The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner was harassed on the basis of national origin or discriminated against on the basis of a disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner began employment with the Respondent in the summer of 1994 and was terminated from his employment on July 28, 1999. The Respondent operates a machine shop where different types of large metal parts are fabricated according to customer order. The Petitioner was employed as a "mill operator" in the "caterpillar" department. As a mill operator, the Petitioner was required to load metal parts into machines for further processing, check the quality of his work, and return the parts to a container of finished parts. At all times material to this case, the Respondent had a policy prohibiting employee harassment on the basis of numerous grounds including "national origin." The policy provided that any employee who believed that such harassment was occurring should report it immediately to a supervisor or to another company official. The non-harassment policy was included in the employee handbook. The Petitioner received the handbook when the Respondent employed him and was aware of the policy. The Petitioner, of Polish origin, asserted that at various times he was harassed on the basis of national origin; specifically, he was sometimes addressed as "pollock" by some co-workers. Although the evidence establishes that employees, perhaps including the Petitioner, occasionally referred to each other by ethnic slurs (i.e., "pollock," "speedy Gonzalez," and "buddha") the testimony regarding such incidents was anecdotal, and the times and dates of such references are uncertain. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner was subjected to a hostile work environment or was harassed on the basis of national origin. Other than as set forth herein, the evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner or any other employee ever advised a supervisor or a manager that co-workers were making ethnic references or that any employee felt harassed by the behavior. In March 1998, a note was taped to the men's restroom door reading "Polish Department – Jerry's [sic] Office." The Petitioner reported the note to his supervisor. A meeting was held with the Petitioner's co-workers on March 16, 1998, where the Respondent's managers advised the employees that such behavior was not acceptable and that similar events in the future would result in disciplinary action against the perpetrators. The Petitioner also asserts that he was discriminated against on the basis of an alleged disability. In December 1998, the Petitioner had a total replacement of his right hip. He was medically cleared to return to work on March 1, 1999, with restrictions of not working more than 10 hours per day for two weeks and not lifting more than 20 pounds. The Petitioner reported for work on March 4, 1999, but was sent home by his supervisor because there was no work that met his restrictions, particularly the weight restriction. Generally the metal parts involved in the Respondent's manufacturing process weighed in excess of 20 pounds. By March 18, 1999, the restrictions were lifted and the Petitioner returned to work without incident until July 1999. On July 6, 1999, the Petitioner received a written warning from a plant supervisor who determined that the Petitioner was not properly inspecting parts being produced in the Petitioner's machine. An excessive number of parts were not within acceptable fabrication tolerances and had to be "re- worked." The warning specifically provided that failure to improve the quality and inspection of parts would result in termination of employment. On July 27, 1999, the Petitioner reported hip pain to his physician and was again placed on a restricted workload that included no lifting of weight in excess of 20 pounds and no "twisting" until the physician determined that the pain had been resolved. Based on the medical restrictions and his experience, the Respondent was unable to locate work suitable for the Petitioner. The Petitioner's employment was terminated because there were no jobs available that complied with the Petitioner's medical restrictions. Review of the Petitioner's performance evaluations establishes that he was generally an average worker who was sometimes warned about becoming too involved in other employees' activities. His evaluations of August 1996 and September 1998 contained references to such involvement and indicated that he should "spend less time worrying" about other employees. The 1996, 1997, and 1998 performance evaluations suggested that the Petitioner obtain additional training in order to advance his career. The Respondent offered a program to fund such training, and notices regarding the training were posted on a bulletin board accessible to employees, but the Petitioner did not take advantage of the program. At the time of the July 1999 medical restrictions, the Petitioner's skill set did not qualify him to perform tasks other than as a mill operator using the machine for which he was originally employed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Jerzy Josefik in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerzy Jozefik 9605 Southwest 27th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34476 Grant D. Petersen, Esquire Ignacio J. Garcia, Esquire Haynsworth Baldwin Johnson & Greaves LLC 600 North Westshore Boulevard, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33609-1117 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent failed to make a reasonable accommodation in order to allow the Petitioner to perform his job functions and thereby committed an unlawful employment practice constituting discrimination that is prohibited by the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Miami-Dade County is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The Respondent, Miami Dade County Consumer Service, is a department of Miami-Dade County. The Petitioner, Carlos A. Mangual, is an employee of Miami-Dade County, Florida (the County). He currently is employed as the security manager for the Port of Miami. The Petitioner has held his current position since April of 2001. Prior to his current position, the Petitioner was a Parks and Recreation Security Supervisor for the County. As a supervisor he was eligible to participate in seminars and training meetings that were geared toward making supervisors aware of personnel rules and regulations. During his employment with Parks and Recreation, the Petitioner attended a meeting regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Mr. Collins is the County's Employee Relations ADA specialist who was the guest instructor for the supervisor's certification program. Mr. Collins met the Petitioner at the ADA meeting and discussed with the Petitioner whether the Petitioner's weight (and size) would be considered a disability under the ADA provisions. Subsequently, while employed with the County, the Petitioner was involved in an automobile accident that resulted in a knee injury. The Petitioner has undergone two surgeries to correct the damaged knee. Because the knee has adversely affected the Petitioner's gait, he also suffers back pain from the incident. The knee injury, resultant back pain, and residual physical impairments have caused the Petitioner to receive a workers' compensation overall impairment rating of 8 percent. For purposes of this case, the Respondent does not challenge such impairment. Subsequent to the accident and knee injury, the Petitioner applied for a position with the Respondent. Such position, Consumer Protection Inspector/Officer, required the Petitioner to attend to office duties for approximately 1-2 hours per day and to "be on the road" the rest of the time. Consequently, while working as a Consumer Protection Inspector, the Petition logged anywhere from 100 to 200 miles per day in a County-owned vehicle. The Petitioner began his probationary status with the Respondent in January 2000. During the probationary period, the Petitioner received monthly job performance evaluations. After approximately 5 months and while still during his probationary status, the Petitioner was not retained as a Consumer Protection Inspector. Instead, he was returned to the Parks Department where he continued employment with the County until he began his current position with the Port. The Petitioner considered the return to Parks a "demotion" based upon his alleged disability. It is undisputed the Petitioner requested a larger vehicle during his tenure with the Respondent. The Petitioner maintained the mileage logged in small vehicles was damaging to his knee and uncomfortable. The Petitioner claims he was entitled to an accommodation under the ADA because of his alleged disability. During his time with the Respondent, the Petitioner did not make a formal request for an accommodation. In fact, the credible evidence supports a finding that the Petitioner obtained the form but did not file it with supporting medical documentation as advised by the County's ADA specialist. The Petitioner maintains that the small vehicle assigned for his use required him to frequently stop and stretch. Such stops were necessary because the interior of the vehicle did not allow for an extension of his leg. There is no evidence that the employer refused to allow the Petitioner to make such stops or that the Petitioner was adversely evaluated because of the stops. During the Petitioner's probationary period, the Respondent did not have a larger vehicle readily available to assign to the Petitioner. Vehicles that might have become available would have been assigned based upon seniority with the Respondent. The Petitioner went back to Parks prior to such vehicles becoming permanently available to the Respondent. The Petitioner's impairment rating has not affected his abilities to walk every day, to drive to and from his place of employment, to shop, to engage in leisure activities, or to go to a gym once a month for workouts. There is no evidence of any life activity that Petitioner cannot perform as a result of his knee impairment. The Petitioner was fully able to perform the functions of his job. The Petitioner performed his job with the Respondent even when using a small vehicle. The Respondent never refused a request for an accommodation from the Petitioner. The Petitioner's informal inquiry regarding how to seek an accommodation was never formally filed. The Petitioner's size as well as any knee impairment contributed to the uncomfortable nature of the small vehicle used by the Respondent. This was especially true when the Petitioner was required to share the vehicle with another employee.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carlos A. Mangual 1290 Northeast 135th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Consumer Services Miami Dade County 140 West Flagler Street, Suite 901 Miami, Florida 33128 Eric A. Rodriquez, Esquire 111 Northwest 1st Street, Suite 2810 Miami, Florida 33128-1993 Ana M. Urrechaga, Esquire Urrechaga, P. A. 8603 South Dixie Highway, Suite 209 Miami, Florida 33143
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner was sexually harassed and constructively discharged contrary to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2013), and if so, what remedy should be ordered.
Findings Of Fact Evidence Adduced at the Final Hearing HPC was a rehabilitation and long-term care facility with 180 beds.1/ Petitioner is a female who was employed at HCP as a certified nursing assistant (“CNA”). Petitioner was working at HCP during the evening of Friday, March 21, 2014. She had finished assisting with the transfer of residents from the dining area and was standing at a nurses’ station. Three other HCP employees (Derrick Hahn, Atrice Jones, and Erica Russell) were engaged in a conversation about seven feet from Petitioner. Mr. Hahn was a nurse supervisor. While he was in a position in which he could have supervised Petitioner, there was no testimony that he ever did so. Petitioner was standing with her back against a computer, and she was not participating in the conversation. Mr. Hahn turned to leave Ms. Jones and Ms. Russell. As he was doing so, he collided with Petitioner, and his chest made contact with her chest. At the final hearing, Mr. Hahn and Ms. Jones testified that the collision resulted from Mr. Hahn tripping over a wheelchair and losing his balance. Petitioner testified that there was no wheelchair, thus implying that Mr. Hahn intentionally collided with her. An unidentified person who witnessed the collision immediately asked aloud if Mr. Hahn was trying to run over the CNAs. Mr. Hahn replied by stating that the collision was a “love bug” or a “love bump” and walked away. Petitioner was disturbed by this incident went outside to compose herself. At some point, Petitioner continued with her duties. However, after 15 to 20 minutes, she decided to report the incident to her direct supervisor, Carrie Harper. Ms. Harper immediately called HCP’s facility supervisor, Tonya McAteer. After Petitioner described the incident to her, Ms. McAteer called the Director of Nursing, Holly Henry. Mr. Hahn did not return to work until Monday, March 24, 2014. When he did so, Ms. Henry and Joseph Ballay (the lead administrator of HCP) met with him to discuss the incident. Mr. Hahn told them that he had tripped over a wheelchair and that the collision with Petitioner was accidental. Mr. Ballay and Ms. Henry also met with Petitioner on March 24, 2014. Petitioner reported to them that Mr. Hahn intentionally collided with her. Mr. Ballay told Petitioner that an investigation would be initiated and that Petitioner would not be required to have any additional contact with Mr. Hahn. In order to maintain separation between Mr. Hahn and Petitioner, Ms. McAteer assumed full responsibility for supervising Petitioner. During their investigation, Mr. Ballay and Ms. Henry talked to Atrice Jones, one of the nurses who were present when the incident occurred. Ms. Jones stated that the incident was accidental and that Mr. Hahn was embarrassed that he had collided with Petitioner. Mr. Ballay and Ms. Henry also conferred with other HCP employees but found no evidence that this incident was part of a continuing pattern of inappropriate conduct by Mr. Hahn. Mr. Ballay and Ms. Henry completed their investigation by Friday, March 28, 2014, and concluded that Mr. Hahn unintentionally collided with Petitioner. At the conclusion of their investigation, Mr. Ballay and Ms. Henry admonished Mr. Hahn for describing the incident as a “love bug” or “love bump” after a bystander asked him if he was trying to run over the CNAs. Mr. Ballay and Ms. Henry also advised Mr. Hahn that an apology to Petitioner immediately after the incident would have been appropriate. Mr. Ballay and Ms. Henry spoke to Petitioner about the outcome of their investigation, but Petitioner did not agree with their conclusion. Over the next three months, there were no further incidents between Petitioner and Mr. Hahn. During her testimony, Petitioner cited no other instances of alleged misconduct by co-workers or supervisors. Petitioner’s employment with HCP ended in late July or early August of 2014. Petitioner testified that she voluntarily separated from HCP after concluding she could no longer work for an organization that did not care about her feelings. In contrast, Mr. Ballay testified that Petitioner was dismissed after she failed to report to work on July 30 and July 31, 2014. During the final hearing, the testimony differed as to what HCP’s management did immediately after the incident. Petitioner testified that three weeks passed before HCP’s management initiated its investigation. In contrast, Mr. Ballay testified that he and Ms. Henry completed their investigation within one week following the incident. As a matter of ultimate fact, the undersigned finds that the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Ballay and Ms. Henry completed their investigation by Friday, March 28, 2014. As noted above, the testimony also differed as to whether Mr. Hahn tripped over a wheelchair prior to colliding with Petitioner. In light of what Mr. Hahn said immediately after he collided with Petitioner and his failure to apologize, it is not surprising that Petitioner concluded that Mr. Hahn intentionally collided with her. However, even if Petitioner’s recollection were to be found more credible than that of the other witnesses, Petitioner’s allegations do not demonstrate that she was subjected to a hostile work environment or that she was constructively discharged.
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 claim for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed unlawful employment practices contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2008),1 by discriminating against Petitioner based on his national origin (Hispanic), by limiting, segregating, or classifying employees in a discriminatory fashion, or by retaliating against Petitioner for his opposition to unlawful employment practices.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as that term is defined in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Respondent is a family owned company based in Winter Park that installs residential and commercial insulation and acoustical ceilings and tiles. The company is divided into two divisions. The Insulation Division is headed by William Aldrich. The Acoustic/Ceiling Division is headed by Dale Aldrich, Jr., who was Petitioner's ultimate supervisor. Subsequent references to "Mr. Aldrich" are to Dale Aldrich, Jr. Petitioner, a Hispanic male originally from the U.S. Virgin Islands, was hired by Respondent in February 2006 to work in the Acoustic/Ceiling Division. He was hired as a tile installer, the entry-level position in the Acoustic/Ceiling Division. A tile installer drops ceiling tiles into the gridwork installed by a ceiling mechanic. With experience, a tile installer may work his way up to ceiling mechanic. "Ceiling mechanic" is not a licensed position, and there is no formal progression through which an employee works his way up to this more skilled, higher paid position. Advancement depends on management's recognition that an employee's skills have advanced to the point at which he can be entrusted with the mechanic's duties. Three to four years' experience is generally required to advance from tile installer to ceiling mechanic. By all accounts, including those of the ceiling mechanics who supervised him at job sites and that of Mr. Aldrich, Petitioner was more than competent as to his actual job skills. During the approximately thirteen months he worked for Respondent, Petitioner received four pay raises. He was making $14.00 per hour at the time of his termination in August 2007. The evidence produced at the hearing demonstrated that Petitioner had problems controlling his temper on the job. He was generally negative and quick to take offense at perceived slights, especially when he inferred they were due to his national origin. During his employment with Respondent, Petitioner was involved in at least three altercations with fellow employees and/or general contractors for whom Respondent worked as a subcontractor. The earliest incident occurred in October 2006. Petitioner was working on a job site at which Respondent was a subcontractor for Harkins Development Corporation. Petitioner testified that a Harkins supervisor named Harley was "commanding" him to perform tasks on the job site. Petitioner was affronted, because he was not Harley's employee and because Harley, who was white, did not appear to be giving commands to the white employees of Respondent. After lunch, Harley feigned that he was about to throw a soft drink at Petitioner. In fact, the Wendy's cup in Harley's hand was empty, though a drop or two of condensation from the outside of the cup may have landed on Petitioner. In Petitioner's version of the story, Petitioner then stood up and asked Harley if he would enjoy being on the receiving end of such treatment. Petitioner then phoned Mr. Aldrich and asked to be sent to a different job site. Mr. Aldrich refused, and instead scolded Petitioner. Petitioner believed that Mr. Aldrich was retaliating for his complaint. Petitioner walked off the job site for the rest of the day, and worked at a different site the next day. Petitioner entered into evidence the written statement of his co-worker, Eddy Abud. Mr. Abud is Hispanic, with a national origin in the Dominican Republic. Mr. Abud witnessed the confrontation between Petitioner and Harley. Mr. Abud stated that Harley shook his cup and a "couple drops" of water splashed on Petitioner, who "went ballistic." Petitioner used obscenities against Harley and invited him to fight. Harley threw Petitioner off the job, an action with which Mr. Abud agreed. Petitioner entered into evidence the written statement of his co-worker, Robert "Pappy" Amey. Mr. Amey is white, and wrote that Petitioner "acted like a man all the time" except for the incident with Harley. Mr. Amey's statement reads as follows, in relevant part: Harley had a big drink cup and he turned around and flipped it, playing, nothing came out. Justo lit up [and] called him a mother fucker a dozen times. He said if I find you on the street, I'll kill you. I leaned to him and I said, "Justo, shut up." He did not, he cussed Harley out the door. It was Harley's job. This was unprofessional behavior by Justo. It was just horseplay and it was empty. No reason to act like that. Despite his overall respect for Petitioner, Mr. Amey stated that Petitioner should have been fired for his actions. Mr. Aldrich testified that Harley called him and told him that Petitioner had threatened him. Petitioner told Harley that he would not do anything on the job, but would "kick his ass" if he saw him away from the job. Mr. Aldrich stated that Harkins was one of Respondent's largest, longest-standing accounts, and that he knew Harley as a "stand up guy" who would have no reason to lie about such an incident. The second incident occurred later in the same month, on October 31, 2006. Petitioner was working for Respondent on a project at the University of Central Florida. A ceiling mechanic named Adam Sorkness was in charge of the project. Petitioner testified that Mr. Sorkness had already angered him in September 2006 by making racial jokes about black employees, and that Mr. Aldrich had separated Petitioner from Mr. Sorkness on subsequent jobs up to October 31, 2006. At first, there were no problems on the University of Central Florida job. Petitioner accepted his assignment from Mr. Sorkness. On this day, every man on the job was installing ceiling tile, which involved wearing stilts. According to Petitioner, two white employees arrived later in the morning and decided to work together, leaving Petitioner to work with Isaiah Fields, a black employee whom Petitioner alleged was the butt of Mr. Sorkness' earlier racial jokes. Petitioner became agitated because it appeared the two white employees were doing no work. Mr. Fields testified that he and Petitioner were working around a corner from Mr. Sorkness. They heard loud laughter from around the corner. Mr. Fields said that the laughter was not directed at him or Petitioner, but that it appeared to anger Petitioner, who said, "Wait a minute," and headed around the corner on his stilts. Mr. Fields stayed put and thus did not see the subsequent altercation. Petitioner approached Mr. Sorkness, who was also on stilts. Petitioner complained about the job assignments. Mr. Sorkness replied that everyone was doing the same job and that Petitioner could leave if he didn't like it. Petitioner became more incensed, calling Mr. Sorkness a "sorry white faggot." Petitioner took off his stilts, then confronted Mr. Sorkness at very close range. Mr. Sorkness pushed Petitioner away. Petitioner then charged Mr. Sorkness and they engaged in a brief fight. Ben Davis, a white ceiling mechanic who witnessed the altercation, called it a "scuffle."3 Mr. Aldrich investigated the matter and determined that Petitioner was the instigator of the fight. He suspended Petitioner for three days, and gave Mr. Sorkness a verbal warning. Mr. Aldrich issued a "written warning" to Petitioner cautioning him that he was subject to termination. Mr. Aldrich wrote the following comments: "Justo has been given 3 days off without pay. Normally an employee would be fired for this action. Justo has NO MORE chances. Next offense will result in immediate termination of employment with Energy Savings Systems." The document was signed by Mr. Aldrich and Petitioner.4 Petitioner claimed that Mr. Aldrich cut his hours in retaliation for the UCF incident, and it took several months for his hours to come back up to 40 per week. The time sheets submitted by Petitioner showed fluctuations in his work hours before and after the incident, which is consistent with Mr. Aldrich's testimony that he only cuts hours when work is slow for the company. The evidence demonstrated that Petitioner's hours were reduced at times because he would refuse to take certain jobs, either because of their location or because Petitioner did not want to work with certain people, such as Mr. Sorkness. The third and final incident occurred on August 20, 2007. Petitioner was working on a job for which Respondent was a subcontractor to Alexander-Whitt Enterprises, a general contractor. Alexander-Whitt's superintendent on the job was Dan Alexander. Mr. Alexander asked Petitioner to clean up. Petitioner resented either the order itself or Mr. Alexander's method of delivering it, in light of a brief altercation between the two men on the job site three days earlier. Petitioner threatened to slap Mr. Alexander. Mr. Aldrich testified that he received several calls from Mr. Alexander complaining about Petitioner over the course of this job. Petitioner had an "attitude" about Mr. Alexander's instructing him on the job. Mr. Aldrich apologized. After Petitioner's threat, Mr. Alexander called yet again and told Mr. Aldrich that he wanted Petitioner off the job. After this call, Mr. Aldrich fired Petitioner. Aside from his own suspicions and resentments, Petitioner offered no evidence that his termination had anything to do with his national origin or was retaliation for his complaints about the company's discriminatory practices. In fact, Petitioner never made a formal complaint while he was employed by Respondent. His only "complaints" were to certain co-workers that he was being discriminated against because he was Hispanic. Andy Weatherby, a ceiling mechanic who at times was Petitioner's field superintendent, recalled Petitioner telling him that he felt disadvantaged on the job for being Hispanic, but that Petitioner described no specific incidents of discrimination. Julio Oliva, a junior ceiling mechanic with Respondent, is of Puerto Rican descent. Mr. Oliva testified that he saw no discrimination at the company. He worked often with Petitioner, whom he described as having a negative attitude. Mr. Oliva testified that it was difficult to merely pass the time in conversation with Petitioner, because Petitioner always had something negative to say. Edgar Mullenhoff, also Puerto Rican, has worked for Respondent since 1982 and is the field superintendent for the insulation side of the company. Mr. Mullenhoff described the company as "like a family" and stated that he never felt a victim of discrimination. Mr. Abud's written statement attests that he has had no problems working for Respondent, and that "we have great bosses." Petitioner noted what he termed a discriminatory pattern in the ethnic diversity of the Insulation Division versus the Acoustic/Ceiling Division. While conceding that most of Respondent's employees are Hispanic, Petitioner notes that the great majority of the Hispanics work in the lower paying, less skilled Insulation Division. Petitioner further argued that those few Hispanics hired in the Acoustic/Ceiling Division are given no opportunity to advance to the position of ceiling mechanic. William Aldrich, the head of the Insulation Division, testified that there is a much higher turnover in insulation, and that for the last four years or so the only applicants for the positions have been Hispanic. He credibly testified that he hires anyone who appears capable of doing the job. As to Petitioner's lack of advancement, it must be noted that he worked for Respondent for just a little over one year. Mr. Oliva testified that he has worked for Respondent for five and one-half years. He spent the first two years performing menial tasks and learning on the job. Mr. Oliva stated that Respondent's ceiling mechanics were helpful to him in learning the trade, and he felt no barriers due to his national origin. Mr. Sorkness testified that it took him between four and five years to become a mechanic. Mr. Davis testified that it took him between three and four years to work his way up to ceiling mechanic. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Petitioner was terminated from his position with Respondent due to misconduct on the job. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that Respondent has not discriminated against Petitioner or any other employee based on national origin.
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 Energy Savings Systems of Central Florida, Inc. did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2009.
The Issue Whether the Respondent intentionally committed an unlawful employment practice against the Petitioner on the basis on her national origin/Hispanic (Puerto Rican) or gender/female (sexual harassment). Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was removed from her position with the Respondent in retaliation for her filing of a sexual harassment complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on March 12, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of these proceedings and the parties involved. All procedural prerequisites and requirements have been duly accomplished or satisfied. Respondent, Martin-Marietta Electronics Information and Missiles Group, is a foreign corporation licensed to do business in Florida which employs more than fifteen employees. Respondent is an "employer" within the definition found in Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Margarita Coll, is a female, hispanic, citizen of the United States who resides in the State of Florida. Petitioner is a member of a protected class. Petitioner was an employee of Hi-Tec Associates, Inc., during all relevant periods, and was a de facto employee of Respondent for approximately four and one-half years. Petitioner was employed at Respondent company through a temporary agency called Associated Temporary Services and placed with the Respondent on January 5, 1987 as a receptionist/secretary in Martin-Marietta's Fleet Administration Department off Sand Lake Road, Orlando, Florida. Her responsibilities included record keeping, filing and helping Respondent's employees with company vehicles. Petitioner reported to the Respondent's Fleet Manager, Linda Reilly. Her day to day work assignments and supervision were received exclusively from the Fleet Manager. Petitioner worked in her position at the pleasure of the Respondent. She was assigned a "buyer" at Martin- Marietta who worked with the requesting department to fashion a position to meet the department's needs. The work was bidded out and awarded to the temporary employment agency who best met Respondent's criteria, on an annual basis. Over time, Petitioner assumed additional job responsibilities and in June, 1988 received a commendation for exceptional performance from Respondent's supervisors. In an effort to reward her efforts, Reilly successfully upgraded her position, first to Administrative Assistant and then to Fleet Analyst. When she was reclassified as a Fleet Analyst, the contract for her position was awarded to Hi-Tec Associates, Inc., since Associated Temporary Services did not provide technical employees under their contract with Respondent. Petitioner always worked at Martin-Marietta as a temporary employee and was never employed as a regular employee of the company. As such, she had no company benefits; she was classified as a contract laborer and her services were purchased by purchase order. Petitioner completed no company employment application, was not subject to Martin-Marietta performance appraisals and had no Martin-Marietta employment records or personnel file, other than her contract labor time slips. Petitioner received her pay from Hi-Tec. In June, 1990, Marilyn Quinonez was placed in the Fleet Administration Department as a Fleet Administrative Assistant by a temporary employment agency. Friction quickly developed between Petitioner and Quinonez. Petitioner believed that Quinonez was hired to assist her and became upset when she would not follow Petitioner's supervision or directions. Quinonez understood that she was to report to the Fleet Manager, and objected to the way Petitioner treated her. On November 15, 1990, Reilly was laid off by Respondent as part of a reduction in force and was replaced by Joseph LaPak. LaPak observed the bickering between Petitioner and Quinonez and that it continued to escalate over time. In December, 1990, the temporary positions in the department were reevaluated and the contract requirements for both positions were rewritten. The titles of both Petitioner and Quinonez were changed to that of Fleet Administrative Assistant. Any language in the contract which called for Petitioner to direct the clerical duties of the department were eliminated. In the fall of 1991, Quinonez met with LaPak and Wally DuBose to clarify her reporting responsibilities. It was confirmed that Quinonez and Petitioner were to report to the Fleet Manager, and that Petitioner did not have supervisory authority over Quinonez. Nevertheless, disputes between Petitioner and Quinonez continued. Attempts by management to resolve the problems were unsuccessful. On February 17, 1992, during the normal lunch hour, an altercation occurred between Petitioner and Quinonez. When Quinonez returned from lunch, she found Petitioner at her computer terminal. Quinonez asked for it back. Petitioner refused and an argument ensued. The two women became so angry and loud that a neighboring supervisor had to come over and separate them. Wally DuBose sent both Petitioner and Quinonez home for the day. Petitioner's immediate supervisor, LaPak was not in the office at the time. DuBose then discussed the matter with his supervisor, Paul Smilgen, and it was decided that Petitioner would be removed from the contract for her failure to work with fellow employees and management, and for general insubordination. LaPak was not involved in the decision to remove Petitioner. The decision was communicated to Hi-Tec. They, in turn, notified Petitioner that same evening that she was being replaced on the contract and not return to the Fleet Administration Department. Hi-Tec offered to attempt to place Petitioner elsewhere at Martin-Marietta but Petitioner refused because the openings available at the time paid less that the Fleet Administrative Assistant position. When LaPak first became the Fleet Manager in November of 1990, Petitioner and Quinonez worked in a very small work space. While Petitioner was training LaPak and working on the computer, LaPak's body was frequently close to Petitioner's and she felt pinned in a corner by him. After the initial working relationship was established and LaPak came into Petitioner's work area, he would touch her on her arms or shoulder in order to get her attention. In December, 1990, Petitioner complained to DuBose about LaPak touching her and making her uncomfortable. Both Petitioner and DuBose talked to LaPak about the fact that Petitioner did not want LaPak to touch her. LaPak honored that request and did not touch her again. He made every reasonable effort to get her attention when he needed to talk to her without touching her. In October, 1991, Petitioner complained to the Martin-Marietta EEO office that LaPak was sexually harassing her by inappropriate touching. Respondent then conducted an immediate investigation into the allegations and attempted to resolve the matter through internal mediation. Petitioner's testimony and other witnesses' testimony concerning sexual comments, innuendoes or propositions and inappropriate touching allegedly made by LaPak that occurred between December, 1990 and October, 1991 were inconsistent and are not credible. Petitioner presented no relevant or material evidence to show that Petitioner was the victim of national origin discrimination. Respondent's articulated reason for its decision to remove Petitioner from her contract labor position was not based on gender discrimination or national origin discrimination, nor was it pretextual. Petitioner failed to prove that her termination of employment at the Respondent's company was in retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment or national origin discrimination.
Recommendation Based upon the testimony and evidence submitted on the record in the formal hearings on this matter and by application of the relevant or governing principles of law to the findings of facts established on such record, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be issued in which the Charge of Discrimination is DENIED and the Petition for Relief is DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5(in part), 6(in part), 7(in part), 8(in part), 9(in part), 10(in part), 13, 14(except as to date of hire), 15(in part), 16(in part), 18(except as to the date of the counseling session), 19(except as to the date of the counseling session), 20, 21(in part). Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 5(in part: Petitioner was first a contract employee with Associated Temporary Services), 6(in part), 7(in part), 8(in part), 9(in part), 10(in part), 15(in part), 16(in part), 17. Rejected as immaterial, irrelevant or subsumed: paragraphs 11, 12, 21(in part). Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4(in part), 5, 6(in part), 7, 11(in part), 12, 13, 14(in part). Rejected as argument or a conclusion of law: paragraphs: 9, 10, 15, 16, 17. Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or subsumed: paragraphs 4(in part), 8, 11(in part), 14(in part). Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraph 6(in part). COPIES FURNISHED: Kay L. Wolf, Esquire John M. Finnigan, Esquire GARWOOD, MCKENNA & MCKENNA, P.A. 815 North Garland Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 James Sweeting, III, Esquire 2111 East Michigan Street Suite 100 Orlando, Florida 32806 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 27, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female who at all times material to this case was employed with Respondent as a production worker. Respondent, Hamilton Products, Inc., manufactures various animal related products such as horse tack and pet collars and is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. Allegations of Race Discrimination Petitioner's Employment Complaint of Discrimination alleged discrimination on the basis of race and retaliation and reads in pertinent part: I believe that I have been discriminated against based on race, Black, which has resulted in discipline, unfair terms and conditions, and denial of promotion. Since 2003, I have noticed disparate treatment between White and Black employees. One example of this is that Black employees are rarely if ever promoted to management positions. Another example of this is that a Black coworker of mine, Deloise, would often harass me and when I complained to my supervisor Mrs. Robinson, she took the matter to Mrs. Lake. Mrs. Lake merely asked the woman to not do that again. This harassment continued and I repeatedly complained about it so that finally, I was moved to a different location. A similarly situated White female, Elaine, experienced similar treatment from Deloise but when she complained Deloise was stopped from repeating the behavior almost immediately. I was very upset about this obvious disparity that I contacted Mrs. Benfel and explained to her what was transpiring. She asked me to gather together my complaints and those of others which I did and submitted it to her in a letter. Almost immediately after I began to receive retaliation for my complaint. I was disciplined, verbally harassed and moved away from the other employees. Martha Robinson is a supervisor employed by Respondent for over 16 years. She was Petitioner's direct supervisor for some of the time Petitioner worked for Respondent. Ms. Robinson is a white female. A coworker, Delores,1/ who sat near Petitioner would tap her foot on a wooden box while working. Petitioner found this annoying and complained to Ms. Robinson. Ms. Robinson asked Delores to stop tapping her foot and had fleece put on the box. However, Delores continued to tap her foot. After three or four employees complained about Delores' foot tapping, Ms. Robinson took the box away from Delores and put it in Ms. Lake's office. Karen Benfield is the office manager for Respondent, where she has been employed for 19 years. Petitioner went to Ms. Benfield's office to complain about working conditions. Ms. Benfield described the complaints made by Petitioner as vague and broad-based, consisting of general assertions that employees were unhappy at work. Petitioner's complaints to Ms. Benfield did not include any allegation of racial discrimination about her or anyone else. Ms. Benfield asked Petitioner for specifics, to put her complaints on paper and she would make sure management saw it. She did not ask Petitioner to solicit comments from other employees and told Petitioner she could only speak for herself. Petitioner collected written complaints from her co- workers and delivered them to Ms. Benfield. Petitioner received a Warning Notice dated October 26, 2004, for disruptive influence on the workforce. It read as follows: The purpose of this warning is to make sure that you understand the structure of Hamilton Products and the parameters of acceptable behavior at work. Lately, you have brought a number of suggestions and grievances to the management of Hamilton Products on behalf of yourself and others. There is no single employee representative to management at Hamilton Products. You do not and may not speak on behalf of other employees. Every employee at Hamilton Products, including yourself, enjoys the right to share ideas, suggestions or grievances with management. Such communication is encouraged as long as it is made properly. There is a clear chain of command at Hamilton Products, and you must follow that chain of command when communicating with management. You must speak to your immediate supervisor or place a suggestion in the box provided for suggestions at the north end of the nylon department. It is not acceptable to go around the chain of command to a higher supervisor, as this disrupts the operations of Hamilton Products. In the future, you must follow the chain of command or use the suggestion box, and speak only for yourself. Failure to follow the procedure outlined herein will result in further disciplinary actions up to and including discharge. After the hurricanes of 2004, Petitioner's entire department was reprimanded by the plant manager for missing work. This was upsetting to Petitioner because Ms. Robinson had told these employees not to call in. She felt that Ms. Robinson should not have let him "talk trash" to the employees. There is no evidence that Petitioner or anyone else was singled out in any way by the plant manager regarding this incident. Petitioner believes that white employees were given opportunities for promotion and resulting raises. However, no employees on the production floor were promoted during the time Petitioner worked for Respondent. There is no competent evidence in the record to support Petitioner's claim that white employees received promotions and black employees did not. At some point, Petitioner was moved when the production department was reorganized. Petitioner was placed in the center of the plant, facing the rest of her department. She had no one on either side of her which resulted in her not being able to talk to coworkers while working.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Employment Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 9th day of February, 2007.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, City of Edgewater (the City), committed unlawful employment practices contrary to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2013),1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on her age, gender, and/or disability by the manner in which the City terminated Petitioner’s employment. Also at issue is whether Petitioner’s termination was in retaliation for Petitioner’s complaints regarding discriminatory conduct by her immediate superior.
Findings Of Fact The City is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a white female who was over the age of 40 during the events relevant to this proceeding. Petitioner was hired by the City as a part-time animal control officer on June 9, 1993. At the time Petitioner was hired, animal control was part of the City’s police department. On October 15, 1993, Petitioner was transferred to a full-time position as records clerk/telecommunicator in the police department. Petitioner maintained the department’s records and answered all police calls, including 911 calls. She dispatched officers and emergency personnel. Petitioner testified that this was a desk job with no real physical requirements beyond walking to a window to deal with members of the public. She received excellent evaluations and stayed in this position until early 1999. While working this job, Petitioner obtained police training at Daytona State College. Upon graduation, Petitioner applied for a job as a police officer with the City. On February 19, 1999, the City hired Petitioner as a police officer. Petitioner was promoted to sergeant on May 7, 2006, and served in that position until her demotion following an altercation with a female detainee in the City’s holding facility on June 16, 2011. Petitioner was continuously employed by the City for 18 years and eight months. During her employment, she received regular pay increases and numerous commendations. Over the years, she received three written warnings and one demotion, from sergeant to officer after the incident on June 16, 2011. Chief of Police David Arcieri characterized her disciplinary record as good in light of Petitioner’s length of service. During the course of her employment, Petitioner had multiple health problems. In 2001, during work-related mountain bike training, Petitioner suffered a fall that badly injured her shoulder.3/ Petitioner had surgery and recalled that she missed at least four months of work. When she came back to work, Petitioner was unable to perform the normal duties of a police officer. She was allowed to return in a light-duty desk position, working with the City’s chief of grants. She worked in this position for approximately six months before returning to regular duty as a police officer. In 2004, Petitioner was diagnosed with lupus and rheumatoid arthritis (“RA”). Petitioner testified that she freely discussed her condition with her co-workers because of the problems she had establishing a medication regime that did not cause allergic reactions. Until late 2011, she was forced to give herself painful injections in the stomach. She now has a port implanted that allows her to take the medications via infusion. Chief Arcieri confirmed that it was common knowledge in the City’s police force that Petitioner had lupus. Petitioner testified that she missed very little work because of the lupus and RA. She requested no accommodations in the workplace for these conditions. Sometime in 2009, Petitioner underwent neck surgery to repair a disc “that was almost gone.” Petitioner recalled discussing her condition with then-Sergeant Arcieri4/ prior to the surgery. They talked about the fact that her doctors were unsure whether the neck condition had been brought on by her RA. Petitioner testified that she was out of work for two or three months due to this surgery, but did not require a light-duty assignment when she reported back to her position. On September 22, 2009, Petitioner was at work conducting a witness interview when her nose began bleeding uncontrollably. A fellow officer drove her to the emergency room. Another city employee came to the emergency room to make sure Petitioner got home safely. At the hospital, Petitioner was diagnosed with hypertension. She missed several days of work and was placed on medications to control her blood pressure. City Manager Tracey Barlow testified that he was contemporaneously aware of Petitioner’s hypertension. Petitioner requested no workplace accommodations for her hypertension. In early 2010, Petitioner was out of work for a time with uncontrolled vomiting and diarrhea. Petitioner’s physician, Dr. Beatrice Bratu, diagnosed her condition as stress-induced colitis. Petitioner testified that her treatments for the colitis lasted about three months but that she was back at work within a few weeks. On March 15, 2010, Personnel Director Donna Looney addressed the following email to Petitioner: We are very pleased to see you back and doing well! I am in receipt of a note from Dr. Bratu which indicated you may return to work. I want to stress that we understand the necessity for you to follow your doctor’s instructions. No restrictions are noted; therefore you are allowed to continue your regular duties. Please be advised that you have a continuing obligation not to work when you are feeling impaired (fatigue, weakness, pain, etc.). It is City policy that if you expect to have any adverse side effect while taking medication, you must inform your supervisor, and you are never to drive a City vehicle when you are feeling impaired. If I can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact me. Petitioner requested no workplace accommodation related to her colitis. On June 16, 2011, Petitioner was involved in an altercation with a 28-year-old female detainee at the City police station. Several officers submitted witness statements about the incident and police station video cameras captured the essentials of the acts that occurred. The video recording did not include sound. The detainee, J.G., had been arrested for battery and was by all accounts heavily intoxicated and belligerent. J.G. asked to go to the bathroom. Petitioner let her out of the cell and escorted her to the bathroom. The video shows Petitioner standing in the open doorway of the bathroom, waiting for J.G. to finish. Petitioner told the police department’s internal affairs investigator that J.G. asked for tampons. Petitioner responded that the police department did not keep such items and that she would have to clean up as best she could with the materials available in the bathroom. J.G. replied that she could not put back on the shorts she had been wearing. She stated they were not her shorts and they were bloody. Petitioner told her that she had to put the shorts back on. At this point, the video shows the shorts flying out of the bathroom and landing behind Petitioner, who kicked them back into the bathroom and stepped into the doorway. J.G., stepping into camera range, picked up the shorts and threw them at Petitioner. The shorts hit Petitioner along her beltline. Petitioner took a step forward and struck J.G. in the face with her open right hand. J.G. pushed forward momentarily, but retreated into the bathroom as Petitioner continued to advance. At this point, Officer Eric Selvaggio entered the picture to assist. For a period of roughly forty seconds, all three people were inside the bathroom, invisible to the camera. The doors then opened, and the three emerged. The two police officers guided the handcuffed J.G. toward a point outside the range of the camera. J.G. wore only a shirt and underwear. The video next cut to an empty holding cell. Petitioner and Officer Selvaggio entered the picture, guiding the handcuffed J.G. toward the cell. J.G. continued to struggle with the officers. She dropped to the ground. The officers pulled her to her feet and pushed her into the cell. J.G. kicked at Petitioner. The camera angle made it impossible to see whether there was contact, but Petitioner stated at the time, and has consistently maintained since the incident, that J.G. kicked her in the stomach. Immediately after the kick, Petitioner attempted to push her way past Officer Selvaggio toward J.G. Petitioner drew back her right fist but Officer Selvaggio’s left arm blocked her from throwing a punch. He pushed Petitioner away and then secured J.G. in the holding cell. Though there is no sound on the video, it is clear that Petitioner and J.G. continued an animated conversation after J.G. was locked in the cell. Multiple police witnesses recalled Petitioner calling J.G. a “fucking bitch.” Petitioner and the other officers on duty went out the back door to discuss the situation. The video appears to show Petitioner performing a joking reenactment of her attempted punch at J.G. Officer Selvaggio stated to the investigator that Petitioner told him she might not charge J.G. for the incident, but he replied that under the circumstances it would be best if she did follow through with charges. Petitioner filled out a charging affidavit against J.G., charging her with battery on a law enforcement officer, in violation of section 784.07(2)(b), Florida Statutes. In her charging affidavit, Petitioner wrote as follows, in relevant part, verbatim: On June 16, 2011 at approximately 12:45 a.m., the defendant, [J.G.] was in police custody at the Edgewater Police Department on a battery charge from a previous police call. The defendant requested to use the bathroom and was escorted to the bathroom by me. The defendant was upset over being arrested, while sitting on the toilet, she kicked off her shorts and threw them out of the restroom stating that she was not putting them back on as they were not hers and were soiled from her menstrual cycle. I pushed the shorts back into the restroom with my foot and advised her she needed to put them back on, she screamed she was not going to. When the defendant rose from the toilet, she picked up the shorts and threw them directly into my face, striking me with the shorts. The defendant then pushed herself up against the sink and began calling me a bitch and telling me again she was not putting the shorts back on and she was leaving. I entered and attempted to get her out of the bathroom, she began to punch at me. Myself and Officer Selvaggio, who was standing nearby, grabbed hold of the defendant in an effort to get her out of the bathroom. The defendant struggled against us, before we got her to the floor and secured her. As we were getting her back into the cell, the defendant threw herself onto the bench and kicked out striking me in the stomach with her right foot. The defendant was left in the cell with no shorts on and in handcuffs . . . . It should be noted that Petitioner’s charging affidavit states that J.G. hit her in the face with the bloody shorts, when in fact the shorts hit Petitioner in the waist area. Petitioner failed to mention that she slapped J.G. in the bathroom or that Petitioner attempted to punch J.G. in the holding cell. Chief Arcieri testified that when he came in later that morning, he reviewed all of the reports filed since the previous day. Petitioner’s report caught his eye because it involved battery on a law enforcement officer inside the station house. He instructed his assistant to pull the video of the incident and make one copy for him and one for Petitioner. When he saw the video, Chief Arcieri notified the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (“FDLE”) and requested an investigation. Chief Arcieri testified that he went to FDLE because he thought criminal charges could ensue in the case and that he does not like to investigate criminal matters internally. He also ordered an internal affairs investigation, but placed it on hold pending the outcome of the FDLE investigation. On June 21, 2011, Petitioner was placed on paid administrative leave for the duration of the investigations. J.G. refused to cooperate with the FDLE investigators. Without a victim willing to go forward, no criminal charges could be brought against Petitioner. The FDLE investigation was dropped. The internal affairs investigation was completed on August 15, 2011. The investigator’s written report concluded as follows: Sgt. Winston did commit the act of perjury on an official felony charging affidavit. Sgt. Winston did in fact using her hand strike a prisoner in the face which caused her to fall back onto the sink. Sgt. Winston did reach her right arm over the shoulder of Officer Selvaggio in an attempt to strike a handcuffed prisoner which Officer Selvaggio was attempting to secure inside the holding cell. Sgt. Winston did violate Edgewater Police [sic] & Procedure by removing a prisoner, removing the prisoner’s handcuffs without another officer present and allowed the prisoner to use the restroom. Sgt. Winston violated Edgewater Policy & Procedure by entering the cell/booking area wearing both her issued side arm as well as her issued taser. Sgt. Winston violated Edgewater Police [sic] & Procedure by openly criticizing the policy of securing any and all weapons prior to entering the booking/cell area when prisoners are present. This was done openly in the presence of fellow officers. Sgt. Winston violated City Policy and Procedure 12.02 Inappropriate/Unacceptable Behavior. Sgt. Winston did violate Edgewater Police Department Policy & Procedure Excessive force not resulting in injury. Petitioner was represented by counsel for the Fraternal Order of Police (“FOP”) in defending herself against the allegations that resulted from the internal affairs investigation. Negotiations ensued between the City and Petitioner to resolve the matter short of litigation. A settlement agreement was reached and executed on August 24, 2011. Petitioner agreed to findings that some of the allegations were sustained.5/ Petitioner agreed to a demotion from sergeant to officer, effective August 19, 2011, with a resulting salary cut, and she agreed to attend anger management courses. On August 24, 2011, Chief Arcieri ordered Petitioner to report for duty at 6:00 a.m. the following morning. Petitioner called in sick and did not report for work on August 25, 2011. Ms. Looney, the personnel director, contacted Petitioner to find out why she was not reporting for work. Petitioner told Ms. Looney that she had sustained a back injury during the altercation with J.G. on June 16, 2011. Ms. Looney testified that this was the first she knew of Petitioner’s back injury. In a letter dated August 24, 2011, and received by Chief Arcieri on August 25, 2011, Petitioner’s personal workers’ compensation attorney wrote as follows, in relevant part: As you know, Ms. Winston is an 18 year employee with our [sic] agency who was recently in an altercation with a belligerent, drunken female on June 16, 2011. Ms. Winston was injured during the arrest but was placed on Administrative leave pending an internal investigation and the matter has not been reported as an injury as of yet. Ms. Winston was not aware that she had injured her low back immediately due to circumstances surrounding the altercation and the typical adrenaline response resulting from such an altercation. She thought she was just sore from being beat up a bit but as the weeks went by her condition worsened. A recent MRI has revealed two herniated discs in the lower back and Ms. Winston does require medical treatment for this work related injury. I am requesting at this time that the Agency immediately file a First Report of injury on behalf of Ms. Winston. This should be considered notice under Chapter 440 of the work related injury. In addition to the back injury, Ms. Winston now suffers from uncontrolled high blood pressure which is also disabling. Ms. Winston will be receiving a letter from her doctor indicating that she is unable to work due to her uncontrolled blood pressure at this juncture. That is also a work related claim under F.S. 112.18, more popularly known as the “Heart/Lung Bill.” This claim should also be processed and medical care should be provided as soon as possible. Please see that a First Report of Injury is completed with regard to this claim . . . . In a related claim, Ms. Winston also has a September 22, 2009 uncontrolled hypertension incident which resulted in hospitalization. As you know, the 2009 accident occurred while Ms. Winston was interviewing a sex crime victim. She was experiencing a severe headache and then had an uncontrollable nose bleed during the interview. The blood pressure reading at the time revealed her blood pressure was severely elevated and she was taken to the hospital. This incident should have triggered the immediate filing of a First Report of Injury under F.S. 112.18 as referenced above. For whatever reason, no First Report of Injury was filed but I am requesting that you file such a First Report of Injury immediately on Ms. Winston’s behalf and that you provide appropriate medical care for this condition . . . . Finally, Ms. Winston advises me that she has been under an internal investigation since the June, 2011 incident. This internal investigation appears to be entirely inappropriate given the circumstances surrounding this event and would appear to be part of an intimidation practice on the part of your Agency, which is in clear violation of F.S. 440.205. As I am sure you know, 440.205 prohibits the harassment, intimidation, retaliation, or termination of an employee by virtue of a workers’ compensation claim. Needless to say, Ms. Winston has numerous ongoing workers’ compensation claims and it appears that all of the harassment which she has been subjected to since the time the internal investigation was opened in this matter appears to be directly attributable to her ongoing workers’ compensation issues. It should also be noted that Ms. Winston is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder as a result of this recent altercation and all of the fallout related to same. As I am sure you are well aware, post traumatic stress disorder of this nature is also covered for First Responders under the auspices of F.S. 112.1815. I am requesting again that a First Report of Injury be filed relative to this issue and that appropriate medical care be provided. Ms. Winston is entitled to full pay as she was injured during an altercation with a violent individual. Full pay is appropriate pursuant to the provisions of F.S. 440.15(11). This means that she should be receiving a regular paycheck without deduction of sick or vacation bank time. Please see that the appropriate adjustment is made relative to payment of benefits and feel free to contact me with any question . . . . On August 30, 2011, Petitioner submitted three “Incident/Accident Information Forms” to the City in regard to her workers’ compensation claims. The first states that Petitioner suffered an injury to her lower back on June 16, 2011, when “an intoxicated combative prisoner . . . kicked me in my stomach just above my gun belt.” The second describes “stress” as the injury, dated June 28, 2011, caused by “constant harassment & belittled by Dave Arcieri.” The third form states that the date of injury was September 22, 2009, the injury was “blood pressure caused bleeding of the nose,” and describes the incident in terms similar to those used in the attorney’s letter of June 24, 2011. Petitioner testified that she still sees a psychiatrist once a month and goes to counseling every two weeks, but that she first sought mental health counseling in June 2011 because of problems with Chief Arcieri that dated from long before he became chief. She testified that “he would cuss me out, call me names, have people that were subordinates watching me and reporting back to him to make sure I didn’t breathe the wrong way.” Petitioner testified that Chief Arcieri’s animus toward her dated from her handling of a situation as a sergeant that led to the firing of an officer. A member of Petitioner’s squad reported to her that an officer in another squad stole property from a civilian during a traffic stop and then gave him the stolen item. Petitioner told the officer to file a report and drop the item into evidence and that she would meet with the other officer’s sergeant. The other officer’s sergeant required him to write a report. The officer lied in the report. Petitioner and the other sergeant brought the matter to the attention of their superiors. After an investigation, the department had no choice but to fire the officer. At a sergeants’ meeting a little while later, then- Administrative Sergeant Arcieri said that Petitioner was incompetent. If she had handled the situation differently, Sergeant Arcieri would not have had to fire a good officer. Petitioner asked how the department could tolerate a lying thief in its midst. Sergeant Arcieri told her that the officer could have been reprimanded in some other way. Petitioner testified that she was afraid of Chief Arcieri because of threats he made to her. He made it clear to her and to any other officer who thought about reporting something to Ms. Looney or Mr. Barlow that these officials would let him know and the snitch would pay a price. On September 27, 2011, Petitioner sent an email to Michelle Grenham, Chief Arcieri’s secretary, stating that she would be unable to attend the anger management class required by the settlement agreement because she was undergoing major surgery on September 28 at Halifax Hospital in Daytona Beach. Ms. Grenham forwarded the email to Chief Arcieri and Ms. Looney. Petitioner underwent surgery on September 28, 2011, to repair the herniated discs in her back. Petitioner testified that prior to the surgery, she had difficulty walking, standing, bending at the waist, reaching, and climbing stairs due to the pain in her back. She was able to drive a car but only for short distances. She did not have full control of her bladder and bowels. She could only sleep by putting herself in a fetal position then bracing herself with pillows to keep her in that position. Petitioner described the surgery as less than a complete success. She had numbness in her right leg, was unable to bend, squat, kneel or stretch, and could not sit for very long. She eventually required spinal injections and the surgical insertion of a morphine pump in her stomach for pain in her spine. The morphine pump was still in place at the time of the hearing. Physicians also implanted a spinal cord stimulator in her back. She regained control of her excretory functions but was unable to walk without the use of a walker for several months and a cane thereafter. She wore a back brace most of the time. On November 29, 2011, Petitioner and her husband met with Mr. Barlow and Ms. Looney to discuss Petitioner’s medical situation and when she might return to work. The meeting was held at Petitioner’s request. Petitioner testified that she came into the meeting wearing a back brace and using a walker. Her husband had to drive her to the meeting. Petitioner testified that she asked for the meeting to find out if she could get an extended leave until her physician cleared her to go back to work. She also wanted to discuss Chief Arcieri’s harassment and belittling of her. At the meeting, Petitioner told Mr. Barlow that she didn’t know how long the healing process would take or whether she would need additional surgeries. Petitioner testified that Mr. Barlow told her it might be in her best interest to retire, in light of her age and her many health problems, including RA, lupus, hypertension, and now the back injury. Mr. Barlow stated that it seemed to him that Petitioner didn’t have anything that was going to go away, and that anyone with a back injury would have issues with it for life. Mr. Barlow asked whether Petitioner really thought she could ever come back as a police officer. Petitioner could only say that she didn’t know. Petitioner testified that she told Mr. Barlow that she hoped to reach retirement as a police officer but that she was willing to take another position with the City if her physical limitations kept her from returning to her former position. Petitioner testified that she told Mr. Barlow that she had a doctor’s appointment on May 3, 2012, and that Mr. Barlow promised to give her a leave of absence until that appointment. Petitioner’s husband, Ricky Winston, testified that at the meeting, his wife explained her injuries to Mr. Barlow and complained about Chief Arcieri’s constant ridicule and badgering. Mr. Winston stated that Mr. Barlow had a calendar and some paper and a calculator that he was using to diligently figure out something. It turned out that Mr. Barlow was calculating the date of Petitioner’s full retirement, with the idea of carrying her on the City’s employment roster until then. Mr. Winston testified that he left the meeting with the understanding that Mr. Barlow had agreed to grant Petitioner unpaid leave until she reached retirement. Mr. Winston recalled that Mr. Barlow listed all of Petitioner’s physical problems and asked why she didn’t just quit. Mr. Winston testified that this question was devastating to his wife because she never had any intention of leaving the job she loved. Ms. Looney testified that she did not recall Mr. Barlow mentioning any of Petitioner’s physical infirmities aside from her back injury. She did not recall Mr. Barlow using a calculator or calendar during the meeting or stating a date for Petitioner’s retirement. Ms. Looney stated that the goal was for Petitioner to return from her next doctor’s appointment with a physician’s statement as to when she could return to work, whether at full or light duty. Ms. Looney’s assumption, based on Petitioner’s condition, was that Petitioner would return to light duty at first. Mr. Barlow explicitly stated that the City wanted Petitioner to return to work, either full or light duty. Ms. Looney testified that she believed everyone at the meeting understood that Petitioner wanted to return to light duty and that the police department would try to find light duty restricted work for Petitioner when her doctor cleared her to return. Petitioner would remain on unpaid leave until her next doctor’s appointment in January 2012, at which time the City would need to know whether she could return to work. Petitioner had given Ms. Looney light duty notes from physicians in the past, which led Ms. Looney to assume that Petitioner understood what she needed to provide to the City. Ms. Looney stated that Mr. Barlow did not promise to keep Petitioner’s job open until May 2012. Mr. Barlow recalled almost nothing about the November 29, 2011, meeting with Petitioner. The only relevant specific testimony he provided on the subject was a denial that he told Petitioner that she could have a leave of absence until May 2012. However, given his lack of recall as to anything else that transpired in the meeting, Mr. Barlow’s testimony on this single point is not credited. The testimony of Petitioner and her husband regarding the statements made at the November 29, 2011, meeting is credited as to Mr. Barlow’s discussing Petitioner’s retirement and as to the fact that a discussion of Chief Arcieri’s behavior toward Petitioner occurred. On these points, Petitioner and Mr. Winston were credible, consistent witnesses. Ms. Looney’s testimony on these points was confused and equivocal. Mr. Barlow’s testimony was of little use at all as he claimed to remember virtually nothing about the meeting. However, the testimony of Petitioner and her husband cannot be credited as to the matter of Mr. Barlow’s promise to give Petitioner a leave of absence until May 3, 2012. Even disregarding Mr. Barlow’s convenient memory on this point, Petitioner’s testimony and that of her husband diverged on the ground for the leave of absence. Petitioner testified that Mr. Barlow gave her until May 3, 2012, because that was the date of her next doctor’s appointment. Mr. Winston vaguely recalled that a date was mentioned, either March or May, and that this date was based on Mr. Barlow’s calculation of Petitioner’s retirement date. Petitioner’s claim that Mr. Barlow gave her until May 2012 is further undercut by documentary evidence. On January 26, 2012, Petitioner sent Ms. Looney an email that stated as follows, in relevant part: Call me when you get the chance, I have prescriptions to pick up and get fitted for another brace, but I am going to need to take a leave of absence for a bit. Dr. Vinas [Petitioner’s surgeon] is not releasing me for duty at this time . . ., I will be going into a new brace and will be going to pain management for epidural injections in my spine. I have attached the letter from Dr. Vinas, as well as a copy of the medications I will be taking. My next appointment with him will be May 03/2012 unless the Dr. at the pain management center feels I need further surgery. I have no idea what to do about taking a leave, is there paperwork I need to file or just send you a letter? I would rather speak to you so if you are not busy please call me . . . . If the November 29, 2011, meeting had settled the question regarding Petitioner’s leave of absence until her doctor’s appointment on May 3, 2012, there would have been no need for Petitioner to write to Ms. Looney on January 26, 2012, to request a leave of absence and to inform Ms. Looney that her next doctor’s appointment would be on May 3. This email is consistent with the assertion made in the City’s February 21, 2012, letter terminating Petitioner’s employment that Mr. Barlow agreed to maintain the status quo until January 23, 2012, the date of Petitioner’s next scheduled doctor’s appointment.6/ In an email to Ms. Looney dated February 9, 2012, Petitioner stated, “[A]t this stage nothing surprises me anymore, I mean after all, I was supposed to be back on my feet and rarin to go by January, well that, as you know did not happen.” Petitioner closed a separate February 9, 2012, email to Ms. Looney with the following: “I forwarded this to [Mr. Barlow] also, but if he does not get it please let him know and tell him I said to keep his chin up as he always does and thank him for allowing me to take a leave of absence. Hopefully it won’t be much longer.” These emails cast further doubt on Petitioner’s claim that she had obtained a leave of absence until May 3, 2012, from Mr. Barlow at the November 29, 2011, meeting. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner was granted an unpaid leave of absence at the November 29 meeting, but only until her physician cleared her to return to work in some capacity, which Petitioner at the time anticipated would occur in January 2012. The evidence presented at the hearing showed that Petitioner had used her twelve weeks of leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) as of November 16, 2011. She had exhausted all of her accrued leave as of December 9, 2011, when she formally began the unpaid leave of absence. On January 1, 2012, Petitioner began receiving the City’s long-term disability benefits. Ms. Looney signed a letter to Dr. Federico Vinas, dated January 25, 2012, that stated as follows: Ms. Winston has informed us she is a patient of yours. She has a follow-up appointment January 26, 2012 in association with surgery perform [sic] by you. First, and foremost, enclosed you will find the Authorization to Disclose Medical Information form executed by Ms. Winston along with her job description (Police Officer) setting out the physical requirement. JoAnne is a valued City employee and it would be greatly appreciated if you verify her ability to perform any or all of these duties. Please provide us with specific restrictions or requirements necessary not to aggravate her condition and advise as to exactly when she can be cleared for full police officer’s duties. Your expertise is [sic] this matter is greatly appreciated. Please contact me for any further information you may need. The City’s job description for “Police Officer” reads as follows, in relevant part: PRIMARY DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES: (all duties may not be performed by all incumbents) Patrols designated area of the City to preserve the peace, to prevent and discover criminal acts, and to enforce traffic regulations. Answers calls and complaints involving drunkenness, domestic disputes, assaults and batteries, missing persons, fires, thefts, accidents and other felonies and misdemeanors. Is responsible for being knowledgeable of the crime problem in assigned work area and developing strategies to combat the problem. Develop contacts and provide intelligence reports to detectives and administration. Makes preliminary investigations at crime scenes or incidents, protects and collects physical evidence, locates witnesses, interviews witnesses, makes arrests, assists paramedics with basic and advance [sic] life support. Interviews complaints [sic] and witnesses to obtain information about crimes; assists in investigative work. Prepares evidence for issuance of complaints and testifies as a witness in both civil and criminal court, transports prisoners. Patrols school zones and high activity areas when assigned. Assists motorists, directs traffic, investigates accidents, recovers stolen automobiles, prepares detailed reports, advise of and interpret laws and ordinances and provides general information to the public. Cooperates and coordinates with other law enforcement agencies and other components of the Criminal Justice System. * * * Environmental Conditions: Outdoor environment with exposure to discomforting and dangerous working conditions Office environment with exposure to computer operations Physical exertion in lifting/moving items weighing up to 50 pounds Routine travel is required along daily assigned routes Occasional overnight travel is required Other physical/mental requirements may apply * * * DISCLAIMER STATEMENT This job description is not intended as complete listing of job duties. The incumbent is responsible for the performance of other related duties as assigned/required. The physical demands described herein are representative of those that must be met to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable qualified individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. On January 26, 2012, Dr. Vinas forwarded to Ms. Looney a “Work Status” form regarding Petitioner that provided as follows: The above captioned patient is being treated in this office. The patient’s current work status is as follows: ( ) This patient was seen for treatment in our office today, please excuse any absence from work or school. (X) Based on the job description provided by the patient, it is in this patient’s best interest to be excused from all work duties at this time. Restrictions The patient may return to or continue to work with the following restrictions: ( ) No lifting over pounds. ( ) No excessive/repetitive bending or twisting. ( ) No prolonged sitting/standing or stooping. ( ) No excessive/repetitive pulling or pushing. ( ) No excessive activity with arms above shoulder level/overhead activity. ( ) ALL OF THE ABOVE ( ) Specific instructions ( ) This patient does not work at this time, but has been instructed to limit household/daily activities so as to remain within the above noted restrictions. ( ) This patient’s most recent evaluation supports a return to normal, routine work activities. The effective date of this Work Status is from the date noted above until further notice. If the patient’s current position of employment can be modified or other position found that conforms to the above restrictions, then the patient may return to work. If these restrictions cannot be maintained, I would recommend that the patient be excused from work until further notice. The patient’s work status will be evaluated on a visit-to-visit basis. Ms. Looney testified that based on Dr. Vinas’ Work Status form and her own conversations with Petitioner, she concluded that Petitioner was unable to return to work in any capacity, full or light duty, as of January 26, 2012. At the hearing, Petitioner conceded that she could not have returned to work as a police officer on January 26, 2012. As set forth in Finding of Fact 54, supra, Petitioner notified Ms. Looney via email on January 26 that her next appointment with Dr. Vinas would be on May 3, 2012. In the same email, Petitioner asked for guidance on how to request a further leave of absence. The record of this proceeding includes a “Request for Leave of Absence” form in which Petitioner asked for a leave of absence commencing on January 26, 2012, with an “anticipated return date” of May 3, 2012. At the hearing, Petitioner could not recall filling out this form. In her testimony, Ms. Looney indicated that she filled out the form for Petitioner. In the space in which the applicant is to set forth reasons for the leave of absence, Ms. Looney wrote, “See attached e-mail,” which was Petitioner’s January 26 email to Ms. Looney. Mr. Barlow denied the request for a further leave of absence by signature on the request form. The form does not indicate when Ms. Looney filled it out or when Mr. Barlow denied the request. The record is also unclear as to when Petitioner was notified that the City was denying her a further leave of absence. As late as February 9, 2012, Petitioner was still sending chatty emails to Ms. Looney regarding her medical condition and treatment, even asking Ms. Looney and Mr. Barlow to stop by her house for a visit if they are ever in the neighborhood. The first clear notice of the denial was in the termination letter set forth in the next paragraph. On February 21, 2012, Ms. Looney wrote the following letter to Petitioner: On November 29, 2011 Tracey Barlow, City Manager, and myself met with you to discuss your medical situation. You informed us your next doctor’s appointment was January 23, 2012, at which time you were hoping to be taken out of your brace. We agreed your continued employment with the City would depend on your returning to full duty and I would send Dr. Vinas a letter requesting exactly when you would be cleared to return to full duty as a police officer. Following your exam on January 26, 2012, you emailed me Dr. Vinas’ work status form which states “based on the job description provided by the patient, it is in this patient’s best interest to be excused from all work duties at this time.” You also stated your next appointment is May 3, 2012 and asked about taking a leave of absence. JoAnne, as you are aware your FMLA was met as of November 16, 2011; all your workers compensation claims have been denied;7/ you exhausted all of your accruals as of December 9, 2011 and have been granted unpaid leave of absence for the previous 74 days, and as of January 1, 2012 you began receiving the city’s long term disability benefit. Therefore, due to all the facts stated too [sic] include uncertain ability to return to work date, the City Manager has denied your request for leave of absence exceeding 30 days. As a result, consider this formal notification that your employment with the City of Edgewater ends effective February 24, 2012. It is very important that you contact the Personnel Department to make the necessary arrangements for your continued insurance coverage and any outstanding benefits/obligations you have with the City. Petitioner testified that at the time the City terminated her employment, she was still using a cane at home and a walker when she went out. There is no question that Petitioner was unable to return to full duty as a police officer on February 24, 2012. It was Petitioner’s contention that she could have come back to work for the police department in some form of light duty, as she had been allowed to do in the past, or in one of several jobs that the City advertised as open during her convalescence. Petitioner further contended that Ms. Looney should have sent Dr. Vinas the job descriptions of all open City jobs rather than just the job description of a police officer. As to the last point, Ms. Looney testified that it was standard practice for the City to send the physician an employee’s current job description for an assessment of the employee’s ability to return to work. Petitioner was treated no differently than any other City employee in this regard. Petitioner testified that she asked the City to bring her back in another position, but could offer no documentary evidence to support that testimony. She claimed that part of the discussion at the November 29 meeting with Mr. Barlow and Ms. Looney was her hope to retire as a police officer, but her desire to remain a city employee in whatever capacity she could. Ms. Looney testified that Petitioner never asked to work in any position other than that of police officer. Petitioner sent an email to Ms. Looney on December 26, 2011, asking whether Ms. Looney had “heard from my Dr. as to when I might be able to come back light duty or anything else?” Petitioner claims that the “anything else” portion of the email indicated her desire to be placed in any available job. Ms. Looney read the email as merely asking whether she had heard from Petitioner’s doctor, not as a job request. Ms. Looney’s reading is not unreasonable given that this was the only document Petitioner produced that even arguably contained a statement asking to be placed in a position other than police officer. In any event, whether Petitioner asked to be placed in another position is not decisive because of the blanket statement in Dr. Vinas’ work status form. Ms. Looney testified that she was unable to place Petitioner in any position because Petitioner’s physician had clearly stated that it was in her best interest to be excused from all work duties. It was always the City’s understanding that Petitioner would return to work in a light duty function at first, but in fact Petitioner was not cleared to work at all. Ms. Looney might have followed up with Dr. Vinas and inquired whether Petitioner was capable of doing clerical work or some other form of indoor, deskbound job, but Petitioner has pointed to nothing that required Ms. Looney to do so in light of Petitioner’s failure to request that accommodation. Ms. Looney testified that it was the City’s practice to hold off on discussing positions outside of an employee’s department until the employee has actually been cleared for light duty. No evidence was presented that the City treated Petitioner any differently than it treated other employees in a similar position. Similarly, Mr. Barlow might have agreed to extend Petitioner’s unpaid leave of absence to May 3, 2012, but he was not required to do so. At the time of her termination, Petitioner had used twelve weeks of FMLA leave and had been granted an additional 74 days of unpaid leave at Mr. Barlow’s discretion. Petitioner had been out on some form of medical leave for approximately six months. The City did not seize on some early opportunity to dismiss Petitioner; rather, the City had anticipated that Petitioner would return to work as a police officer and waited until Petitioner had exhausted all avenues of leave except a second discretionary unpaid leave of absence before deciding to terminate her employment. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that her termination was based on her age, gender, disability or perceived disability or that she was treated differently than other employees due to her age, gender, or disability. The lone indication of possible bias was Mr. Barlow’s statement at the November 29, 2011, meeting that Petitioner should consider retirement in light of her age and poor health. This statement may be easily read as a kindly (if poorly phrased) expression of concern for Petitioner. By her own testimony, Petitioner was on good terms with Mr. Barlow and Ms. Looney right up to the time of her termination. Petitioner sent solicitous emails to them as late as February 9, 2012. Petitioner’s feelings were hurt by the statement, but no other ill effect followed. She was granted the requested unpaid leave of absence and remained employed by the City for three more months. Petitioner testified that she never considered herself disabled and prided herself on not calling in sick or requesting accommodations for her conditions. Ms. Looney, Mr. Barlow, and Chief Arcieri all testified that they did not perceive Petitioner as having a disability that required accommodation in the workplace, though they were all aware of at least some of her chronic conditions such as lupus, RA, and hypertension. Petitioner claimed that Chief Arcieri carried on something of a vendetta against her. Chief Arcieri testified that prior to the demotion his relationship with Petitioner was friendly. When Petitioner’s house was flooded, Chief Arcieri took off work to help Mr. Winston solder a broken shower valve. After Petitioner was demoted, the relationship was less friendly but always professional. Chief Arcieri testified that he has never yelled at Petitioner or any other employee. He never called her names. The harassment and belittling that Petitioner alleged never happened. Chief Arcieri denied any sort of gender bias, pointing to the successful efforts his department has made to recruit and hire female officers. He denied ever making a comment about Petitioner’s age. He testified that he never considered Petitioner disabled while she was on active duty, despite her lupus. Petitioner never requested an accommodation and Chief Arcieri never saw the need for an accommodation. Chief Arcieri testified that at the close of the internal affairs investigation of the June 16, 2011, incident, he declined to sustain some of the allegations in order to protect Petitioner from a referral to the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (“Commission”) for further discipline. Chief Arcieri assented to a request by the FOP that he submit a letter to the Commission stating that he believed the demotion was sufficient and asking the Commission not to take further action against Petitioner. Petitioner’s testimony against Chief Arcieri consisted of general statements that he harassed and belittled her. The only specific incident Petitioner recounted as to the source of any possible animus the chief bore toward her involved the firing of the officer who stole something during a traffic stop. Even if Petitioner’s version of events is accepted, Chief Arcieri’s anger toward Petitioner had nothing to do with her age, gender, or disability. He called her “incompetent.” He was upset about the manner in which Petitioner performed her job, which he believed led to the needless dismissal of a good officer. Whether Chief Arcieri was right or wrong to be angry at Petitioner, he did not engage in an act of discrimination. Even if the factfinder were to accept Petitioner’s description of Chief Arcieri as a bully on the job, there is no evidence aside from Petitioner’s general comments to indicate that she was singled out due to her age, gender or disability. It is telling that in testifying about her fear of reporting the bullying, Petitioner stated, “I was afraid. I was very afraid. David Arcieri made it not only clear to me, but to any other officer who even thought about going to report to Donna Looney or to Tracey Barlow, ‘Don’t worry, they’ll let me know and you will pay the price.’” This statement might be evidence that Chief Arcieri is a bully, a poor leader of his department, or a bad administrator. However, the statement does not establish that Chief Arcieri discriminated against Petitioner in a manner prohibited by section 760.10, Florida Statutes. If anything, the statement indicates that Petitioner found herself in the same boat as the other officers in her department.8/ Petitioner was aware of and understood the City’s nondiscrimination and no-harassment policy, the operative language of which states: The nature of some discrimination and harassment makes it virtually impossible to detect unless someone reports the discrimination or harassment. THUS, IF ANY EMPLOYEE BELIEVES THAT HE OR SHE OR ANY OTHER EMPLOYEE IS BEING SUBJECTED TO ANY OF THESE FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION OR HARRASSMENT, HE OR SHE MUST REPORT THIS TO THE PERSONNEL DIRECTOR (386-424-2408) AND/OR CITY MANAGER (386-424-2404). If you are encountering a problem, please do not assume that the City is aware of it. The City is committed to ensuring that you have a pleasant working environment, and your assistance in bringing your complaints and concerns to our attention is a necessary first step. (Emphasis in original). The policy was included in the City’s personnel manual. Petitioner was provided with copies of the policy and amendments thereto several times during her tenure with the City. Petitioner conceded that, notwithstanding the policy, she did not report any incidents of harassment or discrimination to either Ms. Looney or Mr. Barlow while she was actively working for the City. The allegations of intimidation and harassment made by Petitioner’s attorney in his August 24, 2011, letter and Petitioner’s allegation of “constant harassment and belittlement by Dave Arcieri” in her workers’ compensation incident report were made only after Petitioner had been off the job for eight weeks. Further, the specific allegations made by Petitioner’s attorney claimed that the City was in violation of section 440.205, Florida Statutes, not that Chief Arcieri or any other City employee was discriminating against or harassing Petitioner because of her age, gender, disability, or perceived disability. The evidence produced at the hearing established that Petitioner sustained an injury to her back, most likely due to an altercation with a detainee on June 16, 2011, that necessitated surgery and a rehabilitation process that was not complete even at the time of the hearing in May 2014. The City carried Petitioner as an employee until all of her available leave had been used and then for another 74 days on an unpaid leave of absence. The City had no legal obligation to grant Petitioner an unpaid leave of absence but did so in the hope that Petitioner would be able to return to work in January 2012. As of the termination date of February 24, 2012, Petitioner had been away from her job for more than six months, had not been cleared by a physician to do work of any kind, and would not receive a physician’s clearance to work any sooner than May 3, 2012. The City could have consented to carry Petitioner even longer on an unpaid leave of absence, but it was not discriminatory for the City to make the business decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment. Petitioner offered insufficient credible evidence to refute the legitimate, non-discriminatory reason given by the City for the termination of her employment. Petitioner offered insufficient credible evidence that the City's stated reason for the termination of her employment was a pretext for discrimination based on her age, gender, disability, or perceived disability. Petitioner offered insufficient credible evidence that the City discriminated against her because of her age, gender, disability, or perceived disability in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Petitioner offered insufficient credible evidence that her dismissal from employment was in retaliation for any complaint of discriminatory employment practices that she made while an employee of the City.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that the City of Edgewater did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race, subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment, or retaliated against Petitioner in violation of the Hillsborough County Human Rights Ordinance 00-37, Section 4(1)(a)(1).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Hillsborough County Human Rights Ordinance 00-37, Section 16. Petitioner is an African-American female and filed a complaint with the Board alleging that Respondent engaged in race, color, and gender discrimination; retaliation; and the creation of a hostile work environment. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 16. Respondent operates a car dealership and is in the business of selling and servicing new and used automobiles and trucks in several states, including Florida. Respondent was not Petitioner's employer. Petitioner was a temporary worker during the relevant period, and her employment contract was with an employment agency. No written employment contract existed between the parties to this proceeding. The employment agency paid Petitioner, and Respondent paid the employment agency. The employment agency assigned Petitioner to Respondent from January 13 through January 23, 2004. Other than Petitioner’s uncorroborated testimony, there is no written or other evidence that Respondent intended Petitioner’s temporary assignment either to become a permanent position or to last for six weeks. The fact-finder finds the testimony of Petitioner to be less than credible and persuasive. From January 13 until January 21, 2004, Petitioner worked at Respondent's Tampa office at Lexus of Tampa Bay located on North Dale Mabry Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Respondent transferred Petitioner to its office at Lexus of Clearwater, Florida, on January 21, 2004, and terminated the assignment from the employment agency on January 23, 2004. The termination of assignment occurred in Pinellas County, rather than Hillsborough County, Florida. Petitioner began her assignment at Lexus of Tampa Bay on January 13, 2004, as a receptionist. Respondent paired Petitioner with Ms. Mary Ann Browne, a full-time receptionist and Caucasian female. Respondent charged Ms. Browne with training Petitioner in the responsibilities of a receptionist. Petitioner alleges that Ms. Browne engaged in unprofessional conduct during the 10 days she trained Petitioner. The unprofessional conduct, according to Petitioner's testimony included "racial undertones." For example, Ms. Browne asked Petitioner why, "Black people are all family, cousins, sisters, brothers." Petitioner responded, "Don't ask me. I wouldn't be that black." Ms. Browne allegedly stated aloud that two female employees who hugged in greeting each other were lesbians. Ms. Browne allegedly called another African-American employee a "pimp" and referred to an Hispanic employee as a "macdaddy." The fact-finder does not know the meaning of the term "macdaddy," or even how to spell the term, and the record does not provide an adequate definition or spelling. Ms. Browne allegedly referred to homosexual customers as "flamers." Finally, Ms. Browne allegedly engaged in threatening physical behavior by tossing items at Petitioner across the reception desk. No one but Petitioner heard the alleged racial and sexist comments by Ms. Browne or witnessed the physically aggressive behavior. The preponderance of evidence does not establish a prima facie showing of discrimination or retaliation. Nor does the preponderance of evidence show that Respondent subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment. Finally, a preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent engaged in a discriminatory practice. The evidence of Ms. Browne's conduct consists of Petitioner's testimony and a diary that Petitioner created contemporaneously with the acts Petitioner attributes to Ms. Browne. No other employees at Lexus of Tampa Bay witnessed the events evidenced in Petitioner's testimony and diary. Ms. Browne left her employment with Respondent in the fall of 2004 and did not testify. Ms. Toni Davis, now Ms. Toni Scotland, was a receptionist during part of the relevant time but was not present during the entire time because she was being promoted to a position in accounting. Ms. Scotland did not recall any improper behavior by Ms. Browne in 2004. The Investigative Report based its recommendation of a finding of cause on statements attributed in the Report to then Ms. Davis and the documentation of the disciplinary action taken by Respondent against Ms. Browne. However, Ms. Scotland testified that she did not recall being contacted by an investigator for the Board and denied making any statements to the investigator. The investigation took approximately 3.5 years to complete because the investigator is the only investigator for the Board and because the investigator suffered a heart attack during the investigation. At the hearing, the testimony of the investigator concerning statements he attributed to Ms. Scotland, also Ms. Davis, was vague and sparse and is less than credible and persuasive. A preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent is responsible for the acts Petitioner attributes to Ms. Browne. Petitioner complained to her employment agency about the conduct of Ms. Browne. The employment agency notified Respondent, and Ms. Helene Ott, the supervisor at the time, interviewed both Petitioner and Ms. Browne on January 19, 2004. The only complaint made by Petitioner to Ms. Ott on January 19, 2004, was that Ms. Browne went to the break room to bring back a drink in separate disposable drink cups for Ms. Browne and Petitioner. Upon returning with the drinks, Ms. Browne told Petitioner that Ms. Browne had spit in Petitioner's cup. Petitioner did not tell Ms. Ott that Petitioner witnessed Ms. Browne spit in the cup. Petitioner's version of events changed at the hearing. Petitioner testified that she saw Ms. Browne spit in Petitioner's cup. Petitioner testified that Ms. Browne offered to refill the cup Petitioner already had on the receptionist desk, grabbed the cup, stood, drew up a large volume of spit from deep in Ms. Browne's throat, and let the long volume of liquid drop into Petitioner's cup in full view of Petitioner. Petitioner further testified in tears that she stated repeatedly to Ms. Browne, "Give me back my cup!" The foregoing testimony of Petitioner is less than credible and persuasive. The fact-finder is not persuaded that any reasonable person would have wanted Ms. Browne to return the cup. The cup was a disposable cup from the vending area which was of no value to Petitioner. Petitioner did not relate this version of the events to Ms. Ott when Ms. Ott investigated Petitioner's complaints on January 19, 2004. The version of events that Petitioner related to Ms. Ott on January 19, 2004, is consistent with the contemporaneous account by Mr. Browne. When Ms. Ott interviewed Ms. Browne on January 19, 2004, Ms. Browne admitted that she told Petitioner she had spit in Petitioner's cup when Ms. Browne returned from the vending area to the reception desk with Petitioner's drink. Ms. Browne also admitted to engaging in offensive language, offensive commentary about customers, and unprofessional conduct. A preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent created or fostered a work environment that was hostile toward Petitioner. On January 19, 2004, Ms. Ott issued a written counseling/final warning to Ms. Browne for her use of “offensive language, offensive commentary about customers, and unprofessional conduct.” The disciplinary action advised Ms. Browne that any further misconduct would result in the termination of her employment. On January 20, 2004, Ms. Ott interviewed Petitioner again concerning additional complaints from the employment agency. Petitioner told Ms. Ott that Ms. Browne used vulgar and unprofessional language, but Petitioner did not state to Ms. Ott that Ms. Browne made racial or sexist comments. On January 21, 2004, Ms. Ott needed to fill another temporary vacancy at Lexus of Clearwater. Ms. Ott asked Petitioner to go to Clearwater, and Petitioner went to the Clearwater office voluntarily. Respondent ended the employment agency assignment on January 23, 2004. Ms. Ott described Petitioner’s performance as “very good." On January 23, 2004, Ms. Ott offered to write a letter of reference for Petitioner. Ms. Ott told Petitioner that Ms. Ott would consider Petitioner for a position at Lexus of Tampa Bay or Lexus of Clearwater if the need arose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the final order issued in this proceeding should find that Respondent is not guilty of the allegations made by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Leslie P. Stokes 4714 Pleasant Avenue Palm Harbor, Florida 34683 Gail P. Williams Hillsborough County Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601-1110 Andrew Froman, Esquire Alva L. Cross, Esquire Fisher & Phillips LLP 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2525 Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner has been the victim of discrimination based upon his race and upon retaliation regarding his termination (lay-off) from employment with the Respondent and with regard to his allegation that he was denied overtime by the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was a laborer and carpenter's helper for the Respondent, a construction company, at times pertinent to this case. The two construction projects involved in this proceeding are known as the Oceans Grande Project, a 20-story high rise condominium in Daytona Beach Shores and the Salida Del Sol project in Daytona Beach Shores. The first was commenced in construction in January 2004, and the Salida project in December 2004. They are still ongoing. Sometime in 2004 the Petitioner applied at the Respondent's Oceans Grande worksite asking for a wage rate of $14.00 per hour. He filled out an application and left and had no more contact with the Respondent employer for two or three months. He returned after that period of time and spoke with Grady Johnson, the project superintendent for the Respondent. He ultimately took a job at $12.00 per hour with the Respondent as a carpenter's helper/laborer. He was thus employed initially at the Oceans Grande project. The Petitioner was employed at that location from June 21, 2004 until early March 2005, when he was transferred to the Salida Del Sol project. Prior to that transfer, in November 2004, at the Oceans Grande site the Petitioner suffered an on- the-job injury. He was provided medical care by the Respondent, and had been placed on light duty by his physician. In early March 2005, the Oceans Grande project no longer had any light duty work available. It was the understanding of the superintendent, Grady Johnson, that at all times after November 15, 2004, the Petitioner had been on light duty status. He was aware of three specific letters that the company received from the physician. The latest one, advising that the Petitioner must remain on light duty, was received in March according to Mr. Johnson; however, rather than lay-off the Petitioner, the Respondent transferred the Petitioner to the Salida Del Sol project. That project was just getting underway at that time and light duty work was available. Two other employees were also transferred to that project. Thus, the Petitioner's employment at Salida Del Sol consisted of light duty work. Superintendent Getz of that project re-affirmed that the transfer to his project was because of a lack of a need for one such as the Petitioner on light duty at the Oceans Grande project, as well as the fact that his project at this time had light duty work. The transfer to the Salida Del Sol project occurred on March 7, 2005. At the time of the Petitioner's transfer to the Salida job site there were only two Yates employees, including the Petitioner, who were employed there, aside from supervisory personnel. On or about April 12, 2005, an employee of a subcontractor referred to the Petitioner with a racial slur, and made other unkind, argumentative comments toward him. The Petitioner made no mention of it initially, but on the very next day was working in that area and realized that one of the female employees was quite angry because of her awareness of the racially derogatory comment that the subcontractor's employee had made toward the Petitioner. This co-employee made a complaint about the matter to Rick Getz, the project superintendent at the Salida job. Mr. Getz immediately investigated the matter and confronted the employee of the subcontractor ("Dominick") and told him in no uncertain terms that such conduct was not to be tolerated on that job, regardless of whom he worked for. Subsequently Mr. Getz, along with the assistant project superintendent Rick Bilodeau, met with the subcontractor's employee, Dominick, as well as his employer and reiterated to both of them that this type of conduct would not be condoned and there would be no further incidents like this. There were no more complaints thereafter by the Petitioner or any other employee of the Respondent. In a conversation shortly after this meeting, Mr. Bilodeau informed the Petitioner that the matter had been resolved, at which point the Petitioner made a statement to the effect that he wanted to know the name and address of Dominick's employer because "my people like people with big mouths and lots of money." In any event, the Respondent's action remedied the situation and stopped any further racially derogatory incidents. The Petitioner has also complained of being denied overtime. This stems from Friday, April 29, 2005, when the Petitioner learned that the other two employees on his job site were going to work overtime the next day, Saturday. He claims he knew nothing about it and was not told by his employer and concluded therefore that he was denied overtime. The Respondent, however, offered preponderant evidence that there was overtime available on Saturday April 30, 2005, and that no effort had been made to exclude the Petitioner. Rather, overtime is voluntary and because of the small number of employees superintendent Getz had announced to all employees near the end of the workday on Friday that work was available for anyone who wanted to work on Saturday. It was Mr. Getz's impression that this had been made known to the Petitioner, but if the Petitioner had not heard the announcement at a gathering at the end of the day, it was not through any intentional effort by the Respondent to exclude him from an overtime opportunity. This was confirmed by Assistant Superintendent Billodeau in his testimony to the effect that it was customary on the job site on Friday to announce to everyone congregated in the afternoon whether they were going to work on Saturday or not. It was Billodeau's impression also that the Petitioner was present on that occasion. So all employees were told as a group that there was work to be done on Saturday. It is also true that numerous occasions had arisen on this and the Oceans Grande project in which the Petitioner was asked to work overtime but declined for various reasons, as the Petitioner himself has conceded. Finally, the Petitioner complains concerning his lay- off from the Oceans Grande project on May 6, 2005. In fact, efforts were made to avoid laying the Petitioner off, and to find him available work at the Salida project. Additional efforts were also made to contact the Petitioner for re-call purposes even after he was laid-off from the Oceans Grande project. This belies any intention on the part of the Respondent to retaliate against the Petitioner for complaining about the racial comment incident by denying him overtime or laying him off. On May 2, 2005, the Salida Del Sol project had reached a stage in which there was very little work to do. The project was waiting for a work permit and for the installation of a tower crane. Therefore there was no work for a laborer, the Petitioner, or for the two carpenters, Felix Hernandez and Otillo Toledo. Rather than lay them off, however, Superintendent Getz called the project Superintendent, Mr. Johnson, at the Oceans Grande project to see if there was any work for the three employees. Mr. Johnson told him that he might have work for perhaps a week and therefore the Petitioner and the other two employees were transferred to the Oceans Grande project. Both Hernandez and Toledo were skilled carpenters, as opposed to the Petitioner, who was a laborer/carpenter's helper. When this transfer occurred it left only two traffic control employees, who were females, at the Salida job site, along with the tower crane operator. On May 6, 2005, the Petitioner was laid-off from the Oceans Grande project. There was simply no further work for a laborer at that job site so Mr. Mecker, the foreman, explained to the Petitioner why he was laid-off. He also told him that the company might soon have another project starting known as the Halifax Landing project and that he might have work available there. He told the Petitioner that he should remain in contact with the Oceans Grande project supervisory personnel in case a re-call came up because of additional work becoming available. The Respondent also noted in the Petitioner's personnel file at the time of this "reduction in force" that the Petitioner was "recommended for re-hire." Mr. Johnson also testified that as far as he was concerned the Petitioner was still eligible for re-hire and that he actually liked Julian Lawrence as a person and as an employee. It is undisputed, however, that the Petitioner never contacted the Respondent and never made any inquiry as to additional work. On occasion, Project Superintendent Johnson made efforts to call the Petitioner at the only phone number he had for him, regarding re-calling him for more work. This was probably three to four weeks after the lay-off. The fact that the Respondent noted on the personnel record at the time of his lay-off that the Petitioner was recommended for re-hire belies any indication that the Petitioner was being retaliated against by the Respondent. It also significant that the decision-maker with regard to the lay-off was Grady Johnson. The Petitioner maintains that he was laid-off in retaliation for complaining about the racial epithet incident involving "Dominick" at the Salida project. Mr. Johnson however, was totally unaware of that incident at the time he made the decision to lay the Petitioner off. Thus it was not possible that he did so as an act of retaliation. Indeed the Petitioner himself did not complain regarding the racial comment incident, but rather learned of it from the female employee who had made the complaint to the Respondent's management. Equally significant, no derogatory employment action was ever taken against the female employee who complained to the Respondent regarding the incident either. Project Superintendent Johnson established, based upon his 45 years experience in the construction industry, that it is important to understand how a construction project and company operates. There are different steps and different stages. During these different steps and stages of a project different employees are required and then become un-needed at a later stage of the project. Many times much of the work at various stages is performed by subcontractors. Additionally, it is important to acknowledge that not only was Mr. Johnson unaware of the "Dominick" incident, but when asked if the lay-off of the Petitioner was in any degree an effort, to retaliate, Mr. Johnson was very adamant in denying that. He stated, "I've never done that in my life." Indeed, the testimony shows that on at least two occasions the Respondent sought to find available work for the Petitioner rather than lay him off. Mr. Johnson established that the Petitioner's employment record was marked as "eligible for re-hire" and the Respondent's attempts to reach the Petitioner after the lay-off was because the Respondent was actively trying to effect an arrangement so that the Petitioner would have work at different times with the Respondent. In Mr. Johnson's words, "We like Julian. Julian is good guy. There was no selection . . . we were trying to work it out where he could go to the other job, but that didn't work out."
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 1st day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 Julian J. Lawrence Post Office Box 263225 Daytona Beach, Florida 32126 Taylor B. Smith, Esquire The Kullman Firm Court Square Tower 200 6th Street North, Suite 505 Columbus, Mississippi 39703-0827 Jennifer Robbins Guckert, Esquire The Kullman Firm 1640 Lelia Drive, Suite 120 Jackson, Mississippi 39216
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Christy Miller (Petitioner) was the subject of unlawful discrimination by the Florida Department of Corrections (Respondent) on the basis of sex or marital status, or in retaliation, in violation of chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2015)1/.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as a Correctional Probation Senior Officer in Winter Haven, Florida. The Respondent is a state agency as defined in chapter 110, Florida Statutes. At various times prior to April 2012, Don Parrish, another employee of Respondent, had served as an “acting” supervisor in the Respondent’s office. The Petitioner testified that Mr. Parrish, during a period when he was the acting supervisor, inquired as to her marital status, and suggested they could “get together” if the marriage was not successful. Mr. Parrish’s comment made the Petitioner uncomfortable. In April 2012, Mr. Parrish became a Correctional Probation Senior Supervisor and was the Petitioner’s direct supervisor until she terminated employment in January 2013. The Petitioner testified that, as her supervisor, Mr. Parish “micromanaged” her schedule and “harassed” her. While the Petitioner worked under Mr. Parrish’s supervision, the two engaged in repeated verbal altercations primarily directed towards matters of work scheduling and the Petitioner’s attendance. The Petitioner testified that Mr. Parrish routinely denied her requests to alter or adjust her work schedule to accommodate personal matters. Some female employees in the office, including the Petitioner, were of the opinion that Mr. Parrish gave preferential treatment to another female who worked in the office by routinely approving her requests related to her work schedule. The Petitioner also asserted that other employees received preferential treatment from Mr. Parrish in matters of case assignments. The evidence fails to establish that decisions made by Mr. Parrish as to the Petitioner’s work schedule included consideration of the Petitioner’s gender or marital status, or were retaliatory. On occasion, Mr. Parrish made remarks in the office that made the Petitioner uncomfortable. The Petitioner testified at the hearing that Mr. Parrish commented on the physical appearance of other female employees, or of offenders who were present in the office, in a manner that the Petitioner found offensive. At all times material to this case, Brian Wynns was the Respondent’s “Circuit Administrator” responsible for operation of the Winter Haven Probation Office. Mr. Wynns was Mr. Parrish’s supervisor. At some point prior to August 2012, Lou Bland, another female employee in the Respondent’s Winter Haven office, filed a formal complaint against Mr. Parrish. According to Ms. Bland, she filed the complaint after Mr. Parrish yelled at her in a “threatening” manner. Ms. Bland testified that her complaint was resolved by Mr. Wynns, that Mr. Parrish apologized to Ms. Bland, and that she had no further problems with Mr. Parrish. At the hearing, Ms. Bland testified that she never observed Mr. Parrish engage in what she would describe as sexual harassment. Following a verbal altercation between the Petitioner and Mr. Parrish in August 2012, the Petitioner contacted Mr. Wynns by telephone to complain about Mr. Parrish. The Petitioner did not file a formal written complaint against Mr. Parrish. The Petitioner testified that she was aware the Respondent had a formal procedure related to submission and resolution of complaints of discrimination. The Respondent’s formal procedures were not offered into evidence at the hearing. There is no evidence as to what transpired between Mr. Wynns and Mr. Parrish regarding the Petitioner’s verbal complaint. The Petitioner testified that she presumed Mr. Parrish was aware of her conversation with Mr. Wynns, because she perceived his behavior to be more hostile after the conversation occurred. After August 2012, the Petitioner and some of her co- workers discussed collectively meeting with Mr. Wynns to voice their dissatisfaction with Mr. Parrish. The Petitioner’s co-workers eventually decided not to participate in such a meeting, so it did not occur. Instead, the Petitioner met with Mr. Wynns on December 12, 2012, and submitted a letter of resignation from her position, effective January 31, 2013. Although the Petitioner testified that she resigned because she could no longer tolerate Mr. Parrish, the Petitioner’s letter of resignation referenced personal issues unrelated to Mr. Parrish as the primary basis for her decision to leave. The evidence fails to establish that, prior to December 12, 2012, the Petitioner advised Mr. Wynns that her problems with Mr. Parrish had not been resolved by their August 2012 telephone conversation. Following another verbal altercation with Mr. Parrish, the Petitioner accelerated the effective date of her resignation and terminated her employment on January 8, 2013.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's complaint of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 11th day of December, 2015.
