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.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Education set out to hire a person to fill the position of "Program Director II." The position was in the Department's Division of Public Schools, Bureau of Program Support Services, Management Information Services Section. It is one of the highest positions in the Department. A selection committee was established by the Department to review applicants for the position. The Petitioner and approximately 19 other persons applied for the position and met the minimum requirements. The selection committee selected eight persons, one of whom withdrew, to be interviewed. The committee recommended five of the applicants, including Petitioner, to the Chief of the Bureau of Program Support Services. The Bureau Chief was concerned that none of the applicants recommended to him had experience with management information services at the school district level. He discussed the matter with the Secretary of the Department of Education and with the Director of the Division of Public Schools. The Bureau Chief decided to readvertise the position and to extend the deadline for applicants. His desire was to enhance the pool of applicants. Several additional persons thereafter applied and were interviewed by the selection committee. In addition to the five persons originally recommended to the Bureau Chief, the steering committee recommended an additional person. The Secretary of the Department ultimately decided to hire the new applicant. The Department of Education utilizes an "Affirmative Action-Equal Employment Opportunity Plan." The Plan constitutes Appendix 6-0 of the Department's Policy and Procedures Manual. The Plan sets out the Department's policy of making employment decisions without regard to a person's race, color, sex, religion, creed, national origin, handicap, marital status, political opinions or affiliations, or age; and provides for announcement of position vacancies, employment recruitment, processing of applications, establishment of employee selection committees and the like. The plan has never been promulgated as a rule. To aid selection committees in performing their duties, the Department has promulgated an Employee Selection Committee Handbook. Basically, the handbook summarizes and repeats the provisions of the Affirmative Action-Equal Employment Opportunity Plan and includes suggestions about structuring interviews and interview questions. The Employee Selection Committee Handbook has not been promulgated as a rule. The provisions of the handbook are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Affirmative Action-Equal Employment Opportunity Plan. It has not been established that the Department failed to follow the provisions of its Affirmative Action-Equal Employment Opportunity Plan and Employee Selection Committee Handbook in the selection process which led to the hiring of the Program Director II. It has not been established that the Plan, the handbook, or the selection process itself operated unfairly as to any applicant, including Petitioner.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner when it fired her in March 2004.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female. Hampton Court is assisted living facility in Haines City, Florida. Its residents include elderly Medicaid recipients. Kenneth Wilder is the executive director of Hampton Court. Mr. Wilder is a white male. Mr. Wilder has approximately nine years of experience administering assisted living facilities, and at the time of the events giving rise to this proceeding, he had been the executive director of Hampton Court for approximately a year and a half. Petitioner’s immediate supervisor was Dorothy Pelemon. Ms. Pelemon, like Petitioner, is an African-American female. Petitioner was hired by Hampton Court as a Resident Care Aide in early February 2004. Her primary job duties in that position were providing direct care to Hampton Court residents. Petitioner’s salary was $7.50 per hour, and she typically worked 40 hours per week. Several weeks after she was hired, Petitioner was promoted to the position of Resident Care Manager. In that position, Petitioner still provided direct care to Hampton Court residents, but she also had some supervisory duties. Petitioner only held the Resident Care Manager position for two or three weeks. On March 10, 2004, she was demoted back to the position of Resident Care Aide for improperly transcribing medications on patient charts and for improperly assisting a patient with his medications. On Saturday, March 20, 2004, Petitioner was involved in an altercation with another employee, Ivette Rodriguez. Ms. Rodriguez is a Puerto-Rican female. She was re- hired as a Resident Care Aide at Hampton Court in early March 2004, after having been fired approximately six months earlier for excessive tardiness and absenteeism. The altercation between Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez was the culmination of a series of disputes that the two had on March 20, 2004. According to Petitioner, the disputes started when Ms. Rodriguez got agitated with her when she took responsibility for the upstairs residents, who had fewer medications, and left Ms. Rodriguez with the downstairs residents, who had more medications. According to Petitioner, Ms. Rodriguez also got agitated with her later in the day for not taking a phone message. Petitioner also testified that she was agitated with Ms. Rodriguez for taking breaks and receiving numerous phone calls while “on the clock.” According to Petitioner, the altercation that led to her firing started when she observed Ms. Rodriguez writing in the “manager’s log” at the nursing station. Petitioner told Ms. Rodriguez that she was not allowed to write in the log and Ms. Rodriguez got upset. Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez exchanged words, and at one point during the altercation, Petitioner told Ms. Rodriguez that “you don’t know who you’re dealing with,” or words to that effect, and she expressly threatened to send Ms. Rodriguez to the hospital. Petitioner did not follow through on the threat, and there was no physical contact between her and Ms. Rodriguez at any point during the altercation. The altercation was entirely verbal and never went beyond Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez yelling at each other. The altercation was witnessed by other employees and by Hampton Court residents, and according to the “write-ups” given to Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez, the altercation “created a hostile living environment for [the residents].” Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez were separated for the remainder of the day, and there were no further incidents between the two. Neither Mr. Wilder, nor Ms. Pelemon was at the facility at the time of the altercation between Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez. Mr. Wilder and Ms. Pelemon conducted an investigation into the altercation the following week. Based upon the investigation, they preliminarily decided that both Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez should be fired and “write-ups” were prepared to effectuate that discipline. The “write-up” for Petitioner contains the following account of the altercation: On March 20, 2004, [Petitioner] was involved in an altercation with co-worker Ivette Rodriguez. The altercation resulted when [Petitioner] took control of the upstairs med cart instead of the one she was supposed to take control of. [Petitioner] refused to cooperate and escalated the level of aggression in the fight making threats such as, “I’ll send to you Heart of Florida Hospital!” . . . . The “write-up” for Ms. Rodriguez contains the following account of the altercation: On March 20, 2004, [Ms. Rodriguez] was involved in an altercation with co-worker [Petitioner]. The shouting and fighting took place in public areas and was witnessed by co-workers and residents. [Ms. Rodriguez] also had her brother-in-law come to the community to get involved by confronting [Petitioner]. . . . . The source of the accounts of the altercation in the “write-ups” is not entirely clear and, as a result, the findings made above regarding the altercation are based on Petitioner’s testimony at the hearing rather than the accounts in the “write- ups”. (It is noted, however, that the “write-up” given to Petitioner and her testimony at the hearing both make reference to her express threat of physical violence towards Ms. Rodriguez.) Mr. Wilder and Ms. Pelemon met with Ms. Rodriguez on March 24, 2004, to discuss the altercation. Ms. Rodriguez was given an opportunity to tell her side of the story and to explain her actions. In doing so, Ms. Rodriguez acknowledged that her actions were wrong, she expressed remorse for her role in the altercation, and she promised that it would not happen again. Based upon the remorse expressed by Ms. Rodriguez, Mr. Wilder and Ms. Pelemon agreed that Ms. Rodriguez should be suspended for one week rather than be fired. The “write-up” prepared in advance of the meeting was edited to change Ms. Rodriguez’s discipline from termination to “1 week suspension from 3/24/04 to 3/30/04.” Mr. Wilder and Ms. Pelemon met with Petitioner the following day, March 25, 2004, to discuss the altercation. Like Ms. Rodriguez, Petitioner was given an opportunity to tell her side of the story and to explain her actions, but unlike Ms. Rodriguez, Petitioner expressed no remorse for her actions and, according to Mr. Wilder, she was loud and acted aggressively during the meeting. Petitioner and Ms. Pelemon testified that Petitioner did not act aggressively during the meeting but, consistent with Mr. Wilder’s testimony, they acknowledged that Petitioner did speak in a loud voice at the meeting and that she never expressed any remorse for her involvement in the altercation with Ms. Rodriguez. Based upon the lack of remorse expressed by Petitioner regarding her role in the altercation, Mr. Wilder and Ms. Pelemon agreed that the preliminary recommendation of termination should stand for Petitioner, and her employment with Hampton Court was terminated on March 25, 2004. Ms. Pelemon testified that she fully supported the decision to fire Petitioner for her role in the altercation with Ms. Rodriguez and, consistent with Mr. Wilder’s testimony, Ms. Pelemon testified that race played no part in Petitioner’s termination. Ms. Pelemon also testified that she fully supported the decision to suspend Ms. Rodriguez rather than fire her based upon the remorse that she expressed for her role in the altercation. Petitioner started working for Wal-Mart in May 2004, and she is still working there. She is paid $15.10 per hour and she typically works 36 hours per week. Ms. Rodriguez was fired by Hampton Court in August 2004 for poor work performance.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing with prejudice Petitioner’s discrimination claim against Hampton Court. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 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 October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth Wilder Heart of Florida Care Inc., d/b/a Hampton Court of Haines City 301 South 10th Street Haines City, Florida 33844 Laurie Ann Johnson 623 Avenue O, Northeast Winter Haven, Florida 33881
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to unlawful employment practices by discriminating against her based on her age, sex, and/or disability contrary to Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes (2003), and by retaliating against her contrary to Section 760.07, Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact On or about February 17, 1992, Petitioner began working for Respondent in the College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences as an Other Personnel Services (OPS) Secretary. On or about January 11, 1993, Petitioner became a Program Assistant in the University and Support Personnel System. In late 1999 or early 2000, Petitioner began working as an Administrative Assistant for Dr. Folakemi Odedina, a Professor and Director of the Economic, Social, and Administrative Pharmacy Division (ESAP). Initially, Petitioner enjoyed working for Dr. Odedina in an office located in the Frederick S. Humphries Science and Research Center (Science and Research Center). However, in time Petitioner's professional relationship with Dr. Odedina began to deteriorate, along with the expanding responsibilities of the job.1 In January 2001, Petitioner fell while she was carrying some documents from one of Respondent's buildings to another. The fall injured Petitioner's ankle, hip, and lower back. Petitioner was pregnant at the time of her fall in January 2001. She filed a workers' compensation claim as a result of the accident and subsequently returned to work with medical limitations as to activities involving lifting and walking. In a memorandum dated May 16, 2001, Petitioner advised Dr. Odedina and the ESAP faculty that she soon would be going on three to four months of parental leave. She also advised them that she had removed her personal belongings and other items belonging to other departments that had been on loan to her. In June 2001, Petitioner fell again while she was at work. She was in her ninth month of pregnancy at the time of the second accident. She decided not to return to work until after the birth of her baby. In a memorandum dated June 14, 2001, Dr. Odedina acknowledged that Petitioner would be out on sick leave, followed by parental leave until October 2001. Dr. Odedina wanted Petitioner to turn in her office keys and provide information about the office voicemail password so that the office would continue to function efficiently during Petitioner's absence. Apparently, Petitioner had not removed her personal belongings from her office as stated in her May 16, 2001, memorandum. On June 14, 2001, Petitioner and Melvin Jones, an investigator for Respondent's Police Department went to the office after 5:00 p.m. to remove Petitioner's personal belongings. During the moving process, Mr. Jones took a typewriter and a chair, both of which were university property on loan to Petitioner from another university office, to the library on the fourth floor of the Science Research Center. Petitioner intended to leave the chair and the typewriter there until someone could return them to the office in the department to which they were officially assigned. Additionally, in packing her personal items, Petitioner or Mr. Jones inadvertently packed and removed a black office telephone from the premises. On June 15, 2001, Dr. Odedina noticed that the typewriter and telephone were missing from Petitioner's office. After making an unsuccessful effort to contact Petitioner, Dr. Odedina reported to Respondent's Police Department that the typewriter and telephone were missing from Petitioner's office. Respondent's Police Department immediately initiated an investigation of unauthorized removal of state property with Petitioner as the suspect. On June 15, 2001, Petitioner realized that she had mistakenly packed the black telephone with her personal belongings. She returned it to Respondent that same day. Thereafter, Respondent's Police Department closed its investigation after verifying that Petitioner never removed the typewriter from the Science Research Center and that she returned the telephone on June 15, 2001. On June 25, 2001, Petitioner delivered her baby. Subsequently, Petitioner received medical treatment for physical problems that were the result of her on-the-job falls. Between parental leave and workers' compensation leave, Petitioner was out of work for approximately eighteen months. During Petitioner's absence from work, Dr. Odedina hired an OPS employee to temporarily fill Petitioner's position. At some point in time, Petitioner contacted FCHR to make an inquiry concerning discrimination. In a letter dated August 28, 2002, relative to FCHR Case No. 2202827, FCHR advised Petitioner as follows: "Based on the information you provided, we are unable to pursue this matter further." FCHR then cited Section 760.11(1), Florida Statutes (2002), for the proposition that a complaint must be filed within 365 days of the alleged discriminatory act. From 1994 to 2004, and at all times relevant here, Dr. Henry Lewis was the Dean of the College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. From January 2002 through July 2002, Dr. Lewis also served as Respondent's interim president. Since 2004, Dr. Robert Thomas has served as Dean of the College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. At all times relevant here, Dr. Thomas served as Associate Dean of the College of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. In a letter dated October 9, 2002, Dr. Lewis advised Petitioner that he had received documentation from Ruth Beck, Petitioner's Rehabilitation Consultant, regarding accommodations for Petitioner's return to work with medical restrictions. Dr. Lewis requested that Petitioner meet with Respondent's Equal Opportunity Programs Office to determine what accommodation are to be provided upon Petitioner's return to work. The recommended accommodations included an ergonomic chair and a desk equipped with a keyboard tray and mouse extension. It was also suggested that Respondent provide Petitioner with a flat screen monitor and a utility cart because Petitioner's permanent office in the Science and Research Center was small and too cramped to accommodate Petitioner's physical limitations. Petitioner needed a more spacious work area, with adequate storage space in close proximity, than was available in her office at the Science and Research Center. Even with the new furniture and equipment, Petitioner's needs could not be met in her old office. Accordingly, it was mutually agreed that, upon her return to work, Respondent would assign Petitioner to work temporarily in the Division of Pharmacy Practice, under the supervision of Dr. Otis Kirksey. Dr. Kirksey's office was located off-campus at 565 East Tennessee Street, Tallahassee, Florida, in a building with a ramp and without stairs that Petitioner would have to climb. Petitioner's assignment to work in Dr. Kirksey's office was temporary. Dr. Odedina and the ESAP faculty and staff planned to move to the new Dyson Pharmacy Building as soon as it was completed. The new facility would have sufficient space, furniture, and equipment to accommodate Petitioner's needs in her position as Administrative Assistant to Dr. Odedina. In November 2002, Petitioner learned that her doctor would not sign a form stating that Petitioner had a permanent disability. Instead, he agreed that she needed a disabled parking permit for a temporary period, for three months through February 5, 2003. On December 2, 2002, Petitioner began to work for Dr. Kirksey as an Administrative Assistant/Receptionist. She agreed to begin working in that capacity even though all the accommodations she needed were not immediately available. Petitioner was eager to return to work. By February 18, 2003, Respondent had provided Petitioner with all necessary accommodations. She had the ergonomic chair and a desk equipped with a keyboard tray and mouse extension. Given her more specious work area, a flat screen monitor and/or utility cart was not required to accommodate her physical limitations. Petitioner did not want to return to work for Dr. Odedina under any circumstances. She was aware that Dr. Kirksey was going to hire a new employee for a Program Assistant position. However, Petitioner never applied for the new Program Assistant position because she believed that Dr. Kirksey had already made up his mind to hire another person for the job. There is no evidence that Dr. Kirksey ever intended to deprive Petitioner of the opportunity to apply for the Program Assistant position or that he would not have considered her application if she had filed one. On October 6, 2003, Petitioner had a meeting with Dr. Lewis about her work assignment. During the meeting, Petitioner and Dr. Lewis discussed another position that was available. The position involved keeping track of student volunteer hours. After the meeting, Petitioner mistakenly believed that Dr. Lewis had offered her the new position, which would not have been under Dr. Odedina's supervision. During the October 6, 2003, meeting, Dr. Lewis asked Petitioner how things were going in her private life, i.e. whether she had anyone special in her life. Petitioner replied that she did not have such a relationship and that with all the drama she was experiencing in her personal life, she did not need to be involved with anyone. There is no indication that Petitioner was offended by Dr. Lewis's personal expressions of concern for Petitioner's well being. On October 8, 2003, Petitioner met with Drs. Lewis and Thomas. During the meeting, Petitioner adamantly refused to return to work for Dr. Odedina. Petitioner made the following statement: "I do not want to see FAMU facing a wrongful death lawsuit for an employee killing a supervisor." Drs. Lewis and Thomas were concerned about the statement, which they understood to be a threat against Dr. Odedina. However, they believed they would be able to handle any problem that might arise when Dr. Odedina joined the prescheduled meeting. Petitioner was agitated during the meeting with Dr. Lewis and Dr. Thomas. She became more agitated when Dr. Odedina joined the meeting. Dr. Odedina went to the meeting expecting to discuss Petitioner's office space and accommodations when she moved into the Dyson Pharmacy Building with the rest of the ESAP faculty and staff. She was not aware that Petitioner had made a threatening comment. Initially, Dr. Odedina was obviously pleased that Petitioner would be returning to work for her. However, as the October 8, 2003, meeting proceeded, Dr. Odedina felt that Petitioner's demeanor was hostile. Dr. Odedina got the impression that Petitioner was resisting the idea of returning to work for Dr. Odedina. At that point, Dr. Odedina insisted that Petitioner return to work for ESAP or, if Petitioner continued to work for Dr. Kirksey, his office should be responsible for paying Petitioner's salary. At one point during the October 8, 2003, meeting Petitioner complained that she suffered from migraine headaches and depression. She showed Drs. Lewis, Thomas, and Odedina prescriptions for Imatrex and Prozac. Before Petitioner left the meeting on October 8 2003, Dr. Lewis told Petitioner that she should write a letter stating that she refused to return to work in the ESAP office under Dr. Odedina's supervision. Petitioner subsequently wrote a letter, describing it as a "notice of transfer," but clearly indicating that she chose not to return to work for Dr. Odedina. After Petitioner and Dr. Odedina left the October 8, 2003, meeting, Drs. Lewis and Thomas discussed Petitioner's threatening statement against Dr. Odedina. They decided to report it as a serious threat of bodily harm to Respondent's Director of Personnel, Vice President for Academic Affairs, and Provost, first by telephone, and later in writing. Dr. Lewis also contacted Dr. Odedina by telephone, advising her of the threat and directing her not to report to work on October 9, 2003. Finally, Dr. Lewis informed Respondent's Police Department about the threatening statement. Respondent's Provost, Larry Robinson, drafted a letter dated October 9, 2003. According to the letter, Petitioner was on administrative leave with pay, effective upon receipt of the notice. The letter advised Petitioner of a pending investigation of an employment matter and directed her to return all university-owned property. The letter advised Petitioner to refrain from reporting to work or visiting the campus, until further notice. The only exception was that Petitioner could continue to transport one of her sons to Respondent's Developmental Research School. On October 10, 2003, Respondent's Police Department initiated a formal investigation about Petitioner's threatening statement based on the written statements of Drs. Lewis and Thomas. On that date, Respondent's investigator, James Rose, filled out an incident report, indicating that he had interviewed Dr. Odedina and that Respondent's Director of Personnel had requested him to deliver the October 9, 2003, letter to Petitioner. Officer Rose was not able to deliver the October 9, 2003, letter to Petitioner until October 11, 2003. After Officer Rose gave Petitioner the letter placing her on administrative leave with pay, Petitioner stated that she only made the comment about Dr. Odedina because the department was about to transfer her back to Dr. Odedina's office. Petitioner told Officer Rose that she never intended to harm Dr. Odedina. On October 13, 2003, Petitioner returned her office key to Respondent. She left the key at Respondent's Police Department's communications office. On October 14, 2003, Petitioner filed her first Employment Charge of Discrimination with FCHR. In that initial complaint, identified hereinafter as DOAH Case No. 04-2003, Petitioner alleged as follows: (a) Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on her disability by failing to accommodate her back impairment; (b) Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on her age because Respondent did not give Petitioner an opportunity to apply for a position ultimately given to a younger, less senior employee; and (c) Respondent placed Petitioner on administrative leave with pay. In a letter dated October 31, 2003, Respondent advised Petitioner that Respondent intended to terminate her employment for threatening and/or abusive language and conduct unbecoming to a public employee. In an undated letter, Petitioner requested a conference in order to make an oral or written statement to refute or explain the charges against her. On or about November 3, 2003, Petitioner requested information about the return of her personal property located in Dr. Kirksey's office. Officer Rose approved Petitioner's request to retrieve her property. Sometime after November 3, 2003, Officer Rose concluded that Petitioner had made a threatening statement. However, Officer Rose found no indication that Petitioner intended to carry out the threat against Dr. Odedina. Accordingly, Respondent's Police Department suspended its investigation. In a letter dated November 17, 2003, Respondent advised Petitioner that it had scheduled a predetermination conference on November 24, 2003. By letter dated December 8, 2003, Petitioner informed Respondent that she received the November 17, 2003, letter on December 5, 2003. She asserted that she did not receive timely notice of the predetermination conference. In a letter dated December 11, 2003, Respondent advised Petitioner that it was proceeding with the employment action. According to the letter, Petitioner's dismissal from employment would be effective on December 19, 2003. However, Petitioner had an opportunity to request arbitration. On December 19, 2003, Petitioner reminded Respondent that she did not receive timely notification of the predetermination conference. She requested Respondent to schedule another conference. In a letter dated January 9, 2004, Respondent advised Petitioner that it had scheduled a predetermination conference for January 13, 2004. However, a subsequent letter dated January 13, 2004, rescheduled the conference for February 18, 2004. In a letter dated March 3, 2004, Respondent advised Petitioner that her dismissal from employment was effective March 11, 2004. On February 2, 2005, Petitioner filed a Consented Motion for Abatement or Alternatively, Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice in DOAH Case No. 04-2003. On February 8, 2005, Administrative Law Judge Diane Cleavinger entered an Order Closing File in DOAH Case No. 04-2003. Judge Cleavinger's order is silent as to any prejudice that might have resulted from closure of the file in DOAH Case No. 04-2003. However, the parties agreed during the hearing in the instant case that FCHR never entered a final order in the prior case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 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 December, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Malcom Thompson, as Clerk of the Court for Osceola County, Florida, violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ by using his position to intimidate Osceola County Clerk of the Court employees in order to enhance his personal and political power and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this case, Mr. Thompson was the Clerk of the Court for Osceola County, Florida. On December 29, 2011, Mr. Thompson was working in his office with his administrative assistants Ms. Ramdani and Ms. Lay. It was the day before the New Year's holiday, and Mr. Thompson directed Ms. Ramdani to remove Christmas cards that were on display. Ms. Ramdani told Mr. Thompson that she wanted to keep the Christmas cards up until after the holidays. Mr. Thompson became agitated with her, and he placed his open hand on Ms. Ramdani's shoulder and pushed her into a door. Ms. Ramdani did not receive any physical injury from Mr. Thompson's action, but she became angry and started complaining that he had pushed her. In response, Mr. Thompson said that he did not push her, and that he apologized. After this exchange, Mr. Thompson decided to leave Ms. Ramdani alone. Ms. Lay, who was working in the office, witnessed the incident. On January 4, 2012, after returning from the New Year's Day holiday, Ms. Lay told Ms. Hennecy, the Deputy Clerk of the Court, about Mr. Thompson pushing Ms. Ramdani, and how upset Ms. Ramdani had been about the incident. Ms. Hennecy thought the allegation was serious and contacted the Clerk's Human Relations (H.R.) Director, Ms. Zander. Based on Ms. Hennecy's report, Ms. Zander began an investigation. She interviewed Ms. Ramdani and corroborated the allegation that Mr. Thompson had pushed her. During the interview, Ms. Ramdani told Ms. Zander that she was afraid of Mr. Thompson. There is no evidence that Ms. Ramdani filed a written complaint against Mr. Thompson based on the December 29, 2011, incident. However, it was Ms. Zander's opinion that Ms. Ramdani made a verbal complaint to H.R. Ms. Zander then interviewed Mr. Thompson, and he stated that "he did it again." He explained that he had been joking around with Ms. Ramdani, and that she had gotten mad with him. Mr. Thompson then told Ms. Zander to interview Ms. Lay, and that she would corroborate his story. Ms. Zander interviewed Ms. Lay, who corroborated that Mr. Thompson had pushed Ms. Ramdani, but disputed that it had been unintentional or a joke. It was Ms. Lay's impression that Mr. Thompson had pushed Ms. Ramdani in anger. Ms. Zander, in a lack of candor, told Mr. Thompson that Ms. Lay had confirmed aspects of his story, neglecting to tell him the key difference. Based on H.R.'s standard practice of separating employees who may have a conflict, Ms. Zander determined that it was best to move Ms. Ramdani's work space from Mr. Thompson's office on the sixth floor of the courthouse to the H.R. department located on the second floor. Ms. Zander made this recommendation to Ms. Hennecy and Mr. Thompson on January 4, 2012. Mr. Thompson agreed that Ms. Ramdani could be moved if it was her choice. Initially, on January 4, Ms. Ramdani informed Ms. Zander that she did not want to relocate her office. However, the next day Ms. Zander informed Ms. Ramdani that her work space was being moved to the second floor from Mr. Thompson's office based on safety concerns. On January 5, 2012, Mr. Thompson learned that Ms. Ramdani was being relocated to the second floor. He told Ms. Zander and Ms. Hennecy that Ms. Ramdani was to be treated like any other employee, and not given any privileges. Apparently, Mr. Thompson allowed Ms. Ramdani more leeway in his office suite than other employees, such as telephone privileges, extended breaks, religious holidays, and leaving work early, if she worked through lunch. Further, Ms. Ramdani was to be under Ms. Zander's supervision, and written up if she did not follow the rules. Mr. Thompson restated his position to Ms. Zander that the whole incident was being blown out of proportion. Generally, whenever there is an allegation of a conflict between employees, Ms. Zander, as H.R. director, would conduct an investigation and offer a resolution to the conflict. However, Ms. Zander credibly testified that she did not feel comfortable with investigating the allegation that Mr. Thompson had pushed Ms. Ramdani because he was "my boss." Some time during the beginning of her investigation, Ms. Zander decided to speak with Captain Toomey, an Osecola County Sheriff's officer, who worked in the courthouse. Ms. Zander asked Captain Toomey whether she had a duty to report the incident. Captain Toomey asked for more details and initially said that the victim, Ms. Ramdani, had to come forward. Later, Captain Toomey called and indicated that he had a responsibility to report the incident. Mr. Thompson went on scheduled annual leave for the week of January 9 through 13, 2012. Some time on January 9, 2012, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) sent an officer to investigate the allegation that Mr. Thompson had pushed Ms. Ramdani. The officer interviewed Ms. Ramdani and other Clerk of the Court employees concerning the incident and informed them that the on-going investigation was confidential and that the employees were not to discuss the matter. Ms. Zander shared with Ms. Hennecy that the FDLE investigation was on-going, and that it was confidential. Ms. Ramdani told the FDLE officer what happened and stated that she did not want to pursue any criminal charges against Mr. Thompson. Ms. Ramdani credibly testified that she did not want to pursue any action for religious reasons, and based on her fear of embarrassment to her family and being in the news. The FDLE officer informed Ms. Zander that Ms. Ramdani did not want to pursue any criminal charges against Mr. Thompson. On January 9, 2012, at the end of the day, Ms. Hennecy called Mr. Thompson to give him an update on the office. One item of interest reported concerned a call Ms. Hennecy had received from Gary Ketchum, the spouse of one of Mr. Thompson's political opponents. Mr. Ketchum had called to confirm an allegation that Mr. Thompson has pushed an employee and had used a derogatory slur against the employee. Mr. Thompson became very upset when he heard about Ketchum's call. Not surprisingly, Mr. Thompson cut his vacation short and returned to the office bright and early the next day, January 10, 2012. It was Mr. Thompson's intention to meet with Ms. Ramdani and "smooth things over." As Ms. Ramdani was parking her car, Mr. Thompson called her cell phone and said that he wanted to speak with her. Ms. Ramdani told Mr. Thompson that she did not want to speak with him, and then she noticed his car pulling into the courthouse parking lot. Ms. Ramdani was surprised and worried to see Mr. Thompson driving into the parking lot because he was supposed to be on vacation. Ms. Ramdani parked her car and proceeded into the courthouse. Mr. Thompson parked his car and entered the building in a side entrance. That morning, Ms. Cubero was the first person to arrive for work in the H.R. department. As she opened the door and turned on the lights, she was startled to see Mr. Thompson standing in the office. She was surprised because Mr. Thompson was supposed to have been on vacation. Mr. Thompson asked to see Ms. Zander, but was told that she had not yet arrived. Within a minute or so, Ms. Ramdani arrived at the second floor office. Mr. Thompson, again, asked Ms. Ramdani to come upstairs and speak with him. Ms. Ramdani initially declined his invitation, but then changed her mind after Mr. Thompson gave assurances that everything would be fine. While Mr. Thompson and Ms. Ramdani left the second floor, Ms. Cubero sent Ms. Zander a text message that Mr. Thompson was looking for her and that he had taken Ms. Ramdani upstairs for a meeting. Ms. Zander, who had just pulled into the parking lot, decided she needed to interrupt the meeting between Mr. Thompson and Ms. Ramdani. Ms. Zander credibly testified that she was worried about Ms. Ramdani's safety. At first, Ms. Zander attempted to find a male employee or Captain Toomey to accompany her to the meeting on the sixth floor because she was afraid. Ms. Zander explained that she wanted to find a male to go with her because Mr. Thompson had a "temper" and that he was a large man. Because Ms. Zander was unable to find the male employee, and Captain Toomey would not go with her, Ms. Zander took two H.R. employees with her to the meeting, Ms. Cubero and Ms. Benoit. Ms. Ramdani and Mr. Thompson rode separate elevators up to the sixth floor. On entering the office suite, Ms. Ramdani told Mr. Thompson that she did not want to meet with him in his conference room, so they sat in Ms. Lay's work area. Ms. Lay was already working at her desk. Ms. Lay credibly testified that Mr. Thompson was agitated, appeared angry, and indicated that he was going to "get to the bottom of things," and going to identify who "leaked" the December 29, 2011, incident to the public. Ms. Lay was fearful that Mr. Thompson thought that she was the "leak." Consequently, Ms. Lay told Mr. Thompson about the FDLE investigation. Ms. Lay's information about the FDLE investigation thunderstruck Mr. Thompson, and he became extremely angry. He immediately grabbed the phone and began attempting to call his lawyer. Ms. Lay and Ms. Ramdani attempted to calm him. However, Mr. Thompson was extremely angry because he felt betrayed that his Deputy, Ms. Hennecy, and his employees had not told him about the FDLE investigation, and he believed the whole thing was being blown out of proportion. Ms. Zander, Ms. Benoit, and Ms Cubero entered the sixth floor office. Ms. Zander began telling Mr. Thompson that he could not conduct this meeting with Ms. Ramdani. Mr. Thompson, in a highly agitated state, told Ms. Zander and the other employees "young ladies, grab a chair and sit down." Consequently, Ms. Zander, Ms. Cubero ,and Ms. Benoit joined Mr. Thompson, Ms. Ramdani, and Ms. Lay for this impromptu meeting. Mr. Thompson then began to loudly and angrily question Ms. Zander, "What have you done? Who gave you the right to contact FDLE?" Ms. Zander started to answer and moved in her chair, and Mr. Thompson sprung from his chair and stood over Ms. Zander angrily shaking his finger in her face and yelling at her: "don't jump up on me"; "don't raise your voice to me"; and "shut up little girl." All of the participants at the meeting credibly testified that Mr. Thompson was red in the face, visibly angry, and that they felt afraid. Sensibly, Ms. Ramdani told Mr. Thompson to sit back down, and put his hands in his pockets. He then complied with Ms. Ramdani's instruction. Because Ms. Cubero began crying at the meeting, Mr. Thompson asked her what was wrong, and whether she was afraid of him. Ms. Cubero stated that she was afraid of him. Mr. Thompson then asked each of the women at this meeting if they were afraid of him. All of the women stated that they were afraid of him. Although the employees were fearful, Mr. Thompson did not verbally threaten or touch anyone during this meeting. Rather, the employees' fear appeared to be caused by Mr. Thompson's explosive anger and his loud and aggressive manner. Mr. Thompson, in a complete lack of self-awareness, testified that he did not understand why the meeting participants said that they were afraid of him. During the meeting, Mr. Thompson said several times that he did not think there was a case against him because without a "complainant there is no complaint." It was Mr. Thompson's impression that Ms. Ramdani had not filed a formal complaint against him. There was no evidence that Mr. Thompson directed anyone at the meeting to dismiss the H.R. complaint or change their story, or that he sought to discredit Ms. Ramdani. The length of this meeting was approximately two and a half hours. It is undisputed that the portion of the meeting where Mr. Thompson stood over Ms. Zander lasted just a few moments. Near the conclusion of the meeting, Ms. Ramdani expressed the concern that Mr. Thompson would terminate the employment of her and the others at the meeting. Mr. Thompson told them that as long as he was Clerk of the Court they would not lose their jobs. Ms. Ramdani then asked for Mr. Thompson to give this promise in writing. Oddly, Mr. Thompson wrote his promise on a "post-it" note, but refused to sign it. This "post- it" note was not offered into evidence. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr. Thompson was of the impression that it had been a productive meeting and ended pleasantly. However, Ms. Zander, felt differently and eventually filed a criminal assault charge and the ethics charge against Mr. Thompson for his behavior during the meeting. The day after the January 10, 2012, meeting, Ms. Ramdani decided to move back to her office in Mr. Thompson's office suite on the sixth floor. Ms. Ramdani credibly testified that she decided to move back to the sixth floor because she could not get any work done in the second floor office. Further, she credibly testified that she did not want to pursue the criminal action against Mr. Thompson, or the ethics charge against Mr. Thompson. Further, Ms. Ramdani agreed with the description of Mr. Thompson as a "good boss." On January 20, 2012, Mr. Thompson had another meeting with Ms. Zander with his general counsel present. Mr. Thompson asked her "what was her end-game" and "what would it take to make this go away." Ms. Zander indicated that she did not have a plan on how to resolve the issue concerning Ms. Ramdani's allegation, and that Mr. Thompson would have to resolve the issue with Ms. Ramdani. Mr. Thompson is credited in his testimony that his meaning of "end-game" referred to him asking how Ms. Zander planned to resolve the allegations, not as showing any wrongful intent. There was no evidence that Mr. Thompson took any employment or retaliatory action against the employees that attended the January 10, 2012, meeting. A jury acquitted Mr. Thompson on the charge that committed a battery of Ms. Ramdani. Further, in a separate case, the trial judge entered a judgment of acquittal on Ms. Zander's claim that Mr. Thompson assaulted her during the January 10, 2012, meeting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics find that Mr. Thompson did not violate section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 March, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination (Complaint) was timely filed, so that his allegations of discrimination can be investigated.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Chinese national and was hired by USF in 1994 as an assistant professor in the Department of Government and International Affairs. USF is a state university. In 2002, Petitioner was promoted to an associate professor at USF. On an undisclosed date, he was given tenure. Petitioner's duties included teaching, research, publication, and service to the community. He also supervised graduate students in the preparation of a thesis for their studies. In 2010, Petitioner was suspended for one year. For violating the terms and conditions of his first suspension, on May 23, 2013, USF issued Petitioner a Notice of Suspension (Notice) informing him that he was suspended a second time, for two years without pay, from June 3, 2013, to August 6, 2015. This meant he had no regular Department, College, or University responsibilities for which he was needed, and he was not expected to be on campus during the suspension. Also, he had no teaching or work assignments during this period of time. Among other things, the Notice advised Petitioner that no employer contributions towards his benefits, including health insurance, would be made by USF during the two-year period. However, the Notice provided Petitioner with the name, email address, and telephone number of a University contact person to coordinate his benefits while he was suspended. During his suspension, Petitioner returned to China a number of times. On May 24, 2013, Petitioner sent an email to Dr. Dwayne Smith, Senior Vice Provost & Dean of the Office of Graduate Studies at USF, acknowledging his receipt of the Notice and calling his suspension a "racially discriminative and vindictive action." He further advised Dr. Smith that he would "make an open response to the whole university" and file a grievance regarding the suspension. On June 21, 2013, Petitioner filed an internal grievance regarding his suspension pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement between USF and United Faculty of Florida (Union). On January 2, 2014, Petitioner filed a Notice of Arbitration with USF's Office of the Provost, indicating his intent to arbitrate the matter. However, the Union subsequently declined to proceed with arbitration, no arbitration was scheduled or conducted, and the grievance was withdrawn. Petitioner agrees that USF did not prevent him from arbitrating the dispute. On May 4, 2015, or a few months before his suspension ended, Petitioner filed his Complaint with the EEOC. The Complaint was later referred to the FCHR and was date-stamped on January 25, 2016. It alleged race and national origin discrimination and retaliation. Whether there is a workshare agreement between the two agencies that allows the EEOC complaint to operate as a dual filing with the FCHR, with the same filing date, is not of record. In any event, for purposes of this Recommended Order, it makes no difference whether the filing date is May 4, 2015, or January 25, 2016. The allegations in the Complaint were investigated by an FCHR investigator. Among other things, she conducted a 90-minute, unrecorded telephonic interview with Petitioner in April 2016 and reviewed his responses to a questionnaire. Although Petitioner contended at hearing that he raised additional allegations during the telephone interview, there is no credible evidence to support this claim. The investigator also spoke with persons at USF and received USF's written reply to the charges. After the review was completed, the FCHR determined the most recent allegation of discipline occurred on May 23, 2013, the Complaint was untimely, and it had no jurisdiction to investigate the charges. Other than the suspension, the Complaint does not identify any other discrete acts of discrimination or retaliation during the 365 days preceding the date of filing the Complaint. The deadline for filing a complaint regarding the suspension expired in May 2014. Petitioner did not seek to amend his Complaint to add new charges before the FCHR began its investigation. At hearing, however, he testified regarding a number of grievances, including a less-than-satisfactory evaluation received for the fall semester 2015; difficulty in arranging premium payments on his health insurance and changing coverage from family to single while he was suspended; unfair student evaluations he received for two courses he taught in the fall of 2015; and his inability to supervise a graduate student's literature review in the fall of 2015. All of these events occurred long after he was suspended, involved different actors and types of conduct, were dissimilar from each other, and should have been raised by timely amending his Complaint or by filing a new complaint with the FCHR. Petitioner offered no proof that he was misled or lulled into inaction by USF or FCHR. Rather, Petitioner explained that he waited to file his Complaint with the EEOC until after the grievance was resolved, and he had not yet retained an attorney to represent him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief as untimely filed. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Suite 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Richard F. Meyers, Esquire The Meyers Firm, P.A. Post Office Box 16308 Tampa, Florida 33687-6308 (eServed) Craig S. Dawson, Esquire Office of the General Counsel University of South Florida 4202 East Fowler Avenue, CGS301 Tampa, Florida 33620-9951 (eServed) Cheyanne M. Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Suite 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Ruthye Smith, was discriminated against on the basis of her race when she was not selected for two administrative positions with the Brevard County School Board in 1998.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Brevard County School Board, is the public entity that operates the public schools in Brevard County, Florida, and is the employer of teachers, administrators and other personnel involved in operating public schools. Petitioner, Ruthye Smith, is an African-American female, who has been employed by Respondent as a teacher since 1973. Respondent utilizes a state-approved Human Resource Management and Development Plan, known by the acronym "HRMD," for the training, evaluation, and selection of principals, assistant principals, and deans. HRMD utilizes an interview process for personnel selection called "targeted selection" which identifies "dimensions" for each employee position that are developed through an in-depth job analysis of each position. The targeted selection interview process is designed to evaluate a candidate's qualifications for a position by assessing the candidate's responses to questions designed to reveal the candidate's ability to fulfill requirements of the dimensions identified for the particular position. "Targeted selection" identifies the following seven dimensions for the assistant principal position: communication, decisiveness, leadership, energy and tolerance for stress, planning and organization, control/monitoring, and technical/professional knowledge. A candidate for a principal, assistant principal or dean position is questioned/interviewed by two certified targeted selection interviewers in one-on-one interviews. These interviewers are principals or former principals who have been promoted to director or assistant superintendent and who have received specific training in utilizing the targeted selection process. Each interviewer rates and scores the candidate in separate interviews, evaluating the candidate's responses to certain questions from an interview guide that provides questions directly related to the seven dimensions. The result is a "dimension rating" with a range from a low of 1 to a high of 5 in each of the seven dimensions. After each interviewer has concluded his or her interview, the interviewers confer and form a consensus of the dimension ratings generated by the candidate's responses and prepare a data integration form which documents a consensus dimension rating given the candidate by the interviewers for each targeted dimension. A candidate for selection to an administrative position such as principal, assistant principal, or dean is not deemed qualified unless the candidate scores at least a consensus 3 in each of the seven targeted dimensions. Respondent typically pursues three initial steps in the personnel selection process: advertising the position, evaluating applicants to see if they meet basic criteria, and giving candidates who meet the basic criteria targeted selection interviews. In the instant case, in April 1998, Petitioner applied for two advertised assistant principal positions. Having met the criteria for consideration, Petitioner was given two targeted selection interviews on June 10, 1998. The data integration form prepared by the interviewers records a consensus score of 1 in each of the seven targeted dimensions. Based on the targeted selection interviews and the resultant consensus scores, Petitioner did not score the consensus 3 in each of the seven targeted dimensions required to qualify for consideration for the assistant principal positions. Utilizing the same targeted selection interview process, Respondent identified other qualified candidates who were selected for the positions; both of the candidates selected were Caucasian females.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 22nd day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold T. Bistline, Esquire Stromire, Bistline, Miniclier & Griffith 1970 Michigan Avenue, Building E Post Office Box 8248 Cocoa, Florida 32924-8248 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Levi G. Williams, Esquire Fertig & Gramling 200 Southeast Thirteenth Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was denied promotion to the position of Secretary III with the Respondent in the Environmental Services Department on or about June 10, 1992, on the basis of her race (African- American), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a constitutionally created school district charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools in Brevard County, Florida, and is an employer under the Florida Human Relations Act of 1977, as amended. Petitioner was employed by the Brevard County School District as a Clerk-Typist in the Environmental Services Department during the relevant period of time including April 1992. Petitioner is an African-American, and a member of a protected class. She is the only African-American who is assigned to work in the Environmental Services Department. During April of 1992, Petitioner worked as a Clerk Typist in the Environmental Services Department, and the Secretary III position was held by Sylvana Wall. Subsequent to April of 1992, Sylvana Wall resigned, creating a vacancy in the Secretary III position in the Department. In the interim period from the time Sylvana Wall resigned, and the date the position was filled in July of 1992, Petitioner undertook to perform the duties of the Secretary III position, and in accordance with the applicable collective bargaining agreement, was paid for said period of time in the higher classification. Following creation of the vacancy, a job vacancy announcement was posted and advertised. Applications were received and reviewed by a selection committee composed of Irma Reinpoldt, Department Director, and Michael Rogers, Environmental Engineer. Petitioner submitted application for the vacant position. Subsequently, applicants except Petitioner, were interviewed by the committee, and a decision was made to employ applicant Rhonda Steward, a white female, for the Secretary III position in the Environmental Services Department. Petitioner was not personally interviewed for the Secretary III position by the committee. They based their decision on the fact that Petitioner had been working for the department as a clerk typist for a number of months, and she had also filled in as the Secretary III for several months when the vacancy was created until the position was filled. Both members of the committee knew the Petitioner, her capabilities and qualifications, and considered it "redundant" to interview her. There was no School Board policy, custom, or practice that required the employer to personally interview all applicants for vacancies. The candidate selected, Rhonda Stewart, was fully qualified to fill the Secretary III position. The evidence showed that during the relevant period there were certain conflicts in the Department, not related to race. There was evidence of personality disputes, such as name calling, and unwillingness by Petitioner to do secretarial functions for certain members of the Environmental Services Department, particularly an Environmental Specialist who was dyslexic. In addition, certain co-employees did not get along with the Petitioner and vice versa. However, there was no indication from the sworn testimony that race played a part in the decision made by the Respondent to hire someone else for the position. It was the practice of Respondent that the immediate supervisor and department head determine who was the best qualified for a job vacancy, subject to any review by the Personnel Division. The Petitioner presented no testimony including her own, that she did not get promoted to the Secretary III position because of her race, or that there was disparate treatment of African-Americans by the Respondent in the hiring or promotion of minorities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order which DENIES the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2650 The following constitute my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8(in part), 9, 10(in part), 11 Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or as comment on the evidence: paragraphs 8(in part), 10(in part) COPIES FURNISHED: Cislyn Stephenson Emil Stephenson Qualified Representative 2298 September Street Melbourne, Florida 32935 Bill Walker, Esquire School Board of Brevard County 2700 St. Johns Street Melbourne, Florida 32940 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact During the fall of 1974 OWHEA, an affiliate of the National Education Association, commenced efforts to organize instructional personnel employed by OWJC. By letter dated February 20, 1975, directed to Dr. J. E. McCracken, the President of OWJC, the OWHEA requested recognition as the bargaining agent for all full-time, regularly employed, certified instructional personnel. (PERC Exhibit 5). By letter dated February 26, 1975 the request for voluntary recognition was denied. On March 3, 1975 the OWHEA filed a petition with the Public Employees Relations Commission through which recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent of instructional personnel at OWJC was sought. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). A hearing was scheduled to be conducted on May 1, 1975. On that date the parties entered into an Agreement for Certification Upon Consent Election. In accordance with the Agreement the election was conducted on September 18, 1975. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). On September 25, 1975 the Public Employees Relations Commission, through its Chairman, verified the results of the election. By a vote of 41 to 27 OWJC employees within the prospective bargaining unit rejected representation by the OWHEA. (Hearing Officer's Exhibit 1). On July 21, 1975, approximately two months prior to the election, the OWHEA filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Public Employees Relations Commission. Subsequent to the election the OWHEA filed Objections to Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election. By order of the Acting General Counsel of the Public Employees Relations Commission, the two matters were consolidated and a hearing was conducted before the undersigned on January 14, 15, 26, and 27, 1976. On November 7, 1974, Dr. J. E. McCracken, President of OWJC, and a voting member of the Board of Trustees of OWJC, called a meeting of the Faculty Council. The Faculty Council is a group of five faculty members, who meet periodically with the President and members of the President's staff to consider faculty problems and to provide recommendation to the President. At least four of the five members of the Faculty Council at that time were members of OWHEA. The meeting was called to discuss solicitation and distribution guidelines in light of the collective bargaining law, Florida Statutes Sections 447.201 et seq. which would go into effect January 1, 1975. Dr. McCracken wished to adopt guidelines for solicitations by employee organizations in the interim period before comprehensive guidelines were adopted by the Public Employees Relations Commission. The November 7 meeting lasted for longer than one hour. Every member of the council made some contribution to the meeting. Solicitation guidelines substantially similar to those ultimately promulgated, (See: PERC Exhibit 2) were discussed. No disagreement to such guidelines was expressed at the meeting. A solicitation guideline policy was then drafted by President McCracken, and was presented to the faculty at a November 19, 1975 meeting. At the hearing several members of the Faculty Council testified that they were surprised to see the guidelines as they were presented at the November 19 faculty meeting, but none of them spoke in opposition to the guidelines at the meeting. If members of the Faculty Council opposed the guidelines, their opposition crystalized after the November 9 Council meeting, and was not openly expressed at the November 19 faculty meeting. There may not have been a full consensus in support of the guidelines among members of the Faculty Council as expressed in the body of the solicitation guidelines; however, President McCracken was justified in believing that there was such a consensus since no opposition was expressed. The solicitation guidelines were later amended by a memorandum from Dr. McCracken to all personnel dated June 2, 1975. (See: PERC Exhibit 16). The solicitation guidelines presented to the faculty meeting on November 19, 1975 provide in part as follows: "The Faculty Council and the President of the College were in full consensus in affirming the following specifics relative to solicitations on the campus: College personnel are not to be subjected to solicitation by any groups or persons on-campus between 7:30 A.M. and 10:30 P.M. except in the following specified dining areas and during the scheduled lunch hour of any given employee. Meetings and activities on-campus shall be scheduled through the office of the Director of Community Services, Mr. James Rhoades, who maintains the official calendar of College activities and the official room-use schedule. All meetings and activities on the College campus, as a public institution campus, are intended to be in full compliance with the Sunshine Law of the State of Florida. On-campus distribution of any literature and notices which are not official College business shall be by placement on or in the square counters in the front lobby of the Administration Building. Posters and notices of interest to personnel of the College shall be placed in the covered main bulletin board in the front lobby of the Administration Building. Mr. Rhoades, Director of Community Services, will receive such materials for posting and will assure that such notices will be posted and that outdated and obsolete notices are removed." The guideline is signed by Dr. McCracken followed by the following note: "Although inadvertently overlooked in the discussions with the Faculty Council, it is, of course, obviously understood that College clerical services, postage, materials production services, telephones, and equipments are to be used only for official College business." The amendments to the solicitation guidelines distributed in the June 2, 1975 memorandum define "working time" as follows: "Okaloosa-Walton Junior College is officially opened to its clientele and operating with them from 7:30 through 10:30, Monday through Friday. Working time is that time when an employee has any scheduled obligations, whether instructional or non-instructional, to perform with respect to his position at the College including but not limited to all such obligations as required office hours, committee work, conferences, and official meetings." Solicitation is defined in the memorandum in pertinent part as follows: "College personnel are not to be subjected to solicitation by any groups or persons on- campus for any purpose when any person involved in the solicitation is on "working time" as defined above. Meetings and activities on-campus shall be scheduled through the office of the Director of Community Services, who maintains the official calendar of College activities and the official room-use schedule. All meetings and activities on the College campus, as a public institution, are intended to be in full compliance with the Sunshine Law of the State of Florida. On-campus distribution of any literature or notices which are not official College business shall not take place during working time, nor shall it take place in areas where actual work of public employees is normally performed. Posters and notices of interest to personnel of the College shall be placed in the covered main bulletin board in the front lobby of the Administration Building. The Director of Community Services will receive such materials for posting and will assure that such notices will be posted and that outdated and obsolete notices are removed. College clerical services, postage, materials production services, telephones, and equipments are to be used only for official College business and shall not be used in any way for solicitation or for promotion of unsanctioned activities or of organizations other than those which are official elements of the College or in which the College holds institutional membership." The November guidelines were not literally followed by the OWHEA, either in its efforts to secure the requisite showing of interest or in the election campaign. Many solicitations occurred outside of the designated areas during the proscribed hours, and several occurred during times when the person being solicited was actually on duty. The President of OWJC had reason to believe that the guidelines were being violated, but no effort to enforce them was ever initiated. Members and officers of the OWHEA who were involved in the organizational effort and in the election campaign gave various interpretations of the solicitation guidelines that were issued in November, and the amendments to the guidelines issued in June. The guidelines prohibited certain activities which the OWHEA considered desirable; however, the OWHEA was able to engage in a wide variety of campaign activities, and an even wider variety of activities that were available were not utilized. During the campaign members of the OWHEA spoke freely in support of the organization to non-members in the hallways, in the lunchroom, in the parking lot, and in faculty offices. The OWHEA distributed numerous bulletins, newsletters, and assorted memoranda to persons in the prospective bargaining unit. Material was delivered through the mails directly to OWJC, where it was placed in the faculty mailboxes; was delivered through the mails to the residences of faculty members; and was placed at a distribution point in close proximity to the mailboxes so that it could be read by any interested person. Respondent's Exhibits 2 and 4 - 16 are all examples of such literature that was distributed prior to the election. Respondent's Exhibits 17 - 23 are examples of literature distributed after the election. The total volume of materials distributed by the OWHEA through these avenues exceeded materials distributed by the Respondent. OWHEA members personally contacted many persons within the prospective bargaining unit. Many of the authorization cards which were forwarded by the OWHEA to the Public Employees Relations Commission with the representation certification petition were signed on campus as a result of such direct communications. The OWHEA conducted several off campus meetings. Members of the prospective bargaining unit were urged to attend such meetings and several did attend. There was testimony that these meetings were not well attended; however, there was no testimony offered from which it could be concluded that members of the prospective bargaining unit could not have attended these meetings or were not adequately apprised of them. On the contrary it appears that members of the prospective bargaining unit were apprised of the meetings and could have attended them if they desired. The OWHEA was allowed the opportunity to speak at a faculty meeting with respect to the benefits that might be obtained from the collective bargaining process, and with respect to the desirability of having the OWHEA as the bargaining agent. The OWHEA declined to avail itself of this opportunity. Mr. Chilton Jensen delivered a brief statement at that meeting. A copy of the statement was received into evidence as PERC Exhibit 3. Several campaign devices were available to the OWHEA, but were not utilized. The OWHEA could have distributed literature by placing it on automobiles in the faculty parking lot. There was testimony that this would have been too time consuming, but there was also testimony that on some days faculty members had as much as two hours of time which was not devoted to official OWJC duties. At least one bulletin board was available to the OWHEA for placing posters. While undoubtedly not the most effective campaign device, as noted by several OWHEA members, it is one, and could only have assisted in advancing the OWHEA position. While the OWHEA requested that certain meeting facilities be provided for presentations to be given during the lunch hours, no request was made to, conduct such meetings in the area set out in the solicitation guidelines. The only reason for failing to request use of these facilities given by OWHEA officials was that students were often present in that area, and that they did not feel it appropriate to "air the dirty wash" in an area where students were present. No request was made to alleviate this problem by setting aside, an area in the lunchroom. It was suggested that use of this facility would not have been appropriate because managerial officials of the OWJC would be able to attend the meeting. This was not, however, a concern of the OWHEA at the time that it was requesting meeting facilities. In its letter requesting use of other meeting facilities, the OWHEA invited Dr. McCracken, the chief managerial employee of the OWJC to attend the meeting. (PERC Exhibit 9). As stated above, the OWHEA was able to distribute materials to members of the prospective bargaining unit through the mails. There was absolutely no limitation upon such distributions. Distributions could have been timed so that members of the prospective unit would have received whatever amount of literature at whatever time the OWHEA deemed appropriate. No evidence was presented as to whether any telephone solicitations were conducted. This was a campaign device that was available to the OWHEA. Several campaign devices were not available to the OWHEA under the solicitation guidelines. The OWHEA was prohibited from using the campus mail system. The OWJC maintains a mailroom. Each faculty member has a mail box with a combination, in which many college related bulletins are placed. Mail directed to a faculty member through the Junior College is placed in these boxes. The OWHEA desired to use this mailing system so that it could distribute literature to members of the faculty without having to pay mailing expenses. The solicitation guidelines restricted the availability of meeting rooms. On one occasion the OWHEA requested a meeting room other than the lunch area designated in the solicitation guidelines. (See: PERC Exhibits 9, and 12) The request was denied by Dr. McCracken on behalf of the Respondent. (See: PERC Exhibits 10 and 13). The request was denied for several reasons, and indeed, as noted by one OWHEA official, would have been very difficult to grant as framed. It is apparent that any request for a meeting facility other than in the area designated in the solicitation guidelines would have been denied. The OWHEA was not permitted to make a presentation to any faculty meeting, other than at the November meeting. The OWHEA was not permitted to solicit members, or to campaign during working hours, and was not permitted to use the staff or facilities of the OWJC to assist in the campaign effort. The Respondent, under the direction of Dr. McCracken, engaged in an active campaign in opposition to collective bargaining and in opposition to the OWHEA. At a meeting of the faculty in February, 1975, Dr. McCracken read a statement which was received into evidence as PERC Exhibit 6. Counsel for the Respondent made an additional presentation at the meeting. Attendance at the faculty meeting during these presentations was optional. No compunction existed for any faculty member to stay during the presentation. The Respondent distributed numerous memoranda to its faculty respecting the collective bargaining process and OWHEA. Such memoranda were received into evidence as PERC Exhibits B, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27. Additional memoranda were distributed subsequent to the election. (See: PERC Exhibits 28, 29, 34, 35, 37, and 38.) The Respondent did not make any further presentations at faculty meetings, and engaged in no personal contact campaign. Members of the proposed unit who opposed collective bargaining spoke to undecided members of the proposed unit, but there was no evidence from which it could be concluded that there was any connection between that activity and the administration of OWJC. In support of their contention that the Respondent engaged in a campaign of misrepresentation, the general counsel and the OWHEA cite PERC Exhibits B, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and PERC Exhibit 8 is a memorandum that was distributed to the OWJC faculty through the faculty mail system on February 26, 1975. In this memorandum Dr. McCracken treats the request from the OWHEA for recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent of instructional personnel at OWJC as an effort by OWHEA to avoid the election process. In fact, such a request is a condition precedent to the filing of a representation certification petition requesting an election when the employee organization claims that it represents more than fifty percent of the persons in the proposed unit, as did the OWHEA. Dr. McCracken's characterization of the request for exclusive representation totally ignores the fact that the OWHEA was required to make the request. There was, however, ample opportunity for the OWHEA to respond to Dr. McCracken's memorandum, and to set the record straight. The February 26, 1975 memorandum is not such as would have had any effect upon the election, which was conducted some seven months later. PERC Exhibit 14 is a memorandum dated April 11, 1975 from Dr. McCracken directed to the faculty of OWJC through the faculty mails. The memorandum essentially states the Respondent's position in opposition to collective bargaining and to the OWHEA. The following language from the exhibit was cited as a misrepresentation: . . . I would like to state my perception of where we are and where we are going from here. Essentially, it is very simple. We now have two facets of activity going on: (1) the intrusion into normal activities of a representation petition submitted to PERC by Mr. Eugene Stafford, local Director of UNISERV/FUSA/NEA and agent for OWHEA, this development forcing, from here on, active use by the College and by OWHEA of essential, specialized legal assistance; and (2) our ever-present, on-going obligations to the regular planning, services, functions, and commitments of this College." This memorandum constitutes at most an extravagant statement in opposition to the collective bargaining process. PERC Exhibit 21 is a memorandum from Dr. McCracken A directed to all instructional personnel, distributed through the campus mail system, dated September 9, 1975. In the memorandum Dr. McCracken sought to refute certain statements made by the OWHEA in a memorandum dated August 12, 1975 (Respondent's Exhibit 14). In its August 12 memorandum, the OWHEA asserted that the collective bargaining process resulted in substantial gains to members of the faculty in the public schools in Okaloosa County. Many of the "gains" set out in the OWHEA memorandum were subjects of collective bargaining in the Okaloosa County Public Schools; however, they were also matters which had already been a part of the teachers' contracts and were not gains at all. Far from containing misstatements, Dr. McCracken's September 9, 1975 memorandum accurately explains the exaggerations contained in OWHEA's August 12 memorandum. PERC Exhibits 22, 23, 24, 25 and 27 are similar to PERC Exhibit 14. They set out what can be called an exaggerated view in opposition to the collective bargaining process and to the OWHEA. The OWHEA distributed materials which present an exaggerated view in favor of the OWHEA. The memoranda distributed by the Respondent did not result in any subversion of the election process. The OWHEA had adequate opportunity to respond to all of the alleged misrepresentations except for those set out in PERC Exhibits 24, 25, and 27. The election was conducted on September 18, 1975. PERC Exhibit 24 was distributed on September 15, 1975; PERC Exhibit 25 `was distributed one September 16, 1975, and PERC Exhibit 27 was distributed on September 18, 1975. Because of the inability of OWHEA to directly respond to these memoranda, special attention should be given them. In PERC Exhibit 24 Dr. McCracken asserted that information distributed by the OWHEA respecting average teachers salaries at the OWJC was inaccurate. No evidence was offered at the hearing to establish that the information set out in PERC Exhibit 24 was inaccurate. PERC Exhibit 25 contains a statement that the OWHEA's national affiliate was supporting legislation that would require non-union members in a certified bargaining unit to pay a fee to the union in an amount equal to membership dues. The NEA was not supporting such legislation. This misrepresentation was not substantial, and would have had appeal only to persons who did not wish to have the OWHEA serve as its bargaining representative. PERC Exhibit 27 contains the following language: "The Board of Trustees and the President over the past months - almost a year now - have diligently resisted many harassments in order to bring to you today your right to vote secretly . . ." Dr. McCracken had not intended the word "harassments" to refer to activity of the OWHEA. While the word "harassments" might be construed as derogatory of the OWHEA, any member of the faculty of the OWJC would have already been aware that Dr. McCracken held a derogatory opinion of the OWHEA. To the extent that the term "harassments" is a misstatement, it is not one that would have had any material effect upon the outcome of the election. All of the various memoranda distributed by Dr. McCracken which contained exaggerated language, or statements in opposition to collective bargaining and the OWHEA, considered together, would not have had an improper, substantial effect upon the electoral process. As set out above, the OWHEA was not permitted to use the OWJC mailing system to distribute information to members of the faculty, and was not permitted to make presentations to any regular faculty meetings subsequent to November, 1975. The Florida Association of Community Colleges; however, was permitted to use the mailing system and was given time during the faculty meetings to make presentations, including solicitations for membership. The FACC is an organization whose general purpose is to advance the Florida Public Community College program. A copy of the FACC bylaws which set out the purposes of the FACC was received in evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 27. The Florida Association of Community Colleges is not an employee organization within the meaning of the Public Employees Relations Act. Dr. McCracken advanced the FACC as an organization worthy of support by members of the faculty; however, in doing that he was not a lending support to an employee organization opposing the OWHEA, but rather to a general professional organization. Other organizations were permitted to use the facilities at OWJC to make presentations. Such organizations included the American Association of University Women, a local concert group, armed services recruiters, and a politician. No employee organizations were permitted use of campus facilities for meetings, and those organizations which were permitted use of the facilities made educational, cultural, or community oriented presentations. In its motion to dismiss the objections case, the Respondent has asserted that the General Counsel conducted no investigation of the allegations of the OWHEA's petition. The General Counsel was invited to submit an affidavit respecting what, if any, investigation was undertaken. No affidavit was submitted, and it was asserted at the hearing that the investigation conducted in connection with the unfair labor practice case, and the hearing itself constituted the investigation. In its objections petition, the OWHEA asserted that the Respondent failed to deliver a list of teachers to the OWHEA as required in the Certification Upon Consent Election Agreement. Such a list was mailed to Chilton Jensen, who had been listed as the president of the OWHEA within the time period set out in the agreement. Mr. Jensen was ill, and he did not pick up his mail until after the period set out in the agreement. He then delivered it to Mr. Leatherwood, who had become President of the OWHEA. The failure of the OWHEA to obtain a copy of the list within the period set out in the agreement was not the fault of the Respondent. No substantial competent evidence was offered at the hearing from which it could be concluded that the Respondent coerced, threatened, or intimidated any members of the prospective collective bargaining unit; that the members of the collective bargaining unit were unable to inform themselves with respect to the merits of the collective bargaining system, and the OWHEA; or that the OWHEA was unable to disseminate information to members of the prospective collective bargaining unit. The Respondent did not interfere with, restrain or coerce its employees in the exercise of their rights under the Public Employees Relations Act.
Findings Of Fact Respondent at times relevant to the inquiry employed 15 or more employees in each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the year. Petitioner worked for the Respondent from May 7, 1984 through December 19, 1991. Petitioner had tendered his resignation on December 6, 1991 from his position as Engineering Technician IV. His intention was that his resignation become effective December 20, 1991. On December 6, 1991, Jerry G. Smith, District Land Surveyor for District II, State of Florida, Department of Transportation, accepted Petitioner's resignation effective December 20, 1991. This action by Mr. Smith was by virtue of his responsibility for the Mapping and Surveying Section of which Petitioner was a part. Respondent did not solicit Petitioner's resignation. In the chain of command Mr. Smith was 2 or 3 times removed from Petitioner. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1 describes the duties of Engineering Technician IV incumbent upon Petitioner until November 12, 1991. Those duties were as follows: Plots and inks the final right of way and assists other Department Personnel in the preparation of maps. These maps must meet D.O.T. and Federal Highway Administration Standards. Works with the Document Preparation Section in locating property lines and determining what information is needed on maps in order to prepare legal descriptions. Assists in the verification of final right of way requirements with Road Design Personnel. Assists in the review of right of way maps prepared by Consultants. Assists in making the computations that are needed for map and deed preparation. Provides other Department Personnel and the General Public with right of way information as required. Performs related work as required. Percentages of time will vary due to work load. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 describes the job description for Engineering Technician IV related to the Petitioner from the period November 12, 1991 through December 19, 1991. Those duties were as follows: 30 percent Prepares very complicated legal descriptions of real property to be acquired by the Department of Transportation. These are written by hand and also by using "Legal Holiday", Computer Software. 30 percent Plots Title Search (Abstract) on Right of Way Maps and determines owners and encumbrances. 15 percent Reviews legal descriptions of real property and related documents prepared by other employees or/and Consultants. 15 percent Compute areas of parcels needed for right of way. Also, computes areas, distances, and bearings on property remainders. 5 percent Determines the types of instruments of conveyance to be prepared. 5 percent Performs related work as required. Percentages of time will vary, due to work load. Some unspecified person within the architectural and engineering firm, Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc. made contact with Petitioner concerning the possibility that he might serve as an office engineer in the firm's Lake City, Florida office. This contact was made in October, 1991. On December 3, 1991, Ed Griffin and Eric Rosenstein called Petitioner about the availability of the office engineer position. They wanted Petitioner to come to their Longwood, Florida office and interview about the position. On December 6, 1991, Petitioner went to the firm's Longwood office and was interviewed by Eric Rosenstein and Ed Griffin. They took a photocopy of his social security card and his resume to support his application for employment. Petitioner testified that Mr. Griffin and Mr. Rosenstein during the December 6, 1991 interview specifically stated that they wanted to hire him. These hearsay comments attributable to Mr. Griffin and Mr. Rosenstein were not otherwise proven. Therefore, it has not been established that Petitioner was offered a job with the Reynolds firm on December 6, 1991. Based upon the interview with Griffin and Rosenstein, Petitioner called Jerry Smith's office on December 6, 1991, and spoke to Carol Streer, secretary to Jerry Smith. He told her to prepare a letter of resignation for Petitioner and he told her to tell Jerry Smith that Petitioner would be leaving his position with Respondent in two weeks and wanted to give the Respondent two weeks' notice. This led to the resignation and acceptance of that resignation that has been addressed above. On November 1, 1991, the Reynolds firm had entered into an agreement with Respondent to serve as a consultant for purposes of construction engineering and inspection. This was in association with the resurfacing with bridge widening of Interstate 75. It is inferred that Petitioner had been interviewed by the Reynolds firm to serve as an office engineer to the Reynolds firm on the resurfacing project. In accordance with the agreement between the Reynolds firm and Respondent, related to the Interstate 75 resurfacing project, a definition is given concerning minimum training and experience standards for consultant personnel. Specifically, the training and experience anticipated for an office engineer is described in that agreement to this effect: OFFICE ENGINEER - High school graduate plus three (3) years experience in responsible charge of a construction office. Should exercise independent judgment in planning work details and making technical decisions related to office engineering aspects of the project. Accepts general supervision and verbal instructions from the Resident Engineer. Serve as the Resident Compliance Officer in surveillance of the Contractor's compliance with contract requirements. Within the agreement under Section 2.0 entitled: SCOPE, it states: . . . The Consultant shall provide technical and administrative personnel meeting the requirements set forth Section 9.0 of this Scope of Services in appropriate numbers at the proper times to ensure that the responsibilities under this Agree- ment are effectively carried out. All services shall be performed in accordance with the estab- lished standard procedures and practices of The Department. . . . Section 9.0C. entitled Staffing, within the agreement, states: . . . no personnel shall be assigned to this project by the Consultant until the qualifications of each person proposed have been reviewed and approved in writing by the Program Manager. The Consultant's personnel approval requests shall be submitted at least two weeks prior to the date an individual is to report to work. The Program Manager, according to the agreement, is: "the District employee designated to be in responsible charge and direct control of the projects covered by this agreement." On December 9, 1991, in accordance with the agreement, the Reynolds firm submitted Petitioner's name as proposed office engineer on the Interstate 75 project. This submission was made through a form seeking approval from the program manager. In support of the request to have the program manager approve the Petitioner to serve as an office manager to the consultant, the Reynolds firm submitted a resume which Petitioner had provided that firm. The resume which Petitioner gave to the Reynolds firm and the firm in turn gave to the Respondent's program manager stated as follows: R E S U M E Richard C. Bishop HOME 1605 N. E. 7th Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32609 Telephone (904) 373-6510 538-5225 OFFICE Surveying & Mapping Dept. Post Office Box 1089 Lake City, FL 32056-1089 Telephone (904) 752-3300 EXT. 3662 PERSONAL: Male, Caucasian, U. S. Citizen, Good Health, 5' 10", 195 lbs. EDUCATION: Univ. of Florida Business Administration San Jose City College Associates Degree, Electronic Engineering Univ. of North Florida Communications and Electronics US Air Force EXPERIENCE: Atlantic Ballistic Missile Range with Radio Corporation of America as Electronic-Equipment-Man working with HF and VHF Receivers and Transmitters, a 200+ station North Electric all system, Emergency Networks (radio and telephone), Radar Boresight Cameras, Optical Trackers, Control Room Plotting Boards and Captain of Disaster Control Team. West Virginia Department of Highways: Completed Engineer-In-Training program covering all phases of Construction Maintenance, Soil Mechanics and Testing including Marshall Stability Tests, Los Angeles Abrasion Tests as well as standard sieve analysis, flow plasticity, density, specific gravity, extractions, gradations and concrete and asphalt mix designs. Set up and managed a Complaint Department while continuing duties as an Area Maintenance Assistant over several counties. Certified Portland Cement Concrete Technician with sampling and testing experience in both field and laboratory testing methods. Licensed Nuclear Densitometer Operator with considerable experience using the Troxler Nuclear Densitometer measuring densities on fills, sub- grades and asphaltic concrete bases and overlays. Management and/or supervision in several privately owned asphalt paving and construction companies. Construction Inspection School for 10 weeks at St. Petersburg Junior College. Construction inspection on I-75, Alligator Alley and Toll Plaza, Marco Island Road and other projects in the Naples area, then SR 21, Orange Park to Middleburg, SR 121 at Raiford, Rocky Creek Bridge, 53rd Ave and Waldo Road intersection and others in the North Florida area. Presently working in Right of Way Engineering ordering, receiving and plotting title searches on maps and producing corresponding accurate maps and all the necessary legal documents required for the actual acquisition of real property with a right of way. In December, 1991, the program manager for Respondent on the Interstate 75 resurfacing with bridge widening project was Thomas E. Brenner. Mr. Brenner has never been acquainted with the Petitioner other than responding to the Reynolds firm's request to have the Petitioner approved to be the office engineer on the project. No proof was shown that Mr. Brenner has ever made derogatory statements about the Petitioner. Mr. Brenner in carrying out his function as program manager wrote to the Reynolds firm on December 11, 1991, disapproving the request to have the Petitioner approved as the office engineer for the consultant. In disapproving that request he made the following remarks: "Needs some EEO [sic] experience and three (3) years in responsible charge of a construction office." The experience which Petitioner had prior to December 9, 1991, when the Reynolds firm requested that he be approved as office engineer did not meet the training and experience standards within the agreement which were incumbent upon a person serving as an office engineer for the consultant. Thus, the reason for disapproving the request to have Petitioner serve as office engineer is borne out. The record is not clear concerning what is meant by the need for EEOC experience and what experience the Petitioner may have had with the EEOC process. However, it was not shown that Mr. Brenner placed the requirement for EEOC experience as a means to discriminate against the Petitioner in the firm's attempt to have him approved as office engineer. Following the disapproval of the request to have Petitioner approved as the office engineer for the consultant, Mr. Rosenstein called the Petitioner around December 17, 1991. He told the Petitioner that the Reynolds firm was having a problem getting the Petitioner approved to do work with the Respondent. This refers to the work on the Interstate 75 project as office engineer. Specifically, Mr. Rosenstein told the Petitioner that the difficulty had to do with not enough EEOC experience. Petitioner explained in response that he did not consider that this was a significant problem. Two or three days after December 17, 1991, Mr. Rosenstein called the Petitioner again and told him that the problem about EEOC had settled down and that the Respondent was opposing recognition of approval of the Petitioner for work as an office engineer based upon the Petitioner's lack of experience in the computer field related to LOTUS 1-2-3. Petitioner acknowledged that he did not have experience with that form of computer. The record does not bear out how those requirements with LOTUS 1-2-3 coincided with Mr. Brenner's reasons for disapproving the request to have Petitioner serve as office engineer to the consultant, if at all. Some time in January, 1992, Petitioner went to the Reynolds' Longwood, Florida office to give Ed Griffin further information in support of his application for employment. At that time Petitioner learned that the Reynolds firm did not intend to follow up their discussions held with Petitioner concerning his employment and that he would not be hired by the Reynolds firm. In addition to failing to prove that Mr. Brenner had made derogatory statements about him which might have interfered with Petitioner's opportunity to gain employment with the Reynolds firm, Petitioner failed to prove that any of Respondent's employees or managers had made derogatory statements which interfered with his opportunity to gain employment with the Reynolds' firm. The only suggestion that anyone working for the Respondent had made derogatory remarks about the Petitioner were promoted by the Petitioner himself. He told others who worked for Respondent that Jerry Smith wanted to get rid of or fire Petitioner and that Jerry Smith had said that Petitioner would never work a day for the Reynolds firm. Jerry Smith had not made these remarks. Jerry Smith had no contact with the Reynolds firm concerning the Petitioner. Moreover, Jerry Smith has had limited contact with Mr. Brenner and none of it was designed to influence Mr. Brenner in his decision to disapprove the request by the Reynolds firm to have Petitioner serve as office engineer for the consultant. Mr. Smith works in the production side of the District II operation. Mr. Brenner worked in the construction side of the District II operation while he was employed there. Unrelated to the attempt by Petitioner to gain employment with the Reynolds firm, Jerry Smith has had involvement with the Petitioner concerning personnel matters. On several occasions discussions were held between the Petitioner and Smith in which Petitioner was attempting to gain a promotion. On those occasions Smith told the Petitioner that he did not think that the Petitioner was operating at a level that warranted discussing promotion. Smith held the opinion of the Petitioner that the Petitioner could not perform the job duties incumbent upon him in his position as Engineering Technician IV. In particular, Mr. Smith did not believe that Petitioner would finish a task assigned and always had to have someone else finish the work for the Petitioner. Mr. Smith tried to have the Petitioner focus on the perceived shortcomings, but this did not lead to a satisfactory result from the point of view which Mr. Smith felt. When the Petitioner left his employment with the Respondent Mr. Smith made a notation that he would not recommend rehiring the Petitioner at some future date. There is no indication that Mr. Smith or anyone in a supervisory position with the Respondent ever took disciplinary action against the Petitioner for matters related to the Petitioner's performance as Engineering Technician IV. Robert Stewart who is a project manager for Respondent, a friend of Jerry Smith, was not involved in making the decision on December 9, 1991, to disapprove the request to have Petitioner serve as office engineer for the consultant. As stated before Robert Stewart had no contact with the Reynolds firm concerning the Petitioner and the Petitioner's possible employment with the Reynolds firm. The job description and resume information do not support the Petitioner in his claim that his experience gained while employed by the Respondent equates to the necessary experience to perform the duties as office engineer for the consultant in the Interstate 75 project. Nor does the record indicate that Mr. Brenner was aware of any experience outside the position description and resume when disapproving the request to have Petitioner serve as office engineer. Finally, the numerous requests which Petitioner made to gain additional training while employed by Respondent, which requests were not granted, were not matters which Petitioner has shown that he was entitled to be granted. Moreover, those requests have not been shown to be matters which coincide with the requirements for the position of office engineer to the consultant in the Interstate 75 project. On September 2, 1994, in the prehearing conference held by telephone, Petitioner indicated to Hearing Officer Davis that he accepted the "no charge" determination of the Florida Commission on Human Relations as to the untimeliness of his age discrimination allegation and waived his right to proceed on that claim. Petitioner's position by the Petitioner was memorialized in the order by Ms. Davis entered September 15, 1994. At the hearing held on October 20, 1994, Petitioner proceeded on the basis that the age discrimination claim was no longer viable.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered which dismisses the petition for relief based upon a claim of an unlawful employment practice by the Respondent as defined in Section 760.10(7), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 22nd day of December, 1994. APPENDIX The following discussion is given concerning the proposed facts found in Respondent's proposed recommended order: Paragraphs 1 through 4 are subordinate to facts. Paragraphs 5 through 7 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. Paragraphs 8 through 20 are subordinate to facts found. Paragraphs 21 and 22 are not necessary to the resolution of the dispute. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard C. Bishop 1606 Northeast Seventh Terrace Gainesville, FL 32609 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4113
