The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, as a covered employer under the Florida Civil Rights Act, Sections 760.01 through , Florida Statutes (2008),1 committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent is a constitutional officer and employer subject to the jurisdiction of the Florida Civil Rights Act. On or about July 2, 2001, Respondent, upon the recommendation of Tom Kay, then director of Respondent's Information Technology ("IT") Department, hired Petitioner as a desktop support analyst in the IT Department. The desktop support analyst position, like all positions with Respondent, is an at-will position. Petitioner was 64 years of age when he was hired by Respondent. During his initial years of employment with Respondent, until about late 2005, Petitioner reported to and was supervised by Mr. Kay. After Mr. Kay resigned in November or December 2005, Petitioner reported to Greg Brock, the IT director. Throughout his employment as an IT desktop support analyst, Petitioner was knowledgeable regarding computer applications and his employer's policies regarding use of computers. The essential functions of the desktop analyst position included adhering to and following the principles of the Clerk's Office, and complying with and supporting the mission of the Clerk's Office and the goals and objectives of the IT Department. The Policies and Guidelines Respondent established detailed Information Security Policy Guidelines regarding the use of network resources. Section 5.6 of the Security Guidelines prohibits employees from using network resources for "obscene or suggestive messages or offensive graphical images." Additionally, Section 5.7 of the Guidelines prohibits employees from deliberately downloading or uploading certain materials, including materials of a "sexually explicit nature" or "material which adversely affects the employee's or user's ability to do his or her job or . . . the [Clerk's] office's ability to carry out its assigned mission." Respondent developed and approved a Personnel Handbook which governs, among other matters, employee use of various types of equipment. Section 1.16 addresses the "Care and Use of Equipment," including computers, Internet access and email, which are the property of the Clerk's Office. The policy prohibits employees from using those computers for personal purposes and, specifically, prohibits the use of such equipment in ways "that may be disruptive, offensive, or harmful to morale." Section 1.16 further provides that Respondent's objective with regard to this policy is "to maintain a workplace free from harassment and sensitive to the diversity of its employees." IT Team Building Exercises While IT director, Mr. Kay instituted sports-based office games for team-building. Mr. Kay believed that these activities would boost morale, promote camaraderie, and facilitate communication among staff in the office. Mr. Kay considered the team-building activities to be an effective tool in leading a group of IT people, who typically are introverted by nature, prone to going to their "corners," and not interacting very much. JeanMarie Walsh, then assistant to Mr. Kay, coordinated some of the team-building activities, including the fantasy football game. While serving in that capacity, Ms. Walsh prepared football pool ballots at lunchtime on Friday for Monday morning bragging rights and temporary use of a team hat. She also occasionally used the office computer for email reminders and did so at the direction of Mr. Kay, believing it was not inconsistent with the Clerk's Office policies. The sports "picks" were done primarily during off-duty times and involved only incidental (five to ten minutes a day) use of staff time or the Clerk's Office equipment. This incidental use of equipment in connection with authorized team-building activities did not constitute unauthorized personal use of Respondent's equipment. Mr. Kay opined that the team building activities and use of staff and equipment in connection with those activities were within his rights as IT director. The Chief Deputy Clerk, Janet Cantees ("Chief Deputy Cantees"), knew that the IT Department employees participated in the sports-based team-building exercises initiated and implemented by Mr. Kay. Furthermore, at no time were these team-building activities proscribed by the employer. Respondent was generally aware of the team-building exercises in the IT Department and cautioned Mr. Kay to make sure no money was involved in the activities. She also advised him that employee participation in the team-building exercises was to be on a purely voluntary basis. In accordance with Respondent's instructions, no money was exchanged in regard to these sports team-building activities, and no IT employee was required to participate in the sports activities. The team-building sports activities in the IT Department concluded prior to July 2007. The use of team-building exercises is not unique to the IT Department, but is used with other employees in the Clerk's Office. For example, Chief Deputy Cantees had developed and used other team-building exercises for managers and staff who worked in different locations in the county. Some IT employees also participated in a "Clerk Shirt Everyday" activity, which was to encourage employees to wear their official "clerk shirts." The person who wore a "clerk shirt" that was a color not worn by anyone else that day was the winner of the activity. The winner was given one or two dollars by each participating employee to buy donuts the next day for the work group. Policy Violation Related to Use of Computers In or about early July 2007, Ms. Walsh, an employee in the IT Department telephoned Petitioner from her office. After he did not answer his phone, Ms. Walsh went to Petitioner's work area where she observed him on the computer in the Miami Hurricane football chat rooms. Ms. Walsh then reported to IT Director Brock that Petitioner was not answering his phone and told him what she had observed. On or about July 5, 2007, after Ms. Walsh reported seeing Petitioner in the Miami Hurricane chat rooms, Mr. Brock had Petitioner come to his office. Mr. Brock then told Petitioner that he should not be visiting what Brock believed to be the Miami Hurricanes football web chat rooms on Respondent's computer. During this meeting, Petitioner denied that he had visited such chat room as had been reported. On or about July 25, 2007, while in the area in which Petitioner worked, Ms. Walsh observed Petitioner at his computer. At that time, Ms. Walsh saw an inappropriate image on Petitioner's 24-inch computer screen. The inappropriate image was in clear view of Ms. Walsh and any other employee present in the adjacent working area. When Ms. Walsh saw the inappropriate image, she was concerned that a female vendor working nearby might be exposed to the explicit image. Ms. Walsh was embarrassed and shocked by the image she saw on Petitioner's computer screen and, thus, said nothing to Petitioner. Instead, Ms. Walsh immediately reported what she had witnessed to Mr. Brock. When Ms. Walsh initially told Mr. Brock about the image she had witnessed on Petitioner's computer screen, she described it as "offensive" to "a woman." During their brief conversation about the image on Petitioner's screen, Ms. Walsh was uncomfortable and embarrassed talking about the image. As a result, neither Mr. Brock, nor Ms. Walsh discussed the image in any detail other than confirming it was of a sexual nature. On July 25, 2007, after Ms. Walsh complained about the inappropriate image on Petitioner's computer screen, Mr. Brock conducted an inspection of Petitioner's computer. As a result of that inspection, Mr. Brock found on the hard drive two offensive photos, referenced as "Jugsy.jpg" and "cheappussy.jpg." The "Jugsy.jpg" photo found in Petitioner's computer depicts a young woman, mouth open, clad in a bra or bikini top, clutching her breasts, most of which were exposed, and pushing them together. The "cheappussy.jpg" photo found in Petitioner's computer depicts a man holding or dangling a hairless cat, which appears to be dead, in the air by its head. The offensive photos were found among other photos depicting Petitioner and his friends, and/or acquaintances of his, engaged in social or sports activities, including the University of Miami Hurricane events. The offensive photos found by Mr. Brock were located in a place on Petitioner's computer associated with his user name/login and were copied to the computer into Petitioner's profile or personal directory. Furthermore, based on Mr. Brock's inspection, there was no indication that the offensive pictures had been tampered with or modified by anyone else. At all times relevant hereto, there were ten or eleven employees in the IT Department, all of whom had administrative passwords that allowed them to access any of the Clerk's Office computers. The IT employees needed this access in order to perform their authorized job responsibilities. Because the IT employees had access to all computers, it is possible that any IT employee could have accessed Petitioner's computer. However, there is no evidence that this ever occurred. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Brock had the experience and expertise to run a report of computer activity and to conduct a forensic analysis of Petitioner's computer to determine the history of the images. However, based on the findings of Mr. Brock's initial investigation of Petitioner's computer, he determined that such analysis or report was not necessary. On July 26, 2007, Mr. Brock showed Ms. Walsh the images he found saved in Petitioner's computer. At that time, Ms. Walsh identified the picture labeled "Jugsy.jpg" as the offensive image she had seen on Petitioner's computer. At this proceeding, Ms. Walsh testified that the image she saw on Petitioner's computer screen in July 2007 was a topless female in partially unzipped jean shorts. Undoubtedly, there is a difference in the image Ms. Walsh described in her testimony, which was two years after the incident, and the "Jugsy.jpg" photo she identified the day after she saw the image. This difference or discrepancy may be attributed to several factors including the following: (1) the lapse of time, two years, between Ms. Walsh's seeing the image and testifying at this proceeding; (2) the brief time that Ms. Walsh actually saw the image on Petitioner's screen; and/or (3) the brief time she looked at the "Jugsy.jpg" photo when it was shown to her by Mr. Brock. Notwithstanding the foregoing difference in Ms. Walsh's description of the image she saw on Petitioner's computer screen and the photo she identified as that image, Ms. Walsh's testimony that she saw an offensive image of a woman on Petitioner's computer screen is found to be credible. Significantly, Ms. Walsh's complaint led to an investigation, which found that there were offensive photos stored in Petitioner's computer (the one provided to him by the Clerk's Office). Decision to Terminate Petitioner's Employment In personnel matters regarding employment termination, the process begins with the unit manager or director discussing and reviewing the situation with Edith Peacher, manager of Human Resources ("HR"). After the matter is reviewed, the director or manager typically makes a recommendation in consultation with HR Manager Peacher. That recommendation is then conveyed to Chief Deputy Cantees, a key decision maker, who reviews the matter and then communicates her decision/recommendation to Respondent. Ultimately, Respondent has "veto authority" over the recommendation and/or decision of the chief deputy clerk. Consistent with Respondent's personnel practices, after Ms. Walsh identified the picture that she believed she saw on Petitioner's computer screen, Mr. Brock conferred with the HR manager. During the meeting with HR Manager Peacher, Mr. Brock advised her of Ms. Walsh's complaint, his investigation, and the photos he had retrieved from Petitioner's computer. Mr. Brock also told HR Manager Peacher that a few weeks before, he had spoken to Petitioner about using his computer to go to chat rooms. HR Manager Peacher, with input from Mr. Brock, drafted a Termination Notice dated July 26, 2007, for violations of the Clerk's Office's policies, procedures and professional conduct and standards. HR Manager Peacher then recommended to Chief Deputy Cantees that Petitioner's employment be involuntarily dismissed from the Clerk's employ. The July 26, 2007, Notice of Termination cited the prior disciplinary action; the July 5, 2007 verbal counseling; and references the two photos/images described in paragraphs 24 and 25 as deliberate and inappropriate use by an IT employee of the Clerk's Office computer equipment, justifying termination of employment. Section 4.02 of the Clerk's Personnel Handbook provides that "[e]mployment with the Clerk . . . is on at will basis," but states that "the Clerk may utilize progressive discipline in an effort to work with the employee." Under this provision, the option of using progressive discipline is discretionary, not mandatory. In the instant case, HR Manager Peacher believed that the display of offensive images on Petitioner's computer screen was an "egregious" situation and one which warranted immediate termination. On July 26, 2007, Mr. Brock and HR Manager Peacher met with Petitioner and reviewed the Notice of Termination and the pending recommendation for dismissal with Petitioner. When confronted with the allegation regarding the offensive images found in his computer, Petitioner stated "matter of factly" that someone "may" have placed the photos on his computer. However, he offered no reason for his implication that someone else "may" have tampered with his computer. Nonetheless, HR Manager Peacher told Petitioner that Respondent could investigate and find out if someone else had placed the images in his computer, but Petitioner did not request further investigation. At the July 26, 2007, meeting, Petitioner signed the Notice of Termination and indicated that he "read the Notice but did not agree with it in any way, shape or form." HR Manager Peacher conveyed to Chief Deputy Cantees the substance of the meeting with Petitioner and her belief that no errors of fact had occurred. After listening to HR Manager Peacher's presentation of the facts, Chief Deputy Cantees asked HR Manager Peacher and Mr. Brock several follow-up questions about the incident (i.e., the validity of the complaint, if and how Petitioner's computer had been checked, etc.). Chief Deputy Cantees was satisfied with the information HR Manager Peacher provided to her, as well as the responses to her questions that were provided by HR Manager Peacher and Mr. Brock. Both HR Manager Peacher and the Chief Deputy Cantees relied on Mr. Brock's experience and expertise in computer forensics in determining the origin of the offensive images found on Petitioner's computer. Based on her discussions with HR Manager Peacher and Mr. Brock and her review of the record, Chief Deputy Cantees concurred with the recommendation of termination and the Clerk gave final approval. Petitioner was 71 years old when he was terminated from his employment with Respondent. The person hired to replace Petitioner was an individual estimated to be in the mid-40 to mid-50 range. Prior to the incident involving Petitioner, neither Respondent, nor the HR manager had received reports of, or knew of incidents of, employees having inappropriate (sexual) images on their computers. Therefore, no employees in the Clerk's Office have ever been disciplined for that offense. Medical Condition of Petitioner In 2002, Petitioner was diagnosed with a melanoma that required office surgery and other pre-cancerous lesions that also required treatment. The surgery and all other treatments were performed in the doctor's office and required no hospitalization. Between 2002, when he was first diagnosed with a melanoma and through July 2007, Petitioner has continued to be treated for skin cancer. During this five-year period, Petitioner's condition and his treatments for that condition have not significantly affected or, otherwise, limited Petitioner's ability to work or to engage in most activities. During the five-year period since he was diagnosed with skin cancer, Petitioner had regular check-ups, some of which may have resulted in his doctor's performing certain in-office medical procedures. Other than those in-office procedures, Petitioner's treatment for his condition consists of applying various salves, creams, and/or lotions to his skin. Finally, as a result of his medical condition, Petitioner had been directed to stay out of the sun. Because Petitioner must now stay out of the sun, he is no longer able to participate in daytime activities that he previously enjoyed doing and/or had been able to do (i.e., going to the beach and to his grandson's soccer and softball games). During his employment with the Clerk's IT Department, Petitioner never requested leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. Moreover, there is no indication that his medical condition affected his attendance at work. In fact, between January and July 2007, Petitioner saw his physician only about six times. Petitioner never notified Respondent, Mr. Brock, or Chief Deputy Cantees that he had skin cancer. Furthermore, none of them knew or suspected that Petitioner had skin cancer or any other medical condition. Finally, Petitioner's co-workers were unaware of his medical condition. While employed in the IT Department, Petitioner had several conversations with HR Manager Peacher. Petitioner recalled that during one of those conversations, HR Manager Peacher referred him to a dermatologist or assisted him with a medical referral. At this proceeding, HR Manager Peacher did not recall giving Petitioner the name of a dermatologist, but acknowledged that she may have done so. HR Manager Peacher explained that she speaks to numerous employees throughout the workday about various personnel-related matters and provides them with such assistance when requested to do so. Despite having several discussions with Petitioner during his employment with the Clerk's Office, HR Manager Peacher was unaware of his medical condition. Alleged Disability Discrimination Respondent conducted general meetings with employees every other month. During those meetings, Respondent covers a variety of topics with employees, all of which are on a printed agenda and later sent to employees by e-mail. The Agenda for the June 22, 2007, employee meeting included a three-page overview of the employee compensation package offered to Respondent's employees that included the following introductory statement: "Part of offering a competitive benefits plan is being proactive in maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Each of us must take the responsibility to live healthy lives, and, in return, our insurance costs will be minimized." During that meeting, Respondent read that language verbatim. In reading the above-quoted language, Respondent's intent was to encourage employees to address "preventable issues," such as smoking, overeating, and not exercising. However, in the charging document, Petitioner alleges that the above-quoted language meant Respondent wanted to hire only "healthy employees." Petitioner's interpretation distorts and misconstrues the above-quoted comments made by Respondent. Further, there is no evidence to support Petitioner's allegation that Respondent wanted to hire only healthy employees. Also, those comments do not, in any way, relate or refer to employees with disabilities and cannot reasonably be construed to do so. Claim of Age Discrimination Petitioner received such inquiries periodically and complained about the practice from time to time. For example, in a June 8, 2007, email to HR Manager Peacher, Petitioner complained about a phone call from ACS Recovery Service ("ACS"), a third-party health benefits coordinator. Petitioner perceived the ACS inquiries regarding Medicare eligibility as age discrimination. Sarasota County Government Benefits Manager Steve Marcinko testified credibly that ACS provides coordination of benefits services for Aetna, Sarasota County Government's third-party administrator. To carry out its responsibility, ACS is authorized to contact the employees to determine whether alternate insurance coverage, including Medicare, may be available to cover a claim that is otherwise the responsibility of the Sarasota County Government. Among those contacted by ACS are group health plan participants who are "post-65 and Medicare-eligible." The purpose of these contacts is to verify whether the participants are "active" or "retired" employees. Such verification assists in determining whether the group health plan or Medicare has primary or secondary responsibility for the benefits of those individuals. The inquiries by ACS are not age-based, except as they relate to an individual's Medicare eligibility, and are not conducted at the direction of the Clerk. When conducting these inquiries, ACS does not copy the individual's employer or former employer about such inquiries.
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 dismissing Petitioner, Michael L. Coyle's, Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2010, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2010.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Petitioner has, pursuant to section 435.07, Florida Statutes, demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that she should not be disqualified from employment in a position involving direct contact with children or developmentally disabled persons; and, thus, whether the intended action to deny an exemption from disqualification from employment is an abuse of the agency’s discretion.
Findings Of Fact By letter dated December 15, 2016, Respondent issued its notice of proposed agency action by which it informed Petitioner that her request for exemption from disqualification was denied. A timely Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing involving disputed issues of material fact was filed on behalf of Petitioner. After filing the hearing request, Petitioner responded to the Initial Order, and the final hearing was scheduled on a date provided by Petitioner. Thereafter, Petitioner failed to comply with the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions and failed to appear at the final hearing. Based on Petitioner’s failure to appear and offer evidence, there is no evidentiary basis on which findings can be made regarding whether Petitioner proved her rehabilitation from the disqualifying offense such that Petitioner would not present a danger to children or developmentally disabled people served in programs regulated by Respondent.
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, Amy Vieland’s, request for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 16th day of March, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Amy Vieland Post Office Box 11256 Shadyhills, Florida 34610 Jeannette L. Estes, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities Suite 422 200 North Kentucky Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33801 (eServed) Michele Lucas, Agency Clerk 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) Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has been subjected to an unlawful employment practice, namely, discrimination on the basis of her age, gender, religion, or disability.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Esther Kay Gibbs, is a resident of Ocala, Florida, whose date of birth is January 31, 1956. Petitioner has many years of experience in a variety of clerical positions. Petitioner applied for the position of Court Clerk I with the Marion County Clerk of the Court’s Office on September 20, 1999. Petitioner’s application for employment stated that she has the ability to type at the rate of 35-40 words per minute. The Marion County Clerk’s Office employs approximately 200 persons in approximately 14 different departments. Petitioner initially interviewed for the position of Court Clerk I with Mr. Jack Seese, Chief Deputy Clerk for Administrative Services; and Ms. Maribeth Hudson, Chief Deputy Clerk for Court Services. During the interviews, Petitioner was explained the varied duties of a Court Clerk I, which included typing at the rate of 45 words per minute. At the time of the interview, Petitioner was aware that typing was an essential job function. The interview notes of Mr. Seese and Ms. Hudson showed Petitioner to be an “above average” candidate for the position. Mr. Ellspermann interviewed Petitioner and hired her effective October 14, 1999. Mr. Ellspermann reviewed Petitioner’s employment application and was aware that she listed her typing speed at 35-40 words per minute. Petitioner was never told she would be placed in a particular department or division of the Clerk’s Office. All of the Clerk I positions required typing. Petitioner was hired as a Court Clerk I in the traffic division and remained in that position until her resignation on August 23, 2001. Petitioner suffers from scleroderma, the symptoms of which include pain in her fingers, extreme sensitivity to cold temperatures, difficulty swallowing, loss of sleep, and the inability to garden or use her hands for any fine motor work. The Social Security Administration issued Petitioner a determination of disability in 1989. Petitioner concealed her medical condition from Respondent. Petitioner told Respondent’s officials during her interviews that she was able to type. Respondent had no way of knowing that Petitioner had a disability or a problem with typing at the time of the interviews. Respondent hired Petitioner with the knowledge that she was able to type only 35-40 words per minute. Throughout her employment with Respondent, Petitioner’s supervisors were Ms. Kudary or Ms. Rodgers. As her supervisors, Ms. Kudary and Ms. Rodgers counseled Petitioner on numerous occasions about mis-keyed citations and other performance issues. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning her claim of gender discrimination. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning her claim of age discrimination. Petitioner claimed that a non-supervisory co-worker made a derogatory remark about her religious beliefs. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning her claim of religious discrimination. Petitioner made an effort to be a cooperative employee and to fit into office culture by volunteering to work comp time and overtime. Petitioner published recipes for and cooked meats at the request of her fellow co-workers and supervisors, even though she is a vegan. Petitioner wrote a complimentary e-mail to her supervisor, Karen Rodgers. On November 9, 2000, Mr. Ellspermann approved a two percent pay increase for Petitioner. In his memo to Petitioner, Mr. Ellspermann noted that “Your evaluation reflects your interest and commitment in providing the citizens of Marion County with an effective Clerk’s Office. I thank you for your hard work and continued dedication. Congratulations on a job well done." Also, on November 9, 2000, Mr. Ellspermann directed Respondent’s payroll department to provide eight hours of incentive time to Petitioner’s annual leave. Mr. Ellspermann wrote to Petitioner, “I want to take this opportunity to recognize and thank you for the special effort you have taken not to use sick time throughout the year.” The letter noted that he took this action because Petitioner was “blessed with good health and displayed a commitment of service to Marion County and the Clerk’s Office.” All employees in the Marion County Clerk’s Office are required to attend annual harassment/discrimination training seminars. Petitioner attended a harassment/discrimination training seminar on the morning of August 22, 2001. Petitioner and the other attendees at the seminar were encouraged to report incidents of harassment to their supervisors. During a break in the training, Petitioner approached Ms. Hudson and told her she believed that her supervisor, Ms. Rodgers, was harassing her. Ms. Hudson agreed to arrange a meeting with the Deputy Clerk, Mr. Seese. At a meeting with Mr. Seese and Ms. Hudson, Petitioner stated that Ms. Rodgers was mean and belittling to her and everyone else in the traffic and misdemeanor divisions. Petitioner stated that the alleged harassment by Ms. Rodgers had nothing to do with her race, color, religion, national origin, age, or marital status. Mr. Seese and Ms. Hudson concluded that Ms. Rodgers' alleged acts toward Petitioner had nothing to do with harassment within the interpretation of the law and the Clerk’s Office Anti-Harassment Policy. Mr. Seese concluded his investigation at this point. Petitioner made multiple data entry errors as a Court Clerk I. Petitioner had previously had a dispute with Ms. Rodgers over errors she had made in entering citations into the system. On the afternoon of August 22, 2001, Mr. Ellspermann summoned Petitioner to his office to meet with Ms. Hudson and him concerning Petitioner’s data entry errors. At the August 22 meeting, Mr. Ellspermann discussed Petitioner’s errors in keying-in citations with her. In response to Mr. Ellspermann’s concerns regarding Petitioner’s performance, Petitioner threw her hands in the air, and for the first time since she had become employed with the Clerk’s Office, stated that she could not do her job because she could not type. Mr. Ellspermann and Ms. Hudson were surprised by Petitioner’s revelation concerning her inability to type. Mr. Ellspermann informed Petitioner that he would see if any positions were available at the Clerk’s Office that did not require typing. Mr. Ellspermann made a good faith effort to find Petitioner a position that did not require typing. No positions existed at the Clerk’s Office for Petitioner that did not require typing. Petitioner told Mr. Ellspermann that she could neither type nor remain in a position that required typing. Earlier in 2001, Petitioner had submitted a form to the Department of Health in which she stated “I can’t work in the cold; I can’t type anymore.” Petitioner did not ask for an accommodation from Respondent other than asking for a position that required no typing. Mr. Ellspermann and Ms. Hudson met again with Petitioner on August 23, 2001, at which time Mr. Ellspermann reported that Respondent had no positions available into which she could transfer that required no typing. Petitioner was informed that she could either resign or be terminated since she was unable to work at a position that required typing, and no positions were available that did not require typing as an essential part of the job. Petitioner resigned from her employment with Respondent due to her “health problems.” Since her resignation from the Marion County Clerk’s Office, Petitioner has not been able to secure employment at a comparable salary to what she previously earned as a Court Clerk I.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss Petitioner’s charge of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Attas-Kaplan, Esquire Fisher & Phillips, LLP 450 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Esther Kay Gibbs 3415 Northeast 17th Terrace Ocala, Florida 34479 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether Petitioner was terminated from his employment with Respondent because of his race, his alleged disability, and in alleged retaliation for his attempt to file a workers' compensation claim in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. Petitioner also has been diagnosed with obsessive/compulsive disorder and major depression. On March 21, 1997, Petitioner began his employment with Florida Department of Corrections as a substance abuse counselor at Lancaster Correctional Institution. Petitioner's employment status was in career service, probationary status for six months from the date of his employment. A probationary status employee can be terminated without cause. Petitioner's employment as a counselor required him to be present at the institution a reasonable amount of time in order to perform his counseling duties. From March 21, 1997 through September 2, 1997, Petitioner failed to report for work 39 full workdays out of a possible 115 workdays. In addition, Petitioner had five other workdays that he only worked part of the day, with a total of 16 hours of leave used over those days. Sixteen hours is the equivalent of two full workdays missed by Respondent. As a result, Petitioner was absent from work approximately 35 percent of the time. Thirty-five percent absence rate was excessive based on Petitioner's job duties. Most of the leave was without pay because Petitioner had not accumulated enough sick or annual leave to cover his absences. The leave was taken for various reasons, but a large part of the leave was taken when Petitioner was hospitalized due to his mental condition. Petitioner's doctor released him from his hospitalization on August 8, 1997; however, Petitioner did not return to work until August 20, 1997. The last pay period ran from Friday, August 22, 1997 to Thursday, September 4, 1997. Petitioner only worked 20 hours out of 40 the first week and two hours out of 40 the second week. Around September 1, 1997, Petitioner went to the personnel office to inquire about filing a workers' compensation claim based on his disability. The staff person he spoke to did not know the procedure for filing a workers' compensation claim. She told Petitioner she would find out the procedure and asked him to return the next day. Other than Petitioner's speculation about the events following his initial inquiry about filing a workers' compensation claim, other material evidence regarding the events following his initial inquiry and Respondent's response thereto was submitted into evidence. The evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions of a factual or legal nature regarding Petitioner's workers' compensation claim and his termination. Petitioner was terminated on September 2, 1997, the day following his initial inquiry about workers' compensation. Petitioner received his letter of termination on September 2, 1997. Petitioner was a probationary status employee when he was terminated. Eventually, Petitioner filed a workers' compensation claim. The claim was denied by the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security. In 1997, L.D. "Pete" Turner was the warden at Lancaster Correctional Institution. As warden, Mr. Turner supervised Petitioner. Mr. Turner made the decision to terminate Petitioner due to his excessive absences. Mr. Turner did not terminate Petitioner based on Petitioner's race, his alleged disability, or because of Petitioner's attempt to file a workers' compensation claim. Petitioner was needed at work and he was not there a sufficient amount of time to fulfill his job duties. In fact, there was no competent evidence that there was any connection between Petitioner's termination and/or his race, disability, or desire to file a workers' compensation claim. Petitioner alleged that two employees at the institution were excessively absent but were not terminated. The employees were Doris Jones and Victoria Englehart. Both individuals were career service employees with permanent status. They were not probationary status employees. Doris Jones is an African-American female. Victoria Englehart is a white female. No other evidence was produced at the hearing regarding these two employees, their attendance records, job duties or anything else of a comparative nature. Clearly, the evidence is insufficient to make any comparison between these two employees and Petitioner's employment and termination.
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 6th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Otis Ware Post Office Box 2155 Trenton, Florida 32693 William J. Thurber, IV, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Azizi M. Dixon, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether respondent discriminated against petitioner, either on account of her age or on account of an alleged handicap, in violation of Section 760.10 et seq., Florida Statutes (1989), in terminating her employment?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Doris Stephens, a woman now approximately 56 years of age, began working for respondent Tom's Foods, Inc., on June 30, 1981, sweeping floors at its plant in Perry, Florida. After various intervening assignments, she ended up as a packer on the potato chip line. Packers remove packages of potato chip bags from a conveyor belt and deposit them in cardboard boxes, which they form by folding. As a packer on the potato chip line, her duties included keeping a record of how many boxes she packed in the course of the shift, and cleaning up at the end of the shift. Headquartered in Columbus, Georgia, respondent Tom's Foods, Inc., employed 15 or more people in Florida for a period in excess of 20 weeks this year and last. On March 6, 1989, respondent fired Ms. Stephens, who has arthritis, for "excessive absenteeism." By all accounts, she was a good employee for her almost eight years with respondent, whenever she was at work. Petitioner's arthritis has not interfered in any way with her ability to perform her work when she was well enough to be at work. Petitioner attributes the absences on account of which she was discharged to visits to the doctor in Gainesville who treated her for arthritis, to certain side effects of medicine she took for arthritis, and to visits to a doctor in Perry, on account of the side effects. Company Policy People who work for Tom's Foods, Inc. as packers are paid nothing when sickness keeps them away from work for periods of up to four days. Without regard to the length of their service, moreover, they are discharged if illness (among other causes) occasions too many absences. The company's written attendance policy provides: 5. Definitions: A period of absence counts from the day an employee stops work until the day he/she returns to work. (This could include one day or three days, but would still count as one period.) If the employee is going to be absent beyond the seventh (7th) day (eight days or more), he/she must request and be granted a Leave of Absence and must provide a doctor's release before returning to work. The six-month period in which an employee's attendance is measured dates from the current date back six months, dropping off the oldest date and adding the newest date. Classification of absences: In order to define "excessive absenteeism" and deal with it in a fair and consistent manner, absences will be classified as either chargeable or non-chargeable: Non-chargeable absences are certain specifically identified absences which will not be charged against an employee's overall attendance record for the purpose of determining excessive absenteeism. These are absences due to: Jury duty. A death in the immediate family which qualifies the employee for funeral leave pay. (Absences due to other family deaths require prior approval from the plant manager.) An on-the-job injury. An official and formally-granted leave of absence (see Policy Statement A-204, Leave of Absence). Chargeable absences are all other absences for any reason; these will be charged against the employe's attendance record and will be used to determine excessive absenteeism. Excessive tardiness/early departure Because of production requirements, employees are expected to be present and at their work stations at the beginning and the end of their shifts. Failure to comply with these requirements will be a basis for disciplinary action in accordance with the provisions of this policy. Definition of tardiness: Any employee not present in his/her department and ready for work on his/her job scheduled starting time is considered "late for work" or tardy. . . . 3. Excessive tardiness/early departure. Excessive tardiness/early departure will be cause for discipline of the employee and may ultimately result in discharge. Tardies or early departures of less than three (3) hours are non-chargeable if prior notice is given to and approval obtained from the supervisor. Prior notice for a late start should be given at the end of the employee's previous shift. Prior notice for an early departure should be given four (4) hours before the end of the shift. Three (3) separate tardies and/or early departures will be counted as one (1) chargeable absence and will be applied in conjunction with all other chargeable absences as outlined in Sections B and D of this policy statement. Excessive absenteeism Excessive absenteeism is defined as six (6) chargeable periods of absence - or a maximum of eighteen (18) days of absence for chargeable reasons - within any six-month period. Excessive absenteeism cannot be tolerated and any employee guilty of such will be discharged under the following procedures: A verbal warning will be issued upon the fourth (4th) period of absence within any six-month period. A written warning will be issued upon the fifth (5th) periods of absence within any six-month period. Termination will occur upon the sixth (6th) period of absence within any six-month period. Respondent's Exhibit No. 12. This version of respondent's policies has been in effect since August 1, 1987, although similar policies have obtained at all pertinent times. An absence of less than five days, although for medical reasons, counts as a chargeable period of absence, if it lasts three hours or longer. A shorter absence, even a few minutes' tardiness, counts as one-third of a period of absence. In the event of a medical disability lasting five or more days, an employee is eligible for a formal leave of absence; and, when an employee obtains such leave, his absence is not charged against him for purposes of the absenteeism policy. Three Minutes Late Ms. Stephens missed work on September 26 and 27, 1988, because she was ill; she attributed her illness to arthritis medication she took. She was absent on October 17, 1988, when she went to Gainesville to see the doctor who treats her for arthritis. She was absent three days running on December 16, 17 and 18, again on account of illness she claimed her arthritis medicine caused. On December 27, 1988, going to see a doctor, because she was ill, made her 2.5 hours late. She missed three hours' work on January 3, 1989, again on account of illness. The next day she was three minutes late to work. Because she did not obtain permission to miss work, either before she was too sick to work or before she was tardy, each incident counted as a third of a chargeable absence. In accordance with company policy, Don Cook, the supervisor who recorded petitioner's three-minute peccadillo on January 4, 1989, spoke to her two days later. He told her she had the equivalent of four periods of absence within less than a six-month period, and that "[t]wo additional chargeable POA before March 26, 1989, will warrant termination of employment." Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. The day Ms. Stephens returned from a two-day absence occasioned by her illness on February 13 and 14, 1989, she received a written warning that a single additional period of absence "before 3/27/89" would result in termination. Respondent's Exhibit No. 6. A final absence, this one also attributed to illness, lasted three days, March 1, 2 and 3, 1989, and resulted in her discharge. Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. Betty Davis, who "may be in her 50s," (T.92) and who may or may not have arthritis, filled the vacancy petitioner's discharge created. Because Ms. Davis, who had been doing similar work on another shift, was "the most senior person with that job classification," (T.91) company policy gave her the choice of taking petitioner's place. Consistent Application In the last two years, respondent has fired a number of other employees for violating its absenteeism policy. At the time of petitioner's discharge, no employee with six periods of absence in six months' time had been retained. Subsequently, however, two employees who had been absent six times in six months were not discharged, because supervisors had neglected to give warnings required by company policy after earlier absences. Although respondent had recently agreed to modify its absenteeism policy to accommodate an employee whose child suffers a "more than likely fatal" (T.98) illness, it was not shown that this employee had been absent six times in a six-month period. On more than one occasion, petitioner denied having any handicap, when asked on company forms. At no time before her discharge did petitioner seek accommodation on account of her arthritis, T.84, 135.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the FCHR deny the petition for relief from an unlawful employment practice. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, Acting Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 William S. Myers, Esquire 3800 One Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W. Atlanta, GA 30309 Doris Stephens Route 4, Box 397 Perry, FL 32347
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 is whether Respondent engaged in the practice of discrimination against Petitioner when terminating him from employment as a firefighter due to a medical condition.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jonathan Race, was employed by Respondent, Orange County Fire Rescue Department, since January 1989, and worked in the Operations Division as a Lieutenant/EMS Supervisor. In this role, he managed, coordinated, and performed firefighting and emergency rescue services. In the mid-1990s, Petitioner was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation which ultimately resulted, in July 2001, in his undergoing an open heart surgical procedure known as the "MAZE" procedure. Following the open heart surgery, Petitioner had a pacemaker installed in August 2001. Petitioner's cardiologist from 1997 to January, 2005, was Arnold Einhorn, M.D. Barry Portnoy, M.D., is a physician under contract with Orange County to perform annual physical examinations for members of the Orange County Fire Rescue Department. While Dr. Einhorn served as Petitioner's cardiologist, he had periodic conversations with Dr. Portnoy concerning Petitioner's cardiac condition. On May 20, 2003, Dr. Einhorn wrote a letter to Dr. Portnoy in which he stated that Petitioner, "continues to be on medical therapy with beta blockers and Digoxin and his underlying heart rate is in the 30s and this making him dependent on the pacemaker approximately 80% of the time." Dr. Einhorn concluded at that time that Petitioner needed to continue with his medications and use of the pacemaker. Petitioner, concluded, Dr. Einhorn, "is dependent on the pacemaker." On January 16, 2004, Dr. Portnoy conducted an annual physical for Petitioner. On February 6, 2004, Dr. Portnoy stated in his evaluation of Petitioner: "Classification deferred pending additional information. . . . Employee may continue in his/her present duties for no more than 30 days while awaiting further evaluation." On June 4, 2004, Dr. Portnoy completed his evaluation of Petitioner, imposing a restriction of "No functioning as a member of a team or independently where sudden incapacitation could result in harm to himself, risk to others, or mission failure." Dr. Portnoy placed Petitioner on light duty, which resulted in his assignment to an office job at fire headquarters. Respondent's policy dictates that, when an employee is placed on light duty, a medical review is conducted. After being placed on restricted or light duty, a medical review of Petitioner was commenced in June 2004. Respondent's medical review committee requested that Petitioner obtain from his cardiologist, Dr. Einhorn, information concerning Petitioner's cardiac condition. On January 5, 2005, Dr. Einhorn, at Petitioner's request, sent a letter to Dr. Portnoy in which he stated, in part, "We have been trying to wean the patient off beta blockers and Digoxin to see if the patient is still pacemaker dependent. He is now not on any Digoxin and Toprol and interrogation of his pacemaker revealed 30% atrial paced with 16 runs of atrial fibrillation." Based upon the information received from Dr. Einhorn by Dr. Portnoy, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter dated February 17, 2005, which stated that Respondent had determined there was a preponderance of evidence that restrictions placed on Petitioner by Dr. Portnoy would continue indefinitely and that Petitioner would not be able to return to his position in the Operations Division as Lieutenant/EMS Supervisor. Respondent concluded that under Article 34.11 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Petitioner would be medically separated from his employment with the County, effective March 26, 2005, at 19:30 hours. While on light office duty, Petitioner was given additional time to pursue other jobs with Orange County. Petitioner did not find another job with Orange County. On March 10, 2005, after Petitioner had received the February 17 letter from Respondent, Amish Parikh, M.D., wrote a letter "To Whom It May Concern", in which he stated that Petitioner "is now pacing only 0.8% of the time and it is not considered pacemaker-dependent. I believe the pacemaker is not a limiting factor in his ability to perform his job and he should be permitted to return to full duty without restrictions." Nothing in this letter makes reference to any medications Petitioner would be required to take in the future. On April 15, 2005, after Petitioner had been terminated from his employment with Respondent, Petitioner was examined by another cardiologist, Sunil M. Kakkar, M.D., who concluded that Petitioner was not pacemaker dependent and could return to full duties with Respondent. Neither Dr. Parikh nor Dr. Kakkar testified at the hearing. Their written reports appear to be based upon one visit by Petitioner with each of them. On March 23, 2005, Dr. Portnoy reviewed the March 10 letter from Dr. Parikh. Dr. Portnoy did not change his determination that Petitioner was pacemaker dependent after his review of Dr. Parikh's letter. Dr. Portnoy did not lift the restrictions he had imposed on Petitioner. At the time of hearing, Petitioner continued to take medications, both aspirin and Toprol, for his cardiac condition. David Hart worked as a firefighter with Respondent from March 16, 1981, through his voluntary retirement, with the rank of Engineer, on February 10, 2005. Mr. Hart was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation in 1992 and was treated for the condition with medications for the ensuing six years. Mr. Hart had a pacemaker implanted in October of 1998, and had the pacemaker in place through his retirement. While still employed by Respondent, Mr. Hart's private cardiologist, Dr. Filart, provided Respondent and Dr. Portnoy with information concerning the pacemaker, and determined that Mr. Hart was not pacemaker dependent. Based upon Dr. Filart's determination that Mr. Hart was not pacemaker dependent, Mr. Hart was not removed from duty or placed on restricted duty due to his pacemaker. Mr. Hart agreed that the decision with respect to pacemaker dependency should be made by the patient's cardiologist. Petitioner claims that he was discriminated against by Respondent due to disparate treatment between himself and David Hart. He alleges he is not pacemaker dependent, is similar to Mr. Hart, and, therefore, should not have been medically separated from his employment with Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order finding that the Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jonathan A. Race 1081 Dean Street St. Cloud, Florida 34771 Gary M. Glassman, Esquire Orange County Attorney's Office Litigation Section 435 North Orange Avenue, 3rd Floor Orlando, Florida 32801 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Sylvester Brown, was subject to discrimination in employment for the reasons alleged in the Petition.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Sylvester Brown, was terminated from his position as Laborer, position number 51343, within the Facilities Operation and Maintenance Department of Florida State University (FSU) on October 7, 1999, for violation of a Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave. The Petitioner had been employed by FSU for 24 years. Petitioner's Disciplinary Violations Leading to Termination Attendance is a critical element of the Laborer's job because departmental productivity depends on the reliable availability of employees. The Petitioner received a copy of Rule 6C2-4.070, Guidelines for Disciplinary Action, Rules of the Florida State University Administrative Code on January 29, 1988, which provided notice to the Petitioner of FSU's standard of conduct and the associated penalties for violation. The Petitioner was cited for numerous disciplinary infractions prior to his dismissal. The Petitioner's work history documents a consistent trend of absences which grew progressively worse over time. A list of documentation in evidence, exhibiting disciplinary action taken by FSU against the Petitioner includes: A three day suspension for Absence Without Authorized Leave (AWOL) and Excessive Absences, dated January 3, 1997. A written reprimand for Excessive Absences and AWOL, dated August 6, 1996. An oral reprimand for excessive absences, dated April 26, 1996. 1996. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated February 29, A written reprimand for AWOL, dated August 14, 1991. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated June 5, 1989. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated February 22, 1989. A written reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated July 8, 1988. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated May 25, 1988. The Petitioner was cited for excessive tardiness in an official written reprimand dated July 8, 1988, and the Petitioner was again reminded that his performance hindered the department's ability to perform its function. An oral reprimand for excessive tardiness, dated January 28, 1988. An oral reprimand for misuse of state property and equipment, dated July 11, 1985. A written reprimand for misuse of state property and equipment dated March 21, 1984. A written reprimand for excessive absences, dated February 7, 1984. A written reprimand for AWOL and misuse of state property and equipment dated, January 25, 1983. A three day suspension for AWOL, dated July 27, 1981. A written reprimand for AWOL, dated July 13, 1981. The Petitioner was directed in an August 14, 1991, written reprimand to phone his supervisor as close to 8:00 a.m. as possible on days he would be unable to report to work. The Petitioner was reminded in the February 29, 1996, written reprimand of the policy requiring employees to provide supervisors with advanced notice or documentation for leave to be authorized. The Petitioner was informed on April 26, 1996, that his absences, both excused and unexcused, exceeded established attendance and leave standards. Specifically, from January through April, the Petitioner used 33 hours of annual leave, 31 hours of sick leave, and 29 hours of leave without pay. FSU notified the Petitioner that his absences and sick leave totaling 33 hours during the period from April 26, 1996 to August 6, 1996, were deemed excessive and in contravention of departmental standards. The Petitioner was also cited for six hours of being absent without authorized leave. The Petitioner's chronic absenteeism did not improve. The period from August 6, 1996 through January 3, 1997, witnessed 46 hours of sick leave or unauthorized leave on the Petitioner's part. An inventory of the Petitioner's absences following his suspension from January 7-9, 1997 until August 22, 1997, catalogued 56 hours of sick leave, 16 hours of leave without pay and two hours of absence without authorized leave. This amount of leave was "considered to be excessive and completely unacceptable." [Id.] Further, the university did not receive any medical excuses for the Petitioner's use of sick leave during this period. [Id.] Counseling was provided to the Petitioner by FSU regarding the use of sick leave on August 17, 1998. An examination of the Petitioner's attendance revealed that he used 63 hours of sick leave from February 20, 1998 through August 6, 1998. [Id.] The university's standard for the same period of time was 33 hours of sick leave. [Id.] The Petitioner was further advised by FSU that he would not be compensated for three consecutive absences or three absences within a 30-day period without proper medical documentation. FSU assessed the Petitioner's attendance from January 8, 1998 through August 6, 1998, by comparing the standard allocated for sick leave to the Petitioner's actual use of sick leave. The sick leave standard for employees for the period under review was 44.16 hours whereas the Petitioner expended 67 hours of sick leave. [Id.] The record establishes that the Petitioner was warned 17 times in writing through reprimands, memorandums, and counseling notices dating back to 1981 that absenteeism was punishable under university employee disciplinary standards. Tardiness and absenteeism are, in fact, grounds for dismissal under the FSU Handbook for Employees. The Petitioner was warned twice in writing that failure to rectify his recurring absenteeism could result in his dismissal. Petitioner's Termination The FSU's Guidelines for Disciplinary Action are based on the concepts of progressive and cumulative discipline. The Disciplinary Guidelines outline standards to apply for punishable offenses to ensure similar treatment. Ms. Susannah Miller, Manager of Employees Relations at FSU, testified that the Petitioner's personnel file revealed the worst case of absenteeism she has seen at FSU. Excessive absences is defined in the Guideline for Disciplinary Action as "an attendance record of recurring absences, even though all or a majority of the absences were necessary and excused." Dismissal is allowed as proper punishment for an employee's fourth violation of the excessive absence rule. FSU notified the Petitioner of its intention to terminate him for excessive absences, effective on or shortly after October 12, 1998. In lieu of firing the Petitioner, FSU elected to allow the Petitioner to enter into a "Last Chance Agreement" (LCA) with FSU to avoid dismissal. Ms. Miller stated that Last Chance Agreements allow a final opportunity for employees to improve their performance. Ms. Miller further testified that to her knowledge FSU has never retained any employee that violated a Last Chance Agreement. The Last Chance Agreement required the Petitioner to (1) obtain prior written approval of requests for annual leave or leave without pay; (2) follow departmental policy and call-in between 8:00 and 8:30 a.m. and speak personally with his supervisor or proper designee if he was sick and unable to report to work; and (3) agree that violation of any LCA provision would result in immediate termination for cause. The Petitioner violated the Last Chance Agreement when he did not report for work on August 27, 1999, because he neither obtained prior approval for the absence nor followed the call-in procedure. The Petitioner also failed to provide any documentation justifying his absence. The Petitioner was in violation of the Last Chance Agreement on August 31, 1999, when he was tardy without permission and failed to follow the call-in procedure. The Petitioner's breach of the Last Chance Agreement is even more egregious because he collected his paycheck prior to work and could have easily informed his supervisor or the designee that he needed leave that day. In addition to violating the terms of the Last Chance Agreement, the Petitioner was also AWOL on August 27 and August 31, 1999. AWOL is "failure to obtain approval prior to any absence from work" and is punishable by dismissal for the third occurrence. The Petitioner admitted that he violated the Last Chance Agreement. On September 15, 1999, FSU informed the Petitioner of its decision to terminate him for violating the Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave. The Petitioner was dismissed on October 7, 1999. Petitioner's Step One Grievance was denied on December 13, 1999. FSU's decision to terminate the Petitioner for violation of the Last Chance Agreement and absence without authorized leave was upheld by the State University System of Florida in its Step Two Grievance decision. Petitioner's Injury The Petitioner's Position Description reveals that lifting is an integral part of a laborer's duties. The Petitioner's 1995 Position Description allocates 85 percent of the job's essential function to lifting, moving and arranging university property and requires that the laborer be able to lift 30 pounds. The Petitioner sustained a back injury at work on September 4, 1997. The Petitioner's job duties changed as a result of the injury and he was tasked with inspecting fire extinguishers from September 10 through November 12, 1997. A physical capacity assessment performed on the Petitioner indicated that he was capable of performing at a medium demand level. The Department of Labor defined medium demand as capable of lifting 50 pounds and pushing and pulling 50 pounds. The Petitioner was temporarily re-assigned to the Grounds Section of the Facilities, Operations and Maintenance Department on December 23, 1997. The Petitioner testified that his job function involved re-cycling. The Petitioner's assignment in the Grounds Section was light duty and he was informed that his job duties could be modified after his physician reviewed the physical capacity assessment. Dr. Alexander, the Petitioner's physician, declared the Petitioner fit for medium demand duty with a 35-pound lifting limit on March 24, 1998. Robert Pullen, American Disabilities Act Coordinator at FSU, was directed by Carolyn Shackleford, under the University's Reasonable Accommodation Policy, to ensure that the Petitioner's job activities with the Grounds Section did not exceed the 35p-pound lifting threshold. The Petitioner never contacted Mr. Pullen's office regarding reasonable accommodation. Mr. Pullen determined that the Petitioner's duties did not violate the lifting restriction and were in full compliance with the accommodation policy. The Petitioner testified that he could lift 35 pounds repetitively. The record reflects no evidence of age discrimination committed by the Respondent against the Petitioner. The record indicates no evidence that the Petitioner was terminated due to his race. The Petitioner presented no evidence or testimony regarding retaliation by FSU.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore,
