06-004762 Joanne Hilty vs. Lee County Government Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, June 1, 2007.

Summary: Petitioner was not discriminated against based on her age.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

JOANNE HILTY , )

)

Petitioner , )

)

vs. ) Case No. 06 - 4762

)

LEE COUNTY GOVERNMENT , )

)

Respondent . )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a fina l hearing was held in this case

on February 1 and 2, 2007, in Fort Myers, Florida, before

Susan B. Harrell, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the

Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Ann Poe Angel, Esquire

Angel & Angel, P.A.

1617 Hendry Street, Suite 405

Fort Myers, Florida 33901 - 2951

For Respondent: Andrea R. Fraser, Esquire

Jack N. Peterson, Esquire

Lee Co unty Attorney's Office

Post Office Box 398

Fort Myers, Florida 33902 - 0398

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues in this case are whether Respondent

discriminated against Petitioner based on her age, and whether

R espondent retaliated against Petitioner for reporting the

alleged age discrimination.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner, Joanne Hilty (Ms. Hilty), filed a charge of

discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations

(Commission) alleging that Res pondent, Lee County Government

(Lee County), had discriminated against her based on her age and

had taken retaliatory actions against her. On October 17, 2006,

the Commission issued a Notice of Determination: No Cause,

determining that there was no reaso nable cause to believe that

an unlawful employment practice had occurred. On November 20,

2006, Ms. Hilty filed a Petition for Relief with the Commission.

The case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative

Hearings for assignment to an Administrati ve Law Judge on

November 21, 2006.

At the final hearing, Ms. Hilty testified in her own behalf

and called the following witnesses: Kathy Brantley, Helen

McNally, and Shannon Shipley. Petitioner's Exhibits 1

through 23 were admitted in evidence. At the final hearing, Lee

County called the following witnesses: George Williams, William

Hammond, Dinah Lewis, Charlotte Veaux, and James Palop o li.

Respondent's Exhibit s 1 and 2 were admitted in evidence. Lee

County submitted Respondent's Exhibit 3, which was not admitted

in evidence based on objection from Ms. Hilty.

The three - volume Transcript was filed on February 12, 2007.

The parties had agreed to file their proposed recommended orders

within ten days of the filing of the Transcript. However, due

to med ical conditions of Petitioner's counsel, several

extensions of time for filing proposed recommended orders were

requested and granted. The parties filed P roposed R ecommended

O rders, which have been considered in rendering this Recommended

Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Ms. Hilty was hired by Lee County in March 2002 as a

human resources specialist, which was a temporary position. She

was 25 years old at the time of her employment. Ms. Hilty

received a bachelor's degree in human resource management in

May 2 000. From October 2000 to December 2001, Ms. Hilty was

employed as a recruiting coordinator for a private firm in

Indiana. While in college, she worked for 16 months as a human

resources assistant for a condominium.

2. Approximately six months after Ms. Hilty was hired as a

human resources specialist, she was hired in a permanent

position as a human resources analyst. She remained in this

position until July 2003, when she was promoted to a staffing

coordinator at a salary of $47,000 per year, which was a 29.8635

percent increase in pay .

3. Prior to Ms. Hilty being hired as a staffing

coordinator, the staffing area had been supervised by managers

rather than staffing coordinators. Lauren Roberson had been

hired as a manager to supervise the staffing ar ea with a

beginning salary of approximately $60,000. Before

Ms. Roberson's employment, Kathy Dorsey had been hired as a

manager to supervise the staffing area with a beginning salary

of approximately $50,000.

4. George Williams was appointed Lee County' s h uman

r esources d irector in January 2001. Mr. Williams made the

decision to terminate Ms. Roberson as the staffing manager. He

regraded and reclassified the staffing manager position to that

of wellness coordinator and created a new position as staffin g

coordinator. Mr. Williams promoted Ms. Hilty to the new

position. Her duties included being responsible for the hiring

processes for Lee County and supervising the staffing team. She

supervised two employees.

5. In December 2003, Mr. Williams resigne d his position

with Lee County. From December 2003 to September 2004, the

Human Resources Department was supervised on an interim basis by

William Hammond, who was the deputy county manager for Lee

County. In September 2004, Dinah Lewis was hired by Lee County

as the human resources director. Ms. Lewis was hired to make

changes and correct problems that the H uman R esources D epartment

was having in responding to the community and various

departments within Lee County, in putting together information

that departments needed such as budget information, and in

dealing with relationships with the staff. In the words of

Mr. Hammond, "we decided that we were going to find a true

professional, somebody that we really didn't care if our staff

downstairs loved th em, like [sic] them, but we wanted somebody

that we could count on to be fair and honest, up front, but also

make some changes."

6. When Ms. Lewis became employed by Lee County, she asked

the man agers and coordinators in the H uman R esources D epartment

to provide her with their resumes and memoranda outlining the

projects and issues on which they were working. In

September 2004, Ms. Lewis met with each of the managers and

coordinators, including Ms. Hilty, who reported directly to

Ms. Lewis.

7. During M s. Hilty's meeting with Ms. Lewis in

September 2004, Ms. Hilty asked Ms. Lewis to upgrade her

position and increase her salary. Ms. Hilty did not indicate to

Ms. Lewis that she felt that she was being discriminated based

on her age. Ms. Lewis told Ms. H ilty that it was too early for

her to be making changes in Ms. Hilty's position. Ms. Lewis

also noted that Ms. Hilty did not have a lot of experience in

management.

8. By October 2004, Ms. Lewis saw the need to reduce the

number of staff reporting direct ly to her. Ms. Lewis met with

Ms. Hilty in October 2004, at which time Ms. Lewis increased

Ms. Hilty's responsibilities to include supervising the

compensation area, which had been under Ms. Lewis' direct

supervision. Ms. Hilty told Ms. Lewis that she d id not want the

additional duties of the compensation unit because she knew very

little about compensation , and the two employees in the

compensation unit were difficult to supervise. Ms. Lewis

assured Ms. Hilty that she would work closely with Ms. Hilty and

that Ms. Hilty could learn about compensation with her

assistance. Ms. Hilty again asked that her position be

classified as a manager and that her compensation be increased

because of the increased duties. Ms. Lewis denied her request.

Ms. Hilty did not mention that she felt that she was being

discriminated against because of her age.

9. At the time Ms. Lewis placed the compensation area

under Ms. Hilty's supervision, two managers were supervising

other areas in the human resources department. Jim Palopoli,

who was approximately 60 years old, was the Human Resource

Information Systems and Records (HRIS) manager, and Charlotte

Veaux, who is over 60 years old, was the human resources manager

who oversaw the benefits section.

10. Mr. Palopoli was hire d in 2002 by Lee County as a

manager with a starting salary of approximately $60,000. Prior

to his employment with Lee County, Mr. Palopoli had over

18 years of managerial experience and had taken some college

courses. As a manager with Lee County, Mr. Palopoli supervised

five employees.

11. Ms. Veaux was hired by Lee County in 1995 as a human

resources analyst II. She moved up the ranks and was promoted

to benefits manager in 1999. She has a bachelor's degree in

business administration and had ten ye ars of managerial

experience prior to her employment with Lee County. Ms. Veaux's

salary was in the high $60,000 to low $70,000 range. Ms. Veaux

was supervising approximately six to eight employees. In

October 2004, Ms. Lewis moved another employee to M s. Veaux's

section, but Ms. Veaux did not receive any additional

compensation for the added duty.

12. The human resources manager position required the

following education, experience, and licensing:

This position requires any combination of

education, an d experience equivalent to:

graduation from an accredited four year

university or college with a Bachelors

degree in Human Resources, Business

Administration, Public Administration, or

related field. Three years of experience in

Human Resources, Public A dministration, or

related field. Possession of a valid

Florida Class "E" drivers license with an

acceptable driving record is required.

13. The duties of the staff coordinator and the human

managers were similar. It is clear from the position

descriptio ns that the human resources manager was a position in

which the incumbent would be expected to "exercise considerable

independent judgement [sic] and decision making." The position

of staffing coordinator required more supervision from the human

resources director than the human resources managers. Both

Ms. Veaux and Mr. Palopoli had considerabl y more supervisory

experience than Ms. Hilty and did not require as much

supervision as Ms. Hilty. Ms. Hilty's inexperience resulted in

some poor management deci sions as set forth below.

14. As staffing coordinator, Ms. Hilty was a member of the

Human Resources Management Team (Management Team), which

included Ms. Lewis, Mr. Palopoli, and Ms. Veaux. 1 In the spring

of 2005, the M anagement T eam made a decision to enforce a dress

code in the H uman R esources D epartment. The code would require

the staff to dress in a professional manner. After the decision

was made concerning the dress code and before the date of

implementation of the dress code, Ms. Hilty wore jean s to work.

Ms. Lewis confronted Ms. Hilty about wearing the jeans, feeling

that it showed that Ms. Hilty was not supporting the management

decision for the dress code. Ms. Hilty felt that she could wear

the jeans because the date for the implementation o f the dress

code had not begun. Because Ms. Hilty was a supervisor and a

member of the M anagement T eam, her wearing of casual attire

could reasonably be construed by Ms. Lewis as showing lack of

support for the management decision.

15. In the spring of 2 005, the M anagement T eam made a

collective decision to require the employees of the human

resources department to adhere to an 8 a.m. - to - 5 p.m. work

schedule rather than use a staggered work schedule, which had

been the practice of the department. Ms. Hil ty was not in

support of the decision at the time it was made; however, she

required her staff to adhere to the policy. One of the

employees supervised by Ms. Hilty was not happy with the

decision and asked to be heard on the issue with the deputy

county manager. A meeting was scheduled with Ms. Hilty, the

disgruntled employee, Ms. Lewis, and Mr. Hammond to discuss the

matter. During the meeting, Mr. Hammond asked Ms. Hilty what

she would do if she were the human resources director, and she

replied that she believed in flexibility and working with the

employees as long as there was adequate staff coverage.

Ms. Lewis viewed Ms. Hilty's response as another failure by

Ms. Hilty to support a M anagement Team decision.

16. One of the responsibilities of the M anagement T eam is

to determine which employees' requests to attend conferences

would be approved. In determining whether a request should be

approved, the M anagement T eam considers the value of the

seminar, the number of conferences the employee has att ended,

and the work load. In the summer of 2005, Ms. Hilty requested

approval to attend an annual conference of a software vendor in

September. The M anagement T eam denied Ms. Hilty's request.

Ms. Hilty had attended the conference the previous year, and

there were two major projects that were due to be completed by

Ms. Hilty's unit in September.

17. Ms. Hilty asked Ms. Lewis to revisit the request to

attend the conference, which had been denied by the M anagement

T eam. The request was brought before the M anagement T eam for a

second time, and, again, the M anagement T eam denied her request.

Ms. Hilty asked Ms. Lewis to again revisit the request, but

Ms. Lewis declined to do so and did not take it back to the

M anagement T eam.

18. On September 1, 2005, Ms . Lewis received a telephone

call from Scott Letourneau, the president of NEOGOV, the

software company sponsoring the conference which Ms. Hilty had

requested to attend. Mr. Letourneau, unaware that Ms. Hilty's

request to attend the conference had not bee n approved, was

encouraging Ms. Lewis to allow Ms. Hilty to attend the

conference. Mr. Letourneau had spoken to Ms. Hilty earlier in

the day, but she had not advised him that she would not be

attending. However, Ms. Hilty had advised someone on

Mr. Leto urneau's staff that she was not going to attend, but the

message had not been communicated to Mr. Letourneau.

19. A short while after the telephone conversation with

Mr. Letourneau, Ms. Lewis confronted Ms. Hilty about the

telephone call. Ms. Hilty advis ed Ms. Lewis that she did not

know that Mr. Letourneau was going to call Ms. Lewis and that

she had not asked him to call Ms. Lewis. Later the same day,

Ms. Lewis received an e - mail from Mr. Letourneau stating that

there had been a miscommunication with h is staff and that when

he called Ms. Lewis he did not know that Ms. Hilty had advised

his staff that she would not be going to the conference. In his

e - mail, Mr. Latourneau set forth a timeline of events concerning

the conference. Among the events listed was a discussion

between Mr. Latourneau and Ms. Hilty in June that Lee County

would probably not be sending anyone to the conference. The

timeline also indicated that during June and July Mr. Latourneau

and Ms. Hilty had discussions about items that Ms. Hilty could

present at the conference. It is clear from the timeline

submitted by Mr. Latourneau that Ms. Hilty continued to discuss

her attendance and participation at the conference after

Ms. Hilty had been informed by the M anagement T eam that she

woul d not be allowed to attend the conference.

20. Ms. Lewis scheduled a meeting with Ms. Hilty to be

held on September 5, 2005, to discuss the conference situation.

Ms. Lewis asked Ms. Veaux and Mr. Palopoli to also attend the

meeting as witnesses. It was not unusual to ask managers to

attend such meetings as witnesses, and Ms. Veaux considered that

as part of her job responsibilities. There is no Lee County

policy that would prohibit Ms. Veaux and Mr. Palopoli from

attending the meeting as witnesses.

21. At the appointed time for the meeting, Ms. Hilty came

to the doorway of the conference room where the meeting was to

be held. Ms. Lewis asked Ms. Hilty to come inside the

conference room, but Ms. Hilty refused because Ms. Veaux and

Mr. Palopoli were pre sent. Mr. Palopoli asked Ms. Hilty to come

into the conference room and close the door because the

conversation was beginning to get loud and could be heard by

nearby employees. Ms. Hilty again refused to enter the

conference room. Ms. Lewis again asked Ms. Hilty to come into

the room, and Ms. Hilty again refused to do so and walked away.

22. Later the same day, Ms. Lewis prepared a notice of

proposed corrective action and delivered it to Ms. Hilty in the

presence of Ms. Veaux. The proposed corrective action was a

two - day suspension for Ms. Hilty's failure to meet with

Ms. Lewis as directed. Two days later, Ms. Lewis met with

Ms. Hilty to discuss the proposed corrective action. Ms. Lewis

made the decision to suspend Ms. Hilty for two days without pa y,

and Ms. Hilty was given a copy of the Corrective Action Notice,

imposing the two - day suspension.

23. Ms. Hilty requested a meeting with Mr. Hammond,

Ms. Lewis' supervisor, to discuss Ms. Lewis' imposition of the

suspension. Mr. Hammond did not give M s. Hilty any relief.

Ms. Hilty filed a grievance concerning the suspension, and the

grievance committee upheld the suspension.

24. On September 22, 2005, Ms. Lewis met with Ms. Hilty to

discuss performance issues. The issues discussed were

Ms. Hilty's criticism of the M anagement T eam 's decision

regarding the work schedule; Ms. Hilty's discussions with the

conference vendor about the possibility of attending the

conference after she had been told by the Ma nagement T eam that

she could not attend the conf erence; Ms. Hilty's failure to meet

with the M anagement T eam on September 6, 2005; and the poor work

product by the compensation unit, which Ms. Hilty supervised.

Based on these shortcomings, Ms. Lewis demoted Ms. Hilty to an

analyst position and reduced her salary by 29.8635 percent.

Ms. Hilty was sent formal notice of the demotion by memorandum

dated September 23, 2005.

25. Ms. Hilty was depressed and went on family medical

leave after her meeting with Ms. Lewis and never returned to

work. She resign ed effective October 18, 2005, and went to work

for NEOGOV.

26. Lee County was a client of NEOGOV. After Ms. Hilty

went to work for NEOGOV, Ms. Lewis was concerned about having to

deal with Ms. Hilty at NEOGOV because of the animosity Ms. Hilty

felt for Lee County. Ms. Lewis called Mr. Letourneau and

expressed her concerns. He assured her that Ms. Hilty would not

be dealing with the Lee County account.

27. In May 2006, Ms. Lewis and a number of other employees

of Lee County received an e - mail from Ms. Hilty requesting them

to respond to a survey. By this time, Ms. Hilty had filed a

claim of discrimination against Lee County with the Human

Relations Commission. Ms. Lewis called Mr. Latourneau and

reminded him that previously he had agreed that Ms. Hilt y would

not be involved with Lee County's work. She told Mr. Latourneau

that Ms. Hilty had filed a claim of discrimination against Lee

County and that there was friction between Ms. Hilty and Lee

County. She sent Mr. Latourneau a copy of the discriminati on

complaint.

28. The first mention by Ms. Hilty that she had been

discriminated against based on her age was in her conversation

with Ms. Lewis o n September 22, 2005. Although Ms. Hilty argues

in her P roposed R ecommended O rder that Ms. Hilty raised the

argument of discrimination in her response to the suspension

dated September 13, 2005, in the response, she stated: "I feel

that I am being discriminated and retaliated against," but she

did not state that she was being discriminated against based on

her age. On September 2, 2005, Ms. Hilty sent an e - mail to

Ms. Lewis stating: "I feel I'm being targeted against because

you want me to leave this department and you think I'm being

insubordinate because I'm not a 'yes person' and I'm not

intimidated by you r style of management."

29. Ms. Hilty first raised her claim of age discrimination

when Ms. Lewis advised Ms. Hilty that she was going to demote

Ms. Hilty. The tension between Ms . Hilty and Ms. Lewis was not

because of Ms. Hilty's age, it was because Ms. Hilty had

exercised poor judgment in her responses to management

decisions , such as the dress code, the work schedule, and the

conference. It was reasonable for Ms. Lewis to conclude that

Ms. Hilty was not a team player and was attempting to undermine

Ms . Lewis' authority.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

30. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57, Fla. Stat. (2006).

31. Ms. Hilty has brought a claim against Lee C ounty

pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended,

Subsection 760.01, et seq. , Florida Statutes (2004). 2

Specifically, Ms. Hilty alleges age discrimination under

Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and retaliation under

Subsection 760.10(7), Florida Statutes.

32. Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides:

(1) It is an unlawful employment practice

for an employer:

(a) To discharge or to fail or refuse to

hire any individual, or otherwise to

discriminate against any indiv idual with

respect to compensation, terms, conditions,

or privileges of employment, because of such

individual's race, color, religion, sex,

national origin, age, handicap, or marital

status.

33. Subsection 760.10(7), Florida Statutes, provides:

(7) It is an unlawful employment practice

for an employer, an employment agency, a

joint labor - management committee, or a labor

organization to discriminate against any

person because that person has opposed any

practice which is an unlawful employment

practice u nder this section, or because that

person has made a charge, testified,

assisted, or participated in any manner in

an investigation, proceeding, or hearing

under this section.

34. In evaluating claims arising under Section 760.10,

Florida Statutes, feder al laws against discrimination may be

used for guidance. See Florida State University v. Sondel , 685

So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Brand v. Florida Power Corp. ,

633 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); and Florida Dept. of

Community Affairs v. Bryant , 5 86 So. 2d 1205, 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA

1991).

35. The United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas

Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802 - 03 (1973), articulated a

burden of proof scheme for cases involving allegations of

discrimination under Title VII, where as here, Petitioner relies

upon circumstantial evidence of discriminatory intent. The

McDonnell Douglas is persuasive in this case, as is St. Mary's

Honor Center v. Hicks , 509 U.S. 502, 506 - 507 (1993), in which

the Court reiterated and refined the McDonne ll Douglas analysis.

36. Pursuant to this analysis, Petitioner has the initial

burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence a

prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. Failure to

establish a prima facie case of discrimination ends the inq uiry.

See Ratliff v. State , 666 So. 2d 1008, 1012 n. 6 (Fla. 1st DCA

1996), aff'd , 679 So. 2d 1183 (1996). If Petitioner succeeds in

establishing a prima facie case, the burden shifts to Respondent

to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its

conduct. If Respondent carries the burden of rebutting

Petitioner's prima facie case, then Petitioner must demonstrate

that the proffered reason was not the true reason, but merely a

pretext for discrimination. Hicks , 509 U.S. at 506 - 507;

McDonne ll Douglas , 411 U.S. at 802 - 803.

37. In order to establish a prima facie case of an

unlawful employment practice in the instant case, Ms. Hilty must

establish that: (1) she is a member of a protected class;

(2) she was qualified for employment as a huma n resources

manager; (3) Lee County failed to promote her to the position of

human resources manager with a salary increase; and (4) Lee

County treated other similarly situated employees outside her

protective class more favorably.

38. The Florida Civil R ights Act prohibits discrimination

based on any age. See Williams v. Sailorman, Inc. , Case

No. 02 - 3995 ( DOAH August 15, 2003), adopted in toto by Final

Order (June 2, 2004).

39. Ms. Hilty has established that she was a member of a

protected class. She was considerably younger than the persons

holding the human resources manager positions. She did

establish that she met the minimum education, training , and

licensing requirements for the human resources manager position.

The position required a minimum of three years ' experience in

human resources. Counting her experience as a human resources

assistant for a condominium while in college, Ms. Hilty had less

than four years ' experience in the field of human resources.

40 . Ms. Hilty established that Lee C ounty did not promote

her to the position of human resources manager. Ms. Hilty did

establish that the person s occupying the positions of human

resources managers were considerably older than she was. Thus,

she has established a prima facie case of discr imination.

4 1 . Lee County has established nondiscriminatory reasons

for not reclassifying Ms. Hilty's staffing coordinator position

to that of human resources manager and promoting Ms. Hilty to

the reclassified position. The staffing coordinator positio n

was not the same in all respects as the human resources manager

position. The staffing coordinator position required more

direct supervision from the director of human resources.

Although, Ms. Hilty barely met the minimum job requirements for

a positio n of human resources manager, she was far less

qualified than Mr. Palopoli and Ms. Veaux , who held human

resources manager positions. Ms. Hilty's job performance under

Ms. Lewis reflected Ms. Hilty's inexperience and poor judgment.

Ms. Hilty received a t wo - day suspension because of her

insubordination and was demoted based on her poor management

skills. Ms. Hilty has not established that Lee County's reasons

for not placing her in a human resources manager position was

based on age discrimination.

4 2 . I n order to establish a prima facie case of

retaliation, Ms. Hilty must establish the following: ( a ) she

engaged in statutorily protected expression; (b) she suffered an

adverse employment action; and (c) the adverse employment action

was causally related to the protected activity. See Harper v.

Blockbuster Entertainment, Corp. , 139 F.3d 1385, 1388 (11th Cir.

1998).

4 3 . The first time that Ms. Hilty advised Lee County that

she felt that she was being discriminated against based on her

age was on September 22, 2005, when she and Ms. Lewis discussed

Ms. Lewis' decision to demote Ms. Hilty. Although Ms. Hilty did

say in her response to her suspension that she was being

"discriminated" against, she did not make an allegation that she

was being discriminated a gainst based on her age or any other

protected class. It is clear that Ms. Hilty felt that Ms. Lewis

wanted Ms. Hilty to leave because Ms. Hilty was not a "yes"

person and was not intimidated by Ms. Lewis' management style.

The demotion and the suspensio n were a result of Ms. Hilty's

insubordination and poor job performance , not as a result of

discrimination based on her age.

4 4 . Ms. Lewis did call Mr. Latourneau after Lee County

staff received an e - mail under Ms. Hilty's name. It had been

agreed before Ms. Hilty filed a complaint of discrimination that

Ms. Hilty would not work on the Lee County account because of

the friction between Ms. Hilty and staff at Lee County. When

Ms. Lewis received the e - mail purportedly from Ms. Hilty, she

called Mr. Latourn eau to remind him of the agreement and to tell

him that Ms. Hilty had filed a claim of discrimination against

Lee County. There was no evidence presented to establish that

an adverse employment action was taken against Ms. Hilty as a

result of Ms. Lewis' discussion with Mr. Latourneau. Ms. Hilty

has failed to establish that Lee County retaliated against her

for filing a claim of discrimination.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a f inal o rder be entered finding

that Lee County did not discriminate against Ms. Hilty based on

age and did not retaliate against Ms. Hilty for filing a

discrimination charge and dismissing her petition.

DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June , 2007 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

SUSAN B. HARRELL

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filin g (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 1st d ay of June , 2007 .

ENDNOTES

1/ When Ms. Lewis was hired as human resources director, the

training coordinator reporte d directly to her and a ttended the

M anagement T eam meetings for about a month. The training

coordinator went on family medical leave and did not attend any

further management team meetings.

2/ Unless otherwise stated, all references to the Florida

Statutes are to the 2004 ve rsion.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Andrea R. Fraser, Esquire

Jack N. Peterson, Esquire

Lee County Attorney's Office

Post Office Box 398

Fort Myers, Florida 33902 - 0398

Ann Poe Angel, Esquire

Angel & Angel, P.A.

1617 Hendry Street, Suite 405

Fort Myers, Florida 33901 - 2951

Cecil Howard, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee , Florida 32301

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will iss ue the Final Order in this case.