Findings Of Fact The matters of fact being stipulated to by the parties are as follows: The City of Panama City has enacted a "local option" ordinance pursuant to Section 447.603, Florida Statutes. The City Ordinance No. 933 created the Panama City Public Employees Relations Commission ("PC-PERC") to exercise jurisdiction over labor relations matters arising between public employers and public employees of the City of Panama City in lieu of the State Public Employees Relations Commission ("PERC"). This ordinance was approved by the State of Florida Public Employees Relations Commission pursuant to Section 447.603, Florida Statutes following an order of the First District Court of Appeal in City of Panama City v. Florida Public Employees Relations Commission, 364 So.2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978) directing PERC to do so. On June 6, 1979 PERC issued an order to PC-PERC pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 38D-23.01(2), the subject of this proceeding. The order relies on language in the Rule in question, which provides that "upon failure of the local commission . . . to timely submit such modifications, the commission shall revoke approval of the local commission and shall assume jurisdiction over all matters in dispute pending before the local commission". Thus, whereas the order is directed to the local commission, the penalty for failure to comply with the order is revocation of approval of the City's local option ordinance itself. Ordinance No. 933 gives the PC-PERC the sole power to adopt rules. Section 1.004(1) provides that the Commission "shall adopt, promulgate, amend or rescind such rules and regulations as it deems necessary and administratively feasible to carry out the provisions of this ordinance " Ordinance No. 933 further makes the local commission an independent body, providing at Section 1.003(1) that "the Commission in the performance of its duties and powers under this ordinance shall not be subject to the control, supervision or direction by the City Manager or City Commission." The City has no control whatsoever over whether, or to what extent, the Panama City Public Employees Relations Commission complies with PERC's order of June 6, 1979. That order, which is pursuant to Rule 38D-23.01, purports to provide for the revocation of approval of the local commission created by the City's ordinance within ninety (90) days unless PC-PERC complies with it. By request dated August 17, 1979, the Petitioner filed a Request to Take Official Notice of certain orders of the Public Employees Relations Commission and of certain sections of Panama City Ordinance No. 933. Respondent having been noticed of that request and entering no opposition thereto and, further, Respondent having referred in its brief herein to certain of the orders for which official notice was requested (PERC Order dated July 23, 1979, Page 1 of Respondent's brief) the Request to Take Official Notice is granted, and those items 1-11 in that request are admitted into evidence and made a part of the record of this proceeding. By order of the Public Employees Relations Commission dated July 23, 1979, the order of that same Commission dated June 6, 1979, and referred to in paragraph 1(b) above was vacated to allow the City of Panama City to make certain alleged necessary amendments to its local option ordinance and for such amendments to be approved by the Public Employees Relations Commission. By order dated July 19, 1979, the Public Employees Relations Commission notified the City of Panama City that Chapter 447, Park II, Florida Statutes had been substantially amended and that the City's local option ordinance must be amended and submitted to PERC for review and approval within ninety (90) days. The order further noted that "[f]ailure by the City to timely submit modifications for review and approval by the Commission may subject the local option to revocation of approval and jurisdiction." Finally, the order recited Florida Administrative Code Rule 38D-23.01(2) as the authority for the foregoing requirement. That is the same rule being challenged in this proceeding.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of unlawful employment practices; to wit: disparate treatment due to Petitioner's race (Hispanic) and/or retaliation.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an Hispanic female. At all times material, Petitioner was employed as a Registered Nurse, Nursing Supervisor, by Respondent. Respondent is a rehabilitative nursing facility in Gainesville, Florida, which qualifies as an "employer" under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Since the situations complained-of by Petitioner occurred, Petitioner has continued to be employed by Respondent with no breaks in service, no decreases in pay, no change in benefits, and no demotions in rank. At all times material, Respondent has employed Caucasians, Hispanics, African-Americans, and persons of Indian sub-continent descent. Petitioner signed on March 23, 2007, and on April 5, 2007, filed a Charge of Discrimination with FCHR. The Charge alleged that the Employer Respondent had perpetrated an unlawful employment practice upon Petitioner due to her race (Hispanic) and in retaliation. On July 25, 2007, FCHR entered and served a Determination: No Cause. On August 27, 2007, Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Relief. However, her Petition for Relief only alleged discrimination on the basis of retaliation. The retaliation named was that "my evaluation would be done in a group because of a meeting with Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Hawkins." There are no references whatsoever to race or national origin within the Petition for Relief. The Petition does not specifically allege pattern, or on-going discrimination. It does not specifically allege harassment or hostile work place. It suggests only that Petitioner feels that she does not get respect and is "attacked without evidence." Via her Petition, Petitioner seeks the remedy of ". . . that they [the employer] pay for all my therapies and medication and pay for the meetings I attended.” Early on September 5, 2006, Petitioner was standing in line to punch-in on her timecard at Respondent’s facility. Barbara Washington, an African-American CNA, was standing directly behind her. Petitioner shielded her social security number from Ms. Washington’s gaze. Later the same day, Petitioner was rolling a medicine cart down the hallway in Unit Two of Respondent's facility. Ms. Washington was taking a dinner break, seated in a position near the nursing station, which permitted her to view the patients assigned to her. Unfortunately, Ms. Washington's position did not permit Petitioner and the medicine cart to pass. Petitioner requested that Ms. Washington move, so as to let Petitioner and the medicine cart pass. Ms. Washington spoke sharply to Petitioner, either because Petitioner asked her to get out of the way of the medicine cart or for reasons of Ms. Washington's own related to the morning punch-in. During a later investigation by Director of Nursing (DON) Lisa Woods Streer, several versions of what Ms. Washington actually said were elicited. However, the best and most credible evidence on this particular point is Petitioner’s testimony that Ms. Washington loudly used profanity (“the F word”) directly to Petitioner. There is, however, no evidence that, whatever the exchange entailed, any patient was disturbed, upset, or even aware of the exchange, and there is no evidence that the statements from Ms. Washington had anything to do with Petitioner’s Hispanic origin or any type of employer “retaliation.” At least three hours later on September 5, 2006, after Ms. Washington had gone off-shift and was standing outside the facility waiting for a ride home, Petitioner handed Ms. Washington a disciplinary form, known as “a counseling slip.” At that point, Ms. Washington refused to sign the counseling slip and, screaming loudly, denunciated Petitioner with additional profanity similar to her earlier verbal abuse. This language was overheard by Yadira Chavala, who was inside the building making out reports. Ms. Chavala stood up and looked out the window so as to determine who was yelling the profanity. Ms. Chavala considered the volume and content of Ms. Washington's comments to be unprofessional and unacceptable, but she did not take it upon herself to report the incident to the DON, who was not present in the facility at that time of the evening. Again, there is no evidence that Ms. Washington was attacking Petitioner’s ethnicity or acting on behalf of the employer in her screams at Petitioner. Petitioner, however, reported to the DON both incidents of loud profanity and insubordination from Ms. Washington towards Petitioner, via a copy of the counseling slip she had given to Ms. Washington and a note slipped under the DON’s door. DON Lisa Woods Streer, found these items when she came on duty the next morning, September 6, 2006. Pursuant to Respondent’s protocol, Ms. Streer asked Unit Director Karen Derrico to take written statements from staff, concerning the med-cart incident which had occasioned the counseling slip from Petitioner. The general tone of the feedback that Ms. Derrico got was that everyone in the facility had heard about the medicine cart incident, but there were no clear and reliable eye witnesses. Ms. Washington did not immediately own-up to her conduct and told DON Streer that Petitioner had made Ms. Washington feel like a thief by covering Petitioner’s social security number when they punched-in together the morning of September 5, 2006. The DON viewed this comment by Ms. Washington as a counter-accusation of some kind (possibly a complaint of discrimination) against Petitioner, and so the investigation continued. At some point, Ms. Chavala came forward to describe what she had heard from inside the building when Ms. Washington was cursing in the patio/parking area. Petitioner did not like the taking of statements and considered the process to be an attack on herself. She also did not like the fact that she was called in for a meeting on September 13, 2006, but was informed after she had arrived that the meeting had been put off to the next day. By September 13, 2006, the decision to discipline Ms. Washington had been made, because by that time Ms. Chavala had come forward concerning the second incident, but because the DON felt that Petitioner “had backed Ms. Washington into a corner” Petitioner required some counseling. Upset that a meeting was to take place the next day, Petitioner telephoned Mr. McKalvane of Respondent’s Human Resources Department in Pensacola, to complain about how the September 5, 2006, situation was being handled. Petitioner testified, without corroboration, that Mr. McKalvane told her that he could not talk to her before the next day’s meeting, but would attend the meeting by speaker phone. On Thursday, September 14, 2006, a two-hour meeting was held at the facility. DON Streer; Administrator George C. Hamilton; Unit Director Derrico; Ruthie Moore, the facility’s Staff Development Coordinator; and Petitioner were present. Streer, Hamilton, and Derrico are Caucasians. Moore is African- American. Mr. McKalvane's race/national origin is not of record, but he did not appear at the meeting, even by telephone. Petitioner felt betrayed because Mr. McKalvane did not attend the September 14, 2006, meeting by telephone. At the September 14, 2006, meeting, Ms. Moore suggested that if Petitioner had known that Ms. Washington was upset, it might have been wise for Petitioner to wait until the next day to hand Ms. Washington her counseling slip. Petitioner was offended by this comment because she believed her delay of three hours after the medicine cart incident before issuing the counseling slip had been sufficient. At the September 14, 2006, meeting, DON Streer suggested that Petitioner might want to get with Ms. Moore for some in-service instruction on how to be a better supervisor. Petitioner was offended by this suggestion, because Petitioner perceived no fault in her handling of Ms. Washington. At no time has Petitioner ever been required by the employer to take supervisory in-service training as a result of the September 5-14, 2006, events. In fact, Petitioner has not taken such training or any similar one-on-one training or in- servicing with the employer, and she has not been penalized for not doing so. As a result of Petitioner’s counseling slip concerning the September 5, 2006, incidents with Ms. Washington, Ms. Washington was suspended from work for one day without pay, but Petitioner was not disciplined in any way concerning Ms. Washington’s accusations. Petitioner suffered no discipline or loss in pay, position, or benefits as a result of the September 5, 2006, or September 14, 2006, events. Petitioner submitted that the employer’s punishment of Ms. Washington was somehow discriminatory against Petitioner because it took management nine days to come to the one-day suspension of the person that Petitioner wanted to be disciplined. However, the only comparator that Petitioner was able to offer was a situation which occurred a year later, in 2007. On that occasion, an oral confrontation occurred between an African-American female worker and a Caucasian female supervisor. There is no specific evidence concerning how similar the 2007 incident was to any of the September 5, 2007, incidents involving Ms. Washington and Petitioner. However, in the 2007 incident, the African-American female immediately admitted wrong-doing, and the very next day, the employer suspended her for one day without pay, just as the employer had suspended Ms. Washington for one day without pay in 2006, in response to Petitioner's counseling slip. Ms. Streer testified credibly that in 2007, the investigation and counseling period was shortened by the subordinate’s immediate admission of wrong-doing and lack of accusations against her reporting supervisor. Approximately September 20, 2006, Petitioner sent a 19- page, typewritten letter of complaint to Respondent’s corporate headquarters. The scope of this letter is not clear because it is not in evidence. Petitioner was supposed to be evaluated annually each September, but she did not receive her evaluation in September 2006. She reminded the DON in November 2006, that she had not yet been evaluated. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner received her annual evaluation which bears a date of October 5, 2006, signed on October 22, 2006, by Weekend Nursing Supervisor Sneha Rema, R.N. Supervisor, and signed-off on by DON Sterer on October 31, 2006.1/ Ms. Rema received no input for her 2006 evaluation from the DON or Administrator. By observation, Ms. Rema appears to be a member of one of the ethnic groups originating on the Indian sub-continent. She rated Petitioner as "exceptional" in categories "work quality," "work quantity/productivity," and "compliance & adherence to policies," and as "meets expectations" in categories "core values" and "leadership skills." Under the 2006, evaluation's heading, "Areas of Improvement, Developmental and/or Upcoming Objectives," Ms. Rema put this comment about Petitioner: May improve her leadership skills by attending seminars on interpersonal relationship and how to influence others to accomplish goals in constructive way and team building from a constructive point-of- view. Ms. Rema approaches evaluations with the belief that each employee has different levels of education and skills, should be encouraged to constantly improve, and can best improve if supervisors point out to the employee performance areas susceptible of improvement by the employee. This viewpoint was Ms. Rema’s sole motivation in making the foregoing comment. Ms. Rema views these types of comments as a way of pointing out goals, not failures. Contrariwise, Petitioner holds the personal belief that unless every single nurse received identical language on the foregoing part of his or her respective annual evaluation, regardless of that employee’s individual circumstances and regardless of who wrote the evaluation, then Petitioner has suffered a personal attack and discriminatory treatment by the employer. There is no evidence that the 2006, evaluation caused Petitioner any loss of pay, position, benefits, or hours. In fact, she received a raise. If the raise was delayed by one month, that information does not appear in the record. At some point between September 20, 2006, which was the date of Petitioner’s letter, and the end of November 2006, (the exact date is not of record), Mr. Ken Hawkins, a consultant of Respondent’s corporate personnel office in Tampa, journeyed to the facility and met with Petitioner to try to resolve her concerns. Mr. Hawkins race/national origin is not of record. The meeting was more acrimonious than harmonious and ended with Mr. Hawkins advising Petitioner that her concerns “were history” and he was not going to go over everything that had already been addressed. Petitioner was offended by Mr. Hawkins’ description of the events that concerned her as “history”; because she felt he yelled at her; and because she felt he had made her come to the facility for a live meeting when he could have just told her “no” over the phone. The two-hour September 14, 2006, counseling meeting and the brief meeting sometime after September 20, 2006, during which Mr. Hawkins told Petitioner he was not going to go over her concerns again are the meetings for which Petitioner feels Respondent employer should pay her. Sometime after her meeting with Mr. Hawkins, Petitioner filed a discrimination complaint with the City of Gainesville Office of Equal Opportunity. The date of this complaint is uncertain. However, it had to precede March 9, 2007, because on that date, in response to the city action, and in accord with Respondent’s Human Resources Office’s instructions, Administrator Hamilton wrote Petitioner and provided her with the Respondent’s 1-800 telephone number to report discrimination. Respondent has an anti-discrimination policy and also posts the 1-800 number in its facilities. Petitioner also filed an EEOC discrimination complaint, and the underlying discrimination complaint herein was filed with FCHR on April 5, 2007. Because her FCHR complaint was signed on March 23, 2007, the undersigned takes it that the EEOC complaint was filed at approximately that time. Petitioner has complained that, as a result of her September 20, 2006, letter to corporate headquarters, she was told, either by Ms. Streer or by Mr. Hawkins that she must be evaluated “in a group.” Her testimony on this issue as to who told her this vacillated, and the group rating was not confirmed by any other witness nor by the signatures on the 2006 and 2007 evaluations in evidence. Although Ms. Streer signs-off as the next level of management on evaluations, that action hardly constitutes "group rating." The evidence as a whole provides the overall sense that Petitioner has been, in the vernacular, “prickly” about what she perceives as situations of disparate treatment, none of which were supported by credible evidence in the instant case, and that as a result of Petitioner’s heightened sensitivity, none of Petitioner's on-site superiors want to expose themselves to old or new accusations by her, but the greater weight of the credible evidence is that in 2007, Theresa Volk, Unit Manager of Station One, supervised Petitioner for only two days per week, so Ms. Volk believed that Petitioner's supervisor for the remainder of the week should have input to Petitioner's 2007 evaluation. Ms. Volk’s name and that of Ms. Rema appear on the first page of Petitioner’s 2007 evaluation, but only Ms. Volk signed as her “evaluator” on October 9, 2007. In that 2007, evaluation, Ms. Volk rated Petitioner “exceptional” in “work quality” and “work quantity/productivity,” and “meets expectations" in “customer service,” “compliance & adherence to policies,” “core values,” and “leadership skills.” Under “areas for improvement,” she made a comment about wound care documentation intended for Petitioner’s improvement. After receiving her September 2007, evaluation, which had been signed by Ms. Volk on October 9, 2007, Petitioner suffered no loss in pay, position, or benefits, and, once again, received her annual raise. Petitioner testified that she got her 2007 raise “late” but did not quantify how late. Petitioner wrote Ms. Volk a letter treating Ms. Volk’s evaluation comment for improvement as a criticism related to a particular past incident, and was offended when Ms. Volk refused to stop the work she was doing to read Petitioner’s letter. Respondent has a policy which requires employees to request personal paid time-off 30 days in advance. Petitioner testified that under this system, she properly requested time off for October 20, 2007, and November 3, 2007, but that shortly before those dates, Ms. Streer told her she could have only one date or the other, but if Petitioner wanted to take off both days, Petitioner had to get a replacement for one day. While this much of Petitioner’s testimony is unrefuted, Petitioner was not persuasive that she ever got written approval of the dates, and she did not establish any connection between the denial of two days' leave and either her Hispanic heritage or as retaliation for her prior letter to corporate headquarters or as retaliation for any of her discrimination complaints in March or April 2007. Petitioner presented no evidence that she lost pay, position, promotion or benefits at any time, on the basis of retaliation or her Hispanic heritage. Petitioner testified that she had to go into therapy and pay for medications as a result of the stress that the foregoing incidents have caused her. She presented no corroborative medical testimony or evidence of any professional diagnosis and further presented no medical or pharmaceutical bills to establish any damages therefor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Complaint of Discrimination and the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent, David Costa Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a McDonald’s (“Costa Enterprises”), discriminated against Petitioner, Labrentae B. Claybrone, in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Claybrone is an African-American male, approximately 25 years of age. He resides in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, with his mother. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Claybrone was working at one or another of the 21 McDonald’s restaurants operated by Costa Enterprises. Mr. Claybrone presents as a somewhat effeminate person, with braided, colored hair, earrings, polished fingernails, etc. He admits to being either gay or bisexual despite being married to-–but not living with-–a woman. In his Petition for Relief filed at FCHR, Mr. Claybrone refers to humiliation being imposed on him due to his “transgender and sexual orientation.” In March 2015, Mr. Claybrone was hired as a shift worker at the McDonald’s restaurant located inside the WalMart in Destin, Florida (hereinafter the “WalMart McDonald’s”). He had been hired by the general manager of that store, Ligaya Mumford. Mr. Claybrone did not at any time discuss his sexual orientation with his employer or other store personnel. On or around April 28, 2015, Mr. Claybrone thought he heard the general manager, Mrs. Mumford, refer to him as “ma’am.” He said that Mrs. Mumford also made comments about the way he walked and talked and that he reminded her of a female. Mrs. Mumford, whose testimony under oath at final hearing was entirely credible, denies making any such comments to Mr. Claybrone. Rather, Mrs. Mumford remembers talking to a young female employee on that day as they stood at the grill in the restaurant. The young lady was very respectful and always called Mrs. Mumford “ma’am,” so Mrs. Mumford had responded to the employee in kind, calling her “ma’am” as well. Mrs. Mumford believes Mr. Claybrone mistakenly believed she was referring to him when in fact she was not. As to the other comments Mr. Claybrone testified about, Mrs. Mumford categorically denied making them at all. When Mr. Claybrone went home that night and told his mother what he thought had happened, his mother insisted he complain about the comments. Mr. Claybrone says that his mother immediately called Roza Atanasova, general manager of the WalMart McDonald’s and another store known as the Destin McDonald’s. By virtue of her position as general manager, Ms. Atanasova was Mrs. Mumford’s supervisor. Ellie Montero, shift manager at the Destin McDonald’s, later notified Mrs. Mumford that Mr. Claybrone’s mother had called Ms. Atanasova with a complaint. Mrs. Mumford attempted to call Mr. Claybrone and sent him texts asking Mr. Claybrone to call her. He intentionally ignored the calls and texts because he did not want to talk to Mrs. Mumford. When Mr. Claybrone came to work for his next assigned shift, Mrs. Mumford apologized to him for the comment he (thought he) had heard. According to Mrs. Mumford, Mr. Claybrone was a good employee and never gave anyone trouble. He was kind to the customers and worked hard. She had absolutely no problem with Mr. Claybrone being one of her shift workers. Mrs. Mumford is one of Costa Enterprises’ most dependable, respected, and admired workers. She has received numerous citations and awards relating to her work ethics and skills. She is known to help employees in need, lending them her car, loaning money, and providing other assistance. Within a week after the misunderstanding with Mrs. Mumford, Mr. Claybrone heard that another co-employee, Ken Hislop, had mentioned to a fellow worker that he (Hislop) was surprised to hear that Mr. Claybrone had a child because Mr. Hislop presumed Mr. Claybrone was gay. Mr. Hislop cannot fully remember making the comment, but he meant nothing negative about Mr. Claybrone, it was just an observation. When he was advised that Mr. Claybrone was offended, Mr. Hislop offered an apology. He did not feel like the apology was accepted by Mr. Claybrone. Mr. Claybrone did not feel like the apology was sincere. Mr. Claybrone said that he was uncomfortable working with Mrs. Mumford and Mr. Hislop after the alleged slurs. At some point, it was mutually agreed by Mr. Claybrone and Costa Enterprises that Mr. Claybrone would be transferred to a different store, the Destin McDonald’s. Mr. Claybrone was transferred to the Destin McDonald’s and was, at first, a dependable worker. Then he began to be tardy and to miss his shifts, even though the Destin McDonald’s was closer to his home than the WalMart McDonald’s had been. After a while, Mr. Claybrone’s supervisor reduced his weekly hours in an effort to motivate him to do better about his attendance. Mr. Claybrone took offense to the reduction in hours and, after clocking in one day, immediately clocked out, left the store as he cursed loudly, and did not return. Mr. Claybrone effectively abandoned his position. Meanwhile, Mr. Claybrone filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, which ultimately led to the instant action at DOAH. Mr. Claybrone admitted that the alleged discriminatory events all transpired within a few days, no longer than a week in duration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Costa Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a McDonald’s, did not discriminate against Labrentae B. Claybrone. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition for Relief should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Respondent was not Petitioner’s employer.
Findings Of Fact The complaint alleged that Petitioner was the victim of employment discrimination based upon her race. The employers identified in the complaint were Respondent and Civigenics/Community Education Centers (Civigenics). The determination issued by FCHR with respect to Respondent stated in pertinent part:1/ The Commission lacks jurisdiction over the Complaint of Discrimination because the Respondent is not the Complainant’s employer. The investigation revealed that Civigenics/Community Education Center, not Respondent, is the proper Respondent in this case. The petition does not allege that Respondent was Petitioner’s employer. Rather, the petition “give[s] acknowledgement to the determination [of] no jurisdiction” and then focuses on the merits of Petitioner’s discrimination complaint. Respondent argues in its motion to dismiss that “Petitioner acknowledges and therefore, concedes the validity of FCHR’s no jurisdiction determination in her request for relief.” The Order to Show Cause entered on October 10, 2008, stated in pertinent part: The petition does not appear to raise any disputed issues of fact as to whether DOC was Petitioner’s employer. That is the only issue properly before the undersigned in this case based upon the “no jurisdiction” determination issued by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR). Petitioner is entitled to a de novo hearing on the issue of whether DOC was her employer. If it is determined that DOC was her employer, then the case will be returned to FCHR with a recommendation that it investigate the merits of Petitioner’s discrimination complaint against DOC. [Endnote omitted]. If it is determined that DOC was not Petitioner’s employer, then the case will be returned to FCHR with a recommendation that the petition be dismissed based upon a lack of jurisdiction. That said, Petitioner is only entitled to a formal administrative hearing at the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) if there are disputed issues of fact as to whether DOC was Petitioner’s employer. If there are no disputed issues of fact, then DOAH must relinquish jurisdiction back to FCHR. See § 120.57(1)(i), Fla. Stat. As stated above, the petition does not appear to raise any disputed issues of fact on this issue; rather, it “give[s] acknowledgement to the determination of no jurisdiction” and then focuses on the merits of the discrimination complaint. The Order to Show Cause directed Petitioner to: show cause in writing as to why DOC’s Motion to Dismiss should not be granted and/or Petitioner shall file an amended petition that identifies the factual basis upon which Petitioner contends that DOC was her employer. The Order advised Petitioner that: Failure to respond to this Order and/or failure to identify any disputed issues of fact as to whether DOC was Petitioner’s employer will result in a Recommended Order of Dismissal or an Order closing DOAH’s file and relinquishing jurisdiction to FCHR. Petitioner’s response to the Order to Show Cause stated in pertinent part: This is response to the Order to Show Cause, Case #08-4878. I am submitting in response to this order the attachments of a notice of hearing to be held in this case at the Board of County Commissioners, Community Treasures [sic] Room, First Floor, County Administration Building, 12 Southeast First Street, on December 1, 2008, at 1:00 p.m., Gainesville, FL. I am also submitting a copy of the Order of Pre Hearing Instructions. All information as required will be provided at the times ordered. The response does not allege any facts that might establish that Respondent was Petitioner’s employer. The pleadings do not raise any disputed issues of material fact concerning whether Respondent was Petitioner’s employer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Respondent’s motion to dismiss is granted, the final hearing scheduled for December 1, 2008, is cancelled, and it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR issue a final order dismissing the petition with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 30th day of October, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has been employed with the Florida Department of Transportation since 1971. He is a graduate of the University of West Florida, with a degree in business management. Petitioner is 38 years old, with a physical disability which limits his use of his left hand and arm, and his left leg is shorter than his right. In 1979, Petitioner was employed by Respondent in its right-of-way section, as a Right-of-Way Agent III. In that position, he was responsible for the coordination of the Acquisition, Relocation and Property Management sections of Respondent's District III. One of Petitioner's subordinates was H. E. Walls, who was in charge of the Acquisition section. Petitioner's immediate supervisor was J. F. Culpepper, Assistant Right-of-Way Administrator. In April, 1980, a new Right-of-Way Administrator, J. A. Alfes, was assigned to District III. In 1980, and again in 1981, Petitioner filed charges of discrimination against Respondent with the Florida Commission on Human Relations premised upon Petitioner's aforementioned disability. The 1980 charge was resolved through the entry of a settlement agreement. The charge filed in 1981 was premised upon the same disability, but that charge was ultimately dismissed by the Florida Commission on Human Relations. In January, 1981, a hearing was held in Tallahassee, Florida, on one of the charges of discrimination filed by Petitioner. On the day following that hearing, Petitioner was called into Mr. Alfes' office in Chipley, Florida, and was told that the hearing held in Tallahassee had been several hours of "horse shit." On May 18, 1981, Mr. Alfes advised Petitioner of an impending reorganization of the section in which Petitioner was employed. Subsequently, on June 17, 1981, Mr. Alfes told Petitioner that there would be "consequences" as a result of Petitioner's having filed complaints with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. In 1981 a reorganization of functions occurred in all six districts statewide of DOT. This reorganization eliminated one classification of position, Right-of-Way Agent III, which Petitioner had held in District III, and elevated the positions at the head of Acquisition and Relocation sections to the administrator level. At the time this reorganization occurred, Petitioner, as previously mentioned, was a Right-of-Way Agent III, and Herbert Walls headed the Acquisition section. Mr. Alfes, Petitioner's immediate superior, recommended that Petitioner be placed in charge of Relocation, and that Mr. Walls, who had been working in Acquisition, be placed in charge of the Acquisition section in light of his experience in that area since 1978. J. F. Culpepper, who occupied the position on DOT's organization chart to whom the Acquisition section, Relocation section, and Property Management section would report, recommended that the Petitioner be placed in charge of the Acquisition section, based upon his belief that Petitioner was better qualified by reason of his real estate training and college degree. Mr. Walls had only a high school diploma. During the period of his employment with DOT, Petitioner had not handled any complete right-of-way acquisition matters, and had never negotiated for DOT in the acquisition of any right-of-way parcels. Petitioner had, however, attended two relocation seminars while employed by DOT. Mr. Walls had been continually engaged in acquisition work for DOT since at least 1978. DOT's District Engineer, Alan Potter, was the DOT employee ultimately responsible for selecting the heads of the Acquisition and Relocation sections. Mr. Potter concurred with the recommendation that Petitioner be placed in charge of the Relocation section, based upon his belief that it was the most important job involved in right-of-way acquisition, and that it required a very thorough and cautious person. Based upon Mr. Potter's evaluation of Petitioner as possessed of high ability, and being very mature and compassionate, Petitioner was placed in charge of the Relocation section. At the time Petitioner was named as head of Relocation and Mr. Walls was placed as head of Acquisition, the two positions were both classified as Right-of-Way Specialist II's, pay grade 22. Later both were reclassified as Right-of-Way Administrator I's, at pay grade 23. The record in this cause establishes that neither position was more prestigious" than the other, or that either position placed the individual holding it in a more favorable posture for promotion or advancement. Subsequently, in the summer of 1981, the reorganization of DOT was completed, with Mr. Walls having been appointed head of Acquisition, with approximately six subordinates. Petitioner became responsible for Relocation, and shared the supervision of a clerical employee with the head of Property Management. After reorganization, Mr. Alfes relocated Petitioner's office in another building 100 feet away from the main office. Petitioner's office was initially located in a passageway and, as a result, Petitioner was required several times a day to make trips to the main building to obtain files necessary to complete his work. In August of 1983, prior to final hearing in this cause, Mr. Alfes retired, and Petitioner's office was relocated in a more spacious office close to the Acquisition section.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida, Commission on Human Relations, dismissing the petition for relief, and denying the relief requested therein. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd of May, 1984, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM E. WILLIAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: BEN R. PATTERSON, ESQUIRE POST OFFICE BOX 4289 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32315 VERNON L. WHITTIER, JR., ESQUIRE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HAYDON BURNS BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32301 JEAN OWEN, ESQUIRE ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS WOODCREST OFFICE CENTER 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD SUITE 240, BUILDING F TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303 DONALD A. GRIFFIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS 325 JOHN KNOX ROAD BUILDING F, SUITE 240 TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32303
The Issue Whether Respondent County is guilty of an unlawful employment practice pursuant to Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is female, and within a class protected by Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent County is an "employer" within the meaning of Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner claimed that Respondent treated her disparately from male employees on the basis of her gender in the areas of pay during her probationary period, reprimands and discipline, provision of equipment, poor performance evaluations, and training. Petitioner's initial relationship with Respondent was as an independent contractor at Respondent's Sanitary Landfill under a written contract entered into on September 15, 1989. In this capacity, she acted as a "spotter." As an independent contractor, she received $250 per month and salvage rights to whatever material customers brought to the Respondent's Sanitary Landfill. Effective August 14, 1990, the State Division of Personnel and Retirement required Respondent to put all contractual people on the County payroll. Thereafter, Petitioner was paid $350 per month and continued to have salvage rights only at the sufferance of the Respondent. After that date, Petitioner earned retirement and social security benefits. Withholding of federal taxes and deduction of social security benefits were also provided.(P-12). The value of the salvage rights were never calculated by anyone. While she was employed as a "spotter," Petitioner was the only female "spotter." Petitioner was on probation as an employee from August to December 1990. Petitioner was paid $1.442 per hour from August 12, 1990 through October 1990, and $1.63 per hour from October 1990 through December 3, 1990. At that time, her rate of pay was raised to $3.85 per hour. The record contains no evidence of what was paid to any male employee similarly situated during this period. Without proof that similarly situated male spotters were consistently paid better, there is no proof of gender discrimination in pay during Petitioner's probationary period.3 Mark Hawes, a male, was hired as a spotter on June 1, 1993. He was paid $4.35 per hour while on probation. Willie George, also male, was hired as a spotter on October 1, 1993, and was paid $4.4805 per hour while on probation. There is no evidence of how much Petitioner was being paid during this period, so there is no means of assessing disparate treatment in pay, if any, during this period.4 During the period that Petitioner was employed as a "spotter," there was no statute or rule requiring that "spotters" receive formalized training or be certified in any field. During Petitioner's employment, no spotter were provided more than a printed Job Description and on-the-job oral instructions. They were expected to use courtesy and common sense in dealing with the public. Two employees (gender unspecified) who were not spotters were sent to train at a state "school" to become Certified Landfill Operators. A State Rule was enacted after Petitioner was terminated which required that all spotters must have eight hours of specialized training. Thereafter, the Respondent provided such training to spotters. At all times material to any Personnel Citations, Petitioner was a union member, and all benefits of her union's collective bargaining agreement with the Respondent accrued to her. No performance evaluations were submitted in evidence. With the exception of the events related within the following findings of fact, no witness found any fault with Petitioner in the performance of her job description as a "spotter" at Respondent's landfill. (P-1) Wayne Hardee, Director of the Landfill, issued a Personnel Citation against Petitioner early in her employment on the basis of lack of personal hygiene. The citation was later removed from Petitioner's personnel file as an act of good will. On or about January 16, 1994, Petitioner admitted to an immediate supervisor that her carelessness with a hand-held CB radio had resulted in loss of the radio. She offered to pay for the radio. Mr. Hardee did not require her to pay for the radio, but issued a written Personnel Citation to her on January 20, 1994 for her carelessness. This Personnel Citation simultaneously cited Petitioner because Mr. Hardee had received complaints that Petitioner was overly concerned about other spotters doing their jobs. In this Personnel Citation, Mr. Hardee warned Petitioner to do her job without complaining about other employees. Petitioner admitted that she signed this citation and that she did not grieve it through her union. The radio was later recovered, but the citation remained in Petitioner's personnel file. (P-2) On Saturday, July 9, 1994, Petitioner called her union's senior shop steward, Jessie Ellzey, to the landfill to complain about items left at her spotter station. Mr. Ellzey's perception was that Petitioner was accusing another employee of putting the items in the wrong place. Petitioner also told Mr. Ellzey that another employee had threatened her. After investigation and interviews the following week, Mr. Ellzey and Mr. Hardee determined that the items had been brought by a landfill customer to the landfill between shift changes. Mr. Hardee's and Mr. Ellzey's perception was that Petitioner had unfairly complained about another spotter, Willie George, not doing his job. At least three days and two meetings were involved in this investigation and counseling procedure. Mr. Hardee issued a written Personnel Citation against Petitioner for complaining about a co-employee. (P-3) Petitioner also was suspended without pay for one day and warned that if the problem was not corrected, further disciplinary action would be taken against her. Petitioner did not grieve this citation through her union. Based on all of Mr. Ellzey's credible testimony, due to reputation testimony about Mr. Ellzey's standard operating procedure, and because Petitioner was actually suspended for one day without pay, I reject as not credible Petitioner's testimony that she never knew of this citation in time to grieve it. On August 13, 1994, Ann Harrell, a landfill customer, filed a written complaint of rudeness against Petitioner. (P-9) A written complaint of rudeness by Petitioner was also filed by another customer, Mr. Richburg, at about the same time. Mr. Hardee considered courtesy to customers to be an unstated policy of County government and further perceived rudeness to customers to be an on-going problem in Petitioner's relationship with the public. Due to the foregoing written complaints and many similar oral complaints he had received, Mr. Hardee assigned Petitioner two days' suspension without pay by a written Personnel Citation issued August 15, 1994. The citation also warned Petitioner she would be terminated if there were another complaint about her. Petitioner refused to sign this citation. (P-4) On August 25, 1994, Petitioner grieved the August 15, 1994 Personnel Citation through her union. (P-5) A hearing was held in response to Petitioner's grievance. All concerned agree that Mr. Ellzey, the union representative advocating Petitioner's position, and not a representative of management, kept Petitioner from testifying. Chester Humphries testified on Petitioner's behalf at the grievance hearing that he had been unable to hear what Mr. Richburg said but could hear what Petitioner said to Mr. Richburg. From this, Mr. Hardee inferred that Petitioner had raised her voice to Mr. Richburg. Mr. Hardee assessed Petitioner's character witnesses in Petitioner's favor but noted that they knew nothing about the specific incident between Petitioner and Mr. Richburg. Ultimately, Mr. Hardee relied on Mr. Richburg's testimony concerning the incident. (P-6) Mr. Hardee denied Petitioner's grievance and disciplined Petitioner in accord with the August 15, 1994 Personnel Citation. Upon advice of her union steward, Petitioner did not appeal the grievance hearing result. It was further agreed that if Petitioner's behavior resulted in no more complaints against her for 30 working days, the August 15, 1994, citation would be removed from her personnel file. Petitioner met this requirement, and the citation was removed from her personnel file. (P-6; P-7). Petitioner's December 13, 1994, charge of discrimination before the Florida Commission on Human Relations listed August 11, 1994, as the last date of alleged discrimination. No witness at formal hearing herein, including Mr. Ellzey and Mr. Humphries, both of whom also had been present at the grievance hearing, confirmed Petitioner's perception that her gender had affected the result of her grievance hearing. Another female employee (not a landfill spotter) currently works in Respondent's administrative offices. That female employee also has had employment disputes with Mr. Hardee which she attributes to his gender bias, but the type of dispute was not clearly specified on this record. Therefore, no similarity to Petitioner's situation can be discerned and no pattern of gender bias was proven on that basis. This female employee is still employed by Respondent. A different female employee (also not a spotter) employed by Respondent's Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was terminated by Mr. Bill Beddow, EMS Director, for failing to timely report (or complain about) her immediate supervisor for "doing something [Mr. Beddow] thought he shouldn't be doing with drugs." The male supervisor resigned for "personal reasons." The female employee was rehired by Mr. Beddow after intercession by her union. This means another female not similarly situated to Petitioner was terminated for not complaining about a male employee's job performance and was then hired back, whereas Petitioner was progressively disciplined with reprimands and suspensions for repetitive unsubstantiated complaints about male employees' job performances. Petitioner seeks to have the conclusion drawn that female employees were disciplined both for reporting and for not reporting male employees' misbehavior. However, the two isolated situations are so dissimilar as to develop no pattern recognizable at law. I accept as credible and unrefuted Petitioner's testimony that all of the complaints she initiated about other employees were oral. However, Petitioner's testimony that she did not complain about other employees' performance of, or failure to perform, their jobs and her assertion that her complaints were only motivated by the requirements of her Job Description to "inspect loads" and "report all problems" was not corroborated by any other witness. Petitioner's testimony that her concerns were directed not at individual employees but at addressing hazardous wastes also was not corroborated by any other witness.5 Petitioner's middle level supervisor acknowledged that Petitioner told him that other employees had improperly handled hazardous materials as well as non-hazardous materials but that he did not cite anyone as a result of Petitioner's complaints about hazardous wastes because it was impossible to prove who was responsible. He counseled all subordinates about each incident whenever he considered counseling appropriate. Otherwise, all witnesses with reason to know the situation generally acknowledged that Petitioner's oral complaints were recurring almost daily and were directed to other employees' job performances rather than hazardous materials. It is the repetitive and personal nature of Petitioner's complaints rather than their being oral that management found offensive. The evidence also generally shows that all employees orally complained about each other and that Petitioner's two immediate supervisors, Felippe McCelroy and Robert Murray, orally reprimanded everybody who complained or who was complained about as they each saw fit within their supervisory discretion on individual occasions. No gender pattern is to be discerned from the foregoing. Only on those occasions that either an oral or written complaint reached Mr. Hardee was anyone written up and/or disciplined. Petitioner complained about not being assigned or provided with one of Respondent employer's trucks when other male employees were provided trucks. With the exception of the following findings related to the Respondent's trucks, there is no relevant evidence in this record concerning employees' use of trucks. All employees were cautioned against carelessness. Tommy Dean, a male employee, dented one of Respondent's trucks. He was not disciplined for careless driving. There is no evidence the dent was caused by Mr. Dean's careless driving. In February 1995, Charles Kennedy, a male spotter, filed a written complaint or incident report. Therein, he claimed that Petitioner had attempted to prohibit his bulldozing landfill material out of the way because Petitioner was trying to remove salvageable items. He further alleged that Petitioner had thrown a jar of grease at him. Petitioner was requested to file a written account of the incident. In her written account, she basically admitted the incident but not any intent to hit Mr. Kennedy with the grease jar. Mr. Kennedy was not disciplined for filing the written complaint/report. Petitioner was not disciplined for the actions complained about by Mr. Kennedy. Instead, as of February 3, 1995, landfill spotters were prohibited from salvaging at the landfill. (P-13) Petitioner desires that the conclusion be drawn that male spotters who complained in writing about other employees were not disciplined for complaining but that Petitioner, a female, was disciplined for making oral complaints. However, it appears Respondent addressed Mr. Kennedy's written complaint in much the same way as it had addressed Petitioner's oral complaint against Willie George, by giving each participant in the dispute a chance to state his or her position, before management decided who should be disciplined. The difference was that Mr. Kennedy was not a chronic complainer and management's investigation revealed some fault on both sides, so a neutral solution was found rather than discipline being imposed. There is no evidence beyond Petitioner's assertion that she was ever asked to do more work or heavier work than male spotters. From this point on, the dates that events occurred or their chronology is not entirely clear from the record. However, approximately April 14, 1995, there was an occasion when Petitioner was asked to move metal pieces in a wheelbarrow-sized pile over a three-hour period. The largest piece weighed 21 pounds. The next day, Petitioner reported a workers' compensation back injury or aggravation. She was then off work until approximately May 11, 1995, when she returned to "light duty." She worked for awhile for only four hours per day. Respondent hired someone to help her. It is disputed whether Petitioner was reinjured or whether Mr. Hardee just sent her home. However, on or about July 8, 1995, Mr. Hardee discussed the situation with "the workers' compensation people," and it was agreed there was not enough light duty work for Petitioner. Three months later, Petitioner returned to full duty. Because a spotter had been hired to do her work, Petitioner was assigned to a variety of jobs. She worked at the dog pound, the recycling building, and even washed Mr. Hardee's truck.6 One day, Petitioner's immediate supervisor ordered her to cut out the top of a metal drum. At formal hearing, Petitioner asserted that this was heavier work than she should have been required to do on light duty, but there is no evidence the supervisor's order was motivated by gender bias. There also is no evidence a full-time male spotter was never required to do similarly heavy work. Petitioner advised her supervisor that she had hurt her arms and elbows and she went home on sick leave. Petitioner had complained over the term of her employment about not being provided one of Respondent's trucks so that she could conveniently get from her sector of the landfill to a restroom. After her workers' compensation injury, Respondent arranged for male employees to drive Petitioner to the restroom. Eventually, Respondent provided Petitioner with a portable toilet in her work sector. Mr. Hardee maintained that no spotter had ever been assigned a truck but that all spotters, including Petitioner, had access to one. There is evidence to show that male employees drove the trucks and Petitioner did not, but insufficient evidence to show this was an active management decision or that Mr. Hardee acquiesced in male employees preempting trucks as a result of any gender bias. On or about November 13, 1995, Petitioner informed Mr. Hardee that she was permanently physically disabled and would have to be on light duty indefinitely. After consultation with his "workers' compensation people," Mr. Hardee terminated Petitioner as of that date. 7 At formal hearing, Petitioner admitted Respondent was still paying her workers' compensation benefits and that her workers' compensation claim has not been settled.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding no discrimination and dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1997.
The Issue The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Baypoint Hotel Associates operates a hotel at Marriott's Bay Point Resort in Panama City, Florida. Petitioner, Jerry D. Hicks, was employed by Respondent, Baypoint Hotel Associates, for approximately five and one Petitioner worked as a bell captain at Respondent's Panama City Beach, Florida, hotel for approximately two and one termination of his employment with Respondent. The bell captain's job required some heavy lifting. There was no dispute regarding the fact that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Human Rights Act, and that all jurisdictional requirements have been met. Petitioner requested, and was granted, a leave of absence from his job effective December 17, 1991, in order to have back surgery to repair a herniated disc. By electing to take a leave of absence, Petitioner understood that he was not guaranteed his bell captain's job upon his return. In fact, he was not guaranteed any job upon his return, but would be given preference should there be an opening in any employment position for which he was qualified. There was no evidence that Respondent's leave of absence policy was not consistently applied or applied in a discriminatory manner. As a result of his surgery, Petitioner was unable to work from December 17, 1991, until April 9, 1992, when he was released by his doctor to return to work. No medical evidence was presented that Petitioner's "back problem" constituted a handicap or was perceived as a handicap by his employer. During Petitioner's absence from work, his job duties were reassigned to two assistant bell captains. After being released by his doctor to return to work, Petitioner informed Respondent's Human Resources Department, on or about the week of April 13, 1992, that he was ready to return to work, but that he would temporarily not be able to perform all of the duties, namely heavy lifting, of his former job as bell captain because of his surgery. After Petitioner requested to return to his job as a bell captain, Respondent's Director of Human Resources informed Petitioner that his former job was no longer available because Respondent's management had reassigned the bell captain's duties to two assistant bell captains and that Respondent did not plan to refill the job of bell captain under a reorganization of that service area. In lieu of returning Petitioner to his former job as bell captain, Respondent's human resource director informed Petitioner that he could interview for several available jobs at Respondent's hotel, including the jobs of telephone operator/supervisor, front desk clerk or reservation sales agent. Petitioner testified that he was unwilling to consider any job that paid less money than he was paid in his former job as a bell captain. By the time Petitioner informed Respondent's human resource director on April 28, 1992, that he was ready to interview for the reservation job; however, the reservations job had already been filled. Petitioner had waited an inordinate amount of time in advising Respondent of his interest in the reservations job and therefore lost his opportunity to apply. There was no evidence of any discrimination on the part of Respondent.
Recommendation It is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29th day of October, 1993. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1504 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, insofar as material. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry D. Hicks 1202 Parker Drive Panama City, Florida 32401 Michael D. Giles, Esquire 1410 AmSouth Harbert Plaza 1901 Sixth Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35203-2602 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F (Suite 240) Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Ms. Sharon Moultry Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice under section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2011), by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of race or sex, and if so, what remedy should be ordered.
Findings Of Fact Apalachee Center is a not-for-profit health center providing mental health and substance abuse services in the Big Bend region of North Florida, which employs over 15 people. One of its facilities is a 16-bed mental health residential facility in Tallahassee, Florida, primarily housing men who suffer from severe mental illness. Ms. Sandra Johnson, an African–American woman and Petitioner in this case, has been a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) since 1984. She began working for Respondent in 2009 as the only LPN on duty on “B Shift Days” from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Forensic Residential Program. Another LPN, Ana Degg, was a white woman who worked on the “A” shift, and was the lead forensic nurse and Petitioner’s acting supervisor, though she was not actually present during the shift Petitioner worked. Most of the residents in the facility in which Petitioner worked have been found incompetent by the criminal justice system and have been sent to the program by court order. Petitioner maintained their medications, monitored their health, and helped to ensure that they did not leave the facility. At the time she was hired, Petitioner was made aware of Apalachee Center’s policies prohibiting discrimination and had been advised to immediately report any suspected discrimination to the Human Resources Department. Ms. Candy Landry, the Human Resources Officer at Apalachee Center, is proud of Apalachee’s diversity record. Apalachee employs more African-Americans than whites. Ms. Degg had some conflicts with Petitioner immediately after they began working together, but later came to the conclusion that it was just a reflection of Petitioner’s personality. Ms. Degg said that she still continued to receive some staff complaints, mostly about Petitioner’s demeanor. She testified that Petitioner “came off as gruff.” Ms. Degg was very credible. Ms. Degg consulted Ms. Jane Magnan, Registered Nurse (RN) who was the Director of Nursing, and Ms. Jeanne Pope, the Director of Residential Services, as to the best way to handle the situation. Ms. Magnan and Ms. Pope each testified that they advised Ms. Degg to start with basic lines of communication and mentoring on a one-to-one level to see if the problem could be handled before anything went to the written stage. Ms. Degg provided some handouts on interpersonal relations and “soft skills” to Petitioner and her unit and tried to coach Petitioner on how to be a bit more professional in her interactions. Ms. Degg told Petitioner that staff was saying that Petitioner was rude and she asked her to talk to people a little differently. She said Petitioner responded by saying that that was “just the way she was.” Petitioner’s conduct did not change and complaints continued. Ms. Magnan, who had hired Petitioner, believed that Ms. Degg found it difficult to discipline Petitioner. Ms. Magnan also believed there was some resistance from Petitioner in acknowledging Ms. Degg, a fellow LPN, as Petitioner’s supervisor. Petitioner had no “write–ups” from the time of her employment at Apalachee in August or September of 2009 until January of 2011. On January 21, 2011, Petitioner was presented a memorandum dated January 7, 2011, to document a Written Supervisory Session on two incidents. First, the memorandum stated that Petitioner had been counseled for failure to give a report to the oncoming nurse who had arrived late for her shift. Second, it stated that Petitioner had been counseled for being rude and unprofessional in a telephone conversation with the Dietary Supervisor. The memorandum was signed by Petitioner and by Ms. Degg. Ms. Degg testified that in response Petitioner had denied that she had failed to give a report to the oncoming nurse, but that the other staff people had corroborated what the oncoming shift nurse had told her, so she believed it had happened. At hearing, Petitioner continued to deny that she had failed to give a report to the oncoming nurse and denied that she had been rude or unprofessional in her conversation with the Dietary Supervisor. In the months following the January “write-up,” Ms. Degg did not notice any change in Petitioner’s demeanor and continued to receive complaints. She noted that she did not personally consider Petitioner’s behavior to be rude, but others did, and she could understand why. On May 18, 2011, Petitioner was presented a memorandum dated May 10, 2011, to document another Written Supervisory Session. The memorandum indicated that Petitioner had been unprofessional in communications to a Mental Health Assistant (MHA) whom Petitioner supervised. It stated that Petitioner had used phrases such as “shut up” and “get out of my face” to the MHA and that Petitioner had previously been counseled regarding this issue. The Memorandum was signed by Petitioner and by Ms. Magnan and Ms. Pope. Ms. Magnan and Ms. Pope offered Petitioner training and assistance. On the memorandum, Petitioner wrote that she did not agree with the statement and that she was willing to learn. On May 27, 2011, Petitioner’s Employee Performance Evaluation for the period April 23, 2010, through May 15, 2011, was presented to Petitioner. It indicated “Below Performance Expectations” or “Needs Improvement” in several areas, including supervision of MHAs, training of staff, unit management, acceptance of responsibility, and attitude. Hand-written notes by Ms. Magnan and Ms. Dianne VanZorge, the RN supervising the forensic unit, commented on difficulties in communicating with staff, compromised staff morale, and lack of leadership. The report noted that various employees had brought Petitioner’s attitude to the attention of the Program Director and Director of Nursing. The evaluation was signed by Petitioner, Ms. Magnan, and Melany Kearley, the Chief Operations Officer. In conjunction with this unfavorable Employee Performance Evaluation, and in accordance with Apalachee policy, Petitioner was placed on a Corrective Action Plan, a 60-day period of Conditional Probationary Status. The memorandum advising Petitioner of this action explained that Petitioner should immediately take action to maintain a friendly and productive work atmosphere, demonstrate respect and courtesy towards clients and co-workers, and demonstrate initiatives to improve Petitioner’s job and the program. The memorandum advised that any further non-compliance could result in disciplinary action or termination of employment. Petitioner’s supervisor was changed to Ms. VanZorge. Petitioner knew Ms. VanZorge because they had worked together many years earlier. Petitioner was advised in the Corrective Action Plan that Ms. VanZorge would meet with her on a weekly basis to provide any needed assistance. At the time Petitioner was placed on probation, Ms. Magnan testified that Petitioner became angry. Petitioner asked if they wanted her to quit. Ms. Magnan encouraged Petitioner not to quit, telling her that that “we are going to work this out.” Ms. Magnan and Ms. VanZorge testified that they made sure that Petitioner acknowledged that resources and coaching were available to help her. Petitioner testified that leadership, nursing management, and supervisory resources were not subsequently provided to her as promised. On June 29, 2011, Mr. Alphonzo Robinson, an African-American MHA who worked under Petitioner’s supervision, submitted complaints about Petitioner to Ms. VanZorge and Ms. Pope. Ms. VanZorge and Ms. Pope then met with Petitioner regarding these complaints. A memorandum documenting the meeting with Petitioner, prepared the same day, states that an MHA reported that Petitioner had eaten a resident’s lunch. The MHA alleged that the resident had gone out on a morning community pass, asking staff to save his lunch for him until he returned. The memorandum states that when the resident returned, the MHA went to get his lunch for him, only to find Petitioner eating the last of the resident’s food in the staff kitchen. The MHA indicated that Petitioner denied eating the resident’s lunch, saying that it had been thrown away, and directed the MHA to give the resident another patient’s meal instead. Only an empty tray without food was found in the garbage. The MHA noted that another patient’s lunch could not be substituted because the first resident was diabetic and had special dietary needs. The memorandum also indicates that several other complaints were made against Petitioner by the MHA and discussed with her at the meeting. It was alleged that the Petitioner was continually rude to staff, asked residents to run errands for her, left the commode dirty with urine and feces, and used her hands to get ice from the ice machine. The memorandum noted that at the meeting, after an initial denial, Petitioner finally had admitted that she had eaten the resident’s lunch. It also noted that Petitioner had admitted that “a while back” she had asked residents to get Cokes for her, but that now she drank water. The memorandum concluded by noting that the expectations on Petitioner’s Corrective Action Plan had been reviewed, and that it was further discussed that Petitioner was not to eat any resident meals or ask them to perform errands. Petitioner had been instructed to buy a meal ticket or bring her own, clean up after herself, and adhere to infection control policy and universal precautions. At hearing, Ms. VanZorge testified that during the meeting Petitioner admitted having eaten the resident’s lunch, but stated she had not done that for a long while prior to that. Ms. VanZorge stated that Petitioner also admitted she had gotten ice with her hands once. Ms. Pope testified that Petitioner had initially denied eating the resident’s food, but then later during the course of the meeting had admitted that she had eaten it, and also admitted that she had sent residents to run errands for her. MHA Kim Jenkins, a white woman and the second MHA under Petitioner’s supervision, testified that she knew nothing about the allegations that Petitioner ate a resident’s lunch. She testified that the bathroom was a unisex bathroom and that Petitioner did leave it in an unsanitary condition almost every time she used it, although she had been too embarrassed for Petitioner to ever discuss that with Petitioner. Ms. Jenkins said she did try to discuss all of the other recurring issues with Petitioner. She testified that Petitioner was rude on a daily basis. She testified that she had seen Petitioner going through other staff members’ mail and opening it. She testified that Petitioner did get ice with her bare hands on several occasions. On cross-examination, Ms. Jenkins stated that she did not document any of these incidents and could not remember dates on which they occurred. Pressed to provide dates, Ms. Jenkins testified that the only approximate date she could remember was the time that Petitioner sent a client with a staff member to get two hot dogs for Petitioner and the client had ended up paying for the hot dogs. Ms. Jenkins said that she knew this occurred in October because Ms. Jenkins had been assigned to the unit for only about two weeks when it happened. Ms. Jenkins testified that she clearly remembered when this occurred because Ms. Jenkins had been “written up” by Petitioner shortly afterwards for stopping at a McDonald’s drive–through on the way back from a client’s doctor’s appointment to allow the client to buy some ice cream. Ms. Jenkins testimony was very credible. Petitioner testified at hearing that the allegations in the June 29, 2011, letter of Alphonzo Robinson were not true. She testified that she did not eat a patient’s food, never asked patients to buy sodas or candy for her, never left urine and feces on the toilet seat, and that he never caught her sleeping on the job. She testified that it was a public bathroom, and noted that anyone could have left it in that condition. She also stated that someone should wonder, “[W]hy was Alphonzo Robinson in ladies’ bathroom watching toilet seats? Apparently he needs to be monitoring the patient and not the lady bathroom.” Petitioner noted that in all of the allegations against her, “[I]t is their word against mine.” In a memo dated July 1, 2011, to Ms. Kearley, Ms. Pope recommended the termination of Petitioner’s employment with Apalachee Center. Ms. Magnan, Ms. VanZorge, and Ms. Pope were unanimous in this recommendation. On or about July 6, 2011, Ms. Pope accompanied Petitioner to the office of Ms. Candy Landry, the Human Resources Officer, where Petitioner was informed that her employment was terminated. Ms. Landry testified that Petitioner had violated policies of Apalachee and that the disciplinary process and termination of employment with respect to Petitioner had followed standard procedures. Ms. Landry testified that Petitioner’s replacement was also African-American. Petitioner filed a complaint with the Florida Human Relations Commission (Commission), alleging that Apalachee Center had discriminated against her based upon her race and sex on August 15, 2011. Her complaint alleged that non-African- American employees had never been disciplined without reason, as she had been. Her complaint stated an employee had made unwelcome comments that she was “fine,” “sexy” and “beautiful.” On December 20, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief, which was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At hearing, Petitioner presented no evidence regarding similarly situated white employees. Petitioner presented no evidence that anyone ever made comments that she was “fine,” “sexy” or “beautiful.” She did testify that she made a note on June 20, 2011, regarding Alphonzo Robinson. Her testimony was as follows: Okay. Ready for Alphonso Robinson. This is what he states, “I’m looking for a wife. Bring your friend down here so I can look at her.” I informed Robinson to sit in day room with client. Let Kim Jenkins come from back there with the men. He states, “I don’t want to deal with the men. When I worked at Florida Hospital, we punish inmate.” I told him we don’t do that here. Social Service case managers do that. Group coordinator recommend –- group coordinators recommend treatment, member, nurse, case manager, and Ms. Pope. Robinson state, “I used to be a man that – that – I used to be a man that a husband was having problem with sex, I took care of his wife.” I stopped talking to him and just restrict everything to work only with Mr. Alphonzo Robinson. I gave this note to Ana Degg. I asked her please to address it with Ms. Pope. I never heard anything else about that. I did my job as I was told. I went by the instructions what the facility asked me to do. Petitioner testified that she prepared the note with this information on June 20, 2011, and gave it to Ms. Degg. This would have been a bit more than one week prior to Mr. Robinson’s complaints about her performance. Under cross-examination, Mr. Robinson denied that he had been sleeping on the job or had made inappropriate sexual remarks. He denied that he made the allegations against Petitioner because he was fearful he would be terminated and was attempting to get Petitioner fired first: Q You said – you made sexual statements, you told me that you had a new lady, that her husband had problems with sex, and you took care of the lady. After that I learned that, to stay out from around you, because I am a married lady. I have been married for 37 years. I don’t endure stuff like that. So after that, then later on you was in the room and you made a sexual comment. You – I said that is inappropriate, that’s not the kind of behavior – we do not come to work for that kind of behavior. * * * Q So Alphonzo – A Yes. Q -- after you made that comment, and then you said those statements, and then after that I approached you and told you that you cannot be sleeping at the desk, and then you decided to make these statements, to go to Dianne, Kim’s friend and all that, so they can get me fired before you get terminated, is that not true? A No, that’s not. Q You had never been sleeping at the desk? A No, I haven’t. There is no evidence that Petitioner mentioned the note or showed it to anyone at the Florida Commission on Human Relations in connection with her complaint of discrimination. She did not provide a copy of the note to the Division of Administrative Hearings or to Respondent prior to hearing. Petitioner testified that she found the note in her papers when she went through them. Ms. Degg was no longer Petitioner’s supervisor on June 20, 2011. Ms. Degg testified that she could not recall Petitioner ever complaining about anyone in the workplace sexually harassing her. Ms. Degg testified that she had received a written complaint about MHA Jenkins, but that she had never received any written complaint about MHA Robinson. Ms. Degg’s testimony that she did not receive the note was credible, and is accepted as true. Ms. VanZorge testified that Petitioner never complained to her about any type of sexual harassment by Mr. Robinson. Ms. Pope testified that Petitioner never complained to her about any sexual harassment. Ms. Candy Landry, the Human Resources Officer, testified that Petitioner never complained to her that she had been subjected to sexual harassment. She further testified that she was never aware of any allegations of sexual harassment of Petitioner from any source. The facts do not support the conclusion that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of race or sex.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Sandra Johnson 284 Centerline Road Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Thomas A. Groendyke, Esquire Douberley and Cicero 1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 590 Sunrise, Florida 33323 tgroendyke@dc-atty.com Chris John Rush, Esquire Rush and Associates 1880 North Congress Avenue, Suite 205 Boynton Beach, Florida 33426 cjrushesq@comcast.net Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., Esquire Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 kranerl@fchr.state.fl.us Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 violet.crawford@fchr.myflorida.com
The Issue Whether Petitioner was wrongfully terminated from his position at the City because of his physical handicap, diabetes, in violation of Section 760.10(1(a), Florida Statutes. Whether Petitioner could be reasonably accommodated to perform the essential functions of his duties as an Engineer I position with the City Sewer Department.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 40 year old male. Petitioner was diagnosed with Diabetes Mellitus in 1979. This is a Type I Classification of diabetes which required that Petitioner must take insulin from its onset. Petitioner is further classified as a "brittle" diabetic, which is a type that is difficult to control. Additionally, Petitioner has hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid) and an adrenal insufficiency. This combination is rare. Petitioner is a handicapped person. Petitioner worked steadily at a variety of jobs in the engineering construction field from 1979 to the time he was hired by the City of Tampa on December 12, 1990. Petitioner's diabetic condition did not place any restrictions on his ability to fulfill his job responsibilities at any of his places of employment between 1979 and December 12, 1990. Petitioner was hired by the City of Tampa, an employer, as an Engineer Tech 2 on December 12, 1990. As an Engineer Tech 2, Petitioner was responsible for monitoring the electrical and instrumentation construction at a sanitary sewage treatment plant, and for sewage pumping stations throughout the city. He was essentially an inspector. Prior to accepting employment with the City, Petitioner talked with his prospective supervisors, Jack Kulik and Jeff Taylor, about his diabetic condition. During the period Petitioner was employed as an Engineer Tech 2, he had some insulin reactions on the job in the office. Those reactions were caused by a lowering of Petitioner's blood sugar level. When these reactions occurred, office personnel would assist Petitioner by encouraging him to eat a food product containing sugar. The episodes would take 15-30 minutes to subside. During the period Petitioner was employed as an Engineer Tech 2, he drove a City car alone while at work, and drove his personal car to and from work. When at a construction site, Petitioner went near high voltage panels, into manholes, and also into open pits with open wells on a regular basis. The supervisor, Jack Kulik, did not have any concerns about Petitioner's ability to drive a car. Petitioner received a good performance evaluation for his work as an Engineer Tech 2 on June 12, 1990. He was rated as either "Excellent" or "Fully meets Expectations" in all 13 rating categories. Petitioner's diabetes did not prevent him from performing the essential functions of his job. Petitioner was promoted to an Engineer I position in August 1990. From August 1990 through early February 1991, Petitioner worked half- days at the Hookers Point facility, and then commuted to downtown Tampa to work a half-day. The Engineer I position was primarily an office job, with 80% of the responsibilities in-office and 20% at various job sites. During the period between August 1990 and February 1991, Petitioner had several insulin reactions in the office of the Engineer I position. His new supervisor Korchak did not recognize the symptoms of Petitioner's reaction. He characterized Petitioner as being "asleep" on the job on three occasions, and was impaired on numerous other occasions. Due to his physical handicap, Korchak lost confidence in Petitioner's ability as an engineer. Petitioner ate food to counteract the reactions, which took 20 to 30 minutes to subside. In August 1990, shortly after Petitioner was promoted to an Engineer I position, he was involved in an automobile accident, while driving his personal car. The accident resulted from a diabetic reaction. When he was able, Petitioner called his supervisor, Mr. Korchak, and reported the accident. Mr. Korchak relayed the information about the accident to Andy Cronberg, a deputy director, second in command of the department, who was in an office adjacent to Mr. Korchak when he received the call from Petitioner. Mr. Cronberg made a decision, at that moment, in August 1990, based solely on his conversation with Mr. Korchak, to revoke petitioner's privilege to drive a City car. The decision to revoke Petitioner's driving privileges was made in accordance with a general policy of the City, and not on individualized analysis of Petitioner's condition. The decision to restrict Petitioner's driving privileges was not communicated to Petitioner until a performance review on February 8, 1991. In addition, during this same period, Korchek began tailoring and limiting Petitioner's position to in-office functions only, based on what Korchek believed Petitioner could accomplish safely, and downgraded his evaluation when he rated him on his performance review. Prior to the implementation of the decision to restrict Petitioner's driving privileges on February 8, 1991, the City's representatives did not speak to Petitioner about his driving abilities; they did not speak or consult in any way with Petitioner's doctors; nor did they speak with Petitioner's previous supervisor with the City, Jack Kulik. The first contact the City had with Petitioner's doctor was a response to a questionnaire sent to Dr. Sumesh Chandra and, received by the City on February 27, 1991, wherein Dr. Chandra indicated that Petitioner could safely and effectively operate an automobile. The City's representative Mr. Rice indicated that Dr. Chandra's response raised more questions than it answered, and the City did not restore Petitioner's driving privileges. Neither Mr. Rice, nor any other City employee ever consulted with Dr. Chandra to clear up the confusion they had over Dr. Chandra's statement that Petitioner could safely and effectively drive a car. Petitioner is licensed to drive by the State of Florida. His license has never been revoked, either in Florida or any other state. Dr. Chandra stated that, in his opinion, Petitioner could safely and effectively operate an automobile because, "He's capable, dexterous, and coordinated. He's like any normal individual except that he is unfortunately diabetic. So for routine capacity his skills are like any other normal individual." Twenty percent of the Engineer I position required travel to various job sites. Because Petitioner was not allowed to drive an automobile on city time, and was restricted in in-office functions while performing his Engineer I position, he was not able to fulfill the essential functions of the Engineer I position. Following a request by Phil Rice of the Sewer Department, the City received a letter from Dr. Jai H. Cho, a physician on May 15, 1991, that Petitioner had seen for a short period of time. Dr. Cho's letter indicated, among other things, ". . . it is inevitable, that he will develop hypoglycemia with loss of consciousness in the future because of his concurrent illness with diabetes and adrenal insufficiency." Dr. Cho never specifically addressed the issue of whether Petitioner could safely drive an automobile or work alone at job sites, either in writing or in phone conversations with Mr. Rice. No City representatives ever discussed Petitioner's ability to drive a car or work alone on a job site with Petitioner, Dr. Chandra, Dr. Cho, Petitioner's previous supervisors with the City, or Petitioner's previous supervisors with other employers. On May 20, 1991, the City terminated Petitioner's employment. Petitioner was informed of his termination by Mr. Korchak, Mr. Hoel, and Mr. Rice. Mr. Rice told Petitioner that the reason for the termination was the City's concern about its potential liability. Following his termination, Petitioner was unemployed for nine months. Petitioner was then hired in September, 1992, by Omega Tech in Hardee County, Florida, to work at the Hardee Power Station, performing the same duties as he performed as an Engineer Tech 2 for the City of Tampa. Petitioner commutes the 68 miles each way from Tampa to Hardee County every day in his own car. At the Hardee Power Plant, Petitioner is exposed to the same conditions to which he was exposed while working for the City of Tampa. During the 13 years since Petitioner was diagnosed with diabetes, he has never injured any other person as a result of his diabetes, nor received any serious injury to himself. At the present time, the position of Engineer I with the City of Tampa has been eliminated, and has been replaced by a person holding a contractors license. If Petitioner had remained employed with the City of Tampa, he would have earned $36,294.44 from the period June 20, 1991, through September 18, 1992, exclusive of health benefits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: A Final Order be entered that Petitioner was discriminated against on the basis of his handicap when his employment was terminated; The Petitioner receive back pay and health benefits in accordance with applicable law; and The Petitioner be awarded the attorney's fees and costs incurred as a result of this action. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 1992. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39(in part), 40, 41, 42, 43 Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraph 15, 39 (Petitioners was hired by Omega Tech) Rejected as hearsay: paragraph 33 Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10,11(in part), 12,13,14(in part),15,17,18,19,20(in part),22(in part),23,25,26,30,31 Rejected as irrelevant or immaterial or argument: paragraphs 8,9,11(in part),14(in part), 20(Petitioner's written comment),21,24(in part),27,28,29 Rejected as hearsay: paragraphs 16,22(in part),24(in part) COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire KELLY, McKEE, HERDMAN & RAMUS, P.A. 1724 E. Seventh Avenue Tampa, Florida 323605 Margaret A. Jones, Clerk Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Rd. Building F Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4113 Mr. Kenneth C. Perry City of Tampa 306 East Jackson Street 7N Tampa, Florida 33602 Dana Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4113
