The Issue The first issue to be determined is whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character in violation of section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2011), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. If so, the second issue for consideration is what penalty should be imposed for such a violation.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer, having been issued Law Enforcement Certificate Number 194525 by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. At the time of the incident in question, Respondent was employed by the FHP. For an unspecified time prior to July 11, 2011, Respondent was involved in a relationship with a woman named Tamarah Rasmussen. For some period, she shared his home with him. However, in the weeks or months preceding July 11, 2011, the couple’s relationship had deteriorated, and Respondent wanted it to end. He had, however, allowed her to remain in the home “as a friend.” On July 10, 2011, the couple had a fight, and Respondent left the house. On July 11, 2011, Respondent returned to the home after his work shift, and told Ms. Rasmussen that he wanted their relationship to end. Respondent told her he wanted to sleep in a separate bed, and took the mattress pad off of a bed in a bedroom downstairs and put it on a separate bed upstairs. Ms. Rasmussen reacted by taking the mattress pad off of the second bed and throwing it out the window. Respondent retrieved the mattress pad. Ms. Rasmussen then poured a container of water on the bed where Respondent intended to sleep. Respondent turned on the video function on his cellular phone and asked Ms. Rasmussen about her actions. She responded by telling him he was a fool and an idiot, and that he was crazy. In what can be gleaned from the tape, Respondent asked her to take her things and leave. Instead, Ms. Rasmussen approached Respondent trying to get his phone as he started to go upstairs, and began hitting him. He can be heard on the cell phone recording repeatedly asking her to stop. Ms. Rasmussen repeatedly answered “no,” and “this was good enough for you last night,” and the sound of her striking Respondent can be heard clearly. This altercation occurred as Respondent attempted to retreat up the stairs. At one point, Respondent exclaimed that Ms. Rasmussen had hit him in the face, and Ms. Rasmussen responds, “yeah, I did.” Respondent and Ms. Rasmussen end up in what appears to be a walk-in closet upstairs. At that point, Respondent told Ms. Rasmussen that she was “going down,” and that he would “arrest her myself.” Respondent appeared to be out of breath. Ms. Rasmussen responded by telling him repeatedly that she was not under arrest and he was not arresting her for anything. She told him several times to stop, and to “get off of her,” stating that she could not breathe. Eventually, she told him that he had won, and asked him to help her up. Ms. Rasmussen testified that Respondent dragged her up the stairs, hitting her head on the stairwell on the way up. She testified further that he slammed her against the wall, handcuffed her behind her back, and was sitting on top of her while he did so, and while she pleaded with him to stop. According to her, Respondent hit her several times during the time they were in the closet, and then dragged her back down the stairs by the chain on the handcuffs. She also stated that Respondent threatened to kill her, saying that if he did so he could dispose of her body in the pond on the property and no one would know unless they drained the pond. Respondent, on the other hand, testified that Ms. Rasmussen began hitting him around the head and neck, and he was retreating up the stairs in an effort to get away from her, telling her repeatedly to stop. He testified that once they reached the closet, he told her he was arresting her and placed her hands behind her back in order to handcuff her. When she told him he was not arresting her for anything, he warned her not to “make me Taze you,” and finished placing the handcuffs on her wrists, behind her back. Respondent denied sitting on Ms. Rasmussen, saying that he knelt on one knee with one foot flat on the floor, and with Ms. Rasmussen secured between his legs, as he learned in law enforcement training. While Ms. Rasmussen testified that he dragged her down the stairs of the house and then threw her down the outside steps, Respondent testified that he carried her down the stairs of the home so as not to injure her, but that she was resisting him. While the taped recording contained sounds indicating that Respondent was being hit by Ms. Rasmussen going up the stairs, the same is not true with respect to the descent. Ms. Rasmussen can be heard telling Respondent to stop, but there is no sound that can be attributed to her head banging against the wall or anyone being dragged down the stairs. Once they were both downstairs, Respondent called in a “1024” on his FHP radio, which means “officer in jeopardy, send help as soon as possible.” The consensus of those officers testifying was that this call is rarely used and is the equivalent of “calling the calvary,” because the officer needs help immediately. Both Rasmussen and Respondent exited the home once the 1024 call was placed. Rasmussen testified at hearing that Respondent offered to take the handcuffs off of her and she refused the offer, saying that she wanted the responding officers to “see me exactly this way.” She got in his truck, which was parked near his locked law enforcement vehicle, and shut the door to get out of the rain. Law enforcement responding to the 1024 call were Marcus Bailey, an investigator with the Bay County Sheriff’s Office; FHP Major Eddie Johnson; and Lieutenant Davis Ward of the Bay County Sheriff’s Office. Their arrival at the home was approximately twelve minutes from the call being received by the FHP dispatcher. The Bay County Sheriff’s Office conducted the investigation of the matter, and because a law enforcement officer was involved, the investigation was conducted by supervisors. As a result of the incident, Respondent was placed on administrative duty on July 11, 2012, and terminated from the FHP July 16, 2012. The officers who responded all saw the video of the cell phone recording, which was also played several times during the course of the hearing. While, curiously, two of the three refer to Respondent as “taunting” Ms. Rasmussen at the beginning of the video, the video does not display or record anything that the undersigned could describe as taunting. It portrayed Respondent expressing dismay at Ms. Rasmussen’s behavior; Respondent requesting that she get her things and leave; Ms. Rasmussen’s angry response; the sounds of Ms. Rasmussen hitting Respondent; Responding placing her under arrest and reciting her rights; and Ms. Rasmussen’s angry response and cries for help and for Respondent to let her go. Respondent’s supervisor, Sergeant Ronnie Baker, testified that Respondent was a great employee who went “above and beyond,” and who prior to this incident (which Sergeant Baker did not witness), had no complaints against him. Sergeant Baker, among others, testified that Ms. Rasmussen had a reputation for untruthfulness. The undersigned reviewed the tape several times. It is of limited assistance in deciphering what is, in reality, an event where the only witnesses are the participants, Respondent and Ms. Rasmussen. However, after listening to the tape and observing the demeanor of witnesses (both at hearing and in the tape), Ms. Rasmussen’s account of the incident is simply not credible. The sounds on the tape clearly support the testimony that Ms. Rasmussen was hitting Respondent repeatedly as they went up the stairs. There are no corresponding sounds to support her contention that he slammed her head into the wall or dragged her down the stairs. Moreover, the pictures of Ms. Rasmussen do not clearly depict bruising or swelling consistent with her description of the incident. There are slight red marks on Ms. Rasmussen’s wrists, but they do not provide clear and convincing evidence that he dragged her anywhere, much less down the stairs. The marks on her arms are just as likely to indicate her resisting his efforts to carry her down the stairs. Moreover, her claim that he threatened to kill her and dispose of her body in the pond on the property is totally inconsistent with Respondent’s actions in placing a 1024 request for assistance, and waiting at the front of the property for assistance to arrive. The Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with use of excessive force by slamming Ms. Rasmussen’s head and/or placing handcuffs on the victim tightly and/or dragging her down the stairs while handcuffed. There is no clear and convincing evidence that Respondent slammed Ms. Rasmussen’s head against anything; that he put the handcuffs on her too tightly; or that he dragged her down the stairs while handcuffed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 29th day of January, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Philip S. Spaziante (Address of record) Sandra Renee Coulter, Esquire Room A432 2900 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Gerald M. Bailey, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Macia Poole, was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, Westminster Village of Pensacola, on account of her sex or due to retaliation for her opposition to an unlawful employment practice in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 3, 2015, Petitioner’s Employment Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief were transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Florida Commission on Human Relations for a formal administrative hearing to be held in accordance with section 120.57, Florida Statutes. On April 10, 2015, a Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference was entered which set the final hearing for June 1, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., Central Time, (10:00 a.m., Eastern Time), at video teleconference sites in Pensacola, at the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims, Video Teleconferencing Room, 700 South Palafox Street, Suite 305, Pensacola, Florida, and in Tallahassee, at the Division of Administrative Hearings, the DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida. On May 4, 2015, one Subpoena Duces Tecum and four Subpoenas Ad Testificandum were issued at the request of Petitioner. On May 14, 2015, Petitioner electronically filed her Notice of Appearance in this proceeding. On May 26, 2015, Petitioner filed a Request to Reschedule Video Hearing. The Request made no allegation of an inability to attend the hearing, only that her attendance would be an “inconvenience.” The Request was denied. The filing of the Request is convincing evidence that Petitioner knew that the final hearing was scheduled to be heard in accordance with the Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference. On June 1, 2015, at the scheduled date, time, and place, the final hearing was convened. Mr. Moran, representing Respondent, Westminster Village of Pensacola, made his appearance. Petitioner did not appear. The final hearing was recessed for twenty minutes to allow Petitioner to appear. During the recess, the undersigned confirmed that the Division had not received any communication from Petitioner of exigent circumstances that may have interfered with her appearance at the final hearing. After twenty minutes had passed, the final hearing was re-convened. Petitioner was not in attendance. Respondent was prepared to proceed, and had its witnesses in attendance at the Pensacola video location. Mr. Moran confirmed that he had received no emails from Petitioner, that being their normal form of communication. At 9:25 a.m., Central Time, (10:25 a.m., Eastern Time), the final hearing was adjourned. There was no evidence presented at the final hearing in support of Petitioner’s Employment Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent, Westminster Village of Pensacola, did not commit an unlawful employment practice as to Petitioner, Macia Poole, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2014-01235. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 3rd day of June, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy Scott Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Brian J. Moran, Esquire Moran Kidd Lyons Johnson, P.A. 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 900 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Macia Deanne Poole Apartment 176 6901A North 9th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32504 (eServed) Christopher R. Parkinson, Esquire Moran, Kidd, Lyons, and Johnson, P.A. 111 North Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Alfred Welch, violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by using his official position to attempt to secure a special benefit for himself in terms of his own sexual gratification, and by misusing his official position to conceal a traffic ticket received by Suzanne Pridgeon?
Findings Of Fact GENERAL. The Respondent. The Respondent, Alfred Welch, is the Clerk of the Circuit Court (hereinafter referred to as the "Clerk") for Madison County, Florida. Mr. Welch has continuously served as the Clerk for the past eleven years. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Welch served as a public officer subject to Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. Clerk's Office Personnel. At the time that Mr. Welch took office as Clerk there were approximately six to seven employees employed in the Clerk's office. During the period of time since Mr. Welch took office as Clerk there have been as many as ten persons employed in the Clerk's office. Employees of the Clerk's office were hired by Mr. Welch, were subject to his supervision and could be fired by him. Mr. Welch's employees were all female because it was very rare that a male applied for a position in the Clerk's office. During the period of time at issue in this proceeding, the following individuals worked for Mr. Welch in the Clerk's office and were under his supervision and control: Cheri Williams Sims: Ms. Sims worked for Mr. Welch on three separate occasions: (1) She began work for Mr. Welch on a part-time basis while attending a community college; (2) She left to attend a four-year college and later returned to a full-time position; and (3) She left again, this time to join the Navy, and later returned full-time. Ms. Sims was known as Cheri Williams while she was employed in the Clerk's office. Madeline Ginn: Employed as a deputy clerk since 1973. Ramona Dickinson: Employed as a deputy clerk since 1979. Jeanette Carter: Employed as a deputy clerk for the past twenty years. Catherine Ann Reams: Employed from approximately March, 1986, until 1989. Rachel Bush: Employed as a deputy clerk from 1977 until June of 1986. Melinda Jan Mims: Employed in 1978 or 1979, left the Clerk's office and returned part-time in late 1982. She became a full-time employee of the Clerk's office from April, 1983, until approximately February or March, 1986. Ms. Mims was known as "Jan Rutherford" when she worked for the Clerk's office and as "Jan Oladell" after she left the Clerk's office until some time prior to the taking of her deposition testimony in this case. Judy James: Employed in the Clerk's office since February, 1984. She was formerly known as Judy Pride. Suzanne Pridgeon: Employed in the Clerk's office from 1983 until 1987. Barbara Hudson: Employed in the Clerk's office for approximately two to two and one-half years. She was employed part of the time that Ms. Mims worked for Mr. Welch. Mary Floyd: Employed in the Clerk's office for the past ten years. Joyce Wells: Employed in the Clerk's office since August, 1986. Prior to August, 1986, she worked for the County Commission in the courthouse where the Clerk's offices were located. Several other current employees of the Clerk's office testified: Donna Blair (began employment December, 1989); Vera Tombs; and Nancy Curl (began employment March, 1990). Their testimony, in large part, did not apply to the relevant period of time at issue in this proceeding. Several of the employees of the Clerk's office have been known by different names at different times relevant to this proceeding. Throughout this Recommended Order, references to individuals have been made using the individuals' name as of the date of the formal hearing. The Clerk's Offices. The Clerk's offices were, and still are, located in the Madison County courthouse in Madison, Madison County, Florida. The Clerk's offices consisted of two separate areas referred to generally as the north and south offices. A "vault" area was located in the south offices. Official records of the Clerk's office were kept in the vault area. There was a table in the middle of the vault and there were large sliding drawers around the walls of the vault where records were kept. The shelves would slide out into the room making the room even more cramped. The book in which traffic citations were indexed was kept in the vault. The entire area was very cramped. Downstairs from the Clerk's offices was a restroom which was used by all employees of the Clerk's office and others. It was not dedicated to any one sex; it was used at different times by males and females. Outside of the downstairs restroom there were file cabinets for Clerk's office records, a telephone and a County Commission office. Most areas of the Clerk's offices were very cramped. It was generally not possible for two persons to pass abreast of each other in most areas. It was also difficult in some areas for two people to turn sideways and pass each other without touching. Mr. Welch's Improper Treatment of Clerk's Office Employees. General. In making the findings of fact in this case, the undersigned has considered the fact that there was a tendency of many of the employees of the Clerk's office to gossip--to discuss matters concerning the activities of other employees of the Clerk's office, including rumors of romantic and sexual relationships. The length of time which has elapsed since the events described in this Recommended Order and the effect the passage of time has had on the witnesses has also been taken into account. In concluding that Mr. Welch was attempting through many of the actions described, infra, to obtain a special privilege or benefit for himself through his treatment of certain female employees of the Clerk's office, it has been recognized that the evidence failed to prove that Mr. Welch told employees that their jobs, pay, promotions or job duties would be affected in any specific way if they did not respond favorably to his actions. It has also been recognized that Mr. Welch did not specifically ask for sexual favors from his employees and, except for two instances, his inappropriate touching of employees was somewhat subtle. The conclusion that some of Mr. Welch's actions were taken to obtain a special privilege or benefit, however, is based upon the totality of the evidence, Mr. Welch's position of power over the employees involved in this matter and the inescapable conclusion that his ultimate reason for treating his employees in the inappropriate manner described in this Recommended Order was to obtain sexual gratification and favors. His actions were of a general sexual nature and constituted sexual harassment of female employees. Although Mr. Welch's employees, with one exception, did not respond favorably to Mr. Welch's inappropriate behavior, and although it was not reasonable to conclude that his efforts would be successful, his efforts were nonetheless intended to gain a special privilege or benefit: sexual gratification and favors. General Office Sexual Banter. As is probably common in many offices, some, but not all, of the employees of the Clerk's office would, at times, talk and joke about matters involving sex. Jokes that might be considered "off-color" or of a sexual nature would from time to time be told by some of the Clerk's office employees when Mr. Welch was present. There were also some employees who did not join in the talk about sexual matters or the telling of jokes with sexual overtones. There were also some employees who were not even aware of such talk or jokes. There were a number of cards and cartoons which were passed around the office at various times by employees. Of those that were offered into evidence, some, but not all, included curse words and direct or indirect sexual overtones. Mr. Welch's nickname is "Turkey." Many of his employees referred to Mr. Welch at times by his nickname. Most of the cards and cartoons offered into evidence were addressed to Mr. Welch as "Turkey." With one exception, the weight of the evidence failed to prove who actually gave the cards and cartoons offered into evidence to Mr. Welch or exactly when. Most were from the "office" and were given to him on or near various holidays. The one exception was Respondent's exhibit 5, a cartoon which Ms. Bush admitted she put on Mr. Welch's desk. Respondent's exhibit 5 was addressed "To Alfred" and was signed "From Rachel". The cartoon was a picture of a Peanuts comic strip character saying "Working here is like working in a whorehouse--the better you perform, the more you get screwed." The weight of the evidence failed to prove when Respondent's exhibit 5 was given to Mr. Welch. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the cards and cartoons given to Mr. Welch or the sexual banter and joking which went on in the Clerk's office were in anyway a violation of the law. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the cards and cartoons given to Mr. Welch or the sexual banter and joking was intended by Mr. Welch to secure a special privilege or benefit for himself or others: sexual gratification and favors. At various times since Mr. Welch has been Clerk, he has made comments of a sexual nature in the presence of employees of the Clerk's office. The evidence failed to prove that any of the comments were made to any one employee; more than one employee was always present. In particular, Mr. Welch made the following statements of a sexual nature: "I never get enough"; "I have not done it in so long, I do not remember how"; "I had a dream and when I woke up I had a hard on"; "It was stuck up like a tent" in discussing another dream; and "My wife is not giving me any". The foregoing statements were made in the presence of Cheri Sims, Ramona Dickinson and Catherine Reams. Mr. Welch's denial that he made these statements is rejected because several witnesses testified that such comments were made and their testimony on this point was credible. The fact that not every person who worked in the Clerk's office or who may have had contact with the Clerk's office or Mr. Welch ever heard any comments from Mr. Welch of a similar nature was not sufficient to prove that no such statement was ever made. Nor was such testimony sufficient to conclude that the witnesses who indicted that the comments were made by Mr. Welch were not credible. The weight of the evidence proved that the sexual comments made by Mr. Welch quoted in finding of fact 29 were intended by Mr. Welch to secure a special privilege or benefit for himself: sexual gratification and favors. The Fine Line Between a Compliment and a "Come-on". It was not uncommon for Mr. Welch to compliment Clerk's office employees concerning their appearance or the perfume or cologne they were wearing. Compliments of a similar nature were also paid to Mr. Welch by his employees. Ms. Bush indicated that Mr. Welch made comments to her almost daily that she "looked nice", had on "nice clothes" or that she "smelled nice". Mr. Welch's comments made Ms. Bush feel uncomfortable because of the "way he said it: he would look me up and down." Without more, it would be difficult to determine whether Mr. Welch's comments to Ms. Bush were simply the compliments of a considerate employer or were inappropriate come-ons or comments from a boss to an employee. As is discussed, infra, however, the evidence proved more: Mr. Welch's interest in Ms. Bush was not merely the interest of a considerate employer; Mr. Welch was interested in a romantic/sexual relationship with Ms. Bush. It is, therefore, concluded that Mr. Welch's comments to Ms. Bush concerning her appearance and her cologne/perfume were sexually motivated. Mr. Welch told Ms. Sims that she had "nice lungs". This comment was a reference to Ms. Sims' breast size. Mr. Welch's testimony concerning this comment was not credible. In a response dated April 9, 1990, to the Commission's investigative report, Mr. Welch denied making the comment. At the formal hearing Mr. Welch testified that he did not recall whether he made the comment. Mr. Welch then testified that Ms. Sims sang in a church choir and had a pretty voice. Therefore, Mr. Welch speculated that, if he did make such a comment, it might have been in reference to her singing ability. Mr. Welch's attempted explanation was, at best, naive. His comment was not a reference to Ms. Sims' ability to sing; it was a comment about her anatomy, which she recognized, and, consequently, felt uncomfortable about. The weight of the evidence proved that the comments made by Mr. Welch described in findings of fact 33 and 35 were intended Mr. Welch to secure a special privilege or benefit for himself: sexual gratification and favors. Invitations to "Have a Good Time". At some time during the 1980's Mr. Welch suggested to Ms. Dickinson that they "go off for the weekend." Mr. Welch told her "you need to go off with me and I'll show you a good time." On another occasion, Mr. Welch suggested that Ms. Bush needed to "go off" with him to a clerk's convention and that they would "have a good time." Mr. Welch suggested that if she did, she "would not want to go back to your husband." Mr. Welch travelled to conventions and seminars for the Clerks of Court in Florida on a regular basis. Some of the conventions and seminars included training which was beneficial to various employees in Mr. Welch's office. Consequently, Mr. Welch would take various employees to some of the conventions and seminars he attended so that they could participate in the training sessions. Although Mr. Welch admitted that he might have told employees when talking about going to conventions and seminars that they would "have a good time", nothing sexual was meant by such a comment. Mr. Welch indicated that such a comment was merely a statement of fact since the clerks did have a good time at the conventions and seminars they attended. Mr. Welch's suggestion that the comments to Ms. Dickinson and Ms. Bush described in findings of fact 37 and 38 were of the type of innocent comment described in finding of fact 40 is not credible and is rejected. During the early 1980's Ms. Bush had to take her daughter to Valdosta, Georgia, twice a week to receive allergy shots. Mr. Welch was aware of this fact. On at least two occasions, Mr. Welch, who traveled to Valdosta occasionally, suggested that they "meet for coffee" in Valdosta. Mr. Welch testified that he did some farming and that he often went to Valdosta to acquire materials needed for his farming. Mr. Welch also admitted that he probably had told Ms. Bush something like "if I see you in Valdosta, we'll stop for coffee." As was true of the compliments by Mr. Welch to Ms. Bush, it would be difficult to determine whether Mr. Welch's explanation of his comment to Ms. Bush about having coffee in Valdosta was simply an innocent invitation with no sexual overtone or was an inappropriate invitation with sexual innuendo from a boss to an employee. Based upon the fact, as is discussed, infra, that Mr. Welch's interest in Ms. Bush was in having a romantic/sexual relationship with her, it is concluded that his comment to Ms. Bush concerning having coffee was an invitation with sexual innuendo. That is how Ms. Bush interpreted the invitations and it made her feel uncomfortable. On another occasion, Mr. Welch requested that Ms. Sims give him a ride home because his pickup truck was in the shop and Ms. Sims' mother lived near Mr. Welch. Ms. Sims agreed to give Mr. Welch a ride. At some time during the ride, Mr. Welch asked Ms. Sims to come in for a drink when they got to his house and told her that they could "have a good time." Ms. Sims declined. Ms. Sims later told Ms. Ginn about this incident and Ms. Ginn told Mr. Welch that if it had happened it "was not right." Mr. Welch gave the following version of the ride home with Ms. Sims: Mr. Welch indeed needed a ride home and while talking to his wife about coming to get him, Ms. Sims walked by and he asked her if she would take him. She agreed. A discussion had taken place during the day about a drink which Mr. Welch described as a "shooter". On the way home that evening, Ms. Sims told Mr. Welch that she had never had a shooter and he offered to fix one for her when they arrived. There was nothing suggestive about the invitation because Ms. Welch was home. When Ms. Sims and Mr. Welch arrived at Mr. Welch's home, Ms. Welch was outside. Ms. Sims and Ms. Welch struck up a conversation while Mr. Welch went inside. Nothing more was said about the drink and Ms. Sims did not come inside. Mr. Welch's explanation of the incident is not credible. Although Ms. Welch verified some of Mr. Welch's explanation, Ms. Welch's recollection was in all likelihood based upon another incident. The weight of the evidence proved that the comments made by Mr. Welch described in findings of fact 46 were intended by Mr. Welch to secure a special privilege or benefit for himself: sexual gratification or favors. Personal Telephone Calls. On a number of occasions, Mr. Welch telephoned various employees of the Clerk's office at their homes after working hours. These telephone calls were made primarily for personal, as opposed to business, purposes. The calls were uninvited. During a two to three-month period Mr. Welch telephoned Ms. Reams a couple of times a week during the evening: The calls were uninvited and unwelcome by Ms. Reams. Mr. Welch and Ms. Reams discussed the office generally, and Suzanne Pridgeon and Ms. Bush. In particular, Mr. Welch told Ms. Reams that he was having a relationship with Ms. Pridgeon; that he "cared about Ms. Pridgeon but Ms. Bush was the one he loved." Mr. Welch told Ms. Reams that "he would have to stop calling because he was getting used to it." Ms. Reams quit answering her telephone because of Mr. Welch's calls. She worked out a code with a friend and her mother so that they could call her and she would know it was them and not Mr. Welch. Mr. Welch admitted telephoning Ms. Reams but indicated he was merely attempting to help her with a personal problem; she was trying to break off a relationship with a man she had been seeing and was not sure how to go about doing it. Mr. Welch indicted that he did not believe it would have been appropriate to discuss this problem at work and that is why he called her at home. This testimony was not credible when compared with Ms. Reams' testimony. Additionally, when explaining why he stopped to see Ms. Reams one evening, as discussed, infra, Mr. Welch indicated that he had been discussing her personal problems with her at work and stopped to see her because they had not finished their discussion that day. He obviously did not mind discussing her problems in or out of the office. Mr. Welch also telephoned Ms. James on at least one occasion and discussed Ms. Pridgeon. Mr. Welch telephoned Ms. Bush at least ten times, and maybe as many as twenty times, during the evening while she was employed at the Clerk's office. Mr. Welch's telephone calls were not requested by Ms. Bush and they made her feel uncomfortable. Mr. Welch telephoned Ms. Mims twice one night: During the first call, Mr. Welch told Ms. Mims, who had recently divorced, that his wife was out of town and he suggested that they meet for a drink. Ms. Mims declined. Mr. Welch also kept telling Ms. Mims that he could not come to her house because of her children and because her mother lived next door, and that she could not come to his house. Mr. Welch told Ms. Mims that he was lonely. During the second telephone call, Ms. Mims told Mr. Welch that she had tape recorded the first conversation and that he should not call her again. Ms. Mims did not, in fact, make such a recording. Mr. Welch admitted telephoning Ms. Mims but indicated that he did so because he had heard that she had told someone that he was having an affair with Ms. Pridgeon. Mr. Welch stated that he called Ms. Mims to request that she come over to discuss her comments. This testimony was not credible. In addition to other problems with Mr. Welch's testimony, it is unreasonable to believe that Mr. Welch would not deal with comments by one employee about her boss' alleged affair with another employee by speaking to the employee in the office. It was an office matter affecting office relationships and should have been dealt with as such in the office. It is not reasonable to believe that Mr. Welch would ask a recently divorced female employee over to his home at night to discuss such a matter. The day following Mr. Welch's telephone calls to Ms. Mims, Mr. Welch spoke to Ms. Mims in the office: Mr. Welch asked Ms. Mims not to say anything about the telephone calls. When Ms. Mims mentioned the alleged recording, Mr. Welch became angry and made statements which led Ms. Mims to be concerned about her job. Ms. Mims could not, however, remember exactly what Mr. Welch had said that caused her concern about her job. In Mr. Welch's April 9, 1990, response to the Commission, he indicated he did not recall any conversation with Ms. Mims after the telephone calls to her. During the formal hearing, Mr. Welch denied that the meeting took place. The weight of the evidence proved that the telephone calls Mr. Welch made to Ms. Reams, Ms. Bush and Ms. Mims described, supra, were intended by Mr. Welch to secure a special privilege or benefit for himself: sexual gratification and favors. Gifts. During the Christmas season, Mr. Welch gave gifts to his employees. These gifts were usually purchased and wrapped by Mr. Welch's wife. One Christmas Mr. Welch also gave small bottles of cologne, which he had been given during a Clerk's convention, to Ms. Bush and to Ms. Pridgeon. Mr. Welch also sent flowers to Ms. Bush both before and after she left employment with the Clerk's office. Mr. Welch sent flowers to Ms. Bush on her birthday and Secretaries' Day after she left the Clerk's office. Mr. Welch did not send flowers to any other current or former employees of the Clerk's office. The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Welch's actions in giving Ms. Bush gifts as described, supra, were intended by Mr. Welch to secure a special privilege or benefit for himself: sexual gratification and favors. After-Hour Visit. On one occasion, Mr. Welch went to Ms. Reams' home at approximately 10:30 p.m. Mr. Welch blew the horn of his automobile and, when Ms. Reams came out, he asked her to turn off her porch light, which she did. Mr. Welch was on his way home from a club meeting when he stopped at Ms. Reams' house. Mr. Welch admitted that he stopped to see Ms. Reams and testified that he stopped to finish a conversation concerning her personal problem which they had started at the office, but had not had time to finish. Mr. Welch was apparently drunk, and was vulgar and rambling. At some point he got on the hood of his automobile. Mr. Welch did not make any advances to Ms. Reams or request anything from her during the visit to her house. Following this visit, which took place during the time that he was telephoning Ms. Reams at home at night, Mr. Welch quit calling Ms. Reams. The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Welch's actions in visiting Ms. Reams as described, supra, was intended by Mr. Welch to secure a special privilege or benefit for himself: sexual gratification and favors. Mr. Welch's Pass at Ms. Bush. There was an office in the courthouse for a circuit court judge who came to Madison periodically. This office was empty, however, much of the time. The circuit judge's office was used by Mr. Welch for private meetings and conversations from time to time. Clerk's office employees met with Mr. Welch in the circuit judge's office at times. Some time during the later part of 1985 or early 1986, Mr. Welch asked to see Ms. Bush in the circuit judge's office and Ms. Bush complied with Mr. Welch's request. After Ms. Bush entered the office, Mr. Welch grabbed Ms. Bush, attempted to kiss her and hold her in his arms and expressed "his strong feelings for her". Ms. Bush pulled away from Mr. Welch told Mr. Welch that he was confusing his dependence on her as an employee with love, and left. As a result of Mr. Welch's actions toward Ms. Bush in the circuit judge's office, Ms. Bush decided she had to find employment elsewhere. Ms. Bush resigned her position with the Clerk's office approximately six months after the incident. When Ms. Bush left employment with the Clerk's office she had been with the Clerk's office for almost ten years, the minimum period of time necessary to have any vested retirement benefits. By leaving when she did, she did not accrue any vested retirement benefits for her service with the State of Florida. Mr. Welch's actions with Ms. Bush were sexually motivated and intended to benefit himself. I. Accidental or Intentional Inappropriate Touching? The City of Madison is a relatively rural community with a relatively small population. It is the type of community where most people were born and raised in the community and, consequently, everybody knows everybody else. As a consequence of the nature of the community, it is not uncommon for many people, when they meet, to greet each other with a hand shake, a pat of the back or shoulder, or a hug. Mr. Welch has lived in Madison essentially all of his life. Additionally, he has been a "public figure" for a number of years. Consequently, Mr. Welch knows most of the residents of Madison. As a lifelong resident of Madison, it is common practice for Mr. Welch to greet people with a hand shake, a pat on the back or shoulder, or a hug. It was also common for Mr. Welch to pat his employees on the back or shoulder or to occasionally give them a hug or put his arm around an employee. Mr. Welch would also greet the employee or comment on their good work. A number of employees of the Clerk's office and other residents of Madison indicated that Mr. Welch had touched them in the manner described in findings of fact 82 and 83. They all indicated that they were not offended by such behavior and that they believed that there was nothing improper in the manner in which Mr. Welch had acted toward them or toward other persons they observed Mr. Welch with. Other employees and persons who observed Mr. Welch from time to time in the Clerk's office and elsewhere indicated that Mr. Welch never touched them and that they had never observed any improper touching by Mr. Welch. The evidence also proved that due to the fact that the Clerk's offices were cramped, it was not unusual for Mr. Welch and other employees to touch each other when they passed. There were times when it was almost impossible for one person to pass another person in the Clerk's office and not touch. When this occurred, however, it was the usual practice for the person attempting to pass to say "excuse me" or to otherwise let the person being passed or touched know that the person attempting to pass was going to pass and/or touch them. It was also common for a person to ask another to move so that he or she could pass. There were also times when employees of the Clerk's office were so busy that they would bump against another employee or touch another employee accidentally, and nothing would be said. Despite the foregoing, the weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Welch inappropriately touched employees of the Clerk's office. Mr. Welch was described by one former employee of the Clerk's office as a "toucher." This characterization of Mr. Welch is attributable, in part, to the manner in which some people in Madison greet and react to each other. The characterization of Mr. Welch as a "toucher", however, is also attributable to Mr. Welch's tendency to brush against or touch some female employees in an inappropriate sexual manner. Mr. Welch would at times pass some female employees (Ms. Bush, Ms. Sims, Ms. Dickinson and Ms. Mims) and touch his body to theirs in an inappropriate manner. It is, of course, often difficult to distinguish between a greeting, an innocent bump or touch and one that is sexually motivated. All of the witnesses who felt Mr. Welch touched them inappropriately and for sexual gratification had difficulty articulating how they distinguished an inappropriate touch from an appropriate touch. It has been concluded that Mr. Welch, at times, touched female employees inappropriately for sexual gratification largely based upon the following: The incidents described as inappropriate touching usually occurred when others were not present. Mr. Welch would not say "excuse me" or otherwise acknowledge that he had touched the employee. There were several female employees who concluded that they had been inappropriately touched. The degree to which Mr. Welch sometimes touched an employee was more than just a "bump" or just brushing past the employee. There were times when Mr. Welch's body, from his lower chest to his upper thighs, would touch an employee's body from her lower chest to her upper thighs. Sometimes Mr. Welch would be facing the employee's back and sometimes Mr. Welch and the employee would be facing each other when he would pass them. Mr. Welch's hands would brush Ms. Sims' "backside" when he passed her. There were times when Mr. Welch could have passed without touching and there were times when he should have asked the employee he passed to move to let him pass. On at least one occasion, Mr. Welch put his arm around a female employee, Ms. Sims, when she came out of the downstairs restroom. Mr. Welch said nothing to Ms. Sims. This type of contact is not consistent with the custom of people in Madison and was inappropriate. On another occasion, Mr. Welch walked up behind Ms. Carter and "goosed" or poked her below both of her armpits. Ms. Carter told Mr. Welch to "get his mind out of the gutter" and "don't do that again." While riding to the airport in Tallahassee, Florida, in Ms. Sims' small pickup truck, Mr. Welch put his hand on Ms. Sims' thigh. The weight of the evidence proved that Mr. Welch's actions in touching Ms. Bush, Ms. Dickinson, Ms. Sims and Ms. Carter as described, supra, were intended by Mr. Welch to secure a special privilege or benefit for himself: sexual gratification and favors. III. Mr. Welch's Involvement with Ms. Pridgeon. The Nature of Mr. Welch's Relationship with Ms. Pridgeon. Ms. Pridgeon was physically abused by her husband during the time that she worked at the Clerk's office. Mr. Welch and the other employees of the Clerk's office were aware of this problem. Mr. Welch was considerate of Ms. Pridgeon's situation and attempted to help her. Additionally, Mr. Welch and Ms. Pridgeon were paramours. This finding is based upon statements that Mr. Welch made to Ms. Reams (finding of fact 53) and the following incident: Ms. Sims went downstairs to the area where the downstairs restroom was located one day during office hours. Ms. Sims saw Mr. Welch and Ms. Pridgeon kissing and embracing. The meaning of Mr. Welch's admissions to Ms. Reams about his relationship with Ms. Pridgeon and the incident witnessed by Ms. Sims were explained and supplemented, at least in part, by statements which, although hearsay, Ms. Pridgeon made to Ms. Williams, Ms. Dickinson, Ms. Bush and Ms. Mims. See Section 120.58(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Ms. Pridgeon's Traffic Citation. On June 14, 1985, at approximately 6:40 p.m., Ms. Pridgeon was stopped by Florida Highway Patrol Trooper Rick Hurst. Trooper Hurst issued a Florida Uniform Traffic Citation to Ms. Pridgeon for travelling 91 MPH in a 55 MPH speed zone. Mr. Welch's home may be reached by travelling on Highway 6 in Madison County or another route not relevant to this proceeding. When stopped for speeding on June 14, 1985, Ms. Pridgeon was travelling on Highway 6 toward Madison and away from Mr. Welch's home. When stopped, Ms. Pridgeon tried to talk Trooper Hurst out of issuing the citation. When this failed, Ms. Pridgeon attempted to get Trooper Hurst to issue the citation inside the Madison city limits and not where he had stopped her. Trooper Hurst refused. Later during the evening on June 14, 1985, Ms. Pridgeon telephoned Mr. Welch's house. Mr. Welch had just come into the house and was taking a shower. Ms. Welch answered the telephone and took a message. Mr. Welch later returned Ms. Pridgeon's call. Ms. Pridgeon informed Mr. Welch that she had been issued a traffic citation on Highway 6. Mr. Welch told Ms. Pridgeon that he would go see the county court judge about the ticket to see what could be done. Both Ms. Pridgeon and Mr. Welch were concerned that the fact that she had been issued a citation would be printed in the local newspaper and Ms. Pridgeon's husband would see it and physically abuse her. Because of Mr. Welch's personal relationship with Ms. Pridgeon, it is concluded that Mr. Welch was also concerned that people would speculate, as they ultimately did, that Ms. Pridgeon had been coming from his house when she was stopped. Mr. Welch also wanted to assist Ms. Pridgeon simply because people who have a personal relationship try to help each other out in times of need. Finally, Mr. Welch wished to assist Ms. Pridgeon, if for no other reason, than because she was one of his employees. Following his telephone conversation with Ms. Pridgeon, Mr. Welch telephoned Ms. James. Ms. James was the deputy clerk at that time that handled traffic citation cases filed with the Clerk's office. Mr. Welch told Ms. James that Ms. Pridgeon had been issued a traffic citation and instructed her to look for the citation to come into the office. Mr. Welch told Ms. James that she was to do nothing with the citation when it came in except to notify him. When Ms. Pridgeon's traffic citation was filed in the Clerk's office, within a week or possibly two weeks after it was issued, Ms. James telephoned Mr. Welch and informed him. Mr. Welch instructed Ms. James to pull Ms. Pridgeon's citation out of the batch of citations that had been filed; that he would come get it. Ms. James put it in a blank envelope, referred to as a "shuck", and did not process it. Normally, traffic citations issued by the Florida Highway Patrol in Madison County were periodically filed in batches with the Clerk's office. Each citation was placed in an envelope referred to as a "shuck", was identified with a number and was "indexed" or recorded in the Clerk's office records. A separate book was kept to index or record traffic citations. Traffic citations indexed in the Clerk's office were reported in the local newspaper, thus disclosing the name of any person who was issued a citation. If a traffic citation was not indexed, there was no public record of the ticket in the Clerk's office and no way to determine in the Clerk's office that a citation had been issued. Eventually, after a traffic citation of the type issued to Ms. Pridgeon had been indexed, the person who received the citation would be required to appear before the county court judge and enter a plea. The county court judge ultimately rendered a decision regarding the citation which was recorded on the shuck. Eventually, the ultimate disposition of the citation was also noted on the shuck. By instructing Ms. James not to index Ms. Pridgeon's citation, Mr. Welch failed to follow the established procedure for handling traffic citations in Madison County. Mr. Welch failed to follow the established procedures for the reasons set out in finding of fact 101. Therefore, his failure to follow established procedures was inappropriate for a public officer such as Mr. Welch. After Ms. Pridgeon's traffic citation was filed in the Clerk's office, Mr. Welch went to see County Court Judge Wetzel Blair, a cousin of Ms. Pridgeon. Mr. Welch informed Judge Blair of the citation and asked him how she could be "helped" or "assisted." Judge Blair told Mr. Welch that he would allow Ms. Pridgeon to plead nolo contendere, attend driver's school and pay court costs. He also told Mr. Welch that he would reduce the speed to 79 MPH to reduce the "points" against her driver's license, continue the case for 6 months and, if she did not receive any additional citations, withhold adjudication. Mr. Welch also asked Judge Blair what could be done to prevent the newspaper from disclosing that Ms. Pridgeon had been issued a citation. Judge Blair told Mr. Welch that any such attempt would only make things worse; that it would move the story from the back of the newspaper to the front page. Judge Blair told Mr. Welch not to jeopardize his position over an employee's personal problems. Mr. Welch went to see Judge Blair on behalf of Ms. Pridgeon for the reasons set out in finding of fact 101. Other persons issued a traffic citation in Madison did not have the benefit of the Clerk speaking in private with the county court judge about the disposition of their citations. Mr. Welch's action was, therefore, inappropriate for a public officer such as Mr. Welch. Ms. Pridgeon did not enter a plea on the traffic citation and she did not immediately sign up for driver's school. Nor was the citation indexed immediately after the meeting between Judge Blair and Mr. Welch. About a week after Ms. James told Mr. Welch that the citation had arrived, Mr. Welch told her how Judge Blair had indicated he would handle the citation. Ms. James wrote on the shuck that she had put the citation in: 6-24-85 - hold for 6 months (12-24-85) per Judge Blair. If no other ticket rec'd w/h adj. There was a great deal of testimony and evidence concerning the use of the term "hold" on the shuck. That evidence was essentially irrelevant. At some time after the citation had been issued, Trooper Hurst came to the Clerk's office and asked Ms. Bush whether the citation he had issued to Ms. Pridgeon had been indexed. Ms. Bush checked the index book and was unable to find any record of the citation. After Trooper Hurst informed Ms. Bush about the citation and she was unable to find any record of it, she informed Judge Blair. Ms. Bush took this action because she believed that Mr. Welch and Ms. Pridgeon were romantically involved and, therefore, she was concerned about whether the citation was being handled properly. Judge Blair told Ms. Bush to wait and see if the citation showed up. This meeting probably took place in July, 1985. Judge Blair also believed that Mr. Welch and Ms. Pridgeon were romantically involved and, in light of the fact that Mr. Welch had approached him about helping Ms. Pridgeon, he also checked to see if the citation had been indexed. When he failed to find any record of the citation, he asked his secretary to look for it. Judge Blair's secretary also did not find any record of the citation. Judge Blair took his concerns to a circuit court judge. Judge Blair decided to continue to wait and see what happened. On approximately September 26, 1985, Ms. Bush confronted Mr. Welch and asked him where Ms. Pridgeon's citation was. Mr. Welch initially asked "what citation." Eventually, Mr. Welch pulled the citation from his desk drawer. He did not tell Ms. Bush that the citation had not been indexed because he was attempting to protect Ms. Pridgeon from her husband. Following this incident, Mr. Welch gave the citation to Ms. James and told her to index it. Ms. James indexed Ms. Pridgeon's citation on or about September 26, 1985, more than three months after it had been issued and only after Ms. Bush confronted Mr. Welch about it. Until the citation was indexed, there was no record of the citation to Ms. Pridgeon in the Clerk's office, Ms. Pridgeon had not entered a plea and Ms. Pridgeon had taken no action to pay court costs or sign up for driver's school. At some time after confronting Mr. Welch, Ms. Bush informed Judge Blair about the incident. Judge Blair spoke to the State Attorney's office about the matter and recorded a statement of his recollection of the events in the presence of Ms. Bush and Ms. James. On November 9, 1985, Ms. Pridgeon attended driver's school. She had to wait until November because that was the next time that the course was offered in Madison after the citation was finally indexed. On November 22, 1985, Ms. Pridgeon paid court costs for the citation. The citation was ultimately disposed of on December 24, 1985, in conformance with Judge Blair's sentence. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact, it is concluded Mr. Welch's treatment of Ms. Pridgeon's traffic citation was intended to secure a special privilege or benefit for himself: sexual gratification and favors. III. The Respondent's Attempts to Discredit His Accusers. General. The Respondent presented evidence intended to discredit the testimony of many of the witnesses who testified on behalf of the Advocate. The following facts were proved and considered in making all of the findings of fact in this case. These findings were not, however, sufficient to discredit the testimony and evidence which supports the findings of fact made, supra, in this Recommended Order: Ms. Bush made a comment in August, 1989, to Ms. Welch about coming back to work at the Clerk's office. The comment was an "offhand" remark not intended as a serious request to return to the Clerk's office. Ms. Sims, despite the incidents described in this Recommended Order she was involved in, assisted Mr. Welch in his campaign for re-election as Clerk in 1988 and sent him a congratulatory card after his re-election. Ms. Sims has known the Welch family all her life. Just as Ms. Pridgeon stayed in an abusive relationship for seventeen years, it is not unusual for people to do things in life which do not always seem to make sense to someone "on the outside looking in". Ms. Sims probably put up with the incidents she described because of family, work and community ties, until after Mr. Welch fired her. Once Mr. Welch fired Ms. Sims, she lost her reason for avoiding causing hard feelings, however. Mr. Poppell, a Madison County Commissioner, was involved in the decision of Ms. Mims to file the complaint against Mr. Welch with the Commission. Mr. Poppell spoke to other employees of the Clerk's office and asked them if they would also file a complaint. The evidence failed to prove that the facts which have been found in this Recommended Order are not true due to any involvement in the filing of the complaint by Mr. Poppell. The motives for the filing of the complaint in this case were essentially irrelevant. At issue is whether Mr. Welch violated the law and the weight of the evidence proved that he did regardless of why Ms. Mims filed her complaint and regardless of Mr. Poppell's involvement. Evidence concerning the fact that many of the employees did not confront Mr. Welch about his actions or ask him to stop some of his offensive conduct was also presented: It is true that very few of the employees who testified about inappropriate conduct by Mr. Welch ever questioned him about it. A few of them, however, did say something to him: Ms. Carter, for instance. Ms. Mims lied about the tape recording, jeopardizing her job, to stop Mr. Welch from telephoning her. Others handled the situation by joking about it. The failure to confront Mr. Welch is understandable, in part, because he was the "boss." He had the authority to determine whether they continued to have a job, their means of supporting themselves and their families. If they had told Mr. Welch that his conduct was not acceptable or that he should stop, they were not sure how he would react. Although it may be easy to decide what the right course of action a person should take may be, it is not always easy to actually take that action. Additionally, Mr. Welch's conduct was often subtle enough that the employees involved were probably not sure whether their perception of Mr. Welch's actions was correct. Most of the employees had known Mr. Welch and his family for years. Again, Madison is a small, close community. There was, therefore, a reluctance on the part of some employees to create "hard feelings", which ultimately have resulted anyway. Ms. Bush did take action to find other employment. Mr. Welch's pass at her was not subtle. Therefore, she immediately began to look for other employment and left even though she was close to having ten years of employment with the State. That it took her six months to leave after the incident was very reasonable and understandable in light of the fact that Madison is a relatively small community and in light of her apparent need, like most people, to have an income. By leaving when she did, Ms. Bush lost an opportunity to vest some retirement benefits. She obviously wanted out. Employees Who Were Terminated. The third time that Ms. Sims worked for the Clerk's office, she was fired by Mr. Welch while she was on probation, not too long after she had been hired. The evidence was inconclusive as to whether Mr. Welch was justified in firing Ms. Sims. More importantly, the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Sims' testimony was not credible. At best, the evidence proved that after Mr. Welch fired her, Ms. Sims had less reason to be concerned about creating "hard feelings." Ms. Mims was also fired by Mr. Welch: During the end of 1985 or early 1986, Ms. Mims' one-year old daughter broke her leg. Ms. Mims could not leave her at day-care and, therefore, she had to stay home with her daughter. While Ms. Mims was out of the office, several checks which she had written and cashed in the Clerk's office were returned for insufficient funds. The first check returned was never found. The weight of the evidence failed to prove what happened to it, however. The first returned checks discovered by Clerk's office personnel were received in early February, 1986. Ms. Ginn and Mr. Welch made several attempts to reach Ms. Mims over a period of, at most, seven working days. Ms. Mims was staying with a boyfriend and, therefore, the efforts to reach her were unsuccessful. Therefore, Mr. Welch telephoned Ms. Mims' mother and told her it was important that Ms. Mims contact him. On or about February 10, 1986, Mr. Welch telephoned the State Attorney, informed him that Ms. Mims had cashed checks in the Clerk's office which had been returned for insufficient funds and made a complaint against Ms. Mims. On February 13, 1986, an investigator for the State Attorney's office, Mr. Fisher, went to meet with Mr. Welch about the checks. While Mr. Fisher was meeting with Mr. Welch, Ms. Mims came to the office to see Mr. Welch. She met with Mr. Fisher, Mr. Welch and Ms. Ginn. Ms. Mims admitted that she had cashed the checks and made restitution of the amount of the checks ($165.00) that had been returned as of that date, including the missing check. She also told Mr. Welch that there were two other checks that would be returned. Ms. Mims ultimately also paid those checks. During the meeting with Mr. Fisher, Mr. Welch and Ms. Ginn, Ms. Mims asked what would happen if she made restitution. Mr. Fisher or Mr. Welch telephoned the State Attorney, Mr. Jerry Blair, to determine what action would be taken. Mr. Blair, because of a prior incident in the Clerk's office involving public funds and because of the fact that public funds were involved, indicated that he would have to prosecute the matter even if she made restitution. Ms. Mims was informed of this conversation. During the February 13, 1986, meeting Mr. Welch informed Ms. Mims that she was suspended. It was apparent to Ms. Mims that Mr. Welch intended to terminate her because of the returned checks. Ms. Mims was very upset and threatened to get even with Mr. Welch. Ms. Mims was informed that she was terminated by letter dated March 14, 1986. Ms. Mims ultimately pled guilty to several counts of violating Section 832.05(4), Florida Statutes, as a result of cashing the checks and was sentenced to six months of unsupervised probation. Adjudication was withheld. Ms. Mims had deposited a check in payment of child support from a former husband which would have been enough to pay the checks she had cashed with Clerk's office funds. The check she deposited was returned for insufficient funds, however, and therefore the checks she cashed in the Clerk's office were also returned for insufficient funds. Although Ms. Mims had threatened Mr. Welch during the February 13, 1986, meeting, she admitted in her deposition testimony that he had the right to fire her because of the incident with the checks. Regardless of Ms. Mims' motives for filing the complaint which instituted this proceeding, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that the charges against Mr. Welch were not true.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report finding that the Respondent, Alfred Welch, violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Complaint No. 90-51. It is further RECOMMENDED that Mr. Welch be subjected to public censure and reprimand and that the Governor of the State of Florida suspend Mr. Welch from office as the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Madison County, Florida, for a period of at least sixty days. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 10th day of December, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Virlindia Doss Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Lorence Bielby, Esquire Post Office Box 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Bonnie J. Williams Executive Director Commission on Ethics The Capitol, Room 2105 Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice pursuant to chapter 760, Florida Statutes, by terminating Petitioner for allegedly using an electronic device while operating a FedEx vehicle.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Preston Pamphile ("Petitioner") worked for Respondent as a driver/courier at its Tallahassee station from 2006 until his termination in May 2010. Petitioner is African- American. Respondent, Federal Express Corporation ("Respondent" or "FedEx") is an express delivery company. The Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed by Petitioner alleges discrimination based upon race/color. Specifically, the Discrimination Statement reads as follows: I am an African American. I was subjected to different terms and conditions and discharged because of my race. I worked for Fedex as a Driver. I was falsly accused of talking/texting on my cell phone while operating a company vehicle. I tried to tell my supervisor (Tony Henderson) that I was not using my phone. I offered to show him my phone bill. Mr. Henderson said “I know what I saw.” On May 6, 2010, I was terminated. However, a white employee (Robert Fitzsimmons) was reported by another employee for talking on his cell phone while operating a company (vehicle) and he was not disciplined. I believe I was terminated because of my race. In addition to the claim of race discrimination, the Petition for Relief filed with the Commission also asserts a claim of retaliation. In Petitioner's written statement accompanying the Petition for Relief, Petition explains the basis for the retaliation claim: I feel that he retaliated because when I came to work at 2:50 a.m., I saw him in the back of the building with a female employee. The same female employee I saw him in back of the building with is his employee that is under his management. And I feel that Tony Henderson is trying to protect his marriage because of me seeing him in back of the building with the female employee. FedEx's "Three-Strikes You're Out" Policy At all relevant times during his employment with Respondent, Petitioner was aware of FedEx's Acceptable Conduct Policy. Under this policy, an employee who receives any combination of three warning letters and/or performance reminder letters during a twelve-month period is subject to termination. Petitioner conceded that this policy was uniformly applied by Respondent, and Petitioner did not contend that Respondent committed any unlawful conduct in applying this policy. On February 5, 2009, Petitioner received a warning letter for failing to report traffic citations he received while operating his personal vehicle. The warning letter reminded Petitioner that "3 notifications of deficiency (i.e., any combination of warning letters and/or reminders) received within a 12-month period" would result in his termination. On September 1, 2009, Petitioner received a second warning letter for crossing a moving conveyor belt during a morning sorting operation. This letter stated: "This is your second deficiency notification within 12 months. If you receive a third notification within 12 months, regardless of the type, you will be terminated." On January 6, 2010, Petitioner received a third warning letter for failing to report a traffic citation he received while operating a FedEx vehicle. Petitioner was informed that this was his "third disciplinary letter within 12 months." Petitioner acknowledged that he could have been terminated at that point pursuant to the “Three Strikes” policy without issue. However, rather than immediately terminating his employment, Petitioner was given another opportunity by Respondent. In Petitioner's words, two managers "stuck their necks out" for Petitioner and gave him "another shot." Petitioner was clearly warned in the January 6, 2010, warning letter, however, that "If you receive another [disciplinary letter], whether a warning letter or performance reminder, within 12 months, you will be terminated." The letter went on to state that Petitioner's employment with FedEx was "precarious," and that one more warning letter or performance reminder at any time during the next 12 months would result in his termination. FedEx's Prohibition on Use of Cell Phones Respondent's Safety Manual Policy 4-5 strictly prohibits drivers/couriers from using electronic devices while operating a FedEx vehicle. Petitioner acknowledged he was fully aware of Respondent's policy about using electronic devices while operating a vehicle. Indeed, Petitioner received and signed an Electronic Devices Memorandum, authored by the district manager responsible for the Tallahassee station. The memorandum specifically lists cellular telephones as a type of electronic device that may not be used while a driver is operating a FedEx vehicle. The memorandum further provides: "If you carry a cellular phone or Nextel with you when you are on the road, you MUST keep it in the rear cargo area of your vehicle so that you are not tempted to use it while operating the vehicle," and "You are NOT to have your phone on your person while on the clock." (Emphasis in original) The memorandum also prohibits the use of "I-POD type products" and "any other device or activity that would cause distraction while operating a vehicle." The memorandum concludes with the admonition that: "Violations of this policy will be addressed by management using Policy 2-5 of The People Manual (Acceptable Conduct). Violations may result in disciplinary actions up to and including termination." The Mahan Drive Delivery On May 6, 2010, Petitioner made a delivery to the building complex at 2727 Mahan Drive in Tallahassee. Petitioner had his cell phone with him in the FedEx vehicle, and was using the phone to listen to music. Respondent's operations manager, Tony Henderson ("Henderson"), was present at the complex that morning and was parked in the parking lot. As Petitioner was pulling into the complex, Henderson personally observed Petitioner operating his cell phone while driving the FedEx vehicle. Petitioner pulled up to a building in the complex, delivered his packages, and then left the complex. Henderson attempted to follow Petitioner in his vehicle, but was unable to keep up with him. Henderson then proceeded to the Tallahassee station, where Petitioner arrived approximately one hour later. Upon his arrival at the station, Henderson confronted Petitioner and asked whether he had been using an electronic device while operating a FedEx vehicle. Petitioner responded that he was not talking or texting on his cell phone, but rather had been changing the radio station on the phone. Petitioner was thereafter placed on paid suspension pending an investigation into whether he had violated Respondent's policy by using an electronic device while operating a FedEx vehicle. Two days later, on May 8, 2010, Henderson issued a warning letter to Petitioner for violation of the policy prohibiting the use of electronic devices while operating a FedEx vehicle. This was, again, Petitioner's third warning letter within a 12 month period. Consistent with Respondent's Acceptable Conduct Policy, as well as the prior warning to Petitioner, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment. On May 17, 2010, Petitioner wrote a statement concerning the events of May 6, 2010. In that statement, Petitioner admitted to using his cell phone to listen to music while operating a FedEx vehicle.1 Allegations of Disparate Treatment Petitioner has alleged that he was subjected to different terms and conditions because of his race, and that white employees that violated Policy 4-5 were treated less harshly than he. Petitioner cited two instances of cell phone usage by FedEx employees in support of this claim. On or about January 29, 2010, Henderson personally observed FedEx courier Dan Workman operating a FedEx vehicle. Workman is white. Judging by what he saw, Henderson believed Workman might have been engaged in a conversation on a cell phone while operating the FedEx vehicle. Henderson contacted another FedEx operations manager, Sam Karvelas, and asked him to confront Workman about using a cell phone while operating a FedEx vehicle. When confronted by Karvelas, Workman admitted that he had been talking on his cell phone while operating the vehicle. On February 1, 2010, Workman received a warning letter for using an electronic device while operating a FedEx vehicle. On October 15, 2008, Henderson personally observed FedEx courier Elizabeth Christian talking on a cell phone while operating a FedEx vehicle. Christian is white. On that same day, Christian received a warning letter for using an electronic device while operating a FedEx vehicle. At hearing, Petitioner testified that a white FedEx employee, Blake Fitzsimmons, had recounted to Petitioner that he had been observed by Henderson using a cell phone while operating his FedEx vehicle, and had not received any form of discipline. However, Henderson's testimony on this issue was that prior to Petitioner's termination from FedEx, Henderson had never personally observed Fitzsimmons using a cell phone or electronic device while operating a FedEx vehicle. On cross- examination, Petitioner admitted he had no personal knowledge of whether Henderson has ever shown preferential treatment to white employees over black employees. Basis for the Retaliation Claim Approximately three to four months before Petitioner received the warning letter for using his cell phone while operating a FedEx vehicle, Petitioner claims he saw Henderson alone with a female FedEx employee. Petitioner testified he arrived at the Tallahassee station at 3:00 a.m., and saw Henderson leaning over the driver's side door of a truck. Petitioner testified "I can't say what I saw, but I saw him -- when they saw me, they parted ways." Petitioner further testified, "Pretty much he leaned over in the driver's side door and whatever they did, if they kissed, they kissed. I'm not sure what they did, but, yes, that's what I saw at three in the morning." Petitioner told several of his friends and co-workers what he had seen but did not report the incident to anybody in management or Human Resources.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a white female. Petitioner worked as a salesperson at Respondent’s Melbourne store from April 2006 to September 2006. Petitioner’s primary job duty was selling appliances to retail customers. She also performed ancillary duties, such as tagging merchandise, cleaning and organizing the showroom floor, scheduling deliveries, and making follow-up calls to customers. Petitioner was not paid a salary. Her income was solely commission-based. She earned a total of $11,826.14 while working for Respondent, which equates to an average weekly gross pay of $537.55. Petitioner had several managers during the term of her employment. She did not have a problem with any of her managers, except for Jeffrey Rock. Mr. Rock is a black male, and by all accounts, he was a difficult manager to work for. He was “strict”; he often yelled at the salespersons to “get in the box”2 and “answer the phones”; and, unlike several of the prior managers at the Melbourne store, Mr. Rock held the salespersons accountable for doing their job. Petitioner testified that Mr. Rock "constantly" made sexual comments in the store, including comments about the size of his penis and his sexual prowess; comments about sex acts that he wanted to perform on a female employee in Respondent’s accounting office, Ms. Miho; “stallion” noises directed at Ms. Miho; and a question to Petitioner about the type of underwear that she was wearing. Petitioner’s testimony regarding the sexual comments and noises made by Mr. Rock was corroborated by Neina Blizzard, who worked with Petitioner as a salesperson for Respondent and who has also filed a sexual harassment claim against Respondent. Mr. Rock denied making any sexually inappropriate comments or noises in the store. His testimony was corroborated by Guy Ruscillo and Carissa Howard, who worked as salespersons with Petitioner and Ms. Blizzard and who are still employed by Respondent. Petitioner and Ms. Blizzard testified that Mr. Rock gave favorable treatment to Ms. Howard and two other female salespersons with whom he had sexual relationships and/or who found his sexual comments funny. Mr. Rock denied giving favorable treatment to any salesperson, except for one time when he gave a “house ticket”3 to Ms. Howard because she took herself off the sales floor for six hours one day to help him get organized during his first week as manager at the Melbourne store. Ms. Howard is white. The record does not reflect the race of the other two female salespersons -- Rebecca and Shanna -- who Petitioner and Ms. Blizzard testified received favorable treatment by Mr. Rock, and the anecdotal evidence of the favorable treatment that they allegedly received was not persuasive. Petitioner did not have any complaints regarding her schedule. Indeed, she testified that Mr. Rock changed her schedule at one point during her employment to give her more favorable hours. Petitioner’s testimony about other salespersons having sexual relationships with Mr. Rock and/or receiving favorable treatment from Mr. Rock was based solely upon speculation and rumor. Indeed, Rebecca, one of the salespersons with whom Mr. Rock allegedly had a sexual relationship, was “let go” by Mr. Rock because of the problems with her job performance observed by Petitioner and Ms. Blizzard. Petitioner’s last day of work was Saturday, September 30, 2006. On that day, Petitioner came into the store with Ms. Blizzard at approximately 8:00 a.m. because, according to Petitioner, another manager had changed her schedule for that day from the closing shift to the opening shift. Mr. Rock confronted Petitioner when she arrived, asking her why she came in at 8:00 a.m. since he had put her on the schedule for the closing shift. An argument ensued and Petitioner went into the warehouse in the back of the store to compose herself. When Petitioner returned to the showroom several minutes later, Mr. Rock was engaged in an argument with Ms. Blizzard. During the argument, Ms. Blizzard demanded a transfer to another store, which Mr. Rock agreed to give her. Then, as a “parting shot,” Ms. Blizzard told Mr. Rock that he was a “racist” who was “prejudiced against white women.” Ms. Blizzard testified that Mr. Rock told her that she was fired immediately after she called him a racist. Petitioner testified that after Mr. Rock fired Ms. Blizzard, he asked her whether she wanted to be fired too. Petitioner testified that even though she did not respond, Mr. Rock told her that “you are fired too.” Then, according to Ms. Blizzard and Petitioner, Mr. Rock escorted them both out of the store. Mr. Rock denies telling Ms. Blizzard or Petitioner that they were fired. He testified that they both walked out of the store on their own accord after the argument. Mr. Rock’s version of the events was corroborated by Mr. Ruscillo, who witnessed the argument. Mr. Ruscillo testified that he heard a lot of yelling, but that he did not hear Mr. Rock tell Ms. Blizzard or Petitioner at any point that they were fired. Petitioner and Ms. Blizzard met with an attorney the Monday after the incident. The following day, Petitioner gave Ms. Blizzard a letter to deliver on her behalf to Respondent’s human resources (HR) Department. The letter, which Petitioner testified that she wrote on the day that she was fired by Mr. Rock, stated that Petitioner “was sexually harassed and discriminated against based on being a white female by my manager, Jeff Rock”; that Petitioner “previously reported numerous incidents of this discrimination and sexual harassment to upper management”; and that she was fired “as a result of this discrimination and the refusal to put up with Mr. Rock’s sexual advancement.” This letter was the first notice that Respondent had of Petitioner’s claims of sexual harassment or discrimination by Mr. Rock. Petitioner considers herself to be a very good salesperson, but Mr. Rock described her as an “average” salesperson. Mr. Rock’s characterization of Petitioner’s job performance is corroborated by Petitioner’s acknowledgement that her sales figures were lower than those of at least Mr. Ruscillo, Ms. Blizzard, and Ms. Howard. Petitioner complained to another manager, Al Sierra, about Mr. Rock’s management style at some point in mid-September 2006. She did not complain to Mr. Sierra or anyone else in Respondent’s upper management about the sexual comments allegedly made by Mr. Rock. Indeed, as noted above, the first time that Petitioner complained about the sexual comments allegedly made by Mr. Rock was in a letter that she provided to Respondent’s HR Department several days after she was fired and after she met with a lawyer. Petitioner testified that she did not complain about the sexual harassment by Mr. Rock because he threatened to fire any salesperson who complained to upper management about the way that he ran the store and because she did not know who to complain to because she never received an employee handbook. There is no evidence that Mr. Rock fired any salesperson for complaining about how he ran the store, and he denied making any such threats. He did, however, acknowledge that he told the salespersons that they were all replaceable. Mr. Rock’s testimony was corroborated by Mr. Ruscillo and Ms. Howard, who were at the sales meetings where Petitioner and Ms. Blizzard claim that the threats were made. The training that Petitioner received when she started with Respondent was supposed to include a discussion of Respondent’s policies and procedures, including its policy against sexual harassment. The trainer, Kit Royal, testified that he remembered Petitioner attending the week-long training program and that the program did include a discussion of the sexual harassment policy and other policies and procedures. Petitioner, however, testified that no policies and procedures were discussed during the training program. Petitioner was supposed to have received and signed for an employee handbook during the training program. No signed acknowledgement form could be located for Petitioner, which is consistent with her testimony that she never received the handbook. The fact that Petitioner did not receive the employee handbook does not mean that the training program did not include discussion of Respondent’s sexual harassment policies. Indeed, Petitioner’s testimony that the training program did not include any discussion regarding salary and benefit policies (as Mr. Royal testified that it did) and that she was never told what she would be paid by Respondent despite having given up another job to take the job with Respondent calls into question her testimony that the sexual harassment policy was not discussed at the training program. Petitioner was aware that Respondent had an HR Department because she met with a woman in the HR Department named Helen on several occasions regarding an issue that she had with her health insurance. She did not complain to Helen about the alleged sexual harassment by Mr. Rock, but she did tell Helen at some point that Mr. Rock “was being an ass” and “riding her,” which she testified were references to Mr. Rock’s management style not the alleged sexual harassment. Petitioner collected employment compensation of $272 per week after she left employment with Respondent. Petitioner testified that she looked for jobs in furniture sales and car sales while she was collecting unemployment, but that she was unable to find another job for approximately three months because of the slow economy at the time. She provided no documentation of those job-search efforts at the final hearing. Petitioner is currently employed by Art’s Shuttle. She has held that job for approximately nine months. Petitioner drives a van that takes cruise ship passengers to and from the airport. The record does not reflect how many hours per week Petitioner works at Art’s Shuttle, but she testified that she works seven days a week and earns approximately $500 per week. No written documentation of Petitioner’s current income was provided at the final hearing. Respondent has a “zero tolerance” policy against sexual harassment according to its president, Sam Pak. He credibly testified that had he been aware of the allegations of sexual harassment by Mr. Rock that he would have conducted an investigation and, if warranted, done something to fix the problem. The policy, which is contained in the employee handbook, states that Respondent “will not, under any circumstances, condone or tolerate conduct that may constitute sexual harassment on the part of its management, supervisors, or non-management personnel.” The policy defines sexual harassment to include “[c]reating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment or atmosphere by . . . [v]erbal actions, including . . . using vulgar, kidding, or demeaning language . . . .” Mr. Pak agreed that the allegations against Mr. Rock, if true, would violate Respondent’s sexual harassment policy. The employee handbook includes a “grievance procedure” for reporting problems, including claims of sexual harassment. The first step is to bring the problem to the attention of the store manager, but the handbook states that the employee is “encouraged and invited to discuss the problem in confidence directly with Human Resources” if the problem involves the manager. Additionally, the handbook states in bold, underlined type that “[a]nyone who feels that he or she . . . is the victim of sexual or other harassment, must immediately report . . . . all incidents of harassment in writing to your manager or the store manager, or if either person is the subject of the complaint, to the president.” Mr. Pak had an office at the Melbourne store. He testified that he had an “open door policy” whereby employees could bring complaints directly to him. The only complaint that Mr. Pak ever received about Mr. Rock was from another salesperson, Rod Sherman, who complained that Mr. Rock was a “tough manager.” Mr. Pak did nothing in response to the complaint and simply told Mr. Sherman that different managers have different management styles.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2007, 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 26th day of November, 2007.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent due to Petitioner's race, age, or sex in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent employed Petitioner, an African-American male, as a nursing assistant at the community healthcare facility known as Jackson Hospital in Marianna, Florida, at all times relevant to these proceedings. Petitioner obtained his designation as a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) subsequent to his employment by Respondent. Petitioner entered into a conversation with a female co-worker and CNA at Jackson Hospital on or about June 12, 2003. In the course of the conversation, he made an unwelcome sexual request of the co-worker. Petitioner was not on duty at the time and had returned to the hospital for other reasons. Subsequently, on June 12, 2003, the female co-worker filed a complaint with Respondent's human resource office at the hospital alleging unwelcome requests for sexual favors by Petitioner, inclusive of a request that the co-worker engage in sexual relations with Petitioner. In the course of his employment with Respondent, Petitioner was made aware of the strict guidelines and "zero tolerance" policy of Respondent toward sexual harassment. Respondent's policy expressly prohibits sexual advances and requests for sexual favors by employees. Discipline for a violation of this policy ranges from reprimand to discharge from employment of the offending employee. Petitioner has received a copy of the policy previously and he knew that violation of that policy could result in dismissal of an erring employee. Violations of this policy resulted in dismissal of a non- minority employee in the past. Corroboration of Petitioner’s policy violation resulted from interviews with other employees in the course of investigation by the hospital director of human resources. Further, in the course of being interviewed by the director, Petitioner admitted he had propositioned his co-worker for sexual favors. As a result of this policy violation, Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment on June 16, 2003. At final hearing, Petitioner admitted the violation of Respondent's policy, but contended that termination of employment had not been effected for white employees for similar offenses in the past. This allegation was specifically rebutted through testimony of Respondent's hospital human resources director that a white male employee had been previously discharged for the same offense. Accordingly, allegations of Petitioner of dissimilar treatment of employees on a racial basis for violation of Respondent's policy are not credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of September, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of September, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: James M. Bowles 4193 Evelyn Street Marianna, Florida 32446 H. Matthew Fuqua, Esquire Bondurant and Fuqua, P.A. Post Office Box 1508 Marianna, Florida 32447 Michael Mattimore, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, Sojourn Hospitality-Naples Bay Resort, discriminated and retaliated against Petitioner, Richard Puccini, on the basis of his sex, in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The record is comprised solely of Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 and 2, which constitute inadmissible hearsay for which no exception to the hearsay rule has been established.3/ Because no testimony or other admissible evidence exists, as to which such hearsay could be used to explain or otherwise supplement, there can be no findings of fact.
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 in this proceeding finding that the Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his sex or retaliating against him and dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ANDREW D. MANKO 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 29th day of January, 2019.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is Gail C. Selvaggio, who currently resides in Palm Beach Gardens Florida, and at the time of the events complained of resided in Tallahassee, Florida. The Respondent is the Knight-Ridder Publishing Company, doing business as The Tallahassee Democrat (hereafter "The Democrat"). The Democrat is located in Tallahassee, Florida. The Petitioner commenced her employment with the Respondent as a secretary in its advertising department on February 13, 1978, at a salary of $160 per week. Petitioner's supervisor in the advertising department and the person for whom she primarily performed her secretarial duties was the advertising director, Martin Steinberg. Petitioner was hired to replace Judy McGinnis, who had been an administrative assistant to the previous advertising director whom Steinberg had replaced. McGinnis, who had supervisory duties in her position, had terminated her employment approximately six months prior to the time Petitioner was hired. When McGinnis left, her vacancy was advertised in August, 1977, as administrative assistant pursuant to the instructions of John Veenstra, the then advertising director. No one was hired at that time. When Veenstra left The Democrat in late 1977, the position was frozen. When Steinberg was hired by Respondent as its advertising director, he informed Personnel that he wanted a secretary and not an administrative assistant. Personnel then contacted the people who had earlier applied for the administrative assistant position and invited them to apply again, but informed them that the position had been changed to that of a secretary. Petitioner was referred to The Democrat on February 9, 1978, by Snelling and Snelling, an employment agency. A job counselor at that agency advised Petitioner that The Democrat had an opening for an administrative assistant, information given in a job order when McGinnis left The Democrat in August, 1977. The employment agency did not have any official business connection with The Democrat, and The Democrat had not informed the agency of any job opening when the agency referred Petitioner to The Democrat six months after the agency's job order was written. Based upon the information given her by the agency, Petitioner completed an application for employment with The Democrat by stating that she was applying for the position of administrative assistant. Petitioner was interviewed for employment by Tracy Rowe, who was at that time the personnel assistant at The Democrat. Ms. Rowe conducted approximately ninety percent of the initial employment interviews for The Democrat. She would then refer qualified applicants to the department head where the position was open. Rowe informed Petitioner during the initial interview that the position was not an administrative assistant position but rather was a secretarial position. Petitioner took a typing test as part of this initial interview. Petitioner then interviewed with Mr. Steinberg on February 9, 1978, and on February 10, 1978. Steinberg told Petitioner that the position was that of a secretary and explained to her the history of the position as it was held by Ms. McGinnis and his reasons for not wanting an administrative assistant. Steinberg had earlier told Rebecca Bradner when she interviewed for the position that the position was secretarial. He had also earlier told Mr. Harwell, the publisher of The Democrat, that he expressly did not want an administrative assistant because he did not want anyone with that much authority. Steinberg discussed with Petitioner possibilities of advancement during both her interviews and early employment, including agreeing with Petitioner's suggestion that she might write a training manual, which she never did, and conduct a sales training program. He did not make any promises to her regarding her future advancement or assignments. Petitioner received a salary increase to $180 per week within two weeks after beginning her employment, in accordance with her agreement with Steinberg. This was done to enable Petitioner to pay a lower fee to her employment agency. Steinberg did not promise any other pay increase to Petitioner. Petitioner was given an orientation program at The Democrat so that she could become familiar with the various departments of the newspaper and know who to consult with if problems arose when Steinberg was not in the office. Petitioner had no supervisory responsibilities in her position at The Democrat. During the initial months of her employment, Petitioner was basically a satisfactory employee, although she made mistakes in typing correspondence and various monthly reports. Steinberg brought these errors to her attention during the early months of her employment. Steinberg's practice in correcting documents and correspondence was to circle or underline the error in ink, thereby requiring the page to be retyped even if the error were minor. At times, he would sign correspondence without first reading it and later would find errors on the copy returned to him prior to filing, after the original of the letter had been mailed. Steinberg followed the practice of marking errors in ink from the beginning of Petitioner's employment. This practice was a personal habit of his which he followed with other employees as well. This practice was not an attempt on his part to harass Petitioner. Karen Sheffield, who sometimes handled secretarial duties for Steinberg, did not interpret this practice as harassment, although she frequently retyped the same document several times because of this practice. Petitioner made errors in the addresses and salutations of Steinberg's correspondence, which errors were especially noticeable to those to whom the letters were addressed. Several of the people with who Mr. Steinberg corresponded informed him of errors that had been made, and one person received a letter so full of typographical errors that he involved the publisher of The Democrat in the matter. Petitioner had the responsibility to correct correspondence. Steinberg did not instruct her to leave incorrect punctuation or grammar or spelling in a letter. Steinberg discussed Petitioner's unacceptable performance of her job duties with other management personnel, including Keith Helen, Walter Harwell, and Vernelle Tucker, on several occasions. Mr. Harwell advised Steinberg that it was necessary for Steinberg to turn out better work and that the secretary should be more careful. Steinberg counseled Petitioner about her mistakes and told her she needed to improve her performance on several different occasions. Petitioner was informed specifically about errors in the "Merchant letter" in May, 1978, and about errors in other letters as they occurred. Petitioner occasionally filled in for outside salespersons and made their calls for them when they were on vacation or sick. She performed as well as could be expected, although she made more errors than the regular salespersons made. Steinberg and Petitioner had a friendly, personal relationship in the earlier months of her employment and exchanged confidences with each other. Petitioner is a friendly, outgoing, gregarious person, and it was not unusual for her to put her arms around male employees while at work and hug them and even kiss them. On one occasion, Tracy Rowe observed Petitioner walk up behind Steinberg when he was sitting at a desk and throw her arms around him and kiss him. Steinberg, as a supervisor, was demanding but fair. Petitioner had marital problems in the fall of 1978 and discussed those problems with Steinberg. Her marriage terminated in a divorce in November, 1970. Beginning approximately in August and September, Petitioner's job performance suffered as she began to spend more time away from her desk. Part of the reason for her time away from her duties was her participation as co- chairperson of The Democrat's United Way campaign. She voluntarily assumed duties in connection with that campaign above any required of her and more than her co-chairperson. She frequently returned from United Way luncheons much later than the other employees who were in attendance at those luncheons. Although she chose to entertain at some of the luncheons, she had time to eat during the business portion of the meetings and could have returned to work sooner. During this time period, Steinberg discussed with Petitioner and with other management personnel problems with correspondence typed by Petitioner and with her tardiness. Prior to her divorce, Petitioner began to date another employee of The Democrat, Ron Selvaggio, her present husband, who was then head of the promotion department at The Democrat. Petitioner was frequently observed in his office to an extent greater than her United Way role required. Additionally, she often went to lunch with him and frequently returned late. Petitioner frequently socialized with others in the department. She would leave her desk to socialize with other employees, and other employees would come by her desk. Many employees noticed that Petitioner spent an unusual amount of time not working, and this fact was conveyed to Steinberg by other management personnel. The time spent by Petitioner socializing and participating in the United Way campaign prevented her from completing her work in a timely manner. Steinberg discussed this with her and with other management personnel. There was always work to be done in the advertising department, and Petitioner's neglect of her duties was noticed by other employees of The Democrat who depended on her to get their work done. Steinberg, complained to Vernelle Tucker that his work was not being completed because of Petitioner's activities in the United Way. Mrs. Tucker counseled Petitioner and told her that her job duties still had to be fulfilled despite her participation in the United Way campaign and that her work was priority. Steinberg began to write private memoranda on Petitioner's performance and work habits beginning in November, 1978, at the suggestion of Mrs. Tucker. Steinberg told Tucker that he did not believe Petitioner should get a raise because of her poor work performance, and Tucker told him to start documenting problem areas. Steinberg did not show those memoranda to Petitioner, nor did he forward them immediately to the personnel office to be included in her file. However, in most of these instances, Steinberg counseled Petitioner at the time about the matters he had noted. Other supervisors at The Democrat followed the same practice with regard to private memoranda. This practice allowed them to record their observations and counsel the offending employee in the hope that whatever problem existed might be eliminated. If the problems were not resolved in that manner, the memoranda could then become part of the employee's file. Otherwise, the memoranda could be destroyed without ever being sent to Personnel, so that temporary problems need not become a part of the employee's permanent file. The memoranda by Steinberg were made at the time of the events recorded and were not manufactured as after-the-fact justification for Petitioner's termination. It is the policy of The Democrat to include raises for its employees in the annual budget. The supervisors actually determine which employees will get raises and how much they will receive. The supervisors have authority to withhold any or all of the budgeted raise from an employee. Petitioner did not receive a raise budgeted for December, 1978, because her job performance did not warrant a pay raise. The paperwork Petitioner was required to complete increased during the fall of 1975 due to the normal increase in advertising business experienced by The Democrat from the return of students to school and the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday seasons. Other reasons for the increase in workload at that time are that budgeting and forecasting for the following year is conducted during the fall, as is preparation of the next year's rate structure. The workload increases for everyone in the advertising department at that time of year. Petitioner's workload did not increase as a result of any attempt by Steinberg to harass her. In December, 1978, Petitioner approached Karen Sheffield about a transfer because of the increased paperwork. Sheffield was the secretary to Mrs. Tucker and Mr. Selvaggio at that time. She did not work in personnel. Petitioner did not approach anyone in Personnel about a transfer. Petitioner was not overworked in comparison with other employees. Petitioner was assigned the responsibility for answering a bank of telephones during the time that the advertising department was in a temporary working area due to construction in the building. Steinberg could give that task to no one else due to spacing in the temporary work area. Petitioner was assigned the task of copying multiples because Jean Ash Webb, who had been performing the duty, had been incurring a considerable amount of overtime because of that duty together with her other duties. Steinberg reassigned this task to Petitioner to reduce that overtime. The amount of overtime worked is a matter of great importance to management at The Democrat. Steinberg instructed Petitioner to use carbons in making copies where practicable rather than using a copying machine. He told her that the reason for using carbons was to save money. This change was effected at the direction of Mr. Harwell, the publisher, who was concerned over expenses at that time. There was a valid business reason for the use of carbons. This policy was instituted throughout The Democrat and not simply against Petitioner. Petitioner resented being given what she considered to be menial tasks and complained to other employees about having to perform such tasks. She complained about having to collate the Belden (Building) Study. She complained about having to perform the task of copying multiples. She complained about being overworked. She complained about having to retype letters. Petitioner's hours of employment were changed to 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., effective January 18, 1979. Petitioner had changed her own work hours to suit her personal schedule on several occasions prior to her hours being changed to 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Her method of changing her hours was simply to begin coming in at a different time and then to secure approval from Steinberg after he noticed the change. The reason for the change to 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. was to provide assistance to the outside sales staff upon their return to the office in the afternoon after making sales calls. Outside salespersons in the advertising department frequently work late to finish the required paperwork and layouts for ads sold during the day. Persons used to provide such assistance to the outside sales staff after normal hours are known as "ad-assists." Petitioner was assigned ad-assist duties only for part of the day, from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. There had been a need for an additional person in the ad-assist position for some time. The need for an additional person in that position had been under discussion by outside salespersons and by the management of the advertising department for several months. Steinberg had discussed the problem with Petitioner and had solicited her advice on how to handle the problem. Mr. Harwell would not approve hiring a new employee for the position because of the financial pressures on The Democrat at that time. Steinberg, with Keith Balon, considered and evaluated the secretaries, clerks and others in the department to see whose hours could be changed and who had the most work flexibility. Steinberg also discussed his selection with Mr. Harwell. Petitioner's duties as secretary were more flexible and less demanding than those of Jean Ash Webb, Dianna Moyer, Becky Savilla, and Linda Crews, who were other employees of the advertising department considered for the move. Jean Ash Webb and Linda Crews could not be moved into the ad-assist position because they had specialized jobs to perform and because they had deadline functions which required their presence at a specific time in the morning and, thus, dictated their departure time in the evening. Also, Dianna Moyer worked for Keith Balon and the sales staff, and Ms. Savilla worked for other supervisors. Steinberg did not have anyone other than Petitioner to place into the ad-assist position. Harwell agreed with Steinberg's decision. There was a legitimate business reason for changing Petitioner's hours to 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The Democrat is a twenty-four-hour business. Employees other than Petitioner have left the company because they would not work the hours they were assigned. Petitioner informed Steinberg and others that she would not accept the change in her hours and that she would look for another job. Petitioner complained to other employees about the change in her hours and made derogatory remarks about Steinberg. Mr. Harwell told Steinberg that he should get a timetable for Petitioner's departure so that new people could be interviewed for the position, and he suggested a two-week period. Harwell also instructed Steinberg to caution Petitioner about "bad-mouthing" either the company or Steinberg during her remaining time at The Democrat. He instructed Steinberg that if Petitioner made statements which could hurt the morale of the department, she should be terminated immediately. Steinberg initially advised Petitioner that she could continue to work at The Democrat until she found a new job so long as she did not make derogatory remarks about him or The Democrat. Petitioner initiated conversations with other employees in which she complained about Steinberg. These remarks were creating a morale problem in the department. She also told other employees that her telephone was being tapped. On January 22, 1979, Steinberg asked Petitioner for a timetable for her expected departure so that plans could be made for her replacement. Petitioner refused to provide a timetable. Petitioner continued to make derogatory remarks about Steinberg. Upon the instructions of Mrs. Tucker, Steinberg discharged Petitioner on January 23, 1979. Upon Petitioner's termination, another person assumed the ad-assist duties in the 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. time slot. The day Petitioner was discharged, she interviewed with Keith Balon, the retail advertising manager, for a position as an outside salesperson in the advertising department. Steinberg was aware of this interview and did nothing to prevent Petitioner from interviewing or from obtaining the position. In fact, he did not include his private memoranda in her personnel file and did not inform Mr. Balon of the existence of such memoranda or their contents. Outside salespersons for The Democrat regularly worked until 7:00 p.m. and frequently as late as 8:30 p.m. in order to complete their duties for that day. Petitioner gave no explanation regarding how she could work those hours for Mr. Balon when she had refused to work until 7:00 p.m. for Mr. Steinberg. Balon hired another person whom he believed to be more qualified than Petitioner. His decision was not made to discriminate against Petitioner in any way. In October, 1978, Steinberg gave Petitioner a 3" X 5" card stating "from one who is one to one who could be one Thanx Marty." Above that notation was drawn a large six-pointed star. Steinberg gave the card to Petitioner in response to several gifts given to him by her and her statement to him that she wanted to be his "Jewish mother." The card did not have any sexual connotation, and Petitioner did not perceive any sexual connotation to the card. Steinberg frequently worked on Saturdays after having been out of the office during the latter part of the workweek. He called Petitioner on occasion at her home on Saturday mornings when he had a question about what had happened at work. Steinberg also called his other employees at their homes on Saturday mornings for the same purpose. Although some social conversation did occur during the calls to Petitioner, the calls were not used to sexually harass her. There were no statements made about sex during these calls. When Petitioner announced her engagement to Mr. Selvaggio, Steinberg expressed a concern since an employee of his would be married to another department head. There was no sexual connotation to this remark. By Petitioner's own testimony, this remark related to Steinberg's concern for the confidentiality of certain information concerning his department. He also discussed his concern about confidentiality with Mr. Harwell and with Mrs. Tucker during this same time period. Steinberg once mentioned to James Reeves, Petitioner's then husband, that Petitioner was like an "office wife." Reeves did not consider the remark to have any sexual connotation but rather understood that Steinberg meant that Petitioner was his confidant. Petitioner married Mr. Selvaggio, who was then the promotion manager of The Democrat, on December 21, 1978. There was some confusion between Steinberg and Petitioner regarding the time she was to take off for her wedding. However, Petitioner admits that this was simply a misunderstanding. This confusion was not an incident of sexual harassment. There were two romantic interludes between Petitioner and Steinberg which occurred in the board room at The Democrat. The first incident occurred in September, 1978, when Petitioner was helping to compile and collate the Belden (Building) Study, which was an advertising research study that had been made. Petitioner complained about having to perform such a menial task although Rebecca Bradner, a supervisor, participated in the collating as did several other employees. Petitioner told Ms. Bradner that the collating was not Petitioner's job, that she was going to lunch, that she would take a long lunch, and that if Steinberg did not like that, he could come in and tell her so. Bradner relayed this information to Steinberg. Steinberg then came to the board room. While Petitioner and Steinberg were alone in the board room, he kissed her, and she kissed him. This was a voluntary act on the part of both persons. The second incident occurred several weeks later when Steinberg invited Petitioner to walk to the board room with him. When they got there, they began kissing each other. Steinberg touched Petitioner's breasts, and Petitioner placed her hands on his genitals. Again, each participated willingly and voluntarily. Steinberg's only superiors at The Democrat were Mrs. Tucker and Mr. Harwell. Petitioner admitted she never reported the board room incidents or any alleged incidents of sexual harassment to either of those persons, to any other management or supervisory personnel at The Democrat, or to any other employee of The Democrat. Further, neither Harwell nor Tucker, nor any other management or supervisory personnel at The Democrat had any knowledge of any alleged incidents of sexual harassment. Petitioner admitted that Steinberg never expressly or indirectly conditioned her continued employment or any term or condition of her employment upon acceptance of sexual advances. Petitioner does not know of anyone who was ever terminated from employment at The Democrat because he or she filed a complaint about a supervisor for any reason, nor of any employee who was ever fired because of making allegations of sexual harassment against a supervisor. On one occasion, Petitioner told Mrs. Tucker that Steinberg wanted to know where and with whom Petitioner went to lunch. This occurred in connection with the concern of Steinberg that Petitioner was returning late from United Way luncheons. Tucker agreed to speak with Steinberg about Petitioner's duties with the United Way. Petitioner told Tucker during this conversation that Steinberg was infatuated with Petitioner; however, Petitioner did not indicate that she found the alleged infatuation to be a problem for her, and she specifically did not inform Tucker of any alleged sexual advance or sexual harassment. Further, Petitioner later told Tucker that things had improved. The Democrat conducts what are called "management coffee breaks," at which "rank and file employees" meet with the publisher, Mr. Harwell, and the personnel director, then Mrs. Tucker. Supervisors and department heads are specifically excluded from attending. These conferences are used so that the employees may present grievances, complaints, or discuss any other problems or policies that they wish. At these sessions, employees are encouraged to speak with management privately on matters that cannot be discussed in a group meeting. Petitioner attended one of these conferences and could have used it to bring her alleged problems to management's attention. The Tallahassee Democrat's employee handbook contains a statement of policy which prohibits discrimination. The Democrat has a policy regarding supervisors having affairs with employees. Two supervisors, one male and one female, had previously been terminated because of sexual relationships with their employees. Other employees of The Democrat knew about these supervisors being terminated, Mr. Harwell testified that he would have taken corrective action by terminating Steinberg had Harwell known of any sexual harassment by Steinberg. Petitioner presented no evidence of discrimination based upon her sex or marital status and failed to request any affirmative relief.
Recommendation Based upon 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 declaring that Gail C. Selvaggio was not discriminated against on the basis of her sex or marital status and dismissing her Petition for Relief with prejudice. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of June, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward S. Jaffry, Esquire S. Jack Carrouth, Esquire Horne, Rhodes, Jaffry, Horne & Carrouth Post Office Box 1140 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 C. Gary Williams, Esquire Charles L. Early, Jr., Esquire Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Dana Baird, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Suite 100, Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Norman A. Jackson Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 2562 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, JR Conway Enterprises, LLC (Respondent), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, section 760.10(7), Florida Statutes,1 by terminating Petitioner, Tina Garner (Petitioner), in retaliation for her reporting sexual harassment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, JR Conway Enterprises, LLC, owns a number of businesses. Jeff Conway is Respondent’s managing member. Petitioner was hired by Respondent near the end of July 2018, to work as a bookkeeper doing payroll and accounts for Respondent’s real estate office known as Sunshine State Deals. In September 2018, Respondent opened a Smoothie King in the Spring Hill, Florida area. As the date for opening the Smoothie King grew closer, Petitioner took on more responsibilities and helped open and operate that store. Morgan Katocs was hired in September 2018 to work at the Smoothie King. Ms. Katocs was 17 years old at the time she was hired. Ms. Katocs brother, Hunter McGhee, was also hired to work at the Smoothie King. The Smoothie King store opened on September 18, 2018. Petitioner had no authority to hire employees for Respondent. Apparently, all hires to work at the Smoothie King were made by Brandon Berlinrut, who was a friend of Jeff Conway and recruiter for Respondent. While Petitioner had no hiring authority, during the time she worked at the Smoothie King, she supervised Ms. Katocs. As the Smoothie King was opening, there was work that needed to be completed. Respondent hired his friend, Constantine Tremoularis, as an independent contractor to install security cameras, work on the point of sale, and conduct various work at the location. Mr. Tremoularis was given access to areas at the Smoothie King store where only employees were permitted. While working at the Smoothie King, Ms. Katocs had physical limitations due to a back condition caused by a car accident. When Ms. Katocs requested assistance in lifting a mop bucket, Mr. Tremoularis responded, “I bet men like to say that they broke your back,” in a context inferring injury during sex. Ms. Katocs interpreted the comment as an unwelcome sexual comment and was offended and upset. Ms. Katocs reported the unwanted sexual comment to Ms. Garner within an hour after the comment was made. Later, while Petitioner was at Respondent’s real estate office, both Ms. Katocs and her mother called her on the telephone from the Smoothie King office and asked her to set up a meeting with Mr. Conway to discuss the unwanted sexual comment. They both expressed a desire for Petitioner to be present during the meeting. Ms. Garner told Mr. Conway of Ms. Katocs and her mother’s desire to have a meeting with him to discuss the unwanted sexual comment, and of their request that Petitioner be present at the meeting. Mr. Conway met with Ms. Katocs and Ms. Katocs’s mother on October 4, 2018, to discuss the incident. Mr. Conway did not invite Petitioner and Petitioner did not attend the meeting. Although he did not tell Ms. Katocs or her mother, the reason that Mr. Conway did not want Petitioner in the meeting is because he had already decided to terminate Petitioner’s employment for reasons unrelated to the reported unwanted sexual comment from Mr. Tremoularis. At the meeting, Ms. Katocs, her mother, and Mr. Conway discussed the unwanted sexual comment. During the meeting, Mr. Conway agreed to make changes and provide sexual harassment training for Respondent’s employees. On October 4, 2018, the day after the meeting between Ms. Katocs, her mother, and Mr. Conway, Mr. Tremoularis apologized to Ms. Katocs. Although he was allowed to stay at the Smoothie King location from several days to over a week to finish the job, Mr. Tremoularis made no further unwanted sexual comments to Ms. Katocs. On Saturday, October 6, 2018, Mr. Conway called Petitioner on the telephone and advised her that she was terminated. Mr. Conway terminated Petitioner because he perceived her as rude, argumentative, and combative. Mr. Conway also believed that Petitioner was responsible for hiring her daughter, Tina Rowlands, to work at the Smoothie King store even though Petitioner knew that Mr. Conway did not approve of the hire. Mr. Conway’s perceptions of Petitioner’s aberrant behavior were consistent with those observations reported by Karen Stapleton in her testimony at the final hearing. Karen Stapleton, who worked with Mr. Conway’s companies as a consultant and in accounting, worked with and helped train Petitioner at Respondent’s real estate office in September 2018. Ms. Stapleton also observed Petitioner scream at an employee at Respondent’s Smoothie King store. When Mr. Conway terminated Petitioner, he also terminated Petitioner’s daughter, Ms. Rowlands, as well as Petitioner’s daughter’s boyfriend, Jake Fryar. Although Mr. Conway approved of Jake Fryar’s hire, he decided to terminate Mr. Fryar as well because of his association with Petitioner and Petitioner’s daughter. Respondent’s decision to terminate Petitioner was made because of Mr. Conway’s perceptions about Petitioner’s combative behavior and Mr. Conway’s belief that Petitioner was responsible for hiring her daughter. Although in close proximity to the time of Petitioner’s termination on October 6, 2018, Mr. Conway had already decided to fire Petitioner prior to Petitioner’s report of the unwanted sexual comment made to Ms. Katocs and Mr. Conway’s meeting with Ms. Katocs and her mother to discuss the incident. As confirmed by the testimony of a locksmith, who was contacted on September 28, 2018, to change locks on Respondent’s offices and the Smoothie King store, Respondent’s decision to terminate Petitioner was made in late September 2018. Although the locks were not changed until October 6, 2018, the timing of the lock change request and Mr. Conway’s credible testimony confirm that the decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment was unrelated to her report of unwanted sexual comments. Following the October 4, 2018, meeting between Ms. Katocs, her mother, and Mr. Conway, Morgan Katocs continued her employment at the Smoothie King store until she voluntarily left at the end of December 2018. Ms. Katocs testified that she left Smoothie King because, in her view, nothing changed; she felt uncomfortable about remaining employed there, the promised sexual harassment training never occurred, and another employee was making inappropriate sexual remarks to other female employees. Ms. Katocs also did not like a manager that was hired after Petitioner was terminated, who, according to Ms. Katocs, was a bully and abusive. Ms. Katocs further testified that neither she, nor her brother, who was also employed at the Smoothie King, received negative repercussions from her report of the unwanted sexual comment from Mr. Tremoularis. Ms. Katocs’s brother remained employed at the Smoothie King until voluntarily leaving in April 2019.
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 Petitioner's Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S James H. Peterson, III Administrative Law Judge 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 9th day of February, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jeff Conway JR Conway Enterprises, LLC Post Office Box 15389 Brooksville, Florida 34604 William Sheslow, Esquire Whittle & Melton, LLC 11020 Northcliffe Boulevard Spring Hill, Florida 34608 Erik DeL'Etoile, Esquire DeL'Etoile Law Firm P.A. 10150 Highland Manor Drive, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33610
The Issue Whether Respondent, C and C Enterprises, Inc. (“C and C Enterprises”), discriminated against Petitioner, Leslie D. Richardson, in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act and, if so, what relief should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Mrs. Richardson is a Caucasian female who at all times relevant to this proceeding was an employee of C and C Enterprises, Inc., and worked at the Restaurant. Mrs. Richardson primarily served as a bartender, with most of her shifts placing her at the bar located outside the Restaurant on a deck or patio adjacent to the Restaurant. Sandy Bottoms is a family oriented restaurant located in Fernandina Beach, Florida. It has normal restaurant seating, plus two bars. One bar is located inside the restaurant; the other is located outside. The outside bar has fairly tight quarters, allowing only one person comfortably behind the bar at a time. The outside bar is frequented by customers more than the inside bar, so working outside is more lucrative for the bartenders. Mrs. Richardson began working at Sandy Bottoms in January 2013. She was hired as a bartender and, by most accounts, was very proficient at her job. She quickly chose the outside bar as her preferred spot when working and had many regular customers. Mrs. Richardson was even featured in a local newspaper article in January 2015, wherein she was touted as a particularly well-liked bartender. When she began working at Sandy Bottoms, Mrs. Richardson formed good relationships with its owner, Claude Hartley, and her fellow workers. She also had a good relationship with the manager, Russell McNair, and with the Restaurant’s bookkeeper, Natalie Thelemann. Mrs. Thelemann is Claude Hartley’s daughter. According to Mrs. Richardson’s testimony at final hearing, she began to have “issues” with Mr. Hartley beginning about a year into her tenure at the Restaurant, i.e., around “early to mid 2014.” Conversely, in her Employment Charge of Discrimination, the first alleged incident she reported occurred in “late winter-early spring 2015.” Mrs. Richardson generally claims Mr. Hartley sexually harassed her and even perpetuated potentially criminal or tortious touching. In her complaints to FCHR, Mrs. Richardson reported incidents which allegedly occurred between August 2015 and November 2015. She maintains that Mr. Hartley continued to act inappropriately towards her until her employment ended on November 2, 2015, and even once after she left Sandy Bottoms. Mr. Hartley denies there was any sexual harassment or inappropriate touching at any time during Mrs. Richardson’s employment at Sandy Bottoms. Neither Mr. McNair nor Mrs. Thelemann saw any such things occurring while Mrs. Richardson was working at Sandy Bottoms. Mrs. Richardson’s employment ended abruptly on November 1 or 2, 2015. On Sunday, November 1, 2015, she had shown up at work for her regular shift. She clocked in a couple of minutes late that day, but she blames the Restaurant’s timeclock for that. The time on that clock (referred to by staff as “Aloha time”), was always, according to Mrs. Richardson, five or so minutes ahead of the “actual” time. Mrs. Richardson was late for her shifts approximately 67 percent of the time, but she says she would sometimes work a bit around the Restaurant before clocking in, even if she got there on time.1/ In light of credible testimony from the manager and bookkeeper that all personnel clocked in immediately upon arrival, Mrs. Richardson’s testimony is not persuasive. The only other non-manager employee who testified, Danielle Guidry, did not corroborate Mrs. Richardson’s testimony concerning how staff clocked in for work. After clocking in late on November 1, 2015, Mrs. Richardson took a telephone call from her mother, who was ill at the time. She walked around outside during the telephone call. When she came back to the outside bar area to begin her shift, she was told that she would be working the inside bar on this day. Apparently another bartender, who had prepared the outside bar for opening in Mrs. Richards’s absence, asked to staff the bar even though she had been scheduled to work the inside bar. The outside bar is generally busier and generates more tips than the inside bar. Mr. McNair granted the other bartender’s request because Mrs. Richardson was late for her shift. According to the Restaurant’s Server Operational Manual, a server/bartender should arrive at least 10 minutes prior to their shift. Otherwise, the shift would “go up for auction” to another employee. Upon hearing the news that she had to work the inside bar, Mrs. Richardson became irate. She stormed into the restaurant and angrily confronted Mr. McNair, but he stood by his decision. When Mr. McNair refused to budge, Mrs. Richardson cursed at him and exited the Restaurant loudly, all the while with customers sitting within hearing range. Mrs. Richardson went home, where she received a call from Mr. Hartley within half an hour or so. Mr. Hartley asked her to come back to the Restaurant and do her shift, but Mrs. Richardson refused. Mr. Hartley discussed the situation with his “management team” which included his wife, Rita Hartley, Mr. McNair, and Phil Thelemann, another manager (who is also Mr. Hartley’s son-in-law). The consensus was that Mrs. Richardson had abandoned her job by walking out without notice or cause. Mr. Hartley then called Mrs. Richardson again, this time leaving her a message wherein he told her not to come in the next day as scheduled. It was the decision of management that Mrs. Richardson’s employment with Sandy Bottoms was over. Mr. Hartley left the following message on Mrs. Richardson’s phone: “Leslie, this is Claude. There’s no sense in coming in tomorrow. My family is ‘bout to kill me. And, uh… I’m sorry. Call me and talk to me. I’ll help you out if I can. Goodbye.” Mrs. Richardson considers that message evidence that Mr. Hartley’s family was angry with him because of his infatuation with her. No competent or persuasive evidence was presented to support her theory. Mr. Hartley said the message reflected the fact that his family was upset with him for trying to preserve Mrs. Richardson’s job at Sandy Bottoms despite the team consensus that she had abandoned her position. His explanation seems more credible. Mr. Hartley and other Restaurant employees soon began hearing rumors that Mrs. Richardson was planning to file a lawsuit against Sandy Bottoms alleging wrongful termination. When she came in to pick up her final paycheck a week or so after being let go, Mr. Hartley asked Mrs. Richardson if she was planning to sue him or the Restaurant. Mrs. Richardson was friendly (or at least “not unpleasant”) and indicated she would not “do something like that.” It does not appear that anyone at the Restaurant knew Mrs. Richardson had actually hired a lawyer until she had filed her complaint with FCHR. Mrs. Richardson struggled to find good employment after leaving Sandy Bottoms. She worked for two other restaurants tending bars, but neither job was as lucrative as her bartender position at Sandy Bottoms. She believed some restaurants refused to hire her because she had been fired by Sandy Bottoms, but could identify only one potential employer who brought up her tenure at Sandy Bottoms. That person did not testify at final hearing to confirm or deny Mrs. Richardson’s contention. Mrs. Richardson is the sole breadwinner for her family. After losing her job at Sandy Bottoms she was evicted from her home and had to move to Yulee, a less attractive community off the island of Fernandina Beach. She is now working as a housekeeper. Her husband, who was a frequent customer at Sandy Bottoms while she was working there, is disabled and cannot work. Ultimately, Mrs. Richardson did hire legal counsel and file a complaint against Sandy Bottoms. In her “Employment Charge of Discrimination,” Mrs. Richardson alleged a number of instances wherein Mr. Hartley had acted improperly towards her. The majority of the allegations could not be substantiated or corroborated by any other witness. Those “he said - she said” allegations will only be referred to in passing and as necessary to elaborate on the two somewhat verifiable allegations. The two alleged incidents for which other eyewitness testimony exists are generally described as follows: On or about October 4, 2015, Mrs. Richardson was working behind the outside bar. Mr. Hartley, who kept a bottle of port wine in a cooler behind the bar for his personal consumption, came behind the bar. Mrs. Richardson felt a bottle being shoved between her legs, scaring her and making her very uncomfortable. Mr. Hartley supposedly laughed and asked a customer “wasn’t that funny?” or “isn’t that fun?” In the late winter or early spring of 2015, Mr. Hartley approached Mrs. Richardson as she was working at the bar and – staring at her breasts – said, “It’s not that cold in here.” A customer sitting at the bar overheard the statement. As to the first incident, Mrs. Richardson’s description in her diary of allegations said Mr. Hartley “shoved the neck of the bottle between my legs from behind.” Despite the egregiousness of the allegation, whether it occurred exactly as alleged is unclear from the evidence. Her testimony about the event at final hearing was wanting. Mrs. Richardson testified as follows, first in response to questions from her counsel, then from Respondent’s counsel: Q: Did Mr. Hartley shove a bottle of port into your genital area? A: Yes, the very top of my legs where my shorts were, yes. Q: Okay. A: My shorts were wet from it, and my shorts were not short shorts, but they were short enough to be to the upper part of my legs, not my calves. Transcript, page 59. Q: You stated on direct that you were –- you felt degraded [by the bottle incident]. A: Yes. Q: Can you explain what you mean by degraded? A: I felt like an idiot. I mean that I couldn’t believe that he had the nerve to come behind the bar and stick a bottle of port anywhere on me. It wouldn’t have been funny, let alone where it was. Transcript, pp. 100-101. Though it was suggested a number of times, Mrs. Richardson’s testimony never directly alleged that Mr. Hartley put the bottle against her vagina or anus, only that he poked her with the bottle in some fashion. In fact, Mrs. Richardson never specified exactly where the bottle had touched her body. Mr. Hartley testified he went behind the bar on the day of the incident to retrieve his bottle of port. When he reached down to pick up the bottle cap which he had dropped, he intentionally touched the cold bottle to Mrs. Richardson’s leg. It was meant to be playful, a joke, consistent with his normal behavior towards her – and like her playfulness with him. He touched the cold bottle to her bare leg, causing her to jump. There were many other people in the restaurant at the time. Mr. Hartley’s testimony seemed credible, even though there was some testimony from others that he generally asked the bartender to pour his port wine rather than getting it himself. He maintains that on the day in question the bar was quite busy and he did not want to distract Mrs. Richardson from her duties. The perceptions of the two other people in attendance must also be considered. First, a long-time friend of Mrs. Richardson, Deborah Botke, was sitting at the bar. She saw Mr. Hartley’s arm move toward Mrs. Richardson’s legs. From her vantage point, she could not actually see below Mrs. Richardson’s waist, but from the angle of Mr. Hartley’s arm-–and Mrs. Richardson’s reaction–-Ms. Botke presumed that the man had poked the bottle “in the direction of her private regions.” She said, “I saw him take it and shove it like this. I don’t know where it landed.” She did note that Mr. Hartley was approximately waist-high to Mrs. Richardson, i.e., he did not bend over so as as to touch her ankle or lower leg. Ms. Botke was a credible witness. She holds a very significant security clearance at her job managing all the navigational equipment for the U.S. Navy’s Ohio-class ballistic submarines. It is unlikely she would perjure herself in a proceeding such as this and put her clearance at risk. It is clear she saw something and was convinced that Mr. Hartley acted improperly, even if she could not actually see what he did. To the detriment of her believability, she is a close friend of Mrs. Richardson and obviously wants to support what her friend alleges. And, she has had some past trouble with Sandy Bottoms. She was once removed from the Restaurant by the police when she became extremely drunk after breaking up with a boyfriend. All in all, Ms. Botke’s belief that Mr. Hartley utilized the bottle in a sexual manner is not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Ms. Botke also provided hearsay testimony concerning other allegations Mrs. Richardson had made concerning Mr. Hartley, but those allegations were not corroborated by other competent evidence. For example, she suggested that security cameras at the Restaurant were installed for the primary purpose of allowing Mr. Hartley to remotely look at Mrs. Richardson’s breasts. In fact, Ms. Botke says that Mrs. Richardson came home crying one night when she (Richardson) discovered that fact about the cameras. No persuasive evidence was presented, however, to establish the legitimacy of that allegation. Also, Ms. Botke said that Mr. Hartley appeared to “make contact with” Mrs. Richardson unnecessarily when he went behind the bar one time. Mrs. Richardson acknowledged the area behind the bar was very small and it was difficult for two people to be there at one time. From the totality of the evidence, it is certain that Mr. Hartley touched a cold bottle of port wine to Mrs. Richardson’s body. It cannot be confirmed where on her body the bottle touched Mrs. Richardson, i.e., whether it was her backside, her crotch, or on one of her legs. Nor can it be reasonably ascertained whether Mr. Hartley’s purpose was playful or sexually motivated. Regarding the comments Mrs. Richardson made about the security cameras, again there was no corroboration. Mr. Hartley and Mr. McNair say the cameras were installed for security purposes only. One reason the cameras were required was to make sure staff were not drinking on the job and/or drinking without paying for the drinks. In fact, in September 2015, the cameras recorded Mrs. Richardson taking alcohol “shots” at the bar during one of her shifts. She was reprimanded and written up for the infraction. As to the second incident, i.e., that Mr. Hartley allegedly made inappropriate comments while looking at Mrs. Richardson’s breasts, the evidence is even more scant. At final hearing, Mrs. Richardson’s attorney asked if Mr. Hartley had made a specific reference to her nipples in late winter- early spring 2015. She replied, “Yes sir.” In her written list of allegations given to FCHR, she said Mr. Hartley said, “It’s not that cold in here” in reference to her nipples while looking at her breasts. Mr. Hartley testified only that he did not make any such comment concerning Mrs. Richardson’s breasts or nipples. There was another person, Robert Pelletier, sitting at the bar at the time of the alleged incident. Mr. Pelletier, who is a managing broker for a real estate firm, is also a licensed attorney. At the time of the alleged incident, he had visited the bar on half a dozen occasions. He was sitting at the inside bar when an “older man” went behind the bar and said something to Mrs. Richardson about her nipples being hard. He found the comment to be very offensive. He was told by Mrs. Richardson that the man was the owner of Sandy Bottoms. At final hearing Mr. Pelletier could not say whether Mr. Hartley, who was sitting some six feet away from him, was the man he saw speaking to Mrs. Richardson that day in the bar. In an affidavit he prepared in May 2016, Mr. Pelletier did not mention that the man had commented specifically about Mrs. Richardson’s nipples. Nor did he mention that the man had gone behind the bar to talk to Mrs. Richardson. The only consistency between Mr. Pelletier’s testimony and his affidavit was that he heard something inappropriate said to Mrs. Richardson as he sat at the bar. By his own admission, Mr. Pelletier’s memory of the event was cloudy. No one else witnessed this encounter. It happened very quickly, according to Mr. Pelletier, and was not that memorable an event. While it is certainly possible that the event happened exactly as Mrs. Richardson remembers it, there is not a preponderance of evidence to that effect. Besides the two incidents discussed above, Mrs. Richardson also alleges a history of unwanted advances and comments from Mr. Hartley. She describes incidents where she felt like Mr. Hartley’s interactions with her or comments to her were sexual in nature. Both Ms. Botke and Ms. Guidry reported some other general comments allegedly made by Mr. Hartley that Mrs. Richardson had reported to them, but their testimony in that regard was not particularly persuasive. Mr. Hartley describes the same incidents as completely non-sexual in content or intent. Ms. Guidry had worked at, and been fired from, Sandy Bottoms several times. She once heard Mr. Hartley tell Mrs. Richardson that he wanted to buy her a red dress; that statement seemed to make Mrs. Richardson uncomfortable. Ms. Guidry thought Mr. Hartley hung around Mrs. Richardson too much. However, she never saw anything untoward happen between the two. Had she seen something improper happen, she would have reported it to someone. She never reported anything to anyone. Ms. Botke said that Mrs. Richardson would complain to her about Mr. Hartley as the two women sat on their decks enjoying a drink after work. None of those complaints, however, were substantiated by other evidence. Watching the demeanor and apparent sincerity of the two (Richardson and Hartley) at final hearing, it is quite possible each is telling the truth as he or she believes it to exist. That is, Mrs. Richardson sincerely believes that some of Mr. Hartley’s actions and words were provocative and meant to be sexual in nature. Mr. Hartley honestly believes that he was joking with Mrs. Richardson in a friendly and joking fashion, never crossing the line into inappropriate behavior. Mrs. Thelemann believed she and Mrs. Richardson got along quite well. They both had children and would talk about “kid things” with each other. Mrs. Thelemann saw her father (Hartley) and Mrs. Richardson talking quite frequently but never saw anything improper or questionable. Mrs. Richardson told Mrs. Thelemann once that Mr. Hartley was “an old flirt,” but not in a complaining way. Once, when Mrs. Richardson was distraught about being “written up” for drinking liquor while on duty, Mrs. Thelemann consoled Mrs. Richardson and let her know all was well. Mrs. Thelemann said Mrs. Richardson was, after all, a good employee. Another time, when Mrs. Richardson had to go visit her ailing mother, Mrs. Thelemann and her parents offered Mrs. Richardson money and the use of one of their cars. Mrs. Thelemann, an accountant, offered to help Mrs. Richardson with some IRS tax issues. And Mr. Hartley offered to loan Mrs. Richardson some money to buy Capri pants to replace short pants which had been deemed inappropriate. In short, there appears to have been a friendly relationship between Mrs. Richardson and the Hartley family. Speaking of inappropriate shorts, one of Mrs. Richardson’s unverified allegations had to do with Mr. Hartley allegedly telling her to turn around and bend over so he could inspect her shorts. Someone had complained that she and another waitress, Brittany, were wearing shorts that were too revealing. She says Mr. Hartley directed her to bend over so he could tell if the shorts were okay. At some point, Mrs. Thelemann told Mrs. Richardson that the shorts she was wearing on a particular day were too short. Later, Mrs. Richardson came to Mrs. Thelemann and said Mr. Hartley had inspected the shorts and overruled her, saying the shorts were okay. Mrs. Thelemann was angry that her father would undercut her authority, but there was no mention in the conversation that Mr. Hartley had acted inappropriately towards Mrs. Richardson. Mr. Hartley remembers visually inspecting Mrs. Richardson’s shorts, but not in a suggestive or inappropriate way. Again, there is no independent corroboration of either person’s testimony. Mrs. Richardson had a fairly clean record during her time at Sandy Bottoms. Besides the aforementioned write-up for drinking on the job, she was written up once for failing to timely enter drinks into the Point of Sale (“POS”) system. It is imperative that wait staff and bartenders timely enter drink orders into POS so that they do not forget to do so (and, apparently, to prevent them from giving away drinks). Mrs. Richardson had not timely entered some orders into the POS system and was written up for it. She signed the disciplinary action form, but wrote, “I did not do anything wrong on Sunday.” She maintains she entered the drinks as soon as practicable based on how busy she was with customers at the time. Mrs. Thelemann said that drinks actually were supposed to be entered into POS prior to being poured. Mrs. Richardson was also late for her shifts fairly frequently, roughly two thirds of the time. Otherwise, she was a model employee. Despite the numerous allegations in her written complaint, Mrs. Richardson noted only one time that she complained to management about specific harassment. She purportedly told Mr. McNair about the incident with the port wine bottle. She also said she complained to Mr. McNair at least ten other times about Mr. Hartley. Mr. McNair, however, does not remember her coming to him with that complaint (or any other, for that matter). Mrs. Richardson did express hesitation about going to management, as Mr. Hartley was the owner and ultimate authority at the Restaurant. Mrs. Richardson contends Mr. McNair is simply afraid of testifying against Mr. Hartley, but inasmuch as Mr. Hartley no longer owns the Restaurant, that contention loses credence. Besides, Mr. McNair appeared very credible while testifying at final hearing. Mrs. Richardson suggested that Mr. McNair lied on his affidavit, which had been sworn to while he was still an employee of Sandy Bottoms. Now, she reasons, he must maintain his lie in order to avoid perjuring himself. While there is logic to the reasoning, there is no evidence to support the contention. At best, the evidence at final hearing supports a finding that: 1) Mr. Hartley made an inappropriate comment about Mrs. Richardson’s breasts; and 2) Mr. Hartley touched Mrs. Richardson’s body with a wine bottle. Neither of these incidents rises to the level of sexual harassment. Mrs. Richardson also claimed retaliation by her employer, specifically that she was fired from her job because of the complaints she made against Mr. Hartley. There is no persuasive evidence in the record to support that claim. In fact, it is clear that Mrs. Richardson voluntarily walked away from her job–-at least for her November 1, 2015, shift--and was thus deemed to have abandoned her position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations Issue a Final Order finding that Respondent, C and C Enterprises, Inc., did not discriminate against Petitioner, Leslie Richardson. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2017.
