disabilities from having to disclose their actual medical conditions. He said that, to safeguard their privacy, the disabled do not have to reveal their disability, except to the limited extent necessary to relate the disability to the requested accommodation. At 6:01 p.m. on Friday evening, Ms. Colon emailed Petitioner stating, "Per our phone conversation, I will look into your concerns and get back with you on Monday." By late Monday morning, October 28, 2019, however, Petitioner had not heard from Ms. Colon. Therefore, he sent her two emails. At 11:43 a.m., Petitioner wrote, "When is my interview? I am not available tomorrow." With no response to this first email, at 3:48 p.m., Petitioner wrote, "As per your reply above, you indicated my accommodation request under the ADA and interview time would be dealt with today. It is 4 pm EST. Please respond." Petitioner then signed off, "I am available for an interview 10am to 11 am tomorrow and then on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday." Petitioner received a response from Ms. Colon at 6:10 p.m., Monday evening. In her email, Ms. Colon wrote: I had the opportunity to look into your concerns. To be honest, customer service is very important in the Budget Analyst II role, and we're assessing those skills in every contact with candidates. The OMB Department had concerns about the way you handled the call and treated the employee that contacted you on October 24th for the purpose of scheduling an interview. Therefore, the Department has moved forward with other candidates. Petitioner was most displeased at Ms. Colon's email, and at 6:54 p.m., he responded: I did nothing except indicate I was available for an interview. Regardless none of this over-rides the ADA and my rights to employment and accommodation. I will be discussing your actions, the "OMB" in denying my constitutional and ADA rights, my Title VII rights with [a County attorney] tomorrow. If they fail to resolve this, then I will be suing you personally, Tamaris, the OMB and the County on a substantial indemnity basis for well in excess of $500g. Petitioner ended the email with "See you soon in court." Six minutes later, at 7:01 p.m., Petitioner sent another email to Ms. Colon. In this message, Petitioner stated: I must commend you for trying to deflect the egregious violation of my rights through trying to claim my rights to an interview are somehow superceded [sic] by this department withdrawing an interview based on race, geography, nationality and disability … in a call in which this Tamaris said and I quote – "we are full up" … . I asked her to leave my interview time through an email. If that qualifies as "poor customer service" then you have a very BIG legal problem using that as a diversion for blantant [sic] discrimination based on race, color, nationality, and disability. Petitioner ended this email with, "I will be happy to take you to Federal Court not the Courthouse right across the street. See you soon in court." Petitioner wrote Ms. Colon once more at 7:03 p.m. In this email, Petitioner accused Ms. Colon of "a blatant discrimination of interest in applying the ACT. Your superiors told you to deny me my rights under the ADA and you did so." Petitioner then declared that he was going to "sue you personally. … Trust me on that." After Monday, October 28, 2019, Petitioner never heard back from Ms. Morales or Ms. Colon regarding his application for the Analyst Position. Consequently, Petitioner claims that the County, by refusing to respond to his request for a telephone interview, denied him his rights under the FCRA and the ADA. At the final hearing, Petitioner vehemently denied that he was rude to Ms. Morales or during his call with Ms. Colon. Petitioner professed that he was perfectly polite to Ms. Morales. In addition, he asserted that Ms. Morales's testimony that he hung up the phone on her is totally false. Petitioner also contended that he did not threaten Ms. Colon with legal action as a means of intimidation. He was just exercising his rights as a disabled person. Petitioner further charged that the County's excuse for removing him from consideration was based on a misconstrued comment overheard during a brief phone call. Petitioner insists that his single utterance, "What do you want (Stewart)," cannot and should not justify the County's discriminatory action. The County ultimately hired Lizette Rivera for the Analyst Position. Petitioner alleges that the decision to hire Ms. Rivera is evidence of the County's female employees working together to eliminate white, male candidates. Petitioner maintains that Ms. Morales, a Hispanic female, favored another Hispanic (nondisabled) female (Ms. Rivera) for the Analyst Position. Consequently, Petitioner claims that Ms. Morales rigged the process and discriminated against Petitioner. At the final hearing, the County did not dispute that, while the OMB initially considered Petitioner for the Analyst Position, it quickly decided not to interview him for the job. The County also confirmed that the OMB did interview, and ultimately hire, Ms. Rivera to fill the Analyst Position. Regarding the County's decision not to interview Petitioner, after the initial phone call, Ms. Morales testified that she was quite startled by Petitioner's rude and unprofessional conduct. She immediately reported the conversation to her supervisor, Sharon Chauharjasingh, who is the Director of the OMB. Ms. Morales expressed to Ms. Chauharjasingh how shocked she was by Petitioner's behavior. Ms. Morales further relayed that because Petitioner was "in a rush," he did not provide her his availability for a telephone interview. Consequently, she had no information which would allow her to schedule him for an interview on Friday. Ms. Morales's testimony describing the telephone interaction with Petitioner was credible and is credited. Petitioner admitted to parts of Ms. Morales's versions, including that fact that he was in a rush and that he yelled, "what do you want?" Other than the two phone calls with Petitioner on Thursday, October 24, 2019, Ms. Morales was not involved in the OMB's decision not to interview Petitioner or to hire Ms. Rivera. (Those decisions belonged to Ms. Chauharjasingh.) Ms. Morales did not participate on the interview panel for either Ms. Rivera or Mr. Lower. Ms. Morales further testified that at no time during her phone calls with Petitioner did he inform her that he had a disability, or that he needed an accommodation to participate in the interview process. Ms. Chauharjasingh also testified at the final hearing. Ms. Chauharjasingh initially explained that the OMB is tasked with preparing the County's annual budget of approximately $1 billion. The person who fills the Analyst Position will work in the OMB. The duties of the Analyst Position include reviewing the budgets of the different County departments, as well as assisting those departments with budget questions and preparation related tasks. The Analyst Position will also review budgetary impacts and projections, and be prepared to personally discuss these issues with County representatives. In addition, the Analyst Position will interact daily with other staff members and occasionally contact outside companies and the public. Regarding the hiring of Ms. Rivera, Ms. Chauharjasingh disclosed that, because she oversees the OMB, she was responsible for selecting the person to fill the Analyst Position. For this opening, Ms. Chauharjasingh was the individual who narrowed down the applicants to the shortlist of three individuals including Petitioner, Ms. Rivera, and Mr. Lower. In selecting these candidates, Ms. Chauharjasingh looked at each applicant's past experience as a budget analyst, as well as their aptitude to efficiently assume the job duties. Based on their resumes, Ms. Chauharjasingh believed that each finalist was qualified for the Analyst Position. After selecting the three candidates, Ms. Chauharjasingh asked her assistant, Ms. Morales, to call each applicant and set up an interview. Ms. Chauharjasingh asked Ms. Morales to schedule the interviews for either Friday, October 25, 2019, or Monday, October 28, 2019. At the final hearing, Ms. Chauharjasingh represented that the County routinely interviews job applicants by telephone. Ms. Chauharjasingh further testified that the decision not to continue the interview process with Petitioner was hers. Ms. Chauharjasingh recounted that on Thursday morning, October 24, 2019, Ms. Morales came into her office looking "shaken up." Ms. Morales reported that she had just spoken to Petitioner, and he yelled at her and was rude and unprofessional. Ms. Chauharjasingh had never heard of a job candidate reacting the way Ms. Morales described. Ms. Morales has never complained to her about any other applicant. Based on Ms. Morales's interaction with Petitioner, Ms. Chauharjasingh immediately decided to remove Petitioner from consideration for the Analyst Position. She therefore directed Ms. Morales to "move on" from Petitioner and not to communicate with him any further. Instead, Ms. Morales was to only schedule interviews with the other two candidates (Ms. Rivera and Mr. Lower). The County's panel of five interviewers, which included Ms. Chauharjasingh, conducted an in-person interview of Ms. Rivera on Friday, October 25, 2019, at 11:30 a.m. Mr. Lower was interviewed, in person, on Monday morning, October 28, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. Following the interviews, the panel ranked the candidates, and then sent the list to Ms. Chauharjasingh. Ms. Chauharjasingh extended the offer of employment to Ms. Rivera, who was the top-ranked candidate. Ms. Chauharjasingh concluded her testimony by asserting that Petitioner's disability played no role in her decision not to interview him. Ms. Chauharjasingh explained that, at the time she decided to terminate the interview process with him, neither she nor Ms. Morales had any knowledge or information regarding Petitioner's disability. Instead, the sole basis for removing Petitioner from the shortlist was Ms. Morales' interaction with him during her initial phone call. Ms. Chauharjasingh testified that, based on the specific responsibilities of the Analyst Position, personal traits such as good communication skills, decorum, and telephone etiquette are very important. For example, the Detailed Job Posting for the Analyst Position includes a Physical Demand Requirement of "Expressing or exchanging ideas by spoken word or perceiving sound by ear." Consequently, upon hearing Ms. Morales's description of Petitioner's attitude and behavior during the telephone call, Ms. Chauharjasingh decided that the County did not need to consider Petitioner's application any further. In her testimony, Ms. Colon expressed that she had no part in the OMB's decision not to interview Petitioner. She became involved in this matter only after she received Petitioner's email, addressed to her as the County's ADA coordinator, on Friday morning, October 25, 2019. Ms. Colon stated that after she read Petitioner's email, she did not immediately respond because she first wanted to determine what exactly had transpired between Petitioner and Ms. Morales the previous day. Ms. Colon spoke with both Ms. Morales and Ms. Chauharjasingh on Friday. From these conversations, Ms. Colon heard that Petitioner was "rude" during Ms. Morales's first telephone call. Further, Petitioner was so "abrupt" that Ms. Morales was not able to offer him an interview time. Ms. Morales also informed Ms. Colon that Petitioner did not mention a disability or request an accommodation during either of their calls. Regarding her own phone call with Petitioner on Friday afternoon, Ms. Colon described an experience very similar to Ms. Morales's. Ms. Colon testified that the conversation was "not pleasant." As with Ms. Morales, Ms. Colon recounted that Petitioner was "agitated," loud," and "extremely unprofessional." During the exchange, Petitioner also threatened to sue her and the County. Regarding her email to Petitioner on Monday evening, October 28, 2019, in which she wrote that, "The OMB Department had concerns about the way you handled the call and treated the employee that contacted you on October 24th," Ms. Colon stated that the decision not to schedule Petitioner for an interview was made on October 24, 2019. Specifically, after talking with Ms. Morales and Ms. Chauharjasingh, Ms. Colon learned that Ms. Chauharjasingh had decided not to interview Petitioner immediately after Ms. Morales reported to her regarding Petitioner's rude and unprofessional interaction with her during their first phone call. As a final witness, Ms. Fatima Lozano testified regarding her participation on the interview panel for the Analyst Position. Ms. Lozano described herself as a Human Resources "generalist" with the County. Ms. Lozano has taken part in a number of interviews of applicants for County employment. She relayed that the County routinely conducts telephonic interviews. Ms. Lozano repeated that, when hiring employees, the department responsible for the position sets up the interviews and selects the winner. For the Analyst Position, the OMB selected the applicants who would interview for the job. Regarding scheduling the interviews for the Analyst Position, Ms. Lozano testified that, on October 21, 2019, she received a calendar invite requesting her availability. The interviews then took place on Friday, October 25, 2019, at 11:30 a.m. and Monday, October 28, 2019, at 9:30 a.m. While the above findings chronical the key aspects of Petitioner's discrimination claim, Petitioner also raised several other complaints against the County. Petitioner was exceedingly frustrated by the County's failure to schedule his interview through the www.governmentjobs.com website. At the final hearing, Petitioner elicited testimony from several County employees that, although the County pays a hefty annual fee to recruit employees through governmentjobs.com, the County only uses the website to solicit applications. Petitioner was "shocked" to learn that the County did not take advantage of the website's functions to schedule interviews with candidates. Petitioner was also "stunned" at the County's attempt to schedule his interview with less than one day's notice. Petitioner found the practice unprofessional and unacceptable. Petitioner represented that the standard process used by governmentjobs.com is to email a notification to the job applicant at least four to seven days prior to the agreed interview time. Based on the competent substantial evidence in the record, the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the County discriminated against Petitioner based on his disability (handicap), race, or national origin. Instead, the credible evidence establishes that the decision not to interview Petitioner was made without knowledge of his disability prior to his request for an accommodation, and without regard to his race or national origin. The decision to not interview Petitioner was based solely on his own behavior, considered rude and unprofessional, effectively disqualifying him from the job. Accordingly, Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proving that the County committed an unlawful employment practice against him in violation of the FCRA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Petitioner, Robert F. Cameron, did not prove that Respondent, Osceola County, committed an unlawful employment practice against him, and dismissing his Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 12th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Robert Finley Cameron 1 Churchill Street, Apartment 10 St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada L25 2-P3 C (eServed) Frank M. Townsend, Esquire Osceola County Attorney's Office 1 Courthouse Square, Suite 4700 Kissimmee, Florida 34741 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Florida Department of Transportation (Respondent) committed an act of unlawful employment discrimination against Stephen G. Leslie (Petitioner) in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) of 1992.
Findings Of Fact In 1986, the Petitioner began his employment with the Respondent as a "Safety Specialist." Beginning in 2001, and at all times material to this case, the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as an "Outdoor Advertising Regional Inspector." As an outdoor advertising regional inspector, the Petitioner's responsibilities included patrolling state roads in his assigned counties to ascertain the status of permitted outdoor advertising signs and to remove signs that were illegally placed on state right-of-way. The Respondent's duties required extensive driving, which he did in a state-supplied vehicle. The Petitioner was based at the Respondent's Tampa headquarters, but was supervised by employees located in Tallahassee. In 2007, the Petitioner began to experience neurological health issues, but he continued to work and was able to perform the responsibilities of his employment. From September 2008 to June 2011, the Petitioner was supervised by Robert Jessee. In 2009, the Petitioner's health issues got worse. He began to take more sick leave, which the Respondent approved upon request of the Petitioner. The Respondent also provided equipment to accommodate the Petitioner's health issues, including a laptop computer and larger mirrors on the Petitioner's state vehicle. The Respondent also assigned another employee to ride with the Petitioner and to remove signs illegally placed on state right-of-way so that the Petitioner did not have to exit the vehicle. In 2010, the Petitioner was involved in two automobile accidents while driving the state vehicle. In January, he ran into a vehicle that was stopped for a school bus. In February, while transporting a group of other employees on I-75, the Respondent struck rode debris and the vehicle was damaged. In April 2010, the Petitioner's presence in the Tampa headquarters building was restricted for reasons that were unclear. Although the restrictions caused embarrassment to the Petitioner, there was no evidence presented at the hearing to suggest that such measures were related in any way to the Petitioner's disability. Following an investigation of the traffic incidents by the Respondent's inspector general, the Petitioner received a written reprimand dated August 18, 2010, and was directed to take the Respondent's online driving course. Beginning in June 2011 and through the remainder of the Petitioner's employment by the Respondent, the Petitioner was supervised by Michael Green. The Respondent collects statistical data to measure the productivity of persons employed as outdoor advertising regional inspectors. The Petitioner's productivity statistics were significantly lower than those of other inspectors, and he was behind in his assignments. Accordingly, Mr. Green rode along with the Petitioner for three consecutive days in September 2011 to observe the Petitioner's work. At the hearing, Mr. Green testified that the Petitioner arrived late to pick him up at his hotel on all three days. On one of those days, the Petitioner accomplished an employment- related task prior to picking up the supervisor. Mr. Green testified that the Petitioner's driving made him feel unsafe during the observation. Mr. Green observed that the Petitioner accelerated and slowed the vehicle in an abrupt manner, and that he failed to use turn signals at appropriate times. Mr. Green also testified that the Petitioner was preoccupied as he drove by electronic devices, including a cell phone. Mr. Green testified that the Petitioner appeared to have difficulty entering and exiting the vehicle, and with hearing certain noises in the vehicle, including the click of the turn signal. Mr. Green testified that he felt so unsafe that he asked the Petitioner to alter his driving practices while Mr. Green was in the vehicle. Mr. Green testified that during the observation ride, the Petitioner discussed his physical condition and admitted that medical appointments during the week made it difficult to maintain the routine work schedule. The Petitioner also advised Mr. Green that he was considering filing for disability retirement. After returning to the Tallahassee headquarters, Mr. Green prepared a memorandum dated September 19, 2011, to memorialize his observations about the Petitioner's job performance. Mr. Green's memorandum was directed to Juanice Hughes (deputy director of the Respondent's right-of-way office) and to the Respondent's outdoor advertising manager. In the memo, Mr. Green recommended that the Petitioner be required to provide medical verification of his continued ability to perform the responsibilities of his position. In a letter to the Petitioner dated September 23, 2011, Ms. Hughes restated Mr. Green's observations and directed the Petitioner to obtain medical verification that the Petitioner was able to perform the responsibilities of his position safely. The letter specifically directed the Petitioner to provide medical information related to his ability to work his normal schedule, the existence of any work restrictions or required accommodations, and the impact of any medications prescribed for the Petitioner. The letter established a deadline of September 30, 2011, for the Petitioner's compliance with its requirements, and advised that he would not be permitted to resume his employment duties until the medical verification information was provided and any required accommodations were in place. The Petitioner apparently did not become aware of the letter until September 29, 2011. On that date, both Mr. Green and Ms. Hughes attempted to contact the Petitioner via his work cell phone and by email to advise him of the letter and to direct that he retrieve the letter from the district headquarters. Shortly after 4:00 p.m., contact was made with the Petitioner by calling his personal cell phone. At that time, the Petitioner was advised that he needed to return to the district headquarters to pick up the letter. He was further advised that he was being placed on leave until the requirements of the letter were met and that he needed to turn in his state vehicle when he arrived at the headquarters. The Petitioner advised Mr. Green and Ms. Hughes that he was attempting to obtain documentation required to file for disability retirement, and he asked for an extension of time during which to do so. His request for an extension was denied. The Petitioner, clearly unhappy with the circumstance, made a statement during the conversation that was considered by Mr. Green and Ms. Hughes to suggest that the Petitioner could cause damage to himself or to the state vehicle. The actual words spoken were disputed at the hearing, and the evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner would have actually damaged the vehicle or himself. Nonetheless, it was clear after the conversation that the Petitioner was resistant to the Department's instructions. The Respondent immediately directed James Moulton, the director of Transportation Operations for the Tampa district, to check on the Petitioner's condition and to retrieve the vehicle assigned to the Petitioner. Mr. Moulton did so, accompanied by local law enforcement personnel, at approximately 7:00 p.m. on September 29, 2011. In a letter to the Petitioner dated September 30, 2011, Ms. Hughes recounted the events of the day before and again directed the Petitioner to obtain medical verification that he was able to perform the responsibilities of his position safely. No deadline was set for the Petitioner's compliance, and he was advised that he could use leave for any absence related to obtaining the medical documentation. A few days later, the Petitioner advised the Respondent that he would be unable to obtain the requested medical verification and that he would be filing an application for medical disability retirement. In November 2011, the Petitioner filed the application accompanied by medical documentation establishing that the Petitioner had a "total and permanent disability," as defined by section 121.091(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2011).1/ His application was approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 13th day of August, 2013.
