The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Petitioner has been rehabilitated from her disqualifying offense(s); and, if so, whether the intended action to deny Petitioner's exemption request pursuant to section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes (2015),1/ would constitute an abuse of discretion by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing, and the record as a whole, the following material Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner was a 52-year-old female who sought to qualify, pursuant to section 435.07, for employment in a position of trust as a direct service provider for physically or mentally disabled adults or children. This position requires the successful completion of a Level 2 background screening. See § 435.04, Fla. Stat. APD is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating the employment of persons in positions of trust. Specifically, the mission of the Agency includes serving and protecting the vulnerable population, including children or adults with developmental disabilities. In conformance with the statute, Petitioner was screened by APD since she applied for a position of special trust as a direct service provider of APD. The screening revealed, and the parties stipulated at the hearing, that Petitioner was convicted of the following disqualifying offenses: Theft by Shoplifting--Felony--1987 Theft by Shoplifting--Felony--1987 Forgery (4 counts)--Felonies--1993 Theft by Shoplifting--Felony--1993 Battery-Family Violence--Misdemeanor-- 1996 Forgery--Felony--1998 The stipulation also included the fact that 17 years have elapsed since the last disqualifying offense was committed. The screening revealed, and the parties also stipulated at the hearing, that Petitioner was arrested or convicted of the following non-disqualifying offenses: Simple Battery--Misdemeanor--arrested-- dismissed--1987 Theft by Conversion--convicted--1993 Driving Under the Influence--convicted-- 1994 Criminal Trespass--Misdemeanor-- convicted--2000 The stipulation also included the fact that 15 years have elapsed since the last non-disqualifying arrest or conviction was committed. Rosita Martin At the time of the hearing, Petitioner was unemployed. She had last been employed at Martin's Group Home as a caregiver of vulnerable children who had disabilities or behavioral problems. Her duties included giving out medicines, assisting clients with bathing, and taking kids on outings and to church. She also helped to cook. She explained that most of her convictions occurred during a period of her life when she was in an abusive marriage and suffered from depression. She acknowledged that, during that time period, she was abusing drugs (cocaine) and alcohol. During that same period of time, she admitted that she had purchased and also possessed marijuana. She explained that her battery conviction in 1996 related to a domestic dispute with her husband. She called the police, and they took them both to jail. Although she said she was defending herself, she admitted that she had been convicted and found guilty of battery. Petitioner testified that she is a "good girl now." She attends church every Sunday and "left her problems with drugs." She got sick and tired and "told God to take it away from me and he did." Petitioner testified that she has not used any type of illegal drugs for 20 years. Her sister operates four group homes for children with disabilities. Petitioner worked at one of the homes, and her sister wrote her a letter of support in this case. The evidence was undisputed that she received "excellent" evaluations while at Martin Group Home. Currently, she lives with her daughter, and a granddaughter who is two years old. As a result of one of Petitioner's various felony convictions, she testified that she was ordered to attend in- house drug treatment at the Willingway Hospital in Statesboro, Georgia. Upon questioning by the undersigned, Petitioner stated that she was in rehabilitation at the hospital for "like 6 months" back in the 1990's.2/ The various letters of support and reference provided by Petitioner came from her relatives. These included her sister and father. The record reflects that Petitioner attended and successfully completed numerous training courses (e.g. medicine administration, CPR training, blood borne pathogens, HIV safeguards, etc.) that related to the caretaker work she performs.3/ Other than two certificates for domestic violence training in 2011 and 2012, the other training and educational completion certificates did not relate to treatment or counseling programs related to her drug use, alcohol use, psychological counseling, or financial training-–the personal issues she struggled with in her past when the disqualifying events took place. The evidence reflected that she had numerous and chronic driving violations, pertaining primarily to failing to pay road tolls. She claimed that all of these toll violations occurred when her daughter was driving her car.4/ On cross-examination, Petitioner conceded that she failed to provide a detailed version of the facts or a full explanation for each criminal offense listed on her exemption form.5/ Petitioner claimed that she was "new at this" and did not understand the details she was supposed to provide. For the criminal offenses involving theft of property, she claimed on the form, and testified, that there was "no harm" to the victim. Again, she claimed some confusion and stated that she thought that they were talking about harm in the "violent" sense. She was also cross-examined about the six-month drug treatment program that she testified she had attended at Willingway Hospital. She was asked why she did not provide that information to the Agency in the exemption form or provide the agency with a copy of a completion certificate. Inexplicably, she was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation during the hearing for why she did not disclose the drug treatment program on the exemption questionnaire. She claimed that since the court had ordered her into treatment, she did not think it was necessary to specifically list or describe it. She was asked why she was not able to provide a letter of recommendation from her church pastor. She did not provide an adequate explanation and simply stated that she attends church but is not a church member, that she just goes to church there every Sunday. She worked briefly at a company called Best Walks of Life. Her supervisor was her son, Mr. Walker. No details were provided concerning what she did there. She acknowledged that much of her criminal activity arose from or was related to problems with monetary or financial issues; yet, she conceded that she had not taken any financial courses or other classes to obtain financial or budgeting training or counseling. After working for her sister at Martin Group Home, she has not made any attempts to work in any other places or group homes since leaving. Darnisha Johnson Petitioner is her mother. The witness is 24 years old and lives with her daughter at her mother's house. She testified that her mother is "a great person today. She's great." She also stated that her mother is a "much better person" then when she was involved in criminal activity.6/ She also felt that her mother is not using any drugs now. She acknowledged that she has a car, but that it is in her mother's name. In the context of who pays the bills today and supports her financially, she characterized her mother's role as being her "support system." She also admitted that any failures to pay tolls while driving the vehicle registered in her mother's name were her responsibility. Molita Cunningham She is a friend of Petitioner's. She works as a certified nursing assistant and is certified as such with the State of Florida. She has known Petitioner for a little over three years and met her at a Family Dollar store. She wrote a letter of support for Petitioner. She was not aware of any facts to suggest that Petitioner was engaged in criminal activity, drug abuse, or abuse of her clients in any manner. She acknowledged she had a background similar to Petitioner's. She was "out there in the streets" and is a convicted felon. Other than being a general character witness, the witness offered no substantive evidence touching upon Petitioner's rehabilitation from the disqualifying offenses. Evelyn Alvarez Ms. Alvarez is employed with the Agency as the regional operations manager for the Southern Region.7/ She obtained a master's degree in public administration from Florida International University in 2000. APD serves individuals that have specific developmental disabilities. The disabilities include intellectual disabilities, autism, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, and the like. Her role in this case was to review the background information gathered by both the Department of Children and Families and APD on Petitioner. After her review, the package of information was sent to an exemption committee. That committee then independently reviewed the exemption package and made its own recommendation to the Director of APD. Before deciding on the exemption request, the Director reviewed both Ms. Alvarez's recommendation and the recommendation of the exemption committee. She correctly acknowledged that the applicant for an exemption from disqualification must prove rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence. She also correctly noted that the Agency should consider the circumstances of the disqualifying offense(s), the nature of the harm caused to any victims involved, the history of the employee since the incident and any other evidence indicating that the employee will not present a danger to the vulnerable or disabled adults or children they serve. APD was concerned that Petitioner failed to follow directions and provide the details for each disqualifying criminal event.8/ Also, Ms. Alvarez was concerned that Petitioner's failure to acknowledge that someone was "harmed" by the theft or forgery crimes ignores that there were victims involved, and the response fails to show an acceptance of responsibility for the crime(s). Ms. Alvarez testified that the Agency has no idea what happened with each of the disqualifying events, or of any circumstances that were happening at the time that would allow APD to understand why Petitioner would commit the offenses, and that there was no acknowledgment of any harm to any victims. In the opinion of Ms. Alvarez, the training certificates provided by Petitioner were not persuasive evidence of rehabilitation. More specifically, they were only indicative of employment training and did not include anything in terms of addressing Petitioner's substance abuse issues, her inability to manage her finances, or her involvement in acts of domestic violence. In APD's opinion, the lack of any treatment or professional counseling for those issues militated against a finding of rehabilitation. Likewise, Petitioner did not describe her alleged six- month, in-house drug rehabilitation program in the exemption application, nor was there any certificate of completion of drug treatment provided. APD concluded that Petitioner used poor judgment during an incident when she invited her friend, Ms. Cunningham, to spend a day on the job at Martin Group Home with Petitioner's disabled and vulnerable children. APD felt that this was a breach of client confidentiality, HIPAA rights, and may have put some of the children at risk around a visitor who did not have a background check or clearance to be at the facility. There were no professional references or letters of support offered by Petitioner from past employers (other than from group homes involving her relative). Likewise, there were no letters attesting to her good moral character from her church or other faith-based relationships she may have established. Ms. Alvarez testified that the reason the Agency wants letters of reference from individuals who do not have a conflict of interest is to show her character. Examples of letters of reference would be from a pastor or from an organization where someone had volunteered. The letters provided by Petitioner, while useful, did not reflect an impartial view of her character.9/ The Agency determined that it had no basis of reference for the character of Petitioner due to her failure to provide more impartial references.10/ In Ms. Alvarez's opinion, after reviewing the completed application, Petitioner had not provided any evidence, and APD had no knowledge, to support a finding of rehabilitation. Furthermore, APD did not have any knowledge of any financial planning or budgeting courses that Petitioner may have taken to show rehabilitation in the area of her finances. APD considered it significant during its review that Petitioner had been charged with driving while license suspended ("DWLS") (a criminal traffic offense) in 2012 and again in 2013, less than two years before the application. (Both DWLS offenses were subsequently dismissed.) Respondent's Exhibit 9, Petitioner's Florida Comprehensive Case Information System driving record, reflects in excess of 20 failures to pay required highway tolls in a two-year period from 2012 to 2013.11/ Petitioner did not provide any explanation for her driver's license problems to the Agency at the time of her Exemption Application. The Agency had no knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding the DWLS citations. Ms. Alvarez testified that traffic offenses and driving habits are important considerations, since direct service providers are often required to transport persons with developmental disabilities In essence, APD concluded that Petitioner had fallen short of her burden of showing rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities confirm its previous intended denial and enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 27th day of July, 2016.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent, the Orange County Convention Center, discriminated against Petitioner, Norman H. Siales, on the basis of a handicap within the meaning of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was first employed by Respondent in October 2000 as a set-up worker on an on-call basis. In June 2001, Respondent hired Petitioner in a regular full-time position as a set-up worker. Throughout his employment with Respondent, Petitioner's supervisors considered him a good employee who always performed his job properly and did assigned tasks to the best of his ability. Petitioner was incarcerated on or about July 8, 2004. Shortly after his incarceration, Petitioner called Steve Miller, one of the assistant supervisors in the Event Set-Up Department, and informed him that he was in the county jail. Petitioner was then told that he should keep Respondent updated on his situation. On or about July 9, 2004, Mr. Miller advised Mr. Schildgen, his supervisor, that Petitioner had called and reported that he was incarcerated. After first learning that Petitioner was incarcerated, Mr. Schildgen never heard from Petitioner. Moreover, Mr. Schildgen asked the two shift supervisors if they had heard from Petitioner, and they indicated they had not. Mr. Schildgen considered Petitioner a good employee and wanted him to return to work. However, in late July or early August 2004, after not hearing from Petitioner for about three weeks, Mr. Schildgen, in consultation with the manager of the Event Set-Up Department, determined that Petitioner's continued absence from the workplace, without notice, was a violation of the Orange County policy. According to the policy, employees could be terminated from employment if they were absent from the workplace for three consecutive days without notice to the employer. At or near the time Petitioner was employed by Respondent, he received a copy of the Orange County Government Employee Handbook (on June 11, 2001). He also received training on the Orange County Policy Manual. Petitioner signed an Employee Acknowledgement (March 30, 2004) form stating that he had received the training. The Employee Acknowledgement form, signed by Petitioner, further stated "I understand that I am responsible for complying with all Policies, Operational Regulations, Departmental Operating Procedures, and Departmental Guidelines, and that the failure to do so may be grounds for corrective action, up to and including termination." As a result of the training described in paragraph 6, Petitioner was aware of the Orange County policy that authorized employees to be terminated if they were absent from work three consecutive days and did not notify Respondent. Based on Petitioner's extended absence from the workplace and his failure to communicate with his supervisors regarding the absences, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment. By letter dated August 26, 2004, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment with the Event Set-Up Department. The reason for Petitioner's termination was that he had not communicated with Respondent since July 8, 2004. The letter also stated, "while we understand there were some extenuating circumstances involving the Orange County Sheriff's Office, we can no longer wait to address this violation of . . . policy." According to the termination letter, the applicable policy provides the following: "Failure to work for three (3) or more consecutive working days without proper authorization shall be considered job abandonment and result in immediate termination, unless the employee presents written proof that he/she was unable to make appropriate notifications through no fault of his/her own." When he was first incarcerated, Petitioner thought he would be held for 24 to 48 hours. However, he was not released until December 3, 2004. After Petitioner was released from jail, he went to his employer and asked if he could return to work, but was told that he could not return due to his excessive and consecutive absences without notifying his employer. Petitioner had a psychological evaluation when he was incarcerated, and a psychological report dated October 11, 2004, was generated as a result of that evaluation. Petitioner did not offer the evaluation into evidence, but testified that the evaluation indicated he had a mental illness. However, this report and the findings and conclusions therein have no bearing on this case as the report was prepared after Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment. Respondent was unaware of the psychological evaluation or report until the final hearing. During his employment with Respondent, Petitioner never advised his supervisor that he had a disability. Petitioner testified that in 2002 or 2003, he asked his three supervisors to help him "with the grievances." At hearing, Petitioner explained that when he used the term "grievances" he meant the mental, psyche, and physiological abuses he was suffering. In early 2002, while employed with Respondent, Petitioner sent a letter to Mr. Schildgen. According to Petitioner, the letter was about "psychological and physiological experimentations of science and technology." Mr. Schildgen found the letter described in paragraph 17 to be somewhat "strange," but nothing in the letter stated that Petitioner had a handicap or disability. After receiving the letter, Mr. Schildgen and two other supervisors met with Petitioner and asked him about the letter. During the meeting with his supervisors, Petitioner broke out in a cold sweat and rather than talking about the letter, started talking about subjects such as "Sigmund Freud and other stuff [Mr. Schildger and the other two supervisors] and we didn't quite understand where it was going." At no time during the meeting did Petitioner state or indicate that he had a disability. Moreover, there was nothing in Petitioner's personnel file that indicated he had a disability. At no time during his employment with Respondent did Petitioner advise anyone there that he had a handicap or disability. Also, Respondent never knew or considered Petitioner to be handicapped or disabled. The sole basis for Petitioner's termination was his violation of Orange County's "absentee policy."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner, Norman H. Siales', Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 Norman H. Siales Post Office Box 1772 Orlando, Florida 32802 P. Andrea DeLoach, Esquire Orange County Attorney's Office 435 North Orange Avenue, Suite 300 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Did Petitioner suffer an adverse employment action as a result of an unlawful discrimination by the Department of Corrections (Department) in violation of Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. At times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was employed at Brevard Correctional Institution and was considered by the Department to be qualified for the position for which he was employed. Petitioner is a male, African-American. On October 24 1994, Petitioner received a Written Reprimand for the abuse of the Department's sick leave policy, which had occurred on October 21, 1994, in that Petitioner, while on authorized sick leave on October 21, 1994, attended the Dorothy Lewis trial, without authorization from the Department. Petitioner presented no evidence to show that the Written Reprimand issued on October 24, 1994, was issued because of Petitioner's race or gender; rather it was issued based on a reasonable belief that Petitioner had abused the Department's sick leave policy by attending the Dorothy Lewis trial while out on official sick leave. Petitioner presented no evidence to support the remaining allegations contained in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner in this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 18th day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh F. Brockington, II 19715 Eagles View Circle Umatilla, Florida 32784 Violet Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Gary L. Grant, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Louis A. Vargas, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6563 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Petitioner's suspension in March 2004 and subsequent dismissal in March 2004 were not, in fact, imposed in consequence of her gross insubordination (which insubordination Respondent allegedly used as a pretext for the adverse employment actions), but rather were in truth retaliatory acts taken by Respondent because Petitioner had filed a charge of discrimination against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction contained a statement of undisputed material facts, which provided as follows: A. [a.] [Petitioner Diane] Scott [("Scott")] was employed as a teacher's aide in the Monroe County Public School System for approximately 13 years. The [Monroe County School] Board [(the "Board"), which is the governing body of Respondent Monroe County School District,] suspended [Scott] without pay in March 2004 pending termination for just cause. Scott timely requested a formal hearing. [b.] On August 18, 2004, Administrative Law Judge Robert E. Meale of the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") conducted a formal hearing in DOAH Case No. 04-2060 to determine whether Scott's employment should be terminated. Judge Meale issued a Recommended Order on October 25, 2004, holding, on the basis of extensive findings of fact, that Scott had "repeatedly refused to obey direct orders, essentially to allow the school system to function as an educational resource, free from her harassment of other employees trying to do their jobs." Judge Meale recommended that the Board terminate Scott's employment for just cause, i.e. gross insubordination. [c.] On November 16, 2004, the Board entered a Final Order adopting Judge Meale's Recommended Order in its entirety. Scott did not appeal the Final Order. B. [d.] In November 2004, Scott filed with the FCHR and the EEOC a Charge of Discrimination, signed November 12, 2004 (the "Charge"), wherein she alleged that the Board had retaliated against her for having filed an earlier charge of discrimination. The Charge was received by the FCHR on or about November 22, 2004, and docketed as Charge No. 150-2005-00405. [e.] In the Charge, Scott stated the "particulars" of her claim against the Board as follows: I am black. I filed a charge of discrimination under 150-2004-00146. In retaliation, Respondent placed papers in my fie [sic] that pertained to someone else and papers that were not signed by me. In further retaliation, Respondent placed me on suspension. I believe all of the above occurred in retaliation for filing the aforementioned charge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.[1] Scott also alleged that the unlawful retaliation took place between the dates of August 18, 2004, and August 24, 2004.2 [f.] . . . Charge No. 150-2004-00146 (the "Prior Charge"), which allegedly triggered the Board's allegedly retaliatory acts, had been brought against the Board in November 2003. . . . [To repeat for emphasis,] the retaliation claim asserted in the [present] Charge is based on alleged adverse employment actions that the Board took, allegedly, in response to Scott's filing the Prior Charge in November 2003. [g.] In her Charge Scott alleged that the Board's unlawful retaliation consisted of (a) placing papers in her personnel file that didn't belong there and (b) putting her on suspension. Regarding the allegedly spurious papers, . . . [f]ive . . . are . . . documents pertaining to another teacher's aide in Monroe County whose name is "Diane M. Scott." (Petitioner Scott is also known as Diane Hill Scott but not, so far as the record reveals, as Diane M. Scott.) The papers relating to the "other" Diane Scott are: (1) an Oath of Public Employee form dated December 20, 1996; (2) an Employer's Statement of Salary and Wages dated April 24, 2001; (3) an Employer's Statement of Salary and Wages dated March 13, 2002; (4) a Civil Applicant Response dated December 20, 1996, which notes that the individual (identified as "Diane Marie Scoh") had failed to disclose a prior arrest; and (5) a copy of the school district's anti-discrimination policy, apparently signed by the other Ms. Scott on August 23, 2002. [h.] In addition to these five papers, Scott claims that her personnel file contained an unsigned copy of the school district's anti-discrimination policy, bearing the handwritten note "Diane Hill Scott refused to sign——8/24/00." Scott asserts that before last year's administrative hearing, she had never seen this particular document. Because of that, she alleges, its presence in her file is evidence of discriminatory retaliation. [i.] Regarding the alleged retaliatory suspension [on which the Charge is based in part], Scott [actually] was referring to three separate suspensions: (1) a three-day suspension in May 2003; (2) a three-day suspension in October 2003; and (3) the suspension in March 2004 that was part and parcel of the proceeding to terminate Scott's employment. It is undisputed that Scott was in fact suspended from employment on each of these three occasions. However, [by] a letter to Scott from the Director of Human Resources dated October 3, 2003, [the Board had] formally rescind[ed], as the product of "error and miscommunication," the three-day suspension Scott was to have served that month. [j.] On April 26, 2005, the EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of Rights on Scott's Charge against the Board. In this notice, the EEOC stated that it was unable to determine whether the Board had violated Scott's civil rights. Thereafter, on May 12, 2005, the FCHR issued Scott a Right to Sue letter. Scott timely filed a Petition for Relief ("Petition") with the FCHR on June 6, 2005. The FCHR immediately transferred the Petition to DOAH, initiating the instant action. The undersigned hereby adopts the foregoing as findings of fact. Following the principle of estoppel by judgment (discussed in the Conclusions of Law below), it is found that, prior to being suspended from employment in March 2004, Scott repeatedly had refused to obey direct orders; she had been, in other words, grossly insubordinate at work. The evidence in the record is insufficient to persuade the undersigned——and consequently he does not find——that the Board used Scott's gross insubordination as a pretext for taking adverse employment actions, namely suspension and dismissal, against Scott. The evidence is likewise insufficient to establish, and thus it is not found, that the Board in fact suspended and discharged Scott in retaliation for filing the Prior Charge. It is determined, therefore, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the Board did not unlawfully retaliate against Scott when it terminated her employment on the ground that she had been grossly insubordinate, which misbehavior constitutes just cause for firing a teacher's aide, see §§ 1012.01(2)(e) and 1012.33(1)(a), Fla. Stat., and hence is a legitimate, non- retaliatory basis for taking adverse employment action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order finding the Monroe County School District not liable to Diane Scott for retaliation or unlawful discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 11th day of May, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Michael’s Store, Inc. (“Michael’s”), committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner (“Mr. Hughes”) by discharging him.
Findings Of Fact Michael’s operates a store in Clermont, Florida. During all times relevant to the instant case, Amy Wsol was the manager of the Clermont store. Mr. Hughes was the Clermont store’s operations manager and subordinate to Ms. Wsol. Elisa Griffin was a cashier at the Clermont store. In April of 2015,1/ Ms. Griffin notified Michael’s human resources department that Ms. Wsol was not enforcing or not complying with Michael’s procedures regarding e-mail captures and other cashier practices.2/ Michael’s conducted an investigation during the summer of 2015 and concluded in August or September of 2015 that no action would be taken. Michael’s notified all employees interviewed during the course of the investigation that there would be no retaliation against Ms. Griffin. Nevertheless, immediately after the investigation’s conclusion, Ms. Wsol mandated that the other managers in the Clermont store document all of their interactions with Ms. Griffin and place those documents (“the allegedly retaliatory documents”) in Ms. Griffin’s personnel file. Mr. Hughes had the additional task of using an in-store surveillance system to monitor Ms. Griffin during her shifts. Mr. Hughes felt that Ms. Wsol’s orders regarding the monitoring of Ms. Griffin were contrary to Michael’s directive that Ms. Griffin was to suffer no retaliation because of the investigation. Mr. Hughes also felt that Ms. Wsol’s orders were immoral and unethical. The stress associated with complying with those orders had an adverse effect on Mr. Hughes’ health. Mr. Hughes is an insulin dependent diabetic, and his blood sugars became unmanageable. At one point, his endocrinologist advised him that hospitalization may be necessary if his condition did not improve. In December of 2015 or January of 2016, Mr. Hughes applied for an assistant manager position at a store that Michael’s was about to open in Orlando, Florida. While the position in the Orlando store would have been a lateral move for Mr. Hughes, it appealed to him because the Orlando position would be salaried, and Mr. Hughes was an hourly employee at the Clermont store. In January of 2016, Mr. Hughes reported Ms. Wsol’s orders regarding the allegedly retaliatory documents to Michael’s Human Resources Department. At this time, he also made copies of the documents so that he would have evidence that Ms. Wsol violated the directive that Ms. Griffin was to suffer no retaliation. Mr. Hughes did not have any authorization from Michael’s to copy the contents of Ms. Griffin’s personnel file. In February of 2016, Mr. Hughes met at the Clermont store with Dennis Bailey, one of Michael’s district managers, regarding Mr. Hughes’ allegations about Ms. Wsol. Mr. Bailey told Mr. Hughes that his allegations were being investigated. As for his request to be transferred, Mr. Bailey told Mr. Hughes that he would not be forced by a complaint to transfer Mr. Hughes to a different location. While Mr. Bailey did not completely rule out the possibility of transfer, he stated that Mr. Hughes would probably have to accept a demotion and a loss of benefits. In March of 2016, Ms. Wsol went on medical leave, and Mr. Hughes ran the Clermont store until April Skidmore arrived in April of 2016 to serve as acting store manager. At the end of May 2016, Ms. Griffin asked Mr. Hughes how she could obtain a copy of her personnel file. Mr. Hughes told her that she could request a copy from Ms. Skidmore or from Michael’s Human Resources Department. On June 14, 2016, Mr. Hughes received a call from Leah Frye, who worked in the Human Resources Department. Ms. Frye asked Mr. Hughes if Ms. Griffin had approached him about obtaining a copy of her personnel file. Mr. Hughes responded affirmatively and relayed that he had instructed Ms. Griffin on how she could obtain a copy of her personnel file. Mr. Hughes did not tell Ms. Frye that he had made a copy of the allegedly retaliatory documents in January of 2016. After Ms. Griffin received a copy of her personnel file, she stated to Mr. Hughes on June 15 or 16, 2016, that certain documents were missing. Ms. Griffin made that statement because she had expected to see documentation of compliments paid to her by customers. Ms. Griffin was also expecting to see documentation regarding the investigation of Ms. Wsol. However, none of those documents were in her personnel file. Mr. Hughes then examined Ms. Griffin’s personnel file, and discovered that the allegedly retaliatory documents were not there. Mr. Hughes then told Ms. Griffin about the missing documents and stated that he would transmit a copy of them to her upon receiving a request from her attorney. Mr. Hughes received such a request on June 17, 2016. At that point, Mr. Hughes elected to make a copy of his own personnel file because he was worried that its contents would be altered in an effort to retaliate against him. Accordingly, Mr. Hughes asked Mary Pearman, one of the other assistant managers at the Clermont store, to watch him copy his personnel file and sign a statement indicating that the documents he copied represented its complete contents. On June 29, 2016, Mr. Hughes received a call from Chad Romoser, the Director of Michael’s Human Resources Department. Mr. Romoser asked Mr. Hughes if he had made a copy of his personnel file and if he had asked a coworker to witness him doing so. Mr. Hughes responded affirmatively and stated that he copied the contents of his personnel file because the allegedly retaliatory documents had disappeared from Ms. Griffin’s file. Mr. Hughes then asked Mr. Romoser why the allegedly retaliatory documents were not transmitted to Ms. Griffin after she requested a copy of her personnel file. Mr. Romoser responded by stating that Michael’s Human Resources Department had no knowledge of the documents. Mr. Hughes then inquired about the status of the investigation pertaining to his report about the allegedly retaliatory documents. Mr. Romoser stated that after Mr. Bailey had met with Mr. Hughes in February of 2016, Mr. Bailey reported that Mr. Hughes was a “whiny individual” attempting to force Michael’s to give him a promotion. On June 29, 2016, Michael’s initiated an investigation of Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hughes was suspended with pay and required to relinquish his keys to the Clermont store. On July 6, 2016, Michael’s discharged Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hughes learned through a telephone conversation with Mr. Romoser that he had been discharged from Michael’s for intimidating Ms. Pearman3/ and for lying to the Human Resources Department. Mr. Hughes did not learn until filing his Charge of Discrimination with the Commission that Michael’s also discharged him for releasing personal and confidential information. Mr. Hughes was a credible witness. The undersigned finds that his testimony reflected his best recollection of the events pertinent to this case. However and as discussed below, even if all of Mr. Hughes’ testimony were to be accepted as true, Mr. Hughes has failed to present a prima facie case of retaliation under the Florida Civil Rights Act.
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 dismissing Thomas C. Hughes’ Petition for Relief from an unlawful employment practice.5/ DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of October, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of October, 2017.
Findings Of Fact On December 3, 1991, the Petitioner, Douglas Adams, filed a Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Rule. In the Petition, the Petitioner challenged Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the Challenged Rule. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent, an agency of the State of Florida, adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Chapter 33-22, Florida Administrative Code, contains rules governing "inmate discipline." Those rules provide the general policy of the Respondent concerning inmate discipline (Rule 33-22.001), terminology and definitions (Rule 33-22.002), the procedures for taking disciplinary action against inmates (Rules 33-22.003-33-22.010), and the "Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions (the Challenged Rule). Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, the following: 33-22.012 Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions. The following table shows established maximum penalties for the indicated offenses. As used in the table, "DC" means the maximum number of days of disciplinary confinement that may be imposed and "GT" means the maximum number of days of gain time that may be taken. Any portion of either penalty may be applied. "All GT" includes both earned and unearned gain time. In addition to the penalties listed below, inmates may be required to pay for damaged, destroyed or misappropriated property under the provisions of rule 33-22.008(2)(b)13. . . . . Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, includes a table listing of various offenses for which disciplinary action may be taken and the maximum penalty for such offenses. The Petitioner has alleged, in part, that the Challenged Rule is invalid because it: provides maximum penalties for major violations, but fails to designate, or define minor infractions, or provide sufficient guidelines to guide the agency in exercise of its discretion to designate minor infractions as opposed to major infraction listed by the rule. More particularly, the rule provides in part that "any portion of either penalty may be applied." Applying either penalty listed in this rule, which provides for loss of gaintime or disciplinary confinement, is definitionally a major violation. . . . The Petition and the Amended Petition do not included any alleged facts supporting the Petitioner's assertion that the Challenged Rules are "arbitrary and capricious."
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice because of Petitioner's national origin.
Findings Of Fact It is not disputed that Mr. Arugu is a Nigerian resident in the United States, that he held the position of Treatment Counselor with the BSO, that he was discharged subsequent to being charged criminally of certain violent acts, or that BSO refused to rehire him after he was found not guilty of those charges. The BSO is an employer as that term is used in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Mr. Arugu was hired as a substance abuse treatment counselor by Broward County, Florida, for its drug court program, in November 1989. He worked as a mental health specialist for the Broward County Drug Court. The position, with Mr. Arugu as the incumbent, was transferred to the BSO on October 1, 1999. A mental health specialist provides guidance to individuals or groups of persons who abuse legal and illegal substances and provides, among other things, anger management advice. Mr. Arugu's supervisor was Kristina Gulick. Her title was Director of the Department of Community Control. She assumed this position in 2001. Her immediate supervisor is Colonel Wimberly and his immediate supervisor is Sheriff Ken Jenne. Mr. Arugu began working for Ms. Gulick in 2002. Teddy Meisel is the assistant director of the Department of Community Control and reports to Ms. Gulick. He has known Mr. Arugu since 1997. He learned that Mr. Arugu had been arrested sometime after June 20, 2003. Subsequent to October 24, 2003, he reviewed an investigation into the activities of Mr. Arugu and as a result, decided he should be terminated. Although Mr. Meisel was aware that Mr. Arugu was a Nigerian, that fact did not enter into his decision to recommend that he be terminated. He discussed his recommendation with Ms. Gulick, who agreed, and forwarded a recommendation of dismissal to Colonel Wimberly. Ultimately, Sheriff Jenne signed off on the dismissal. The investigation reviewed by Mr. Meisel, Ms. Gulick, and Colonel Wimberly was prepared by Sergeant Wilfred Medina of the BSO's Office of Professional Compliance. He opened the investigation on June 21, 2003, and completed it on October 24, 2003. Sergeant Medina interviewed Mr. Arugu on September 21, 2003, in connection with his arrest by the Plantation Police Department (PPD) on June 20, 2003. The PPD had charged him with two counts of battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting arrest with violence and resisting arrest without violence. A review of the probable cause affidavit prepared by the arresting officers revealed that two PPD officers responded to a domestic disturbance complaint made by Lauretta Arugu, the estranged wife of Mr. Arugu. When the officers arrived at Ms. Arugu's residence, Mr. Arugu struck them repeatedly. The officers used pepper spray to gain control of him and thereafter arrested him. Based on this information, Mr. Arugu was suspended from his employment without pay. He was ordered to report to the Office of Professional Compliance on June 23, 2003, so that he could meet with Lieutenant Arndt of that office, and with Sergeant Medina. During that meeting Mr. Arugu provided the officers with a hand-written letter that was completely different from the version of events provided by the arresting officers. Mr. Arugu asserted that the arresting officers brutalized him. On June 25, 2003, Sergeant Medina learned that Mr. Arugu had been arrested by the Sunrise Police Department (SPD) on September 14, 1997. A report prepared by SPD indicated that on that date two SPD officers observed Mr. Arugu selling shoes from the trunk of his automobile at the Sawgrass Mall. He was arrested for operating a business without a license. After being placed in a patrol car, he exited the vehicle and attacked two SPD officers. Although it is a violation of the Broward County Code of Ethics Manual to fail to report an arrest to one's supervisor, a policy about which Mr. Arugu was aware, he did not inform Mr. Meisel of his arrest by SPD. During the interview, Mr. Arugu did not inform Sergeant Medina of his arrest in 1997 by SPD for the offense of battery on a law enforcement officer. He stated that he had no criminal record and denied ever having been arrested prior to the June 20, 2003, arrest. Sergeant Medina concluded that Mr. Arugu was not a truthful person. During Sergeant Medina's interview, Mr. Arugu made no claim that he was the victim of prejudice based on his national origin or any other status. On July 11, 2003, pursuant to Ms. Arugu's petition, a permanent restraining order was served on Mr. Arugu. The restraining order forbade him from being in the presence of Ms. Arugu or contacting her. Mr. Arugu nevertheless called Ms. Arugu's home and left messages on her answering machine. This was reported to the judge, who issued the order. On October 14, 2003, the judge, who issued the order, found that Mr. Arugu had indeed violated the order and admonished him, but did not incarcerate him. In Mr. Arugu's Employment Complaint of Discrimination, Mr. Arugu specifically alleged that Roy Vrchota, Assistant Inspector General told him, while his criminal case was pending, that he would be reinstated if he was found not guilty at the end of the criminal case addressing the June 30, 2003, incident. Mr. Vrchota testified under oath that he never told Mr. Arugu that he would be reinstated. Upon consideration of all of the facts and circumstances of this case, it is found as a fact that Mr. Vrchota did not tell him that. Mr. Vrchota was the person who discovered the previous arrest by SPD. Mr. Vrchota does not believe that Mr. Arugu is a truthful person. Mr. Arugu never made any allegations to him with regard to being a victim of prejudice. He did not learn that Mr. Arugu was a Nigerian until he was deposed in this case. On September 12, 2003, Mr. Arugu was found not guilty of charges addressing the June 30, 2003, incident. On September 29, 2003, Mr. Arugu sent the BSO a letter asking to be reinstated. In a letter dated December 23, 2003, Mr. Arugu was informed that he was not going to be reinstated. The fact that Mr. Arugu was a Nigerian was not taken into consideration by those in the decision-making process. Mr. Arugu's conduct was contrary to BSO standards and that is why he was discharged.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 October, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Odiator Arugu, Esquire The Florida Law Firm, PLC 1990 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 Harry O. Boreth, Esquire Glasser, Boreth & Kleppin 8751 West Broward Boulevard, Suite 105 Plantation, Florida 33324 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that she is rehabilitated from her disqualifying offense, and if so, whether Respondent's intended action to deny Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification from employment would constitute an abuse of discretion.
Findings Of Fact The Agency is the state agency responsible for regulating the employment of persons in positions of trust for which Petitioner seeks to qualify. Petitioner is a 38-year-old female who seeks to qualify for employment in a position of special trust with Success for All of Florida, Inc., a service provider regulated by the Agency. Because she wishes to work as a direct service provider, Petitioner was required to undergo a background screening. The results of that screening identified a history of criminal offenses, including a disqualifying offense in 2003. Accordingly, Petitioner filed a request for exemption from disqualification, which triggered the instant proceeding. In a letter dated July 27, 2015, the Agency's Director, Barbara Palmer, notified Petitioner that after reviewing all information that led to her disqualification, her exemption request was denied. The letter advised Petitioner that this decision was based upon Petitioner's failure to "submit clear and convincing evidence of [her] rehabilitation." Resp. Ex. C. Before Director Palmer made her decision, Petitioner's request for an exemption was reviewed by a Department of Children and Families screener who compiled a 34-page report entitled "Exemption Review" dated June 10, 2015. See Resp. Ex. B. The packet of information contains Petitioner’s Request for Exemption, Exemption Questionnaire, various criminal records, and two character references. The Exemption Review did not make a recommendation one way or the other, but simply compiled all relevant information that would assist the Director in making her decision. The report was first given to the Agency Regional Operations Manager in Orlando, who reviewed it and then made a preliminary recommendation to the Director. In 2003, Petitioner had a disqualifying offense, Grand Theft, a third-degree felony, which automatically disqualified her from employment in a position of special trust. Around the same time, she committed a second-degree misdemeanor, Trespassing in a Structure or Conveyance, a non-disqualifying offense. Both offenses occurred at a JC Penney store in Lakeland. Petitioner pled guilty to both offenses and was adjudicated guilty. For the felony conviction, she was placed on probation for 25 months, given credit for time served in jail, and ordered to pay various fines and costs. Petitioner was then 26 years old. Petitioner's account of her disqualifying offense differs in several respects from the account memorialized in the Lakeland Police Department reports and is inconsistent with her plea of guilty. In her Exemption Questionnaire, she stated that the criminal offense was actually committed by her younger sister and not her. She wrote that "I didn't tell on my sister because she was only 16 at the time so I took the charge for her." Resp. Ex. A, p. 3. This version of events was never presented to the court. At hearing, she also stated that she pled no contest to the crime, but court records indicate she pled guilty. In January 2004, while on probation for the Grand Theft charge, Petitioner violated her probation by committing a non- disqualifying offense and was sentenced to 60 days in jail. In November 2005, Petitioner violated her probation a second time by testing positive for cocaine during a probationary drug screening. The record is unclear if Petitioner served any jail time for this violation. In September 2012, or approximately three years ago, Petitioner committed the non-disqualifying offense of Use or Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, a first-degree misdemeanor. She pled nolo contendere, was adjudicated guilty, placed on probation for 12 months, and ordered to pay various fines and costs. At hearing, Petitioner blamed her cousin for the arrest and stated that she was unaware her purse contained drug paraphernalia (a straw and cocaine residue), as she had not used cocaine since 2005. In any event, she stated that her drug of choice was previously ecstasy and not cocaine, and admitted that she had used that drug while working at Success for All in Florida, Inc., from 2001 until around 2005. Between 2006 and 2014, Petitioner was employed as a warehouse worker by Publix. Along with five other workers, she was terminated by Publix in 2014 for improperly accepting damaged merchandise from a co-worker. There is no record of any employment since that time. Petitioner blamed her criminal arrests on stress in her life, mainly due to a lack of family support and raising two children as a single parent, and being just "plain stupid" while she was young. She expressed remorse for her mistakes and now wishes to help others as a direct service provider. Three witnesses testified on Petitioner's behalf. They described her as being a good worker, a caring individual, dependable, and very determined to improve her life. The Agency's rationale for denying the application is Petitioner's failure to take responsibility for her actions, that is, blaming her arrests on others, and a failure to provide a truthful and full account of the circumstances surrounding her disqualifying offense. The Agency also expressed concerns over Petitioner's lack of specificity regarding her criminal background, and the short period of time (three years) since her latest arrest, albeit for a non-disqualifying offense. Finally, the Agency noted that Petitioner has never had counseling, she lacks any specialized training, and there is no record of employment since being terminated by Publix more than a year ago.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 7th day of December, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: David M. De La Paz, Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) LaShae Thomas 3217 Julia Court Lakeland, Florida 33810-5510 Michael Sauve, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 430 Orlando, Florida 32801-1764 (eServed) Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Barbara Palmer, Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to exemption from disqualification by law with regard to working in a position of special trust and responsibility related to children, disabled adults, and elderly persons?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is disqualified from working in a position of special trust because of: a 1991 conviction of grand theft auto; a 1980 conviction of battery; two counts in 1993 of uttering a forged instrument, one count of petty theft and one count of trespassing after warning. Respondent's testimony was direct, candid, and creditable. He previously engaged in a life-style that is no longer compatible with his present involvement with church and community. His testimony was well corroborated by the testimony of eight other witnesses and numerous exhibits. As established by clear and convincing evidence at the final hearing, Respondent is rehabilitated and unlikely again to engage in criminal conduct or present a threat to children, disabled adults, or elderly persons, if employed in a position of special trust. The various criminal offenses for which Petitioner has been convicted, were all committed more than three years prior to his disqualification notice from Respondent for which Petitioner now seeks exemption. Section 435.07, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification to work with children in positions of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Karlier Robinson 1018 Martin Street Blountstown, Florida 32424 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Suite 252-A 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner was discriminated against based on his race or in retaliation for participation in a protected activity in violation of Chapters 760.10(1)(a) and (7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Charles Rogers, is a Caucasian male. At all times relevant to this Petition, Petitioner was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections as a correctional probation officer. He was supervised by Susan Bissett-Dotson, a Caucasian female. In late August, Petitioner had a person he supervised come into his office to discuss pending warrants for the person's arrest. When advised of these warrants, the probationer ran, causing Petitioner to have to pursue him through the office. On September 6, 2001, as a result of the foregoing incident, Petitioner received a written reprimand for violation of office policies and improper use of force. Petitioner failed to follow a policy requiring notice to others in the office when an offender might be arrested in the office. Adam Thomas, the circuit administrator, reviewed the use of force and determined Petitioner had used force appropriately. Nevertheless, the reprimand from Susan Bissett-Dotson contained reference to improper use of force in addition to failure to follow office procedures. Petitioner filed an internal grievance contesting that portion of the reprimand referencing improper use of force. His grievance was heard and the reprimand was reduced to a record of counseling, deleting any reference to an improper use of force. Petitioner's pay, benefits, ability to be promoted, as well as all other aspects of his employment were not affected either by the original reprimand or the subsequent record of counseling. Petitioner's caseload was reassigned four times within a 14-month period. These reassignments occurred between August 29, 2000, and October 2, 2001. Only one of them took place after his grievance. The reassignments did not involve a physical move to a different office; rather, Petitioner received a new set of offenders to supervise whose files were in various stages of development. The reassignments did not involve any material changes in his duties or responsibilities. There was no amount of greater or less prestige associated with any of the caseloads he received. The reassignments did require him to become familiar with a new area and a new group of persons. Petitioner was required to do extensive work to re-develop these files, which task was onerous. The decision to reassign Petitioner's caseloads was taken in relation to the reassignment of other personnel based upon several factors, including but not limited to: assignments from the judiciary; the geographic location of the various officers vis-à-vis supervised offenders; the officers' expressed willingness to accept a new caseload; the officers' qualifications to handle specialized caseloads; and the equitable distribution of the cases. One of the reassignments was caused when Petitioner was out for more than two weeks, which requires a mandatory reassignment of cases. The desires of Petitioner were not considered, although Ms. Bissett-Dotson gave full consideration to the wants and desires of the others who were moved. Petitioner alleges that he was yelled at in a meeting for having an overdue assignment; he produced an e-mail berating him for a late case; and records were introduced that showed the case was not overdue. Records were introduced about the redistribution of another officer's caseload. Of the 31 cases reassigned, 20 were assigned to Petitioner. This occurred on November 14, 2001. Petitioner complained that he was not allowed to work before 8:00 a.m. Ms. Bissett-Dotson was questioned as to whether she allowed Petitioner to work prior to 8:00 a.m. She stated that she had denied his request to work before 8:00 a.m. because 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. was the standard work day for the office, and it was necessary to have coverage during those hours. Because of various requirements, such as working during court, some officers had to be off during normal hours. Other officers had to be out of the office more than others. All of this affected when and whether one could deviate from standard office hours. On three occasions, Petitioner's firearms locker was accidentally used by other officers. On at least one of these occasions, a camera was locked in the locker along with Petitioner's lock. Petitioner was not subject to any discipline as a result of these incidents and Susan Bissett-Dotson was approached by other probation officers on each of the occasions and informed that each had been a mistake. Ms. Bissett-Dotson was satisfied with these explanations. While only one of the reassignments took place after the grievance, clearly Ms. Susan Bissett-Dotson was not fair and equitable in her treatment of Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order indicating clearly that exercise of career service and other employment rights guaranteed by statute are subject to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, protection, and that the Petition herein is dismissed not because it was not proved, but because it was not properly pled. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Grant, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2002. Charles Rogers Post Office Box 331 Worthington Springs, Florida 32597 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
