The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Scott Rhodes, should be terminated from employment with Petitioner, City of Clearwater (City), for violating City policies as alleged in the City's Termination and Dismissal Notice dated February 16, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Parties and Jurisdiction The City is a government employer governed by a City Council. A City Manager oversees the City’s operations. Pursuant to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Clearwater (City Code), the Clearwater Civil Service Board has adopted policies and rules regulating all aspects of the civil service employee positions within the City.1/ Mr. Rhodes began his employment with the City as a Solid Waste worker on September 6, 2004. He worked in the same position until his termination effective February 20, 2018. Approximately 85 percent of the current Solid Waste staff is African-American. Mr. Rhodes describes himself as “white” and “not black.” At all times relevant, Mr. Rhodes’ supervisor was Joseph Farrar, who is Caucasian. Mr. Farrar’s ultimate supervisor is Earl Gloster, an African-American. Mr. Gloster is the department head of Solid Waste and reports directly to the City Manager. Mr. Rhodes’ Disciplinary History Prior to his termination, Mr. Rhodes had been involved in a number of incidents with co-workers requiring counseling or discipline. In late November 2011 and early 2012, Mr. Rhodes reported he was being harassed by a co-worker in Solid Waste, Feth Benbelgacem. His complaint was investigated by the City’s HR Department and a report was issued. Although the City found Mr. Benbelgacem had violated the City’s Workplace Violence Policy, the report concluded: No one was able to corroborate the specific claim that Mr. Rhodes made that Mr. Benbelgacem [threatened him]. A number of those interviewed feel that Mr. Rhodes has animosity because Mr. Benbelgacem is permitted to operate the equipment which causes Mr. Rhodes to “nitpick” Mr. Benbelgacem’s work performance, thereby instigating their interaction. This behavior on the part of Mr. Rhodes has been reported to the supervisors and although Mr. Rhodes has been directed to cease the behavior and worry about himself, the behavior allegedly continues. * * * Although Mr. Rhodes has been instructed by his supervisors to stop delegating and criticizing tasks relating to Mr. Benbelgacem, the behavior seems to continue and should it not stop, the supervisor should address it through the Performance and Behavior Process. In November 2016, Mr. Farrar issued Respondent a coaching and counseling form for “violence in the workplace” based on a verbal altercation Mr. Rhodes had with an African-American co-worker. The form signed by Mr. Rhodes states: Outcome of Meeting: Mr. Rhodes understands that verbal misconduct is as serious as physical conduct. Verbal attacks can lead to physical confrontations just as this situation did. In the future, verbal attacks on a co-worker’s family or loved ones will not be tolerated. At some point after the November 2016 counseling, when someone did something he did not like, Mr. Rhodes would either tell that person that he was going to give that person a specific number of lashes or he would direct a co-worker to distribute a specific number of lashes to that person. Mr. Rhodes also told his co-workers to “kiss the ring,” implying they were subservient to him. Mr. Rhodes would talk about certain co-workers being on his “hit list.” When asked who was on his “hit list,” Mr. Rhodes named the same African-American co-worker involved in the November 2016 incident. In early 2017, Mr. Farrar overheard Mr. Rhodes saying he would give certain co-workers lashes. Mr. Farrar believed these comments were inappropriate and could have been interpreted as racially offensive. He also overheard Mr. Rhodes talking about his “list.” As a result, Mr. Farrar met with Mr. Rhodes and instructed him to stop making such remarks. Although Mr. Farrar did not specifically tell Mr. Rhodes these comments violated any specific policy, he did tell Mr. Rhodes “that he needed to watch what he was saying around newer people because they might not know how to take it the way people that had been around him do.” At the final hearing, Mr. Rhodes admitted he told other employees he would give them lashes, they were on his hit list, and they should kiss the ring, but claimed he was joking. In April 2017, Mr. Farrar placed Mr. Rhodes on a “Development Plan” after repeatedly being warned by Mr. Farrar about failing to properly clock in and out, and accruing unauthorized overtime. The Development Plan was to remain in effect from April 28 to October 28, 2017, and required Mr. Rhodes to meet personally with Mr. Farrar on “Payday” Fridays and comply with the City’s timeclock regulations. Mr. Rhodes defied orders to meet with Mr. Farrar and otherwise failed to adhere to the Development Plan. As a result, Mr. Rhodes received a one-day suspension (referred to as a “decision-making leave day”) and was referred to the Employee Assistance Program. The Development Plan was also revised and extended to remain in effect until March 2018. Meanwhile, Mr. Rhodes continued to make the same type of inappropriate remarks referring to “lashes” and the “hit list.” In October or November 2017, Mr. Farrar had a second meeting with Mr. Rhodes and again instructed him to stop making these types of remarks. The Terminating Incident On January 17, 2018, Mr. Farrar received a complaint from Allan Craig, an African-American Solid Waste worker, that Mr. Rhodes claimed he was the “emperor of all black people.” According to Mr. Farrar, Mr. Craig reported the incident just after it was made and was visibly shocked. Mr. Farrar referred the incident to the City’s Office of Diversity and Equity Services (“ODES”), a division within the HR department tasked with handling and investigating complaints of the City’s anti-discrimination policies, as well as potential employee violations of state and federal employment laws. Mr. Craig testified that on the day in question, Mr. Rhodes did not like something an African-American co-worker said. In turn, Mr. Rhodes told Mr. Craig to give this co-worker “50 lashes,” which Mr. Craig understood to be a whipping. Mr. Craig, said, “no, we [have] to stick together.” It is unclear to whom Mr. Craig is referring when he said “we”--“Solid Waste workers” or “African-Americans.” Regardless, in response, Mr. Rhodes made the statement, “I’m the emperor of black people.” Mr. Craig did not respond, but instead immediately left the worksite to report the comment to Mr. Farrar. Although Mr. Rhodes corroborates Mr. Craig’s version of events, he disputes saying “I’m the emperor of black people.” Instead he claims he told Mr. Craig “I am the emperor of Solid Waste”; and after Mr. Craig said, “no, we [have] to stick together,” Mr. Rhodes replied, “Allan, even black people have to answer to somebody.” Mr. Rhodes saying, “I’m the emperor of black people” is more believable than him saying “Allan, even black people have to answer to somebody.” The undersigned rejects Mr. Rhodes’ version of events for a number of reasons.2/ First, Mr. Rhodes statements do not seem to flow naturally. Second, Mr. Craig’s demeanor was more credible, and his version of the facts leading up to the “emperor” statement was consistent with the testimony of the other witnesses. Moreover, Mr. Deris, the ODES investigator, testified that Mr. Rhodes admitted to making the statement, “I am the emperor of black people” when questioned during the investigation. Mr. Gloster testified that during the pre-termination meeting he had with Mr. Rhodes, “I asked him specifically as to the comment that was made . . . that he was the emperor over all black people, and he said, yes, that he said it.” Even assuming Mr. Rhodes’ version is correct, it is equally offensive; it still implies African-Americans at Solid Waste need to answer to him. Based on the competent and credible evidence, the undersigned finds that Mr. Rhodes made the statement, “I am the emperor of black people,” and this statement was reasonably offensive to Mr. Craig. Grounds for Dismissal Based on the ODES investigation and after meeting with Mr. Rhodes, Mr. Gloster made the decision to terminate Petitioner. Thereafter, the City issued the Dismissal Notice citing numerous violations of City policy and regulations: City Policy 3201.2, Equal Employment Opportunity Policies (EEO); City Policy 3704.1, Workplace Violence Prevention Policy; and Relevant portions of the City’s Performance and Behavior Management Program Manual (PBMP), which set standards for City workers in the areas of personal responsibility, excellence, and integrity. Chapter 13, section 3, of the Civil Service Board Rules and Regulations outlines the grounds for discipline, including terminations. That section provides in pertinent part: Reasons for Suspension, Demotion, and Dismissal--Whenever practical, employees will be given reasonable opportunity to bring their performance and/or behavior up to acceptable standards pursuant to the procedures and rules of the City’s performance and behavior management programs. However, employees may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including immediate dismissal for the following acts, including but not limited to specifically cited examples: * * * (e) Commitment of a flagrant offense, including harassment or discrimination or abusive conduct or language toward coworkers, City officers, or the public. * * * (l) Failure to conform to the dictates of corrective action, including but not limited to failure or inability to comply with an agreed-upon “development plan,” or when the City believes that an employee is willful in refusing to adhere to establish rules, regulations, or guidelines. (emphasis added). Violation of EEO Policy The City’s EEO policy states in relevant part: It is the policy of the City of Clearwater that no person shall be unlawfully discriminated against with regard to recruitment, selection, appointment, training, promotion, retention, discipline or other aspects of employment because of any consideration of race, color, religion, national origin, age, disability, marital status, or gender (including conditions of pregnancy and sexual harassment), or genetic or family medical history information as defined by the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. Mr. Rhodes’ “lashes” comments could reasonably be interpreted as a reference to slavery, and be racially offensive to African-American (and other) employees. As such, Mr. Rhodes continued references to “lashes,” even after being warned, violated the City’s EEO policy. Mr. Rhodes statement that he, a white person, was the “emperor of black people” clearly violates the City’s EEO policy. Violation of the City’s Workplace Violence Prevention Policy The City’s Workplace Violence Prevention Policy states in relevant part: Policy: The City of Clearwater will not tolerate violence, threats, harassment, intimidation, and other disruptive behavior in our workplace [.] All reports of incidents will be taken seriously and will be dealt with appropriately. Individuals who commit such acts may be removed from the premises and may be subject to disciplinary action, criminal penalties, or both. Definitions: Workplace violence is any physical assault, threatening behavior, or verbal abuse occurring in the workplace. Such behavior can include oral or written statements, gestures, or expressions that communicate a direct or indirect threat of physical harm. Although there was no evidence anyone believed Mr. Rhodes’ “lashes” or “hit-list” statements were real threats of violence, these statements could be considered a form of intimidation, disruptive behavior, and verbal abuse under the policy. These comments, however, when taken in the context of Respondent’s history of verbal altercations with co-workers, and coupled with the fact he was told that these statements may be misinterpreted, constitute violations of the City’s Workplace Violence Prevention Policy. Violation of the City’s Employee Standards The PBMP contains the following relevant standards and instructions: INTEGRITY STANDARDS The following standards represent Integrity issues of such a serious nature that immediate formal discipline, up to and including termination, may be recommended. Violation of the City Workplace Violence Policy. Violation of the City Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Policy. * * * EXCELLENCE STANDARDS We will present a professional image through actions, dress, speech and behavior. We will strive for excellence and continuously learn and make improvements. We will learn from mistakes, modify behavior and recommend procedural changes to improve operations and processes. Again, Mr. Rhodes’ statements described above when considered cumulatively and in context clearly violate the standards for employee integrity. Mr. Rhodes’ continued use of these comments, even after being repeatedly counseled, violates the standards for professional image through actions and speech; continuously learning and improving; and modifying behavior.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board make a determination that the charges in the Dismissal Notice are sustained, and that Respondent be terminated as a City employee. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 6th day of September, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the discipline imposed on Respondent, John Enrico (“Enrico”), by Petitioner, City of Cape Coral (the “City”), was appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral testimony and other evidence presented at final hearing, the following findings of fact were made: The City has the authority to monitor and regulate its employees in accordance with the laws and rules of the State of Florida, the City Charter, and ordinances and rules promulgated thereto. Enrico is employed by the City as an instrumentation supervisor in the Water Reclamation Division of the City’s Utilities Department. He has been employed for an indeterminate number of years, but is a “director level” employee.1/ The City suspended Enrico for one week without pay pursuant to the City of Cape Coral Code of Ordinances, Article III, Division 7, entitled Discipline of Regular Employees. (Pertinent sections of the Code of Ordinances are set forth in the Conclusions of Law, below.) The alleged violation was primarily based on an email Enrico sent on June 7, 2012. The June 7 email was sent to Jeff Pearson and copied to Brian Fenske. The June 7 email states in its substantive body: Jeff and Brian, As a courtesy, I am affording both of you a small glimpse into a potential future. If you decide to discipline me regarding my communications outside of this department, please find below what is just the beginning of the resistance you will meet in public forums and otherwise. As a friend, not as a contemporary [sic], I strongly advise you both not to pursue your current course of action, as it would be embarrassing and detrimental to the cities [sic] interests. Please feel free to call me and discuss the matter. Distinct Regards, There was other information attached to the June 7 email, including some narrative by Enrico concerning his rationale for sending an earlier email, excerpts from OSHA regulations and the City Code, and other legal information about quasi-judicial matters, freedom of speech, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is not clear whether the additional information was supposed to be support for Enrico’s actions, or a description of the “resistance” the email recipients could expect to meet in the future if they decided to discipline Enrico. In order to better understand the June 7 email, some discussion of the background leading up to the email is necessary. Early in calendar year 2012, the City began looking at a product called Multitrode. The product was to be used within the City’s sewage system to, inter alia, control, monitor, or report data regarding usage. The system would have an impact on the equipment and services overseen by Enrico. Enrico was directed by Fenske to install the program via email dated May 18, 2012. Enrico was apparently leaving for a two-week vacation just hours after he received the email. He attempted unsuccessfully to contact his superiors to express some concerns he had about how the Multitrode was going to be implemented. Enrico felt that the system had some potential to do harm to the water reclamation system if installed or used incorrectly. He was not able to reach his superiors. Failing to reach his superiors, Enrico sent an email dated May 23, 2012, to Jody Sorrels, a civil engineer employed by the City.2/ The email was copied to Jeff Pearson, Brian Fenske, Dennis Morgan, Oliver Clark, Michael Hines, and Margaret Krym (the City Manager). Except for Krym, all of the recipients of the email were within Enrico’s chain of command in his area of employment. Krym was intentionally copied on the email by Enrico because he wanted someone outside his chain of command to know about his concerns. The Utilities Department did not report directly to the City Manager. Enrico had been disciplined previously for violating the chain of command protocols. The May 23 email contained Enrico’s reasons for why he did not think the Multitrode should be implemented. He did not believe the program was appropriate or the best use of the City’s money. He was concerned that if implemented improperly, it might even cause significant problems for the wastewater system. The email suggests that it is in response to an earlier telephone conversation between Enrico and Sorrels. Enrico’s supervisors were concerned that Enrico had intentionally chosen to copy the City Manager on the May 23 email. Inasmuch as Krym was not within Enrico’s chain of command and had no direct connection to the utilities department, the supervisors felt like Enrico was again attempting to circumvent protocol and create dissension within the City. As a result, the supervisors began to discuss what sort of discipline should be imposed against Enrico for sending the May 23 email. After various discussions between Enrico and his supervisors, cooler heads prevailed. A meeting was held on June 19, 2012, wherein Enrico retreated from his stance and acknowledged the impropriety of sending an email to the City Manager concerning issues outside her area of concern. During his testimony at final hearing, Enrico denied that he had acknowledged it was wrong to copy Krym on the email. The most persuasive evidence is that he did acknowledge his error. At the conclusion of the June 19 meeting, the participants shook hands and it was decided that no discipline would be imposed against Enrico. Enrico’s acknowledgement of his error was a key reason for his superiors’ decision not to impose discipline. However, before the June 19 meeting, Enrico issued the June 7 email. That email followed a June 6, 2012, email, wherein Enrico notified Jeff Pearson that he needed to talk to Pearson concerning the Multitrode program. The June 6 email ended with Enrico stating, “I need a response (phone call) from you by 9AM EST today to discuss the matter, or I may be forced to escalate the issue appropriately.” The June 7 email appears to be the escalation he warned Pearson about. The June 6 email references “Mr. Sorrels [sic] unwarranted and unprofessional email response.” Sorrels had sent an email to Enrico concerning Enrico’s May 23 email. Sorrels’ email included the statement, “I have neither the time nor inclination to entertain an email chain concerning your [Enrico’s] metathesiophobia or ideophobia.” Metathesiophobia is the fear of moving or making changes. The origin of the word meta is Greek (meaning to change), thes is Latin (meaning setting) and phobia is Greek (meaning fear). Ideophobia is an anxiety disorder characterized by the irrational fear or distrust of ideas or reason. Enrico denied being afflicted with either condition. On June 5, 2012, Enrico had responded to Sorrels, copying Pearson and Fenske on an email accusing Sorrels of libel and defamation. Enrico’s email said that Sorrels’ failure to verbally apologize and write a retraction of his statements by June 8 would result in Enrico referring the matter to the city attorney and his own attorneys to seek unspecified damages. This exchange was followed by the aforementioned June 6 and June 7 emails. The June 7 email was apparently the last straw for Enrico’s supervisors and they decided to impose discipline against him. After discussions with the human resources department and city attorney, the city manager approved a one-week suspension without pay as the appropriate sanction. Enrico denies the June 7 email was intended as a threat, but that is how it was perceived by his superiors. The language in the email about the “beginning of the resistance you will meet,” and telling his superiors that “I strongly advise you not to pursue your current course of action” are both, however, certainly threatening in nature. Though, Enrico said that he did not threaten physical harm, thus there was no threat at all, his testimony is not persuasive. In defense of his actions, Enrico claims the City violated his free speech rights under the United States Constitution, his fair labor practices rights under the State Fair Labor Law, and his rights under the Florida Whistleblower’s Act, among other things. None of those defenses are germane to the issue in this proceeding, nor does DOAH have jurisdiction over those laws. It is clear Enrico knows his area of employment and may have some legitimate concerns about the Multitrode system that was implemented. He may have personal feelings about the fiscal propriety of the City’s use of the Multitrode system. Enrico may not particularly like his superiors. However, those feelings do not justify the use of threats.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on Petitioner's race.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Bagley, an African-American, was employed by the City from 1987 until her termination on July 9, 2004. At the time of her termination, she was employed as a Code Enforcement Officer II. On Monday, March 15, 2004,1 Ms. Bagley called her supervisor, Larry Canelejo (Mr. Canelejo), and advised him that she would be late to work because she had to assist her mother. Mr. Canelejo approved her absence. Ms. Bagley's normal work hours on March 15, 2004, were 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. On March 15, 2004, she arrived to work at 11 a.m. She did not work through her lunch on that day or stay later to make up the time that she was late. On Thursday, March 18, 2004, Ms. Bagley turned in a time and attendance sheet showing that she had worked from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on March 15, 2004. Mr. Canelejo verbally asked Ms. Bagley to turn in a leave slip for the time that she was absent on March 15, 2004. Ms. Bagley did not turn in a leave slip, and Mr. Canelejo sent an e-mail to Ms. Bagley on March 18, 2004, requesting that she do so and indicating that disciplinary action would result for her failure to do so. Instead of turning in a leave slip for her three-hour absence, Ms. Bagley wrote a memorandum to Darrell Smith, Chief of Staff, complaining that she had been requested to submit a leave request for time she was absent from work when other workers who were absent were not required to submit a leave request for their absence. On the morning of Friday, March 19, 2004, Mr. Canelejo sent another e-mail to Ms. Bagley requesting that she submit her time card and leave slip by 11:30 a.m. Ms. Bagley retrieved the time card that she had previously submitted and covered her signature with white-out. She did not submit a leave slip as requested by her supervisor. Mr. Canelejo marked on Ms. Bagley's time sheet that she was absent without leave for three hours on March 15, 2004, and submitted a leave slip for Ms. Bagley showing that she was absent without leave for that time. The time card and leave slip was later changed by the City's personnel office to sick leave for others. On March 17, 2004, Mr. Canelejo received a complaint from the general manager of Wendy's Restaurant located on North 15th Street in Tampa, Florida. The general manager advised Mr. Canelejo that Ms. Bagley had come into the restaurant on three separate occasions demanding that she be given free food for food that she had purchased which she felt was bad. Ms. Bagley did not have receipts for the previously-purchased food, and indicated that other managers in the store had told her that she could get free replacements for the bad food. The general manager advised Mr. Canelejo that other managers at Wendy had not given authorization for Ms. Bagley to receive free food. A co-manager at Wendy's also wrote to the City confirming Ms. Bagley's actions in getting free food. The City's Department of Code Enforcement received a letter dated March 31, 2004, from Hazel Hill, who was the sales floor supervisor at Martin's Uniforms Retail Store (Martin's Uniforms). The City had a contract with Martin's Uniforms to supply uniforms and related items to City employees, including code enforcement employees. Ms. Hill related an incident involving Ms. Bagley on March 12, 2004. Ms. Bagley came to the store, requesting to return some shirts and pants, which she claimed to have received from Martin's Uniforms as part of the 2004 uniform allotment. Ms. Hill inspected the garments and determined that the uniforms could not have been received as part of the 2004 order because the shirts were not the same style as those that had been sent. The 2004 shirts were made of gabardine with two new-style patches, one on each arm. The shirts that Ms. Bagley was attempting to return were made of poplin with only one patch, which had been discontinued. The shirts also appeared to have a yellow tint, which could be attributed to age. The pants which Ms. Bagley was attempting to return had been altered in the waist. The pants which had been sent with Ms. Bagley's 2004 uniform order were not altered in the waist. Ms. Hill also advised that the incident concerning the 2004 uniform order was not the first time that Ms. Bagley had attempted to exchange old merchandise. About four months earlier, Ms. Bagley had tried to return an old jacket for a new one, but Ms. Hill refused to make the exchange. The previous year, Ms. Bagley came to exchange a pair of shoes for which she had no receipt and for which no record of the purchase could be found at the store. On July 9, 2004, the City dismissed Ms. Bagley from her employment. The final decision to terminate Ms. Bagley's employment was made by the Director of Code Enforcement, Curtis Lane, who is an African-American. Mr. Lane based his decision on Ms. Bagley's failure to submit a leave request for the three hours that she was absent on March 15, 2004; submission of a time sheet showing that she worked eight hours on March 15, 2004; the complaints from the employees at a Wendy's restaurant that Ms. Bagley had requested free food while she was in a City code enforcement uniform; and the complaint from Martin's Uniforms that Ms. Bagley tried to get new uniforms by falsely claiming that she was not sent the correct uniforms in her 2004 uniform order. The allegations against Ms. Bagley were investigated by City staff, and, based on the results of the investigations, Mr. Lane believed the allegations against Ms. Bagley and felt that Ms. Bagley's actions demonstrated a lack of honesty and integrity, two traits which are essential for a code enforcement officer. At the time of her termination, Ms. Bagley's employment with the City was subject to a collective bargaining agreement between the City and Amalgamated Transit Union. The collective bargaining agreement provided a grievance and arbitration procedure. Ms. Bagley filed a grievance contesting her termination, which she submitted to final arbitration. On February 15, 2005, an evidentiary hearing was held on Ms. Bagley's grievance before arbitrator Genellen Kelly Pike. On June 15, 2005, Ms. Pike denied Ms. Bagley's grievance. On July 26, 2005, Ms. Bagley filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission, claiming that she was terminated from her employment with the City on account of her race. Ms. Bagley claims that she was discriminated against based on her race because other employees of the Code Enforcement Department were allowed to come in late and either to make up the time on their lunch hours or after work or to not have to make up the time at all. Mr. Canelejo did have a practice of allowing employees to make up their time if they were 15 to 30 minutes late for work. The time could be made up during the employee's lunch hour or at the end of the employee's regularly scheduled work day. There was no practice or policy allowing employees to make up absences as long as three hours rather than requiring them to submit leave slips for the missed time. Ms. Bagley claims that both African-American and Caucasian employees were allowed to make up missed work. Not all employees in the Code Enforcement Department had the same work schedule. Some employees worked ten-hour shifts, Sunday through Wednesday; some employees worked 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday; and some employees worked 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Some employees were required to attend neighborhood meetings at night after their regularly scheduled hours, and were allowed to adjust their work schedule to avoid overtime as a result of the meetings at night. The code inspectors used City-owned vehicles in making their inspections. The vehicles were parked in a central location, and the employees picked up the City vehicles each day. Sometimes an inspector would schedule an inspection at the beginning of the inspector's shift. The inspector was not required to report into the office prior to making the inspection, but could pick up the City vehicle and leave from the parking lot. Ms. Bagley took it upon herself to begin keeping notes on when the inspectors would arrive at the office. She noted that some of the inspectors, both African-American and Caucasian, did not arrive at the office at the beginning of their regularly scheduled shift. However, Ms. Bagley had no knowledge if these inspectors had attended a night meeting during that week, if the inspectors had gone to an inspection prior to coming to the office, or if the inspectors had made up their tardiness by either working during their lunch hours or after the end of their regularly scheduled shift. Ms. Bagley just assumed that these employees were not putting in 40 hours per week. She produced no evidence at the final hearing that there were other employees who claimed they worked 40 hours per week, when they did not and were allowed to do so without taking leave. She presented no evidence at the final hearing that African-American employees were treated differently than Caucasian employees. In fact, she claims that both African- American and Caucasian employees were allowed to come in late without having to submit a leave slip for the missed time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the petition because the charge of discrimination was not filed timely and because Ms. Bagley failed to establish that the City discriminated against her based on her race. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 2006.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of national origin and retaliated against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact No dispute exists that Mr. Duverglas is a male and Black and that his national origin is Haitian. No dispute exists that he is a member of the protected class as it relates to discrimination. No dispute exists that, at all times material hereto, the City was an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended. Mr. Duverglas began his employment with the City in 1996 as a Park Ranger. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that Mr. Duverglas wore a uniform type of clothing for his position. In 2002, some employees complained, among other things, that the vehicles that Mr. Duverglas drove and in which he rode often were left reeking of urine. On December 17, 2002, a counseling session was held with Mr. Duverglas by his supervisor, Kelton Wayns, regarding, among other things, Mr. Duverglas’ personal hygiene and cleanliness of vehicles. In 2003, a complaint was received by Mr. Wyans regarding Mr. Duverglas urinating in a drain on the floor in a bathroom, instead of a urinal. Mr. Wyans investigated the complaint, and the investigative report was reviewed by the Park Ranger Supervisor and Foreman, Earnest Jones. Mr. Jones concluded that the allegation could not be substantiated, but he did counsel Mr. Duverglas that, as an employee of the City, he (Mr. Duverglas) must conduct himself professionally, at all times, and that any unsanitary behavior would not be tolerated. Performance evaluations of Mr. Duvergals were conducted. The categories for the rating of the evaluations were unsatisfactory, marginal, satisfactory, above satisfactory, and outstanding. At the review ending date of April 29, 2001, he received a satisfactory rating; and at the review ending dates of October 29, 2001, October 27, 2002, and October 27, 2003, he received an above satisfactory rating. In February 2004, due to workforce reductions, Mr. Duverglas was bumped and reassigned to the Grounds Maintenance Division as an Apprentice Maintenance Worker. In that position, Mr. Duverglas was assigned to a roving-crew of three to four workers who picked-up litter in a quadrant of the City. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that he wore a uniform type of clothing for his position. Also, around November 2004, Mr. Duverglas was hired as a part-time Park Ranger. Any problems, regarding Mr. Duverglas in this position, were directly dealt with by Mr. Jones. On December 9, 2004, Mr. Duverglas, as a maintenance worker, had a problem arriving at work timely. On December 15, 2004, he was given a letter of reprimand by his supervisor, John Neal, for arriving to work late and for failing to call-in regarding his tardiness. Additionally, the reprimand indicated that future occurrences could result in more severe disciplinary action up to and including dismissal. In January 2005, Mr. Neal, advised Mr. Duverglas that he was spending too much time on his (Mr. Duverglas’) cell phone. At that time, Mr. Duverglas informed Mr. Neal that a co- worker, L. C. Orr, had made offensive comments about Haitians. Mr. Neal had no knowledge of Mr. Orr’s alleged comments before being informed of them by Mr. Duverglas. Mr. Orr was aware of Mr. Duverglas’ Haitian ancestry. However, Mr. Neal was not until he was informed of Mr. Orr’s alleged comments. After that meeting and also in January 2005, Mr. Duvergals made a complaint with the City’s Office of Professional Standards (OPS) against Mr. Orr. Mr. Duverglas complained that Mr. Orr had made offensive comments about Haitians and that the offensive comments had contributed to a hostile work environment. After making the complaint with OPS, Mr. Duverglas was counseled by Mr. Neal regarding his (Mr. Duverglas’) poor work performance. At that time, Mr. Duverglas informed Mr. Neal that he had made a complaint against Mr. Orr with OPS. Mr. Neal had no knowledge of the OPS complaint before being informed of it by Mr. Duvergals. Mr. Duvergals also complained to OPS that Mr. Neal had retaliated against him when Mr. Neal met with him to counsel him about his performance deficiencies after his (Mr. Duverglas’) OPS complaint. Mr. Duverglas informed Mr. Neal, during the meeting, that he (Mr. Duverglas) had made a complaint to OPS against Mr. Orr regarding Mr. Orr’s derogatory comments about Haitians. Mr. Neal was not aware of Mr. Duverglas’ complaint against Mr. Orr until Mr. Duverglas informed him (Mr. Neal) of it. OPS investigated the complaint. OPS was unable to question Mr. Orr because he had retired from the City. Following an investigation, OPS determined that the allegations were unfounded and without merit. During his work as a maintenance worker and his part- time work as a Park Ranger, complaints regarding Mr. Duverglas’ personal hygiene occurred in both positions. Complaints were made regarding his clothing and body having the odor of urine and his trousers being wet in the front, and regarding the odor of urine being left in vehicles and lingering in the Park’s office. Mr. Duverglas was counseled on several occasions regarding these issues and notified that, if the problems continued, stronger action, than counseling, would be taken to address the problems. When Mr. Duverglas was a part-time Park Ranger, only one Park Ranger, Alan Brown, did not complain about Mr. Duverglas smelling of urine, wetting the front of his trousers, or leaving the smell of urine in vehicles. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Jones, Mr. Duverglas’ supervisor as a Park Ranger, was aware of Mr. Duverglas’ Haitian ancestry. The evidence fails to demonstrate that any of Mr. Jones’ actions were taken because of Mr. Duverglas’ Haitian ancestry. In March 2005, Mr. Duverglas, as a maintenance worker, was sent by the City for a Fit-For-Duty evaluation, which was a medical evaluation to determine his fitness for duty. On March 22, 2005, a Fit-For-Duty evaluation was performed. The report by the examining physician indicates, among other things, that a prior evaluation was performed on March 11, 2005, and Mr. Duverglas was found fit for duty; that another evaluation was requested due to continued concerns regarding his “cleanliness” at work; that a concern existed as to whether he was suffering from incontinence; that he refused to allow the physician to perform an abdominal and genital exam; that his personal physician wrote a note to the examining physician that Mr. Duverglas did not suffer from incontinence and was fit to return to work with no restrictions; and that, based upon the representations by Mr. Duverglas’ personal physician, the examining physician had no choice but to find Mr. Duverglas fit for duty and clear him to return to work. Mr. Duverglas denied, and continues to deny, that he suffered or suffers from a medical condition, i.e., incontinence. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Duverglas suffered or suffers from incontinence. The evidence demonstrates that Mr. Duverglas was fit- for-duty. In April 2005, Teresa “Terry” Reynard, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation, who had the responsibility for park maintenance, transferred Mr. Duverglas, in his position as a maintenance worker, from one location to another location, Carter Park. Ms. Reynard’s intent was to accommodate what she perceived to be a problem with Mr. Duverglas’ personal hygiene by placing him in a park, Carter Park, in which several restrooms were available and accessible. However, the complaints continued at both of Mr. Duverglas’ jobs with the City. Mr. Duverglas’ supervisors counseled him on several occasions regarding his hygiene, the smell of urine, and trousers being wet in the front. At one point, Mr. Duverglas, as a maintenance worker, was notified that he should bring a change of clothing to work in an effort to eliminate the odor and smell of urine. Mr. Duverglas admits that he may have urinated on himself maybe once or twice but nothing extraordinary. Also, complaints were made regarding Mr. Duverglas’ excessive cell phone use, instead of working, inadequately performing his work, and unauthorized breaks. Mr. Duverglas admits that he was disciplined for excessive cell use. Mr. Duverglas admits that, on April 14, 2005, he was issued a reprimand for arriving at work late and that was his second violation in six months. Further, he admits that he was notified that the continuation of such conduct could be a basis for termination. On June 13, 2005, Mr. Duverglas was issued a letter of reprimand by Ms. Reynard for lack of productivity. Furthermore, the letter of reprimand notified Mr. Duverglas that his failure to be productive in his work could result in further disciplinary action including termination. On June 15, 2005, Mr. Duverglas was again issued a letter of reprimand by Ms. Reynard for lack of productivity. The letter of reprimand indicated, among other things, that Mr. Duverglas had violated the following General Employees’ Work Rules: Minor Rule 3 – Failure to observe department work schedules (starting time, quitting time, and meal periods). Minor Rule 6: - Unsatisfactory work performance, inefficiency. Minor Rule 7 – Loafing or other abuse of time during assigned working hours. Major Rule 6 – Leaving City premises during working hours without permission of supervisor. Further, the letter of reprimand notified Mr. Duverglas that, among other things, “future occurrences of the same or similar nature will result in more severe disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.” Mr. Duverglas refused to sign the letter of reprimand, but was provided a copy of it. On June 22, 2005, Ms. Reynard issued Mr. Duverglas an “Informational Letter” regarding his personal hygiene, i.e., urinating in his trousers. The Informational Letter provided, among other things, that, despite prior conversations and counseling, he (Mr. Duverglas) continued to have the personal hygiene problems; that his situation was a serious health risk; that, if he soiled his uniform in the future, he would be asked to change his uniform, and, if he failed to have a change of uniform with him at the time, he would be asked to leave work on his own time and not return until he had changed his uniform; and that, if his problem was caused by a medical condition and he wished to request an accommodation, he should do so. On June 24, 2005, Mr. Duverglas was issued a letter of counseling by Ms. Reynard regarding his (Mr. Duverglas’) personal hygiene. The letter of counseling provided, among other things, that Mr. Duverglas had been spoken to and counseled in the past months regarding his personal hygiene, but that the problem had persisted; and that Ms. Reynard had observed, the day before, that Mr. Duverglas’ trousers were wet. Further, the letter of counseling reminded Mr. Duverglas what he was directed to do if he wet his trousers. Moreover, the letter of counseling provided that future occurrences would result in disciplinary action, including dismissal. Mr. Duverglas contends that he was not protected from a threat of violence made by a co-worker Wilmar “Slim” Alexander. On June 29, 2005, Mr. Alexander threatened physical violence against Mr. Duverglas if Mr. Duverglas approached him (Mr. Alexander) in an aggressive manner. On July 5, 2005, Ms. Reynard issued a letter of reprimand against Mr. Alexander for “an inappropriate remark to a coworker.” Further, the letter of reprimand provided, among other things, that the behavior exemplified by Mr. Alexander would not be tolerated and that future occurrences would result in severe disciplinary action including dismissal. The evidence failed to demonstrate that Mr. Alexander exhibited any further violent behavior towards Mr. Duverglas. The evidence failed to demonstrate that the letter of reprimand was not the appropriate punishment for Mr. Alexander’s behavior. The evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that Mr. Alexander exhibited any violent behavior towards Mr. Duvergals prior to Mr. Alexander’s threat. The evidence failed to demonstrate that the City failed to protect Mr. Duverglas from the threat made by Mr. Alexander. On June 30, 2005, Mr. Duverglas was placed on administrative leave with pay pending the City’s investigation that he “may have violated City rules and regulations.” On July 27, 2005, after notice, an informational meeting was held with Mr. Duverglas. Based on the informational meeting, on July 28, 2005, Ms. Reynard issued a written recommendation to Phil Thornburg, Director of the City, regarding Mr. Duverglas. The recommendation provided, among other things, that the persons in attendance at the informational meeting included Ms. Reynard, Mr. Duverglas, and a union representative; that the meeting was held to address several issues including Mr. Duverglas’ personal hygiene, complaints regarding the smell of urine, his performance deficiencies and general loafing, and the report of his urinating in public; and that Mr. Duverglas denied all allegations. Further, the recommendation determined that Mr. Duverglas’ denials, explanations and responses were “incredible and unworthy of belief” and that he had engaged in severe conduct. Ms. Reynard recommended the termination of Mr. Duverglas. Around May 2005, a self-employed painter, Samuel Mitchell, was performing contract work at Carter Park. Mr. Mitchell observed whom he recognized as Mr. Duverglas leaning against a concrete pole with his (Mr. Duverglas’) trousers around his (Mr. Duverglas’) knees, appearing to be urinating, but Mr. Mitchell did not observe a stream of liquid. The area in which Mr. Duverglas was observed was near a residential area, was an area that the general public frequents, and was an area used by school children. Mr. Mitchell perceived the conduct to be inappropriate. Mr. Mitchell spoke with Mr. Duverglas, and Mr. Duverglas vehemently denied that he was the person whom Mr. Mitchell observed. Mr. Mitchell did not wish to report what he observed to the City, but wanted Mr. Duverglas to change the behavior that he (Mr. Mitchell) observed; however, because of the way Mr. Duverglas reacted to his (Mr. Mitchell’s) talking with him (Mr. Duverglas), Mr. Mitchell reported the incident to the City. Mr. Mitchell testified at hearing, and his testimony is found to be credible. Mr. Duverglas denied that he was the person observed by Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell’s testimony is found to be more credible than Mr. Duverglas’ testimony. Also, at the time of the incident, another person, who was a non-employee of the City, reported the same observation to the City. That person did not testify at hearing. A finding is made that Mr. Duverglas was the person observed by Mr. Mitchell and was the person engaged in the conduct observed by Mr. Mitchell. Further, even though Mr. Mitchell did not observe a stream of liquid, an inference is drawn and a finding is made that, based upon the prior conduct, actions, and behavior of Mr. Duverglas, regarding his personal hygiene and the wetting of the front of his trousers, Mr. Duverglas was urinating. Moreover, a finding is made that the City was reasonable in making a determination that Mr. Duverglas was urinating. The evidence demonstrated that Ms. Reynard was aware of Mr. Duverglas’ Haitian descent. However, the evidence failed to demonstrate that any of her actions were motivated by Mr. Duverglas’ Haitian descent. Mr. Thornburg had the final authority in disciplinary matters regarding the Parks and Recreation Department. By letter dated August 5, 2005, Mr. Thornburg notified Mr. Duverglas that he (Mr. Duverglas) was being suspended, without pay, for 20 days, effectively immediately, and was being dismissed from the City as an Apprentice Maintenance Worker, effective September 2, 2005. The letter was hand-delivered to Mr. Duverglas. The letter provided, among other things, that the action was being taken for continued deficiencies in performance and conduct, setting forth the deficiencies, which were: Despite prior counseling, a transfer to another facility with better access to bathroom facilities and other accommodations, you continued to disregard your personal hygiene and appearance as a representative of the City by urinating in your trousers in public and disregard of proper safety practices and precautions. Your failure to conform your behavior to civilized standards has been the subject of complaints by your co-workers over having to work in offensive, unsanitary and unhealthy conditions and cannot be tolerated. You continued to demonstrate deficiencies in performance of assigned duties by taking unauthorized breaks, excessive use of your personal cell phone in the field during working hours and general loafing. Employees of two City contractors have witnessed you urinating in a public place although restroom facilities were available. City Ordinance 16-75(a)(5) – Public Indecency. Additionally, the letter set forth General Employees’ Work Rules that Mr. Duverglas violated, which were: Major Rule 1 – Any act which might endanger the safety or lives of other [sic]. Major Rule 2 – Refusal to perform work properly assigned by a supervisor. Major Rule 3 – Willful, deliberate or repeated violation of City safety rules, including instances where there is evidence of willful disregard of proper safety practices and precautions while operating City equipment. Major Rule 7 – Deliberately abusing [sic] destroying, damaging or defacing City property, tools, equipment or the property of others on City premises. Major Rule 21 – Neglect of duty. Major Rule 24 – Conduct, either while on or off duty, which tends to reflect discredit upon the City. Major Rule 25 – Employee harassment, abusive conduct towards an employee or a member of the general public. Major Rule 26 – Violation of City Charter, ordinances, or administrative rules and regulations, specifically City Ordinance 16- 75(a)(5) – Public Indecency. Furthermore, the letter provided that Mr. Duverglas had the opportunity to request a hearing, setting forth the procedure for such a request, and indicated the consequences for his failure to request a hearing. City Ordinance 16-75(a)(5) – Public Indecency provides in pertinent part: Offense. It shall be unlawful for any person to commit public indecency. A person commits public indecency when he performs any of the following acts in a public place: * * * (5) Urinates . . . in other than a toilet or washroom . . . . Definitions. “Public place,” for purposes of this section, means any place where the conduct may reasonably be expected to be viewed by others. Penalties. Any person convicted of violating this section shall be deemed guilty of the offense of public decency and upon conviction shall be punished as provided in section 1-6 of this Code. Section 1-6, titled “Penalty for violations,” provides in pertinent part: In this section “violation of this Code” means: Doing an act that is prohibited or made or declared unlawful or an offense by ordinance or by rule or regulation authorized by ordinance . . . . * * * Except as otherwise provided herein, a person convicted of a violation of this Code, shall be punished by a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00) or by imprisonment for a term not to exceed sixty (60) days or by both such fine and imprisonment. . . . The imposition of a penalty does not prevent revocation or suspension of a license, permit or franchise or the imposition of civil fines, civil penalties or administrative sanctions. Administrative sanctions could be imposed for a violation of City Ordinance Section 16-75(5). Mr. Duverglas admits that a violation of City Ordinance Section 16-75(5) is just cause for suspension and dismissal. The ground of public indecency was sufficient, in and of itself, to dismiss Mr. Duverglas from employment. The evidence demonstrated that he committed the act of public indecency as defined in City Ordinance Section 16-75(5). The evidence fails to demonstrate that Mr. Thornburg had any knowledge of Mr. Duverglas’ Haitian ancestry prior to the disciplinary action. Mr. Duverglas requested a hearing from the City. The hearing was held on September 6, 2005. By letter dated September 7, 2005, the City Manager, George Gretsas, notified Mr. Duverglas that, after a review of all the available and relevant information, including that presented at the hearing, the suspension and dismissal was upheld. A grievance under the union contract was filed. On November 21, 2005, the City’s Employee Relations Director issued a “Fourth Step Response Teamster Grievance,” providing, among other things, that a hearing was held on November 9, 2005, in accordance with the grievance, that no evidence was presented to cause the City to modify its decision, and that, therefore, the grievance was denied. An inference is drawn and a finding is made that an arbitration hearing was held on or about May 18, 2006, regarding Mr. Duverglas’ suspension and dismissal. The evidence was insufficient to demonstrate the outcome of the arbitration proceedings, but an inference is drawn and a finding is made that the arbitration decision was not favorable to Mr. Duverglas. On July 24, 2006, Mr. Duverglas filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Broward County Civil Rights Division and the EEOC against the City alleging that the City discriminated against him on the basis of national origin (Haitian) and retaliation in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended. The Broward County Civil Rights Division waived investigation of the charge. The matter was investigated by the FCHR. On January 19, 2007, the FCHR issued a Determination of No Cause and a Notice of Determination of No Cause. Mr. Duverglas timely filed a Petition for Relief with the FCHR against the City.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the discrimination complaint of Donald Duverglas against the City of Fort Lauderdale. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 2008.
The Issue Whether Respondent is, for purposes of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, an "employee" of Petitioner. Whether Respondent has committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner by failure to hire him on the basis of race, to wit: African-American.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. At all times material, he was employed as a member of the Flagler County, Florida, Sheriff's Department. In 2001, he had worked for the Sheriff's Department in some capacity for twenty years and had held the rank of sergeant for twelve years. In June 2001, he was a Sheriff's Department patrol sergeant. As such, he supervised Sheriff's Department officers on patrol. Respondent City of Bunnell is a municipality located in Flagler County, Florida. It is governed by a five-person City Commission, including its mayor. At all times material, the Commissioners were Mayor King and Commissioners Fell, Henry, Edmonson, and Marquis. Herein, Petitioner asserts that Respondent City discriminated against him due to his race because he was not appointed to the position of Acting Police Chief of the City of Bunnell, pursuant to an interlocal agreement the City never entered-into with the Sheriff's Department In early 2001, the City's full-time Police Chief resigned, and the City began to advertise for a full-time replacement. Petitioner lived in Bunnell, and was aware of the open position of full-time City Police Chief, but he elected not to apply. One reason for his decision not to apply was that he had twice applied unsuccessfully in the mid-1990's. Another reason was that by 2001, Petitioner was set in his career path with the Flagler County Sheriff and with his accruing State retirement benefits. Employment with the City would not have continued to accrue him State retirement benefits. At all times material, all of the City police officers were Caucasian. While seeking a full-time Police Chief, the City kept the City Police Department functioning by relying on a series of "Acting Police Chiefs"; Police Corporal Harrison; and Donna Kearney, Administrative Assistant to the City Manager. At all times material, Corporal Harrison was supervisor for the City Police Department's "road patrol." Donna Kearney had handled some clerical and scheduling functions of the City Police Department since the City had been seeking a full-time Chief of Police, but she was not a police officer. She also has never been certified as a law enforcement officer by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. At all times material, James Manfre was the elected Sheriff of Flagler County. He had assumed that office on January 2, 2001. The Sheriff is a constitutional officer and the chief law enforcement officer of Flagler County. Sheriff Manfre is Caucasian. His main offices are not in Bunnell, Florida. The Bunnell City Police Chief was restricted in what she/he could do. She/he had to have City Manager approval to hire, to promote, or to reprimand police officers. The Bunnell City Police, including the Police Chief, were expected to work out of City property, the Police Department, located in Bunnell. Despite a series of "Acting" Chiefs of Police who served while the City advertised the full-time position, by June 2001, the efficiency of the City Police Department had been suffering for some time. City police officers' morale was low, and their attitudes were bad. Citizens were complaining about their frequency of patrols and general inefficiency. The Saturday before the June 19, 2001, City Commission Meeting, Acting Chief of Police John Ashton quit as Chief and returned to regular duty as a Bunnell City Police Sergeant. This apparently was due to a salary dispute with the City. On June 19, 2001, the City Commission met to discuss Acting Chief/Sergeant Ashton's compensation. Present at the June 19, 2001, City Commission Meeting were Mayor King (gender and race not of record); and Commissioners Fell (male Caucasian), Henry (female African- American), and Edmonson (male Caucasian). Commissioner Marquis was absent. Commissioner Edmonson was a former City Police Chief who had been fired several years previously for making a racist comment against African-Americans. At the June 19, 2001, City Commission meeting, Mayor King and Commissioner Fell took a moment to cite the City Police Department for doing a good job. Corporal Harrison also spoke to the Commission. Prior to June 19, 2001, the City had approached Sheriff Manfre about the Sheriff's Office taking over the City police functions until the City could hire a full-time police chief. Sheriff Manfre attended the June 19, 2001, City Commission meeting and made a presentation concerning having the Sheriff's Department supervise the City Police Department's road patrol for a period of 90 days to allow time for the City to find and hire its own permanent Police Chief. After the Sheriff's presentation, Commissioner Fell moved a vote, which was seconded by Commissioner Henry.1/ The Motion failed to get a majority. After further discussion, there was a motion to reconsider. Ultimately, a motion to start negotiating the proposed interlocal agreement was passed unanimously by Commissioners King, Fell, Henry, and Edmonson.2/ Negotiations between the Sheriff and the City ensued, and the Sheriff's attorney drafted a proposed interlocal agreement. On June 22, 2001, another City Commission meeting was held. At that time, only three City Commissioners were present: King, Fell, and Henry. Edmonson and Marquis were absent. Thus, there was no quorum to conduct business. Nonetheless, Sheriff Manfre spoke before the Commission, as did several members of the public and Corporal Harrison. Another Commission meeting was scheduled for June 25, 2001, to, among other things, vote on whether or not to approve the proposed interlocal agreement. Upon the hopeful predictions of his attorney and his own optimism because the City had initially approached him, Sheriff Manfre signed the proposed draft of the interlocal agreement on June 22, 2001, and wrote in that the agreement was to be effective as of June 22, 2001. That draft was never approved by the City Commission or signed by anyone on behalf of the City. Paragraph 2 of the proposed interlocal agreement provided, in part, "This Agreement shall be interpreted and administered in such a manner that it will not constitute a transfer, merger, or consolidation as those terms are used in the Constitution of the State of Florida or in any statute of the State of Florida." There was no clear consensus among the witnesses who testified about whether the language of the proposed agreement was designed to provide the City with an interim police chief or with a supervisor of its road patrol, a position already occupied by Corporal Harrison. The Sheriff testified that he had in mind to detail Petitioner to the City Police Department position, whatever that position was, and that he had spoken to Petitioner about it. The Sheriff's intent was based on Petitioner's rank; capabilities; and familiarity with City issues, due to Petitioner's residency in Bunnell. The Sheriff envisioned Petitioner operating out of the City Police Department; having daily interaction with the City police officers; and dictating to/directing the City police officers. Petitioner never read the proposed interlocal agreement, yet he "knew" that, under it, he would be supervising road officers, and he assumed that if the proposed interlocal agreement went through, he would become the City Police Chief. The proposed interlocal agreement also is not clear as to whether the Sheriff was to provide an interim police chief or a supervisor of the City's road patrol. Paragraph 4 of the proposed interlocal agreement set forth the services to be provided by the Sheriff. Specifically, the Sheriff would "provide supervision for all necessary and appropriate law enforcement services in and for the CITY." Paragraph 4 also provided that a "command officer" would be assigned as "supervisor" of the City's patrol deputies. Paragraph 12 of the proposed interlocal agreement provided, in pertinent part: PERSONNEL: The SHERIFF shall have authority for the hiring, training, assignment, discipline and dismissal of all law enforcement personnel subject to his supervision under this Agreement. The SHERIFF shall also be legally responsible for the action of law enforcement personnel performing services under this Agreement in accordance with law. Any employee of the SHERIFF is not for any purpose whatsoever, an agent, employee, or legal representative of the City and are in no way authorized to make any contract, agreement or representation on behalf of the CITY or to create any obligation on behalf of the CITY. (Emphasis supplied) The Sheriff's unilateral hiring and disciplining authority in paragraph 12 of the proposed interlocal agreement would have been a departure from City Manager authority in that regard. (See Finding of Fact 11). Paragraph 9 of the proposed Agreement specifically designated the Sheriff as an "independent contractor." In addition to the foregoing explicit language contained in the draft proposal at paragraph 2 (see Finding of Fact 23) and paragraph 9, Sheriff Manfre's testimony supports the concept that the Sheriff would have continued to be Petitioner's employer, whatever Petitioner's title, if the proposed interlocal agreement had been approved by the City Commission. The Sheriff was clear that at all times the supervising officer he would designate under the agreement would remain an employee of the Sheriff's Department, even while carrying out duties for the City. Paragraph 18 of the proposed agreement granted the Sheriff "authority to expend funds from the existing Bunnell Police Department budget" to operate the City Police Department under the Sheriff's supervision. Despite some contrary language, one could reasonably interpret the proposed agreement to delegate to the Sheriff decisions on how much and for what purposes City money would be spent on City law enforcement. Paragraph 17 of the proposed interlocal agreement provided that the agreement would terminate after 90 days from its effective date, unless both parties agreed to review it. Also, either party could terminate the agreement prior to the end of its term upon 30 days' written notice. Paragraph 17 also reserved to the City the right to require the Sheriff to transfer and replace any personnel, who, in the sole determination of the City, failed to perform consistent with City standards. This paragraph would seem to have permitted the City unilateral removable rights over whomever the Sheriff could appoint under the interlocal agreement. On June 25, 2001, the City Commission met and again discussed the proposed interlocal agreement. Commissioners King, Fell, Henry, and Edmonson were present. Marquis was again absent. Several members of the public spoke on the issue of whether the agreement should be approved. Among others, Donna Kearney spoke against what she saw as "the Sheriff's proposal," because she interpreted the proposed agreement as duplicating the position of "road supervisor," which was already filled by Corporal Harrison of the City Police Department, and because she felt a permanent police chief was needed. Delories Hall, an African-American citizen, spoke in support of the proposed agreement because she felt her neighborhood, which is predominantly African-American, was poorly protected by the City Police. Corporal Harrison spoke again at the June 25, 2001, meeting. Although the content of his comments is not of record, it may be presumed, from the evidence as a whole, that he opposed the interlocal agreement. On June 25, 2001, some City Police Officers spoke to the Commissioners, generally opposing the agreement between the City and the Sheriff. They felt their professional performance had recently improved and that they should be given another chance to correct the problems that had led to the proposal of the interlocal agreement. After the public discussion closed on June 25, 2001, Commissioner Henry made a motion to accept the proposed interlocal agreement, with several revisions. Commissioner Edmonson seconded Commissioner Henry's motion.3/ The vote resulted in King and Henry supporting the proposed agreement, with revisions, and Commissioners Fell and Edmonson opposing the proposed agreement, even if revised. As a result of the "two- to-two" vote, the motion did not pass, and the proposed agreement which had previously been signed by the Sheriff, never took effect. The record herein does not explain how the proposed revisions were to be presented to the Sheriff by the City Commission. The exact revisions proposed by the Commission are not of record. They were not interlineated over the Sheriff's signature on the two copies of his proposed draft of the interlocal agreement which are in evidence, nor did witnesses seem clear whether there ever were any written proposed revisions. Finally, the Commission's Minutes in evidence do not reflect the proposed revisions. Commissioner Fell testified, without refutation, as to several reasons he had ultimately voted against the proposed agreement in any form. None of his reasons addressed race. Most of his concerns were financially based, but he also worried that the Sheriff was making a "power play." From Mr. Fell's point of view, if the proposed interlocal agreement were approved, the Sheriff would be supervising law enforcement throughout the entire county, and through similar interlocal agreements, would be supervising law enforcement in all but two cities within the county. Although the City of Bunnell had problems with its police department, Mr. Fell wanted to give the local police officers another chance. He expressed confidence in Corporal Harrison. Commissioner Edmonson testified that on June 25, 2001, he voted against the proposed agreement because several City police officers, including Corporal Harrison, had spoken to him before the Commission meeting and asked that he give them one more chance to operate without outside help, and that he had told them he would vote them another chance, but it would be their last chance. The Sheriff's attorney advised the Sheriff of the negative June 25, 2001, Commission vote by phone on June 25, 2001. The Sheriff, in turn, placed a phone call to his friend, Commissioner Edmonson. Commissioner Edmonson and Sheriff Manfre spoke by cell phone while the Sheriff was driving on the Florida Turnpike. Their respective versions of this bad connection and frequently distracted conversation are very different. According to the Sheriff, Edmonson told him that Edmonson had "heard" that some of the City police officers would not report to an African-American. However, even Sheriff Manfre conceded that Edmonson did not say this knowledge motivated Edmonson's vote against the proposed interlocal agreement. Commissioner Edmonson denied the statement attributed to him by Sheriff Manfre. He claimed to have stated to the Sheriff that some City police officers had a problem with Petitioner, personally, and that the Sheriff needed to check into that problem. Edmonson further testified that when the Sheriff asked if the problem was because Petitioner was African- American, he, Edmonson, had denied that race was the issue, and the Sheriff hung-up. On this point, Commissioner Edmonson is the more credible witness. Commissioner Edmonson further testified that if the Sheriff had not terminated their cell phone conversation when he did, Edmonson would have explained to the Sheriff that the City police officers had told Edmonson they were upset over an incident several weeks prior to June 25, 2001, when Petitioner, acting for the Sheriff's Office, had released an individual in City Police Department custody. Because Petitioner denied that any such release of an arrestee by Petitioner ever occurred, and because there was no explanation how, without an interlocal agreement in force, Petitioner would have had any authority to release a City arrestee, it has not been proven that such an incident occurred. However, there was no evidence to refute Edmonson's testimony that this story had been told him by police officers and no evidence that race, rather than Petitioner's personality or an interlocal power struggle, influenced Edmonson's vote on June 25, 2001. Finally, paragraph 17 of the proposed agreement (see Findings of Fact 33-34) would have given the City a unilateral right to require transfer of anyone assigned by the Sheriff pursuant to the interlocal agreement, and even to terminate the agreement, itself, upon 30 days notice. Such an options suggest that if race had been an issue, it could have been addressed at any time later. A few days after June 25, 2001, the Sheriff issued a press release denouncing the City Commission vote as "racist." Much public uproar ensued. Then the Sheriff appeared at an NAACP meeting with Commissioner Edmonson "to heal" the situation created by his press release. There were no further negotiations on an interlocal agreement. Corporal Harrison next served as interim City Police Chief. In either August or September 2001, the City finally hired a full-time Police Chief. The hiree was Caucasian. Apparently urged on by the Sheriff's public stance, Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Commission on or about March 1, 2002. Therein, Petitioner named the "Flagler County Sheriff's Office" as the offending employer or governmental agency. However, on April 5, 2002, Petitioner amended his Charge to reflect that the employer or governmental agency involved was the City of Bunnell. No evidence was presented as to any damages Petitioner incurred due to the tied vote of the City Commission on June 25, 2001. There was no evidence Petitioner would have been paid more money or would have received greater fringe benefits if he had been appointed by the Sheriff to serve the City in any capacity under the proposed agreement. There was no evidence Petitioner did not continue to receive his regular compensation and benefits from the Sheriff after the City rejected the proposed agreement. Petitioner has prayed for attorney's fees, but by agreement, the parties have deferred that issue until the merits of the case are determined by the final order.
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 Charge of Discrimination and the Petition for Relief for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 2004, 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 7th day of June, 2004.
The Issue Petitioner has alleged that Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 and its predecessor statute by discriminating against him based on his age and national origin in the following: denial of promotion to liftstation mechanic; disparate treatment with regard to training opportunities, transfers, overtime opportunities and disciplinary actions; ridicule and other demeaning actions, such as being escorted to the restroom; and other harassment in retaliation for his complaints. Both parties have requested attorney's fees and costs and it is necessary to determine if such award is appropriate. The primary issue for disposition is whether the alleged violations occurred, and, if so, what relief is appropriate. Although other actions, including termination, have occurred since the complaint was filed, the parties have concurred that those actions are not the subject of this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Emiliano Santos was born in Puerto Rico in 1944 and came to the United States in 1964. Spanish is his first language, and, in his words, he has been struggling with English since 1964. Mr. Santos was employed by the City of Melbourne on January 8, 1990. His first job was as a custodian helper in the auditorium. Approximately six months later he applied for positions as Maintenance Worker I and Maintenance II in the city sewer department; he was given the Maintenance II position, the higher level, because of his employment with the city. Robert Klaproth is the Melbourne water and sewer administrator in charge of the day-to-day operations of the water and sewer division. Tom Hogeland is the water and sewer operations superintendent for the City of Melbourne and has been in that position for approximately five years. Under his supervision is Greg Williams, supervisor of the sewer collection division, who in turn directly supervises Doug Hammond, the liftstation maintenance foreman, and Bob Lyons, the maintenance and construction crewleader. Under those two latter individuals are technical workers such as liftstation mechanics, the liftstation electrician, equipment operators, and other crew leaders. At the entry-level or laborer level are the maintenance workers I and II and utility system service workers. As of January 1992, that entry level in the sewer collection division included, among others, Mr. Santos, William Spann, Joseph Concepcion, and Martin Koehler. The Liftstation Mechanic Promotion Some time in the summer of 1992, an opening came up in a liftstation mechanic position; and Tom Hogeland was directly involved in the recruitment and hiring process. Five applicants sought the position: Mr. Santos, William Spann, Elmer Cross, Oscar Vega and Cecil Smith. The position was advertised in-house as a promotional opportunity. It called for five years mechanical experience in the repair and maintenance of pumps, motors and other associated mechanical equipment. Each applicant was given a copy of the job description in advance of the interview. At the individual interviews Tom Hogeland described the physical condition of the job and asked the individual whether he was familiar with the position description. He also asked four questions to determine the applicant's basic familiarity with pumps and equipment used in liftstations, and he asked each about his background and experience. Of the five applicants, Tom Hogeland found only two had the minimum five years' experience: William Spann and Elmer Cross. Hogeland verified the experience of each applicant. William Spann had claimed experience in the Marine Corps and Hogeland called and spoke with someone in the Corps who was familiar with Spann's experience. Hogeland verified Elmer Cross' experience with his city supervisor, as Cross was working in the Melbourne wastewater treatment plant. Emeliano Santos claimed on his application that he had the requisite experience in a prior job with the John Deere company. When Hogeland called the company he was told that Mr. Santos had not worked as a mechanic, but was a machinist, assembling and operating machines. He had no pump mechanic experience at John Deere. Because of his seniority with the city, Hogeland recommended Elmer Cross for the opening. However, it was not a promotion for Cross and he told Hogeland that he decided to turn down the transfer. The position was then offered to William Spann, who accepted it. At hearing, Mr. Santos admitted that he did not have the requisite five years' experience. He claimed, however, that William Spann did not have the experience either. William Spann is a white male in his 20's who was hired as a maintenance worker I in 1990 in the sewer division. His prior experience was as a maintenance sergeant at Camp LeJeune, including the responsibility for maintaining and servicing the wells and pumps at the facility. This military experience and his experience with the city, when he was assigned to assist the liftstation mechanic, combined to provide him the requisite minimum five years. Contrary to Mr. Santo's claim that he was the only one who was quizzed on his knowledge, both William Spann and Oscar Vega (an Hispanic) testified that their interviews included the questions described by Tom Hogeland. Training Opportunities The city sponsors or pays for its employees' attendance at various training sessions and tries to insure that everyone has an opportunity for such training each year. Tom Hogeland generally makes the final decisions where there is a dispute about who can participate. As required by union contract, the educational opportunities are posted on the bulletin board, and commonly there is no dispute because selections for attendees are made on the basis of seniority and rotation. Selections are also made based on whether the opportunity relates to an individual's job. Mr. Santos alleges that he and other minorities were passed over in favor of white employees who were given training opportunities. He was selected, and attended, a pump school in Orlando, but he contends that the city denied any employee's attendance at another pump school when a number of minorities signed up for the school. Robert Klaproth has cancelled training opportunities twice, both in the wastewater treatment division. On one occasion the opportunity was posted and employees applied, but the school could not be approved because there was no money for it in the budget. On another occasion twenty people signed up, and when the union could not resolve who should go, the opportunity was cancelled. In neither case was race or ethnicity of the employees an issue. There is no evidence that race, age or ethnicity has been an issue in any decision by the city in providing training opportunities. Over-time Opportunities There are three types of overtime for employees in the sewer division. The first is a voluntary on-call overtime for which employees sign up and take one week at a time. During that week the employee forfeits his free time and must be available for emergency response. The second type of overtime is the scheduled emergency overtime which occurs when repairs need to be scheduled after hours when there is reduced demand on the system, or when an emergency occurs which cannot be handled by the on-call person, alone. The third type of overtime occurs when a job is not finished by quitting time and the crew needs to stay over to get the system back together. Generally the crew who starts the job has the opportunity to stay and finish it. Overtime is voluntary and is granted on rotation. The list is posted, by seniority, and when the individual's name comes up, the opportunity is offered, and if it is declined, the individual's name goes back to the bottom of the list. Overtime is compensated at time and a half, either in pay or compensatory time off, at the employee's option. There was a period during 1991 or 1992 when Mr. Santos declined overtime. He claims he declined because it was not being handled fairly, that the rotation was not being followed and that he was being passed over. Aside from some evidence that the overtime postings were removed from the employees' bulletin board for a brief period by some unknown person, there is no evidence that the union-prescribed rotation system was not followed. The 1992 records maintained by Greg Williams reflect a substantial amount of overtime available to Mr. Santos and no evidence that he or the other minorities in the division were being passed over. In 1993, Mr. Santos was provided more than the average amount of overtime hours provided to other employees in the sewer division. Disciplinary Incidents Mr. Santos has been disciplined on several occasions. On one occasion, he, Joseph Concepcion (an Hispanic) and Perry McThenney (Black) were disciplined for leaving the city limits in the city truck to buy some work shoes for Mr. Concepcion. Neither Mr. Concepcion nor Mr. McThenney considered the discipline unwarranted; they understood they violated city policy and did not consider the discipline as discriminatory. On another occasion, incentive points which were used to obtain a raise in pay were removed by the city after it learned that Mr. Santos forged the signatures of his supervisor and other employees on documents related to those incentive points. Mr. Santos freely admits the forgery but dismisses its significance, as he claims he was attending the classes on his own time, and received academic credit for the classes. These were classes taken in coordination with an on-job training program which required the periodic certification by the city that Mr. Santos was working as an electrical apprentice. In October 1992, Mr. Santos was given a written reprimand and leave without pay for taking a full day off for a medical appointment that was approved for a half-day. That discipline was rescinded after Mr. Santos explained to Robert Klaproth that he needed the day to go to the doctor, go to the bank to get money for his prescription and to buy the prescription. Other Hispanic employees have been disciplined from time to time. There is a union grievance procedure in place and it has been used by Mr. Santos and others. In some instances the grievance has been upheld and the discipline rescinded; in other cases the discipline has been upheld. No evidence was presented that the disciplinary process or grievance process have been used by the city to discriminate against Hispanics or other minorities; that is, no competent evidence was presented that white employees received less or no discipline for similar infractions. Ridicule, Harassment or Retaliation Claims Sewer collection division supervisor, Greg Williams, received complaints from other workers, including Joseph Concepcion, that Mr. Santos was taking the truck to make telephone calls or to go to the bathroom and the crew was left at the field site without a vehicle or tools. He also heard complaints that Mr. Santos was leaving to go to the bathroom right after the crew left the breakroom. Greg Williams spoke with crew leader, Bobby Lyons, about telling everyone, and not just Mr. Santos, that the crew members should check with the others before leaving to see if anyone else needed to go; and to be sure that tools and equipment were left at the job site. Greg Williams did not instruct Bobby Lyons to "escort" Mr. Santos to the bathroom. Bobby Lyons did go with Mr. Santos to the bathroom on two occasions after that. The record does not reflect whether Mr. Lyons also went to the bathroom or had other errands to run at the same time. The crews in the city water and sewer division are a diverse group, comprised of whites, blacks and Hispanics. The work can be rough and difficult, and there is ample opportunity for banter and joking to get out of hand. Mr. Santos was involved on several occasions in such verbal spats and was orally chastised, along with the other employee. In the course of one verbal exchange, he called Martin Koehler a "prick" and Koehler called him an "asshole." These are not racial or ethnic epithets. Mr. Santos also complained that Joseph Concepcion was calling him names. Mr. Concepcion, a Hispanic, was not harassing Mr. Santos because of his ethnicity. Two employees in particular in the water and sewer division were commonly heard to say "nigger," or to call Mr. Santos "Puerto Rican": Mike Carouso and Martin Koehler. When this language was brought to the attention of the supervisors, the men were reprimanded, either in writing (in Carouso's case) or verbally. When the union steward, Robert Bray, complained to Robert Klaproth that ethnic remarks were being made, Mr. Klaproth immediately convened a general meeting of the employees in the division and made it clear that such language would not be tolerated. Although it is obvious that the meeting did not cure the problem entirely, the name-calling and epithets did not take place in front of the supervisors. The city's policy is to discipline employees who engage in language that is derogatory to minorities and the city has taken severe action against two high-ranking employees, a police sergeant and a fire battalion chief, for single incidents of such language. Mr. Santos' claims of retaliation are not substantiated. The incidents of disciplinary action which he described were justified, or in the case of the medical leave, was properly rescinded after he explained the circumstances to his supervisors. None of the grievance proceedings described in Mr. Santos' testimony and in copious documents received in evidence, including transcripts of the proceedings, support his claims of retaliation or harassment. The Experience Of Other Minorities Carlos Colon is a sixty-two year old Hispanic employee in the city's park department. He was hired nine years ago, when he was fifty-three. He was disciplined once for accidently damaging a city tractor that he was driving, and he failed to receive a promotion for which he considered himself qualified, but he does not believe that the city or his supervisor discriminated against him. The top manager in the parks department is Felix Rodriquez, a Puerto Rican. Joseph Concepcion, also Puerto Rican, considers his ethnic background an asset because of his bi-lingual ability. He has been regularly promoted in his seven years with the city. He has not observed discrimination in the choice of employees for training, for promotions or for overtime. He has heard Martin Koehler use derogatory language regarding blacks and Hispanics, but not directly toward Mr. Santos and not when any supervisors were around. When he heard Mr. Koehler, a co-worker talking like that, Mr. Concepcion walked into the breakroom at lunch and invited anyone who did not like Puerto Ricans and blacks to come outside and "talk" to him. No one came out; and as far as he was concerned, that was the end of the issue. Perry McThenney is a black employee who has worked for the city for eight years and has been promoted three times. He has not experienced nor observed discrimination in promotions, overtime and training opportunities. Robert Bray, the union steward, is a black city employee. Mr. Santos complained frequently to him about racial slurs against his Hispanic origin but never complained about age discrimination. The one time that Mr. Bray went to Mr. Klaproth with the racial slur complaint, a meeting was held the next day to inform the entire division staff that such language would not be tolerated. Mr. Bray believes that the city should come up with some kind of sensitivity program, but he has not actually suggested that remedy to anyone yet. The employees whom Mr. Brag was aware had used derogatory language were the same two mentioned by Mr. Santos and others: Martin Koehler and Michael Carouso. Pedro Diaz, an Hispanic, was passed over for promotion in favor of a sixty year old white employee. At the time, Mr. Diaz felt he should have gotten the promotion because of his longer seniority with the city; however, he conceded that the successful employee could have had better experience. Mr. Diaz has been promoted by the city since then. Mr. Diaz encountered a series of problems with a supervisor who is no longer employed by the city. Since that supervisor left, no other management employee has given him a hard time or discriminated against him because of his ethnic background. Oscar Vega was born in Cuba and has worked for the city approximately 6-1/2 years. He has been promoted during that period. He has also applied for positions which he did not get; in one case, he was not qualified and agrees that the best person got the job; in another case, he filed a grievance with the help of Robert Bray and received the job. He feels the city has treated him fairly and has not discriminated against him based on his Hispanic origin. Summary of Findings The City of Melbourne has not discriminated against Emiliano Santos based on his age or ethnic origin. The demeanor and credibility of the witness have, in part, contributed to this finding. Specifically, the hearing officer has considered, and rejected, the suggestion that the presence of Robert Klaproth, as Respondent's representative, throughout the proceeding, influenced the testimony of the several black and Hispanic employees called as witnesses by Mr. Santos. There is no doubt that Mr. Santos is bitter and frustrated with his employment experience with the city. He has been subjected to other discipline or personnel action which, by stipulation, was not at issue in this proceeding. He has engaged in crude and disruptive verbal exchanges with co-workers. Whether he was the instigator of those exchanges or not, there is no evidence that they were racially or ethnically motivated. He has been disciplined for good cause, or when he explained the circumstances (as with the medical leave), the discipline was rescinded. He was passed over for a promotion, but did not have the requisite experience, and, as best as the city could determine, the successful applicant did have the experience. There was uncontroverted evidence that at least two non-supervisory employees have used racially derogatory or abusive language in the work place. They were disciplined, and the supervisors attempted to address the problem with a general meeting. Although the language continued, it was not because such was tolerated by the supervisors, and it was not so pervasive as to create an abusive or offensive work environment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Petition for Relief dated February 28, 1994, be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 5th day of April, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: James L. Reinman, Esquire 1825 S. Riverview Drive Melbourne, FL 32901 Susan K. W. Erlenbach, Esquire ERLENBACH AND ERLENBACH, P.A. 400 Julia Street Titusville, Florida 32796 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the discipline imposed on Petitioner, Alisha Fessel, by Respondent, City of Cape Coral (the "City"), was appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Based on the Stipulated Record, the following Findings of Fact are made: The City has the authority to monitor and regulate its employees in accordance with the laws and rules of the State of Florida, the City Charter, and ordinances and rules promulgated under the Charter. Ms. Fessel was employed by the City as an administrative secretary in the City's Police Department, and she was a member of the Union. Ms. Fessel had been counseled and disciplined on several occasions regarding her work performance and behavior pursuant to the City's personal rules and regulations as codified in the City of Cape Coral Code of Ordinances and the Cape Coral Police Department General Orders. All disciplinary proceedings against Ms. Fessel were initiated under the City of Cape Coral Code of Ordinances, Chapter 2, Article III, Division 7, entitled, Discipline of Regular Employees, and pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement between the City and the Union. On September 30, 2011, Ms. Fessel was placed on a 120-day performance improvement plan. On November 2, 2012, Ms. Fessel was suspended for 40 hours. On March 7, 2013, Ms. Fessel was placed on administrative leave with pay. On March 12, 2013, Ms. Fessel remained on paid administrative leave while the City conducted a pre-disciplinary hearing. On April 18, 2013, Ms. Fessel's employment with the City was terminated. The parties have stipulated: The underlying discipline is not being challenged; rather, Petitioner [Ms. Fessel] contends that the suspension with pay during the period March 7, 2013[,] up to and including April 18, 2013, constituted disciplinary action barring any further discipline (i.e., Fessel's termination on or about April 18, 2013) for the same actions.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was retaliated against in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA), chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner worked for FCTC for several years in several different positions, including as a career pathways supervisor, and most recently as a grant writer. FCTC was, for all times relevant to Petitioner’s allegations, a conversion charter technical center in St. Johns County, Florida, operating pursuant to a charter contract with the District by a privately organized 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, the First Coast Technical Institute (FCTI). On July 1, 2016, the District began operating the educational programs at FCTC, due to the dire financial situation which had developed at the college. In taking over the programs at FCTC, the District immediately recognized that the administrative staff at FCTC was bloated and needed to be streamlined. Further, because FCTC would now be operated by the District, the District endeavored to evaluate FCTC’s structure to determine how it could operate more like a District school, including with respect to personnel structure. The District set out to reorganize and restructure FCTC to align it with the District and address administrative redundancy and financial issues. To facilitate this transition and evaluation, the District placed all administrative employees at FCTC on temporary contracts, effective July 1, 2016. This decision was made sometime in June 2016. On the morning of July 1, 2016, all employees of FCTC were called to a meeting held by Dr. Joseph Joyner, the District Superintendent. At that meeting, Dr. Joyner introduced Cathy Mittelstadt as the interim principal. At the conclusion of the meeting, all administrative personnel, including Petitioner, were offered temporary employment contracts, for a term of approximately six months. The contracts could be terminated by either party with two weeks’ notice. No administrative employee was placed on a longer temporary contract. The temporary employment contracts, including Petitioner’s, began on July 1, 2016, and terminated on December 21, 2016. Petitioner’s temporary employment contract expressly incorporates District Board Rule 6.10(3). Board Rule 6.10(3) concerns temporary employment with the District, and provides that temporary employees work for a limited amount of time. The rule does not state that temporary employees enjoy an expectation of employment beyond the contract term. As the interim principal, Ms. Middelstadt was tasked by the District with evaluating the structure of FCTC to determine how it could be streamlined to address budget and financial issues and also bring it in line with how other District schools operated. The elimination of positions at FCTC was contemplated as part of this evaluation. Every administrative position at FCTC was evaluated for potential elimination. Ultimately, Ms. Mittelstadt was responsible for recommending to the District’s Executive Cabinet (Executive Cabinet) how FCTC should be restructured. As part of this process, Ms. Mittelstadt was also responsible for recommending to the Executive Cabinet those positions that would be eliminated as part of the restructuring process. The Executive Cabinet did not reject any of Ms. Mittelstadt’s recommendations, but rather, accepted them without change. The Executive Cabinet would not have taken any action with respect to any employee working at FCTC without a recommendation from Ms. Mittelstadt. Ms. Weber had limited involvement in the restructuring process. She provided ministerial assistance to Ms. Mittelstadt during this process, but she was not responsible for, or involved in, the decision as to how the school would be restructured, or for any recommendations regarding the same. FCTC employees were kept informed as to the status of restructuring during the process. Ms. Mittelstadt and Ms. Weber did not tell any administrative employee at FCTC, including Petitioner, that they could expect their contract would be renewed or that they would retain their positions past the term of their temporary employment contract. Petitioner understood that he was being appointed to a temporary employment contract not to extend past December 21, 2016. Ms. Mittelstadt made the determination as part of the restructuring process that Petitioner’s position should be eliminated, and that his temporary employment contract would be allowed to expire pursuant to its terms. Ms. Mittelstadt recommended this course of action to the Executive Cabinet, which approved it. Through Ms. Mittelstadt’s evaluation and assessment of the needs of FCTC, she determined that a full-time grant writer was not necessary for FCTC. Certain tasks related to grants obtained by the School District, including accounting related tasks, are handled in the District’s main office, and the remaining tasks related to grants are handled at particular schools by a different position, career specialists. Indeed, no other District school employs a full-time grant writer. In furtherance of the District’s decision to streamline administration at FCTC and realign it with how other District schools operated, Ms. Mittelstadt determined that the grant writer position occupied by Petitioner, as well as another type of position at FCTC, the program manager position, should be eliminated, and the duties performed within those positions subsumed within the career specialist position, as in other District schools. The District distributed a vacancy announcement for the Career Specialist position to all FCTC employees, including Petitioner. The announcement included a job description for the position. The job description and vacancy announcement were used to fill the position. The job description provides that grant writing and management, encompassing Petitioner’s duties as a grant writer, are part of the duties, among others, of a career specialist. Petitioner did not apply for this position. Petitioner was informed at a meeting on November 18, 2016, that his contract would be allowed to expire effective December 21, 2016, and not renewed. Present at this meeting, in addition to Petitioner, were Ms. Mittelstadt, Ms. Weber, and Brennan Asplen, the District’s Deputy Superintendent for Academic & Student Services. At the meeting, Petitioner was provided a notice indicating that his temporary employment contract was expiring pursuant to its terms. Petitioner was permitted to work through the remainder of his contract term with no diminution in benefits or pay. Petitioner requested to be placed in another position at FCTC at this time, but was informed there were no vacancies posted for him to be moved to, that the District was not placing non-renewed employees into positions, and that he could apply to any position he liked when it was posted. One position, a Case Manager in the Career Pathways program, was funded from a grant, and that position was technically vacant under the grant. However, FCTC was in a hiring freeze at the time, as Ms. Mittelstadt made the decision to not fill the Case Manager position given, and during, the extensive realignment and assessment of FCTC whose budget was being scrutinized at a deep level. The District did not place any other non-renewed employees into positions. The Case Manager position was eventually advertised in April 2017. Petitioner did not apply for the position despite being informed of it and having nothing restricting him from doing so. Petitioner’s work performance played no role in the decision to eliminate his position. Ms. Mittelstadt and Ms. Weber both indicated that they did not retaliate against Petitioner for any reason. In fact, Petitioner was not the only person whose position was eliminated. Ms. Mittelstadt also recommended that six or seven other positions also be eliminated. Furthermore, approximately 12 to 15 FCTC employees resigned, and their positions were eliminated. Had those employees not resigned, their positions still would have been eliminated and those employees’ contracts would have been allowed to expire. Petitioner filed the complaint or charge, at issue in this proceeding, with the FCHR on December 22, 2016 (December 22nd Complaint). In it, Petitioner alleges that he was retaliated against in violation of the FCRA. While Petitioner was not represented by counsel at the time that he filed the December 22nd Complaint, he obtained representation from a lawyer thereafter, and during the FCHR’s investigation of this complaint. This was not Petitioner’s first complaint filed with FCHR concerning his work at FCTC. Just before the District began operating the programs at FCTC, and specifically on June 27, 2016, Petitioner filed a complaint (June 27th Complaint) with the FCHR also alleging retaliation. The June 27th Complaint was received by the FCHR on June 28, 2016. Petitioner introduced no evidence showing that at the time the decision was made to place individuals on temporary employment contracts, that the District was aware of his June 27th Complaint. Petitioner alleges in the December 22nd Complaint that the District terminated his employment because he engaged in protected activity under the FCRA. Petitioner does not allege in the complaint that he was subjected to a hostile work environment or harassment due to any retaliatory animus on the part of the District. Rather, Petitioner only alleges that he believes he frustrated his supervisor at various times, not that he was subjected to a hostile work environment. On August 17, 2017, the FCHR issued a no-cause determination. On September 20, 2017, Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief from Unlawful Employment Practice, initiating the instant proceeding. In the Petition, Petitioner largely alleges that he believes the District submitted false information to the FCHR and that the District was guilty of various acts of fraud and abuses. Specifically, Petitioner alleged: Not only did the SJCSD lie about its relationship with FCTC, the SJCSD deliberately lied about my position working collaboratively with other SJCSD personnel assigned to grants administration and my unique ability to assist the SJCSD in avoiding mistakes that they were driven to make, mistakes that rose to the point that they became criminal. The SJCSD committed to a path of making such criminal errors with federal funds and falsifying their account of why they fired me. I have assembled sufficient evidence to show that the SJCSD is guilty of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and that they fired me as a whistle blower having abundant evidence of their crimes committed against the public interest for the personal benefit of key administrators. In his Petition, Petitioner did not identify reasons why he believes the FCHR’s “No Reasonable Cause” finding was without merit. And other than his alleged retaliatory firing, Petitioner does not identify any other adverse effects that he suffered as a result of the SJCSD “criminal” activities, or allege that he was subjected to a hostile work environment. Petitioner alleged for the first time at hearing that the District subjected him to a hostile work environment in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. He alleged this hostile work environment centered on three actions. First, that the District did not provide him a copy of a harassment complaint filed by another employee concerning him in a timely manner, and did not set up the meetings he requested to address that complaint the way he wished. Second, that District personnel did not provide him access to “SunGard” software. And, third, that District officials asked him to sign a form related to grants that he did not wish to sign. Regarding the first allegation, sometime prior to July 1, 2016, Renee Staufaccher filed a complaint with Stephanie Thomas regarding Petitioner’s conduct. This complaint was lodged while the District was not operating the programs at FCTC. District officials told Petitioner that complaints lodged during this time period should be referred to FCTI. Once the District began operating the programs at FCTC, Petitioner reached out to Ms. Weber for a copy of Ms. Staufaccher’s complaint. Ms. Weber took steps to obtain that complaint, and it was provided to Petitioner within roughly two weeks of his request, despite Ms. Weber being out of the office one of those weeks. Petitioner requested to meet with Ms. Staufaccher and Ms. Thomas regarding the nature of the complaint and his concerns about whether the complaint was authentic. Ms. Staufaccher was no longer employed at FCTC within a matter of days of this request. Petitioner also requested to meet with Ms. Thomas only a matter of days before she ceased working at FCTC. Petitioner was not afforded the meeting or other items requested because the matter concerned old, not ongoing events occurring prior to the time the District began operating FCTC. Petitioner did not interact with, or report to, Ms. Staufaccher or Ms. Thomas during this time, and neither supervised him. Petitioner never disclosed to the District that he was suffering continued harassment at the hands of Ms. Staufaccher or Ms. Thomas subsequent to July 1, 2016. Petitioner offered no evidence that his request was handled differently from any other District employee, and Ms. Weber credibly testified he was treated the same as any other District employee in this regard. Regarding the second allegation, Petitioner alleged at the hearing that the District did not provide him access to SunGard, a computer program that had some relation to the performance of his job duties. At hearing, Petitioner represented that he was never provided access to this program. However, he later conceded that he did have access to this program during his employment. Specifically, prior to being given direct access to this program, Petitioner was provided access to the information in the program through the assistance of another District employee. This provided Petitioner with access to the information he needed to perform his job, including generating reports. Accordingly, it was not necessary for Petitioner to have direct access to SunGard to perform his job duties. The District was not authorizing extensive access to SunGard during this time because it was in the process of creating new systems and processes to bring FCTC in line with the District’s standards. In short, Petitioner was still able to perform his job, despite his complaint that he was not given direct access to SunGard. As to Petitioner’s third complaint, on or about October 2016, Jena Young, formerly employed in the District’s accounting office, asked Petitioner to sign a form related to grant accounting. Ms. Young was not Petitioner’s supervisor. Petitioner stated that he did not want to sign the form because he believed there was incorrect information on the form. Petitioner was not forced to sign the form, and was not told he must sign the form or face adverse consequences. Ultimately, he did not sign the form. The District maintains a rule governing harassment in the workplace. The rule provides a complaint procedure for employees to complain of harassment. The rule provides multiple avenues for employees to report harassment, and provides that complaints will be investigated and discipline meted out for employees impermissibly harassing others in violation of the rule. The rule prohibits retaliation against an employee who files a complaint. Notably, Petitioner never filed a harassment complaint about conduct occurring subsequent to July 1, 2016, despite his being aware of the rule. Petitioner’s protected activity at issue in this case concerns his June 27th Complaint and varied grievances that he filed while he was an employee at FCTC prior to July 1, 2016. Petitioner only offered three grievances into evidence--his first grievance, his ninth grievance and his tenth grievance-- all lodged prior to July 1, 2016, and all concerning the conduct of administrators at FCTC while it was still operated by FCTI and not the District. Petitioner’s first grievance was filed on May 21, 2015, alleging that FCTC’s then-president, Sandra Fortner, engaged in nepotism by hiring her friends and family, and that he experienced a hostile work environment because a co-worker, William Waterman, was rude to him in meetings and in e-mails. Petitioner does not allege in this grievance that he was being discriminated against on the basis of a protected class or that he believed anyone else was being discriminated against or adversely affected because of their protected class. Petitioner’s ninth and tenth grievances, both filed on June 13, 2016, allege that Ms. Fortner engaged in nepotism by hiring her associates, and that Stephanie Thomas, FCTC’s Human Resources Director, and Ms. Stauffacher, were complicit in that nepotism. Indeed, Petitioner testified that the thrust of these grievances was that members of potential protected classes did not get to interview for jobs at FCTC, not because of those protected classes, but because they were not Ms. Fortner’s friends or family. Ms. Mittelstadt had not seen the grievances that Petitioner filed, and had no knowledge of the June 27th Complaint when she determined that his contract be allowed to expire pursuant to its terms and his position eliminated. Petitioner introduced no evidence that Ms. Mittelstadt ever saw any of his grievances or the June 27th Complaint at the time she made the decision to eliminate his position. Ms. Mittelstadt credibly testified that none of Petitioner’s grievances, requests for grievances, e-mails related to grievances, or his June 27th Complaint played any role in her recommendation that his position be eliminated.
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 the Petition for Relief filed by Gregory R. Lulkoski in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2019, 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 28th day of June, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Gregory Ryan Lulkoski 212 River Island Circle St. Augustine, Florida 32095 (eServed) Michael P. Spellman, Esquire Sniffen & Spellman, P.A. 123 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Jeffrey Douglas Slanker, Esquire Sniffen & Spellman, P.A. 123 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Robert J. Sniffen, Esquire Sniffen & Spellman, P.A. 123 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a Class "D" Security Officer.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for the administration of Chapter 493, Florida Statutes, including the licensure of Class "D" Security Officers. Petitioner applied for licensure as a Class "D" Security Officer. Pending the processing of that application, Petitioner became employed as a security guard for approximately five months. By letter dated February 21, 1996, Petitioner was notified by Respondent that his application for a Class "D" license was, subject to his due process rights, going to be denied based on his conviction of battery in St. Lucie County in September 1993. Respondent asserted that the conviction was of a crime directly related to the business for which the license is sought within the meaning of Section 493.6118(1)(c), Florida Statutes. Respondent also asserted that the facts relating to that conviction establish that Petitioner had committed an act of violence or used force on another person which was not for the lawful protection of himself or another within the meaning of Section 493.6118(1)(j), Florida Statutes. On September 14, 1993, Petitioner was convicted by a jury of a misdemeanor count of battery. The victim of the battery was Thomas Coburn. Petitioner was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 15 days in the county jail, one year probation, and 50 hours of community service. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Thomas Coburn was employed by the City of Port St. Lucie, Florida, as a city code enforcement officer. The code enforcement division is administered by the City of Port St. Lucie Police Department. Mr. Coburn was not a sworn law enforcement officer. On Sunday, May 16, 1993, Mr. Coburn was acting in his official capacity as a city code enforcement officer. He was wearing a badge, name plate, and collar pins with the initials P.S.L. He was in an official uniform that had patches with the inscription "Port St. Lucie, Fla. Police." He was driving a marked vehicle that reflected he was with the city code enforcement department. Shortly after noon on May 16, 1993, Mr. Coburn went to the personal residence of the Petitioner for the purpose of serving upon Petitioner a notice to appear pertaining to several alleged code violations. Petitioner was home with his wife, his teenage stepson, and his five year old son. When Mr. Coburn arrived, Petitioner was about to begin a barbecue. When the stepson came to the door in response to Mr. Coburn knock on the door, Mr. Coburn asked to speak to Petitioner. The teenage stepson went inside to get the Petitioner. Mr. Coburn did not see the stepson or another member of Petitioner's family after the Petitioner came to the door. When Petitioner came to the door, Mr. Coburn identified himself as a code enforcement officer and told Petitioner he was there to deliver the notice to appear. Mr. Coburn's vehicle was parked on the street so that Petitioner could see the markings on the vehicle. Petitioner became irate and shouted profanities at Mr. Coburn. Petitioner told Mr. Coburn that he could not serve official papers on a Sunday and ordered him off his property. There is a conflict in the evidence as to what next occurred. Petitioner testified that Mr. Coburn bumped him in the chest as the two of them argued. Mr. Coburn testified that he backed away from Petitioner and began to leave the premises. The more credible version of the events is that given by Mr. Coburn. Consequently, it is found that there was no physical contact initiated by Mr. Coburn. As he was backing away and preparing to leave the premises, Mr. Coburn placed the notice to appear on the barbecue grill that was in the area where the two men were standing. After he placed the notice to appear on the barbecue grill, Mr. Coburn turned to walk away. Petitioner then kicked Mr. Coburn in the buttocks. It was Petitioner's act of kicking Mr. Coburn that resulted in his subsequent arrest and conviction. There was no one else in the area around Petitioner's front door at the time of this incident. There was insufficient evidence to establish that Petitioner was acting in defense of himself or of others when he kicked Mr. Coburn. Petitioner has not been convicted of any other crime. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was an approved process server within the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida. Petitioner worked as a security guard for the five months preceding the denial of his application. There were no incidents of violence during that five month period.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that the final order deny Petitioner's application for a Class "D" license. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Michele Guy, Esquire Department of State, Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station No. 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Edward B. Galante, Esquire 789 South Federal Highway, No. 103 Stuart, Florida 34994 Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, City of Edgewater (the City), committed unlawful employment practices contrary to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2013),1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on her age, gender, and/or disability by the manner in which the City terminated Petitioner’s employment. Also at issue is whether Petitioner’s termination was in retaliation for Petitioner’s complaints regarding discriminatory conduct by her immediate superior.
Findings Of Fact The City is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a white female who was over the age of 40 during the events relevant to this proceeding. Petitioner was hired by the City as a part-time animal control officer on June 9, 1993. At the time Petitioner was hired, animal control was part of the City’s police department. On October 15, 1993, Petitioner was transferred to a full-time position as records clerk/telecommunicator in the police department. Petitioner maintained the department’s records and answered all police calls, including 911 calls. She dispatched officers and emergency personnel. Petitioner testified that this was a desk job with no real physical requirements beyond walking to a window to deal with members of the public. She received excellent evaluations and stayed in this position until early 1999. While working this job, Petitioner obtained police training at Daytona State College. Upon graduation, Petitioner applied for a job as a police officer with the City. On February 19, 1999, the City hired Petitioner as a police officer. Petitioner was promoted to sergeant on May 7, 2006, and served in that position until her demotion following an altercation with a female detainee in the City’s holding facility on June 16, 2011. Petitioner was continuously employed by the City for 18 years and eight months. During her employment, she received regular pay increases and numerous commendations. Over the years, she received three written warnings and one demotion, from sergeant to officer after the incident on June 16, 2011. Chief of Police David Arcieri characterized her disciplinary record as good in light of Petitioner’s length of service. During the course of her employment, Petitioner had multiple health problems. In 2001, during work-related mountain bike training, Petitioner suffered a fall that badly injured her shoulder.3/ Petitioner had surgery and recalled that she missed at least four months of work. When she came back to work, Petitioner was unable to perform the normal duties of a police officer. She was allowed to return in a light-duty desk position, working with the City’s chief of grants. She worked in this position for approximately six months before returning to regular duty as a police officer. In 2004, Petitioner was diagnosed with lupus and rheumatoid arthritis (“RA”). Petitioner testified that she freely discussed her condition with her co-workers because of the problems she had establishing a medication regime that did not cause allergic reactions. Until late 2011, she was forced to give herself painful injections in the stomach. She now has a port implanted that allows her to take the medications via infusion. Chief Arcieri confirmed that it was common knowledge in the City’s police force that Petitioner had lupus. Petitioner testified that she missed very little work because of the lupus and RA. She requested no accommodations in the workplace for these conditions. Sometime in 2009, Petitioner underwent neck surgery to repair a disc “that was almost gone.” Petitioner recalled discussing her condition with then-Sergeant Arcieri4/ prior to the surgery. They talked about the fact that her doctors were unsure whether the neck condition had been brought on by her RA. Petitioner testified that she was out of work for two or three months due to this surgery, but did not require a light-duty assignment when she reported back to her position. On September 22, 2009, Petitioner was at work conducting a witness interview when her nose began bleeding uncontrollably. A fellow officer drove her to the emergency room. Another city employee came to the emergency room to make sure Petitioner got home safely. At the hospital, Petitioner was diagnosed with hypertension. She missed several days of work and was placed on medications to control her blood pressure. City Manager Tracey Barlow testified that he was contemporaneously aware of Petitioner’s hypertension. Petitioner requested no workplace accommodations for her hypertension. In early 2010, Petitioner was out of work for a time with uncontrolled vomiting and diarrhea. Petitioner’s physician, Dr. Beatrice Bratu, diagnosed her condition as stress-induced colitis. Petitioner testified that her treatments for the colitis lasted about three months but that she was back at work within a few weeks. On March 15, 2010, Personnel Director Donna Looney addressed the following email to Petitioner: We are very pleased to see you back and doing well! I am in receipt of a note from Dr. Bratu which indicated you may return to work. I want to stress that we understand the necessity for you to follow your doctor’s instructions. No restrictions are noted; therefore you are allowed to continue your regular duties. Please be advised that you have a continuing obligation not to work when you are feeling impaired (fatigue, weakness, pain, etc.). It is City policy that if you expect to have any adverse side effect while taking medication, you must inform your supervisor, and you are never to drive a City vehicle when you are feeling impaired. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Petitioner requested no workplace accommodation related to her colitis. On June 16, 2011, Petitioner was involved in an altercation with a 28-year-old female detainee at the City police station. Several officers submitted witness statements about the incident and police station video cameras captured the essentials of the acts that occurred. The video recording did not include sound. The detainee, J.G., had been arrested for battery and was by all accounts heavily intoxicated and belligerent. J.G. asked to go to the bathroom. Petitioner let her out of the cell and escorted her to the bathroom. The video shows Petitioner standing in the open doorway of the bathroom, waiting for J.G. to finish. Petitioner told the police department’s internal affairs investigator that J.G. asked for tampons. Petitioner responded that the police department did not keep such items and that she would have to clean up as best she could with the materials available in the bathroom. J.G. replied that she could not put back on the shorts she had been wearing. She stated they were not her shorts and they were bloody. Petitioner told her that she had to put the shorts back on. At this point, the video shows the shorts flying out of the bathroom and landing behind Petitioner, who kicked them back into the bathroom and stepped into the doorway. J.G., stepping into camera range, picked up the shorts and threw them at Petitioner. The shorts hit Petitioner along her beltline. Petitioner took a step forward and struck J.G. in the face with her open right hand. J.G. pushed forward momentarily, but retreated into the bathroom as Petitioner continued to advance. At this point, Officer Eric Selvaggio entered the picture to assist. For a period of roughly forty seconds, all three people were inside the bathroom, invisible to the camera. The doors then opened, and the three emerged. The two police officers guided the handcuffed J.G. toward a point outside the range of the camera. J.G. wore only a shirt and underwear. The video next cut to an empty holding cell. Petitioner and Officer Selvaggio entered the picture, guiding the handcuffed J.G. toward the cell. J.G. continued to struggle with the officers. She dropped to the ground. The officers pulled her to her feet and pushed her into the cell. J.G. kicked at Petitioner. The camera angle made it impossible to see whether there was contact, but Petitioner stated at the time, and has consistently maintained since the incident, that J.G. kicked her in the stomach. Immediately after the kick, Petitioner attempted to push her way past Officer Selvaggio toward J.G. Petitioner drew back her right fist but Officer Selvaggio’s left arm blocked her from throwing a punch. He pushed Petitioner away and then secured J.G. in the holding cell. Though there is no sound on the video, it is clear that Petitioner and J.G. continued an animated conversation after J.G. was locked in the cell. Multiple police witnesses recalled Petitioner calling J.G. a “fucking bitch.” Petitioner and the other officers on duty went out the back door to discuss the situation. The video appears to show Petitioner performing a joking reenactment of her attempted punch at J.G. Officer Selvaggio stated to the investigator that Petitioner told him she might not charge J.G. for the incident, but he replied that under the circumstances it would be best if she did follow through with charges. Petitioner filled out a charging affidavit against J.G., charging her with battery on a law enforcement officer, in violation of section 784.07(2)(b), Florida Statutes. In her charging affidavit, Petitioner wrote as follows, in relevant part, verbatim: On June 16, 2011 at approximately 12:45 a.m., the defendant, [J.G.] was in police custody at the Edgewater Police Department on a battery charge from a previous police call. The defendant requested to use the bathroom and was escorted to the bathroom by me. The defendant was upset over being arrested, while sitting on the toilet, she kicked off her shorts and threw them out of the restroom stating that she was not putting them back on as they were not hers and were soiled from her menstrual cycle. I pushed the shorts back into the restroom with my foot and advised her she needed to put them back on, she screamed she was not going to. When the defendant rose from the toilet, she picked up the shorts and threw them directly into my face, striking me with the shorts. The defendant then pushed herself up against the sink and began calling me a bitch and telling me again she was not putting the shorts back on and she was leaving. I entered and attempted to get her out of the bathroom, she began to punch at me. Myself and Officer Selvaggio, who was standing nearby, grabbed hold of the defendant in an effort to get her out of the bathroom. The defendant struggled against us, before we got her to the floor and secured her. As we were getting her back into the cell, the defendant threw herself onto the bench and kicked out striking me in the stomach with her right foot. The defendant was left in the cell with no shorts on and in handcuffs . . . . It should be noted that Petitioner’s charging affidavit states that J.G. hit her in the face with the bloody shorts, when in fact the shorts hit Petitioner in the waist area. Petitioner failed to mention that she slapped J.G. in the bathroom or that Petitioner attempted to punch J.G. in the holding cell. Chief Arcieri testified that when he came in later that morning, he reviewed all of the reports filed since the previous day. Petitioner’s report caught his eye because it involved battery on a law enforcement officer inside the station house. He instructed his assistant to pull the video of the incident and make one copy for him and one for Petitioner. When he saw the video, Chief Arcieri notified the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (“FDLE”) and requested an investigation. Chief Arcieri testified that he went to FDLE because he thought criminal charges could ensue in the case and that he does not like to investigate criminal matters internally. He also ordered an internal affairs investigation, but placed it on hold pending the outcome of the FDLE investigation. On June 21, 2011, Petitioner was placed on paid administrative leave for the duration of the investigations. J.G. refused to cooperate with the FDLE investigators. Without a victim willing to go forward, no criminal charges could be brought against Petitioner. The FDLE investigation was dropped. The internal affairs investigation was completed on August 15, 2011. The investigator’s written report concluded as follows: Sgt. Winston did commit the act of perjury on an official felony charging affidavit. Sgt. Winston did in fact using her hand strike a prisoner in the face which caused her to fall back onto the sink. Sgt. Winston did reach her right arm over the shoulder of Officer Selvaggio in an attempt to strike a handcuffed prisoner which Officer Selvaggio was attempting to secure inside the holding cell. Sgt. Winston did violate Edgewater Police [sic] & Procedure by removing a prisoner, removing the prisoner’s handcuffs without another officer present and allowed the prisoner to use the restroom. Sgt. Winston violated Edgewater Policy & Procedure by entering the cell/booking area wearing both her issued side arm as well as her issued taser. Sgt. Winston violated Edgewater Police [sic] & Procedure by openly criticizing the policy of securing any and all weapons prior to entering the booking/cell area when prisoners are present. This was done openly in the presence of fellow officers. Sgt. Winston violated City Policy and Procedure 12.02 Inappropriate/Unacceptable Behavior. Sgt. Winston did violate Edgewater Police Department Policy & Procedure Excessive force not resulting in injury. Petitioner was represented by counsel for the Fraternal Order of Police (“FOP”) in defending herself against the allegations that resulted from the internal affairs investigation. Negotiations ensued between the City and Petitioner to resolve the matter short of litigation. A settlement agreement was reached and executed on August 24, 2011. Petitioner agreed to findings that some of the allegations were sustained.5/ Petitioner agreed to a demotion from sergeant to officer, effective August 19, 2011, with a resulting salary cut, and she agreed to attend anger management courses. On August 24, 2011, Chief Arcieri ordered Petitioner to report for duty at 6:00 a.m. the following morning. Petitioner called in sick and did not report for work on August 25, 2011. Ms. Looney, the personnel director, contacted Petitioner to find out why she was not reporting for work. Petitioner told Ms. Looney that she had sustained a back injury during the altercation with J.G. on June 16, 2011. Ms. Looney testified that this was the first she knew of Petitioner’s back injury. In a letter dated August 24, 2011, and received by Chief Arcieri on August 25, 2011, Petitioner’s personal workers’ compensation attorney wrote as follows, in relevant part: As you know, Ms. Winston is an 18 year employee with our [sic] agency who was recently in an altercation with a belligerent, drunken female on June 16, 2011. Ms. Winston was injured during the arrest but was placed on Administrative leave pending an internal investigation and the matter has not been reported as an injury as of yet. Ms. Winston was not aware that she had injured her low back immediately due to circumstances surrounding the altercation and the typical adrenaline response resulting from such an altercation. She thought she was just sore from being beat up a bit but as the weeks went by her condition worsened. A recent MRI has revealed two herniated discs in the lower back and Ms. Winston does require medical treatment for this work related injury. I am requesting at this time that the Agency immediately file a First Report of injury on behalf of Ms. Winston. This should be considered notice under Chapter 440 of the work related injury. In addition to the back injury, Ms. Winston now suffers from uncontrolled high blood pressure which is also disabling. Ms. Winston will be receiving a letter from her doctor indicating that she is unable to work due to her uncontrolled blood pressure at this juncture. That is also a work related claim under F.S. 112.18, more popularly known as the “Heart/Lung Bill.” This claim should also be processed and medical care should be provided as soon as possible. Please see that a First Report of Injury is completed with regard to this claim . . . . In a related claim, Ms. Winston also has a September 22, 2009 uncontrolled hypertension incident which resulted in hospitalization. As you know, the 2009 accident occurred while Ms. Winston was interviewing a sex crime victim. She was experiencing a severe headache and then had an uncontrollable nose bleed during the interview. The blood pressure reading at the time revealed her blood pressure was severely elevated and she was taken to the hospital. This incident should have triggered the immediate filing of a First Report of Injury under F.S. 112.18 as referenced above. For whatever reason, no First Report of Injury was filed but I am requesting that you file such a First Report of Injury immediately on Ms. Winston’s behalf and that you provide appropriate medical care for this condition . . . . Finally, Ms. Winston advises me that she has been under an internal investigation since the June, 2011 incident. This internal investigation appears to be entirely inappropriate given the circumstances surrounding this event and would appear to be part of an intimidation practice on the part of your Agency, which is in clear violation of F.S. 440.205. As I am sure you know, 440.205 prohibits the harassment, intimidation, retaliation, or termination of an employee by virtue of a workers’ compensation claim. Needless to say, Ms. Winston has numerous ongoing workers’ compensation claims and it appears that all of the harassment which she has been subjected to since the time the internal investigation was opened in this matter appears to be directly attributable to her ongoing workers’ compensation issues. It should also be noted that Ms. Winston is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder as a result of this recent altercation and all of the fallout related to same. As I am sure you are well aware, post traumatic stress disorder of this nature is also covered for First Responders under the auspices of F.S. 112.1815. I am requesting again that a First Report of Injury be filed relative to this issue and that appropriate medical care be provided. Ms. Winston is entitled to full pay as she was injured during an altercation with a violent individual. Full pay is appropriate pursuant to the provisions of F.S. 440.15(11). This means that she should be receiving a regular paycheck without deduction of sick or vacation bank time. Please see that the appropriate adjustment is made relative to payment of benefits and feel free to contact me with any question . . . . On August 30, 2011, Petitioner submitted three “Incident/Accident Information Forms” to the City in regard to her workers’ compensation claims. The first states that Petitioner suffered an injury to her lower back on June 16, 2011, when “an intoxicated combative prisoner . . . kicked me in my stomach just above my gun belt.” The second describes “stress” as the injury, dated June 28, 2011, caused by “constant harassment & belittled by Dave Arcieri.” The third form states that the date of injury was September 22, 2009, the injury was “blood pressure caused bleeding of the nose,” and describes the incident in terms similar to those used in the attorney’s letter of June 24, 2011. Petitioner testified that she still sees a psychiatrist once a month and goes to counseling every two weeks, but that she first sought mental health counseling in June 2011 because of problems with Chief Arcieri that dated from long before he became chief. She testified that “he would cuss me out, call me names, have people that were subordinates watching me and reporting back to him to make sure I didn’t breathe the wrong way.” Petitioner testified that Chief Arcieri’s animus toward her dated from her handling of a situation as a sergeant that led to the firing of an officer. A member of Petitioner’s squad reported to her that an officer in another squad stole property from a civilian during a traffic stop and then gave him the stolen item. Petitioner told the officer to file a report and drop the item into evidence and that she would meet with the other officer’s sergeant. The other officer’s sergeant required him to write a report. The officer lied in the report. Petitioner and the other sergeant brought the matter to the attention of their superiors. After an investigation, the department had no choice but to fire the officer. At a sergeants’ meeting a little while later, then- Administrative Sergeant Arcieri said that Petitioner was incompetent. If she had handled the situation differently, Sergeant Arcieri would not have had to fire a good officer. Petitioner asked how the department could tolerate a lying thief in its midst. Sergeant Arcieri told her that the officer could have been reprimanded in some other way. Petitioner testified that she was afraid of Chief Arcieri because of threats he made to her. He made it clear to her and to any other officer who thought about reporting something to Ms. Looney or Mr. Barlow that these officials would let him know and the snitch would pay a price. On September 27, 2011, Petitioner sent an email to Michelle Grenham, Chief Arcieri’s secretary, stating that she would be unable to attend the anger management class required by the settlement agreement because she was undergoing major surgery on September 28 at Halifax Hospital in Daytona Beach. Ms. Grenham forwarded the email to Chief Arcieri and Ms. Looney. Petitioner underwent surgery on September 28, 2011, to repair the herniated discs in her back. Petitioner testified that prior to the surgery, she had difficulty walking, standing, bending at the waist, reaching, and climbing stairs due to the pain in her back. She was able to drive a car but only for short distances. She did not have full control of her bladder and bowels. She could only sleep by putting herself in a fetal position then bracing herself with pillows to keep her in that position. Petitioner described the surgery as less than a complete success. She had numbness in her right leg, was unable to bend, squat, kneel or stretch, and could not sit for very long. She eventually required spinal injections and the surgical insertion of a morphine pump in her stomach for pain in her spine. The morphine pump was still in place at the time of the hearing. Physicians also implanted a spinal cord stimulator in her back. She regained control of her excretory functions but was unable to walk without the use of a walker for several months and a cane thereafter. She wore a back brace most of the time. On November 29, 2011, Petitioner and her husband met with Mr. Barlow and Ms. Looney to discuss Petitioner’s medical situation and when she might return to work. The meeting was held at Petitioner’s request. Petitioner testified that she came into the meeting wearing a back brace and using a walker. Her husband had to drive her to the meeting. Petitioner testified that she asked for the meeting to find out if she could get an extended leave until her physician cleared her to go back to work. She also wanted to discuss Chief Arcieri’s harassment and belittling of her. At the meeting, Petitioner told Mr. Barlow that she didn’t know how long the healing process would take or whether she would need additional surgeries. Petitioner testified that Mr. Barlow told her it might be in her best interest to retire, in light of her age and her many health problems, including RA, lupus, hypertension, and now the back injury. Mr. Barlow stated that it seemed to him that Petitioner didn’t have anything that was going to go away, and that anyone with a back injury would have issues with it for life. Mr. Barlow asked whether Petitioner really thought she could ever come back as a police officer. Petitioner could only say that she didn’t know. Petitioner testified that she told Mr. Barlow that she hoped to reach retirement as a police officer but that she was willing to take another position with the City if her physical limitations kept her from returning to her former position. Petitioner testified that she told Mr. Barlow that she had a doctor’s appointment on May 3, 2012, and that Mr. Barlow promised to give her a leave of absence until that appointment. Petitioner’s husband, Ricky Winston, testified that at the meeting, his wife explained her injuries to Mr. Barlow and complained about Chief Arcieri’s constant ridicule and badgering. Mr. Winston stated that Mr. Barlow had a calendar and some paper and a calculator that he was using to diligently figure out something. It turned out that Mr. Barlow was calculating the date of Petitioner’s full retirement, with the idea of carrying her on the City’s employment roster until then. Mr. Winston testified that he left the meeting with the understanding that Mr. Barlow had agreed to grant Petitioner unpaid leave until she reached retirement. Mr. Winston recalled that Mr. Barlow listed all of Petitioner’s physical problems and asked why she didn’t just quit. Mr. Winston testified that this question was devastating to his wife because she never had any intention of leaving the job she loved. Ms. Looney testified that she did not recall Mr. Barlow mentioning any of Petitioner’s physical infirmities aside from her back injury. She did not recall Mr. Barlow using a calculator or calendar during the meeting or stating a date for Petitioner’s retirement. Ms. Looney stated that the goal was for Petitioner to return from her next doctor’s appointment with a physician’s statement as to when she could return to work, whether at full or light duty. Ms. Looney’s assumption, based on Petitioner’s condition, was that Petitioner would return to light duty at first. Mr. Barlow explicitly stated that the City wanted Petitioner to return to work, either full or light duty. Ms. Looney testified that she believed everyone at the meeting understood that Petitioner wanted to return to light duty and that the police department would try to find light duty restricted work for Petitioner when her doctor cleared her to return. Petitioner would remain on unpaid leave until her next doctor’s appointment in January 2012, at which time the City would need to know whether she could return to work. Petitioner had given Ms. Looney light duty notes from physicians in the past, which led Ms. Looney to assume that Petitioner understood what she needed to provide to the City. Ms. Looney stated that Mr. Barlow did not promise to keep Petitioner’s job open until May 2012. Mr. Barlow recalled almost nothing about the November 29, 2011, meeting with Petitioner. The only relevant specific testimony he provided on the subject was a denial that he told Petitioner that she could have a leave of absence until May 2012. However, given his lack of recall as to anything else that transpired in the meeting, Mr. Barlow’s testimony on this single point is not credited. The testimony of Petitioner and her husband regarding the statements made at the November 29, 2011, meeting is credited as to Mr. Barlow’s discussing Petitioner’s retirement and as to the fact that a discussion of Chief Arcieri’s behavior toward Petitioner occurred. On these points, Petitioner and Mr. Winston were credible, consistent witnesses. Ms. Looney’s testimony on these points was confused and equivocal. Mr. Barlow’s testimony was of little use at all as he claimed to remember virtually nothing about the meeting. However, the testimony of Petitioner and her husband cannot be credited as to the matter of Mr. Barlow’s promise to give Petitioner a leave of absence until May 3, 2012. Even disregarding Mr. Barlow’s convenient memory on this point, Petitioner’s testimony and that of her husband diverged on the ground for the leave of absence. Petitioner testified that Mr. Barlow gave her until May 3, 2012, because that was the date of her next doctor’s appointment. Mr. Winston vaguely recalled that a date was mentioned, either March or May, and that this date was based on Mr. Barlow’s calculation of Petitioner’s retirement date. Petitioner’s claim that Mr. Barlow gave her until May 2012 is further undercut by documentary evidence. On January 26, 2012, Petitioner sent Ms. Looney an email that stated as follows, in relevant part: Call me when you get the chance, I have prescriptions to pick up and get fitted for another brace, but I am going to need to take a leave of absence for a bit. Dr. Vinas [Petitioner’s surgeon] is not releasing me for duty at this time . . ., I will be going into a new brace and will be going to pain management for epidural injections in my spine. I have attached the letter from Dr. Vinas, as well as a copy of the medications I will be taking. My next appointment with him will be May 03/2012 unless the Dr. at the pain management center feels I need further surgery. I have no idea what to do about taking a leave, is there paperwork I need to file or just send you a letter? I would rather speak to you so if you are not busy please call me . . . . If the November 29, 2011, meeting had settled the question regarding Petitioner’s leave of absence until her doctor’s appointment on May 3, 2012, there would have been no need for Petitioner to write to Ms. Looney on January 26, 2012, to request a leave of absence and to inform Ms. Looney that her next doctor’s appointment would be on May 3. This email is consistent with the assertion made in the City’s February 21, 2012, letter terminating Petitioner’s employment that Mr. Barlow agreed to maintain the status quo until January 23, 2012, the date of Petitioner’s next scheduled doctor’s appointment.6/ In an email to Ms. Looney dated February 9, 2012, Petitioner stated, “[A]t this stage nothing surprises me anymore, I mean after all, I was supposed to be back on my feet and rarin to go by January, well that, as you know did not happen.” Petitioner closed a separate February 9, 2012, email to Ms. Looney with the following: “I forwarded this to [Mr. Barlow] also, but if he does not get it please let him know and tell him I said to keep his chin up as he always does and thank him for allowing me to take a leave of absence. Hopefully it won’t be much longer.” These emails cast further doubt on Petitioner’s claim that she had obtained a leave of absence until May 3, 2012, from Mr. Barlow at the November 29, 2011, meeting. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner was granted an unpaid leave of absence at the November 29 meeting, but only until her physician cleared her to return to work in some capacity, which Petitioner at the time anticipated would occur in January 2012. The evidence presented at the hearing showed that Petitioner had used her twelve weeks of leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) as of November 16, 2011. She had exhausted all of her accrued leave as of December 9, 2011, when she formally began the unpaid leave of absence. On January 1, 2012, Petitioner began receiving the City’s long-term disability benefits. Ms. Looney signed a letter to Dr. Federico Vinas, dated January 25, 2012, that stated as follows: Ms. Winston has informed us she is a patient of yours. She has a follow-up appointment January 26, 2012 in association with surgery perform [sic] by you. First, and foremost, enclosed you will find the Authorization to Disclose Medical Information form executed by Ms. Winston along with her job description (Police Officer) setting out the physical requirement. JoAnne is a valued City employee and it would be greatly appreciated if you verify her ability to perform any or all of these duties. Please provide us with specific restrictions or requirements necessary not to aggravate her condition and advise as to exactly when she can be cleared for full police officer’s duties. Your expertise is [sic] this matter is greatly appreciated. Please contact me for any further information you may need. The City’s job description for “Police Officer” reads as follows, in relevant part: PRIMARY DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: (all duties may not be performed by all incumbents) Patrols designated area of the City to preserve the peace, to prevent and discover criminal acts, and to enforce traffic regulations. Answers calls and complaints involving drunkenness, domestic disputes, assaults and batteries, missing persons, fires, thefts, accidents and other felonies and misdemeanors. Is responsible for being knowledgeable of the crime problem in assigned work area and developing strategies to combat the problem. Develop contacts and provide intelligence reports to detectives and administration. Makes preliminary investigations at crime scenes or incidents, protects and collects physical evidence, locates witnesses, interviews witnesses, makes arrests, assists paramedics with basic and advance [sic] life support. Interviews complaints [sic] and witnesses to obtain information about crimes; assists in investigative work. Prepares evidence for issuance of complaints and testifies as a witness in both civil and criminal court, transports prisoners. Patrols school zones and high activity areas when assigned. Assists motorists, directs traffic, investigates accidents, recovers stolen automobiles, prepares detailed reports, advise of and interpret laws and ordinances and provides general information to the public. Cooperates and coordinates with other law enforcement agencies and other components of the Criminal Justice System. * * * Environmental Conditions: Outdoor environment with exposure to discomforting and dangerous working conditions Office environment with exposure to computer operations Physical exertion in lifting/moving items weighing up to 50 pounds Routine travel is required along daily assigned routes Occasional overnight travel is required Other physical/mental requirements may apply * * * DISCLAIMER STATEMENT This job description is not intended as complete listing of job duties. The incumbent is responsible for the performance of other related duties as assigned/required. The physical demands described herein are representative of those that must be met to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable qualified individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. On January 26, 2012, Dr. Vinas forwarded to Ms. Looney a “Work Status” form regarding Petitioner that provided as follows: The above captioned patient is being treated in this office. The patient’s current work status is as follows: ( ) This patient was seen for treatment in our office today, please excuse any absence from work or school. (X) Based on the job description provided by the patient, it is in this patient’s best interest to be excused from all work duties at this time. Restrictions The patient may return to or continue to work with the following restrictions: ( ) No lifting over pounds. ( ) No excessive/repetitive bending or twisting. ( ) No prolonged sitting/standing or stooping. ( ) No excessive/repetitive pulling or pushing. ( ) No excessive activity with arms above shoulder level/overhead activity. ( ) ALL OF THE ABOVE ( ) Specific instructions ( ) This patient does not work at this time, but has been instructed to limit household/daily activities so as to remain within the above noted restrictions. ( ) This patient’s most recent evaluation supports a return to normal, routine work activities. The effective date of this Work Status is from the date noted above until further notice. If the patient’s current position of employment can be modified or other position found that conforms to the above restrictions, then the patient may return to work. If these restrictions cannot be maintained, I would recommend that the patient be excused from work until further notice. The patient’s work status will be evaluated on a visit-to-visit basis. Ms. Looney testified that based on Dr. Vinas’ Work Status form and her own conversations with Petitioner, she concluded that Petitioner was unable to return to work in any capacity, full or light duty, as of January 26, 2012. At the hearing, Petitioner conceded that she could not have returned to work as a police officer on January 26, 2012. As set forth in Finding of Fact 54, supra, Petitioner notified Ms. Looney via email on January 26 that her next appointment with Dr. Vinas would be on May 3, 2012. In the same email, Petitioner asked for guidance on how to request a further leave of absence. The record of this proceeding includes a “Request for Leave of Absence” form in which Petitioner asked for a leave of absence commencing on January 26, 2012, with an “anticipated return date” of May 3, 2012. At the hearing, Petitioner could not recall filling out this form. In her testimony, Ms. Looney indicated that she filled out the form for Petitioner. In the space in which the applicant is to set forth reasons for the leave of absence, Ms. Looney wrote, “See attached e-mail,” which was Petitioner’s January 26 email to Ms. Looney. Mr. Barlow denied the request for a further leave of absence by signature on the request form. The form does not indicate when Ms. Looney filled it out or when Mr. Barlow denied the request. The record is also unclear as to when Petitioner was notified that the City was denying her a further leave of absence. As late as February 9, 2012, Petitioner was still sending chatty emails to Ms. Looney regarding her medical condition and treatment, even asking Ms. Looney and Mr. Barlow to stop by her house for a visit if they are ever in the neighborhood. The first clear notice of the denial was in the termination letter set forth in the next paragraph. On February 21, 2012, Ms. Looney wrote the following letter to Petitioner: On November 29, 2011 Tracey Barlow, City Manager, and myself met with you to discuss your medical situation. You informed us your next doctor’s appointment was January 23, 2012, at which time you were hoping to be taken out of your brace. We agreed your continued employment with the City would depend on your returning to full duty and I would send Dr. Vinas a letter requesting exactly when you would be cleared to return to full duty as a police officer. Following your exam on January 26, 2012, you emailed me Dr. Vinas’ work status form which states “based on the job description provided by the patient, it is in this patient’s best interest to be excused from all work duties at this time.” You also stated your next appointment is May 3, 2012 and asked about taking a leave of absence. JoAnne, as you are aware your FMLA was met as of November 16, 2011; all your workers compensation claims have been denied;7/ you exhausted all of your accruals as of December 9, 2011 and have been granted unpaid leave of absence for the previous 74 days, and as of January 1, 2012 you began receiving the city’s long term disability benefit. Therefore, due to all the facts stated too [sic] include uncertain ability to return to work date, the City Manager has denied your request for leave of absence exceeding 30 days. As a result, consider this formal notification that your employment with the City of Edgewater ends effective February 24, 2012. It is very important that you contact the Personnel Department to make the necessary arrangements for your continued insurance coverage and any outstanding benefits/obligations you have with the City. Petitioner testified that at the time the City terminated her employment, she was still using a cane at home and a walker when she went out. There is no question that Petitioner was unable to return to full duty as a police officer on February 24, 2012. It was Petitioner’s contention that she could have come back to work for the police department in some form of light duty, as she had been allowed to do in the past, or in one of several jobs that the City advertised as open during her convalescence. Petitioner further contended that Ms. Looney should have sent Dr. Vinas the job descriptions of all open City jobs rather than just the job description of a police officer. As to the last point, Ms. Looney testified that it was standard practice for the City to send the physician an employee’s current job description for an assessment of the employee’s ability to return to work. Petitioner was treated no differently than any other City employee in this regard. Petitioner testified that she asked the City to bring her back in another position, but could offer no documentary evidence to support that testimony. She claimed that part of the discussion at the November 29 meeting with Mr. Barlow and Ms. Looney was her hope to retire as a police officer, but her desire to remain a city employee in whatever capacity she could. Ms. Looney testified that Petitioner never asked to work in any position other than that of police officer. Petitioner sent an email to Ms. Looney on December 26, 2011, asking whether Ms. Looney had “heard from my Dr. as to when I might be able to come back light duty or anything else?” Petitioner claims that the “anything else” portion of the email indicated her desire to be placed in any available job. Ms. Looney read the email as merely asking whether she had heard from Petitioner’s doctor, not as a job request. Ms. Looney’s reading is not unreasonable given that this was the only document Petitioner produced that even arguably contained a statement asking to be placed in a position other than police officer. In any event, whether Petitioner asked to be placed in another position is not decisive because of the blanket statement in Dr. Vinas’ work status form. Ms. Looney testified that she was unable to place Petitioner in any position because Petitioner’s physician had clearly stated that it was in her best interest to be excused from all work duties. It was always the City’s understanding that Petitioner would return to work in a light duty function at first, but in fact Petitioner was not cleared to work at all. Ms. Looney might have followed up with Dr. Vinas and inquired whether Petitioner was capable of doing clerical work or some other form of indoor, deskbound job, but Petitioner has pointed to nothing that required Ms. Looney to do so in light of Petitioner’s failure to request that accommodation. Ms. Looney testified that it was the City’s practice to hold off on discussing positions outside of an employee’s department until the employee has actually been cleared for light duty. No evidence was presented that the City treated Petitioner any differently than it treated other employees in a similar position. Similarly, Mr. Barlow might have agreed to extend Petitioner’s unpaid leave of absence to May 3, 2012, but he was not required to do so. At the time of her termination, Petitioner had used twelve weeks of FMLA leave and had been granted an additional 74 days of unpaid leave at Mr. Barlow’s discretion. Petitioner had been out on some form of medical leave for approximately six months. The City did not seize on some early opportunity to dismiss Petitioner; rather, the City had anticipated that Petitioner would return to work as a police officer and waited until Petitioner had exhausted all avenues of leave except a second discretionary unpaid leave of absence before deciding to terminate her employment. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that her termination was based on her age, gender, disability or perceived disability or that she was treated differently than other employees due to her age, gender, or disability. The lone indication of possible bias was Mr. Barlow’s statement at the November 29, 2011, meeting that Petitioner should consider retirement in light of her age and poor health. This statement may be easily read as a kindly (if poorly phrased) expression of concern for Petitioner. By her own testimony, Petitioner was on good terms with Mr. Barlow and Ms. Looney right up to the time of her termination. Petitioner sent solicitous emails to them as late as February 9, 2012. Petitioner’s feelings were hurt by the statement, but no other ill effect followed. She was granted the requested unpaid leave of absence and remained employed by the City for three more months. Petitioner testified that she never considered herself disabled and prided herself on not calling in sick or requesting accommodations for her conditions. Ms. Looney, Mr. Barlow, and Chief Arcieri all testified that they did not perceive Petitioner as having a disability that required accommodation in the workplace, though they were all aware of at least some of her chronic conditions such as lupus, RA, and hypertension. Petitioner claimed that Chief Arcieri carried on something of a vendetta against her. Chief Arcieri testified that prior to the demotion his relationship with Petitioner was friendly. When Petitioner’s house was flooded, Chief Arcieri took off work to help Mr. Winston solder a broken shower valve. After Petitioner was demoted, the relationship was less friendly but always professional. Chief Arcieri testified that he has never yelled at Petitioner or any other employee. He never called her names. The harassment and belittling that Petitioner alleged never happened. Chief Arcieri denied any sort of gender bias, pointing to the successful efforts his department has made to recruit and hire female officers. He denied ever making a comment about Petitioner’s age. He testified that he never considered Petitioner disabled while she was on active duty, despite her lupus. Petitioner never requested an accommodation and Chief Arcieri never saw the need for an accommodation. Chief Arcieri testified that at the close of the internal affairs investigation of the June 16, 2011, incident, he declined to sustain some of the allegations in order to protect Petitioner from a referral to the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (“Commission”) for further discipline. Chief Arcieri assented to a request by the FOP that he submit a letter to the Commission stating that he believed the demotion was sufficient and asking the Commission not to take further action against Petitioner. Petitioner’s testimony against Chief Arcieri consisted of general statements that he harassed and belittled her. The only specific incident Petitioner recounted as to the source of any possible animus the chief bore toward her involved the firing of the officer who stole something during a traffic stop. Even if Petitioner’s version of events is accepted, Chief Arcieri’s anger toward Petitioner had nothing to do with her age, gender, or disability. He called her “incompetent.” He was upset about the manner in which Petitioner performed her job, which he believed led to the needless dismissal of a good officer. Whether Chief Arcieri was right or wrong to be angry at Petitioner, he did not engage in an act of discrimination. Even if the factfinder were to accept Petitioner’s description of Chief Arcieri as a bully on the job, there is no evidence aside from Petitioner’s general comments to indicate that she was singled out due to her age, gender or disability. It is telling that in testifying about her fear of reporting the bullying, Petitioner stated, “I was afraid. I was very afraid. David Arcieri made it not only clear to me, but to any other officer who even thought about going to report to Donna Looney or to Tracey Barlow, ‘Don’t worry, they’ll let me know and you will pay the price.’” This statement might be evidence that Chief Arcieri is a bully, a poor leader of his department, or a bad administrator. However, the statement does not establish that Chief Arcieri discriminated against Petitioner in a manner prohibited by section 760.10, Florida Statutes. If anything, the statement indicates that Petitioner found herself in the same boat as the other officers in her department.8/ Petitioner was aware of and understood the City’s nondiscrimination and no-harassment policy, the operative language of which states: The nature of some discrimination and harassment makes it virtually impossible to detect unless someone reports the discrimination or harassment. THUS, IF ANY EMPLOYEE BELIEVES THAT HE OR SHE OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE IS BEING SUBJECTED TO ANY OF THESE FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION OR HARRASSMENT, HE OR SHE MUST REPORT THIS TO THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR (386-424-2408) AND/OR CITY MANAGER (386-424-2404). If you are encountering a problem, please do not assume that the City is aware of it. The City is committed to ensuring that you have a pleasant working environment, and your assistance in bringing your complaints and concerns to our attention is a necessary first step. (Emphasis in original). The policy was included in the City’s personnel manual. Petitioner was provided with copies of the policy and amendments thereto several times during her tenure with the City. Petitioner conceded that, notwithstanding the policy, she did not report any incidents of harassment or discrimination to either Ms. Looney or Mr. Barlow while she was actively working for the City. The allegations of intimidation and harassment made by Petitioner’s attorney in his August 24, 2011, letter and Petitioner’s allegation of “constant harassment and belittlement by Dave Arcieri” in her workers’ compensation incident report were made only after Petitioner had been off the job for eight weeks. Further, the specific allegations made by Petitioner’s attorney claimed that the City was in violation of section 440.205, Florida Statutes, not that Chief Arcieri or any other City employee was discriminating against or harassing Petitioner because of her age, gender, disability, or perceived disability. The evidence produced at the hearing established that Petitioner sustained an injury to her back, most likely due to an altercation with a detainee on June 16, 2011, that necessitated surgery and a rehabilitation process that was not complete even at the time of the hearing in May 2014. The City carried Petitioner as an employee until all of her available leave had been used and then for another 74 days on an unpaid leave of absence. The City had no legal obligation to grant Petitioner an unpaid leave of absence but did so in the hope that Petitioner would be able to return to work in January 2012. As of the termination date of February 24, 2012, Petitioner had been away from her job for more than six months, had not been cleared by a physician to do work of any kind, and would not receive a physician’s clearance to work any sooner than May 3, 2012. The City could have consented to carry Petitioner even longer on an unpaid leave of absence, but it was not discriminatory for the City to make the business decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment. Petitioner offered insufficient credible evidence to refute the legitimate, non-discriminatory reason given by the City for the termination of her employment. Petitioner offered insufficient credible evidence that the City's stated reason for the termination of her employment was a pretext for discrimination based on her age, gender, disability, or perceived disability. Petitioner offered insufficient credible evidence that the City discriminated against her because of her age, gender, disability, or perceived disability in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Petitioner offered insufficient credible evidence that her dismissal from employment was in retaliation for any complaint of discriminatory employment practices that she made while an employee of the City.
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 the City of Edgewater did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 January, 2015.
