08-002834 Pinellas County Sheriff`s Office vs. Jill Casey Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, February 6, 2009.

Summary: Respondent violated Petitioner`s policies related to sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and respect towards colleagues. Discipline is warranted.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

PINELLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S )

OFFICE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 08-2834

)

JILL CASEY, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On October 21 through 23, 2008, an administrative hearing

in this case was conducted in Largo, Florida, before William F.

Quattlebaum, Administrative Law Judge, Division of

Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Benjamin R. Welling, Esquire

Ford & Harrison LLP

101 East Kennedy Boulevard

Suite 900

Tampa, Florida 33602-5133

For Respondent: Joseph M. Ciarciaglino, Esquire

Ciarciaglino, Gell & Fiorentino, P.A.

6671 13th Avenue North, Suite 1B

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Jill Casey (Respondent)

violated personnel rules adopted by the Pinellas County

Sheriff's Office (Petitioner), and, if so, what penalty should

be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

In June 2008, the Petitioner notified the Respondent of the

imposition of an employment disciplinary action based on

violations of certain personnel rules. Specifically, the

Respondent was accused of violating the Petitioner's sexual

harassment policy and of making comments towards subordinates

that were "disrespectful, discourteous, and unprofessional."

The disciplinary action included a seven-day suspension,

demotion and transfer from the employment position, and

completion of "sensitivity training." The Respondent filed a

Notice of Appeal. The Petitioner forwarded the appeal to the

Division of Administrative Hearings, which scheduled and

conducted the administrative hearing.

At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of

16 witnesses and had Exhibits numbered 1 through 12 admitted

into evidence. The Respondent testified on her own behalf,

presented the testimony of 17 witnesses and had Exhibits 1, 3,

4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13 through 17, and 19 admitted into evidence.

A Transcript of the hearing was filed. The parties filed

Proposed Recommended Orders that have been reviewed in the

preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times material to this case, the Respondent has

been employed as a supervisor within the Petitioner's Child

Protection Investigations Division (CPID).

2. She was initially employed in 1991 as a detention

deputy at the county jail. She became an investigator with the

CPID in 1999 and became a supervisor in 2001.

3. In 2002, the Respondent was admonished by Captain

Dennis Fowler regarding a complaint of "inappropriate touching"

that had been voiced against the Respondent by Kelly Johnson

(Ms. Johnson), a CPID field trainer.

4. The Respondent was Ms. Johnson's supervisor.

Ms. Johnson had been the acting supervisor of the unit prior to

the Respondent's assignment.

5. Ms. Johnson testified at the hearing that the

Respondent was a "touchy-feely person in general" and that there

were routine shoulder touches during greetings. She also

testified that the Respondent would routinely stand behind her

and lean over the Respondent's desk at which time the

Respondent's breasts would press against Ms. Johnson's back.

6. Ms. Johnson also testified that the Respondent had

inappropriately placed her hand on Ms. Johnson's thigh in 2002.

She testified that as the two women sat in rolling office chairs

across from each other to discuss a case Ms. Johnson was

handling, the Respondent placed the Respondent's hand on

Ms. Johnson's inner thigh within a few inches of her groin and

left it there for up to 30 seconds.

7. Ms. Johnson shared the office space with four or five

other employees and testified that one employee, a male, was in

the office at the time of the alleged incident and was seated

and facing towards the wall.

8. Ms. Johnson testified that she also discussed the thigh

incident with various Sheriff's Department officials and with

her husband. She also testified that she reported her concerns

about the Respondent's physical behavior, including the thigh-

touching allegation, to another CPID supervisor, Jayne Johnson,

who apparently relayed at least some portion of the complaint to

Captain Fowler.

9. Ms. Johnson testified that she directly reported the

allegations to Captain Fowler, but she did not file an official

complaint about any of her allegations.

10. Captain Fowler testified that he was unable to recall

the conversation with Ms. Johnson.

11. At the hearing, the Respondent denied that she touched

Ms. Johnson's thigh.

12. Although Ms. Johnson testified that she believed the

thigh-touching incident was intentional and that she was

extremely uncomfortable with the situation, she made no attempt

to stop the Respondent at the time or to seek assistance from

the other employee who was allegedly present in the room at the

time. Ms. Johnson's testimony regarding the thigh-touching

incident is not credible and is rejected.

13. Ms. Johnson testified that at a time when the office

furniture was being re-arranged to accommodate another desk, she

positioned her desk so as to have her back towards the wall in

an effort to prevent the Respondent from standing behind the

witness. She testified that she would also pull out the writing

tray on her desk and place her trash can under the writing tray

to block the Respondent from coming around behind her. She

testified that despite her efforts, the Respondent would

sometimes push the writing tray into the desk and sit down on

the trash can to meet with her.

14. Captain Fowler testified that after talking with Jayne

Johnson, he understood the complaint to involve the Respondent

leaning over Ms. Johnson and physically placing her body against

Ms. Johnson's. Captain Fowler was unable to recall discussing

the matter with Ms. Johnson. He testified that there may have

been "some other specific references to inappropriate touching,"

but that he was unable to recall particular details.

15. It is reasonable to presume that had the complaints

relayed to Captain Fowler included the allegation that the

Respondent had placed her hand on Ms. Johnson's inner thigh

within a few inches of her groin and left it there for upwards

of 30 seconds, Captain Fowler would have recalled the

information.

16. Captain Fowler testified that he discussed the matter

with the Respondent and recalled that the Respondent was

cautioned about the failure to recognize personal boundaries of

other employees. Captain Fowler believed that the Respondent

understood that such behavior was not appropriate in the

workplace.

17. Neither Ms. Johnson's verbal complaint nor Captain

Fowler's meeting with the Respondent was documented. The

Respondent's job performance evaluations did not make any

reference to the complaint or to its disposition.

18. Ms. Johnson subsequently transferred out of the

Respondent's unit.

19. Rebecca Wilkinson was an employee of the CPID working

in the same office building as did the Respondent.

20. Ms. Wilkinson testified that, in 2002, as she stood in

a copy room punching holes in paper, the Respondent passed

through the copy room and intentionally "rubbed" Ms. Wilkinson's

buttocks as she passed by. Ms. Wilkinson did not know who the

Respondent was at that time.

21. Because the copiers were located in an area between

offices, employees often passed through the area as they moved

between offices. Ms. Wilkinson testified that there was

sufficient room in the area to pass without physical contact.

22. Ms. Wilkinson testified that when the incident

occurred, she reacted by stating "did you just fucking grab my

ass?" Ms. Wilkinson testified that the Respondent did not

reply, but smiled or "smirked" at Ms. Wilkinson and exited the

area.

23. Ms. Wilkinson testified that she was very

uncomfortable with the contact. Despite her alleged discomfort

that an apparent stranger inside the CPID offices had rubbed her

buttocks, she did not report the incident at that time to

anyone.

24. The Respondent denied that the incident occurred.

25. Ms. Wilkinson also testified that, at some point

between May and August of 2006, the Respondent stood behind

Ms. Wilkinson, who was seated at her desk, leaned against

Ms. Wilkinson and pressed her breasts into Ms. Wilkinson's back.

Ms. Wilkinson apparently was aware of the Respondent's identity

by this time. Ms. Wilkinson testified that as she shifted to

move away from the Respondent, the Respondent moved with her and

maintained the contact, leading Ms. Wilkinson to believe that

the contact was intentional. Although Ms. Wilkinson testified

that she was "amazingly shocked" with the contact, to the extent

that she was unable to tell the Respondent to stop, she did not

report the incident at that time.

26. At all times material to this case, Wandahka Goodridge

was employed as a CPID Supervisor in a position similar to that

of the Respondent. Ms. Goodridge has known and worked with the

Respondent for approximately 15 years.

27. Ms. Goodridge testified that the Respondent would

routinely touch people during greeting, but that there were

other incidents of "vivid and significant" physical contact with

which Ms. Goodridge said she was uncomfortable.

28. Ms. Goodridge recalled an incident "four or five years

ago" where, as she stood with her back approximately one to one

and one-half feet from an office wall, the Respondent passed

between Ms. Goodridge and the wall, brushing her chest against

Ms. Goodridge's back as she passed, even though there was

sufficient space in front of Ms. Goodridge for the Respondent to

pass without contact. Ms. Goodridge testified that she felt

uncomfortable with the circumstances of the incident, believing

it to be sexual in nature, and began to question her perception

of the Respondent's routine physical contact.

29. Ms. Goodrich also testified to an incident "prior to a

year and a half ago but less than three and a half years ago"

where the Respondent intentionally brushed by Ms. Goodridge in a

hallway in a manner that Ms. Goodridge described as "much more

. . . intense than the first body contact." Ms. Goodridge

testified that the Respondent contacted Ms. Goodridge's buttocks

with her "pelvic area," which she interpreted as a sexual

advance.

30. Ms. Goodridge testified that she thereafter began to

attempt to "protect herself" from the Respondent by avoiding

being in confined areas with the Respondent and keeping her back

towards the wall if the Respondent was present. Ms. Goodridge

thereafter perceived a lack of personal acknowledgement from the

Respondent and testified that she felt angry because she

believed that the Respondent was not speaking to her.

31. The Respondent denied making any sexual advance or

engaging in any such behavior towards Ms. Goodridge.

32. Despite Ms. Goodridge's belief that the alleged

physical contact was intentional and sexual in nature, she

failed to report either incident at the times they allegedly

occurred.

33. It would be reasonable to expect that Ms. Goodridge, a

supervisor within a law enforcement unit assigned the

responsibility for conducting child protection investigations,

would have noted the alleged behavior at the time it occurred

and would have taken appropriate action to document the behavior

or to verbally report the behavior to appropriate department

authorities. Ms. Goodridge's testimony as to the alleged

incidents was not credible and is rejected.

34. In January of 2008, the CPID was engaged in changing

shift assignments through a seniority-based bidding system. On

the morning of January 24, 2008, Ms. Wilkinson and Ms. Goodridge

were in the office together and were discussing the impending

changes in shift assignments.

35. Ms. Wilkinson was unhappy with the proposed alteration

of her work shift assignment from day shift to night shift.

36. She had discussed the issue with her sergeant

(Hunchel), who called the Respondent and asked whether the

Respondent was willing to trade shifts with Ms. Wilkinson. The

Respondent declined to do so.

37. Approximately two hours after the call from the

sergeant to the Respondent, Ms. Wilkinson, crying, directly

telephoned the Respondent to ask if the Respondent was willing

to trade shifts. The Respondent again declined to do so.

38. Ms. Wilkinson and Ms. Goodridge both testified that

during their January 24th conversation, they discussed their

discomfort with the Respondent's physical contact and alleged

rumors of the Respondent's alleged behavior towards other

employees.

39. After the conversation ended, Ms. Goodridge took her

car keys, left the office, entered her car, and began to drive

around the office parking lot in an apparent panic. As she

drove, she called a co-worker, Joan Trifilo, and reported the

alleged conversation with Ms. Wilkinson. Then, without exiting

from the parking lot, Ms. Goodridge returned her car to a

parking space and saw Jayne Johnson exiting from her vehicle.

40. Ms. Goodridge began questioning Jayne Johnson as to

whether she was aware of allegations of inappropriate touching

by the Respondent. The two women returned to the office

building, whereupon Ms. Goodridge went to Lieutenant George

Steffen's office and reported her complaint to him.

41. Shortly thereafter on the afternoon of the same day,

Ms. Wilkinson was summoned to the office of Lieutenant Steffen

to discuss the Respondent's alleged behavior. Both

Ms. Goodridge and Ms. Wilkinson provided written statements to

Lieutenant Steffen on January 25, 2008, and the Respondent

became aware on that date of the investigation into the

allegations.

42. The investigation eventually resulted in the dispute

at issue in this proceeding.

43. At the hearing, various other employees credibly

testified that the Respondent pressed her chest against their

backs as the employees were seated at their workspaces and

materials on the desktop or computer screen were reviewed.

44. While some of the witnesses, but not all, perceived

the contact as intentional and sexual in nature, there was

sufficient credible testimony to establish that the Respondent

committed such contact with regularity after the 2002 meeting

between Captain Fowler and the Respondent.

45. CPID Investigator Viangelie Rodriguez was one of the

additional witnesses who testified that the Respondent pressed

her chest against the witness' back as the witness was working

at her desk. Ms. Rodriguez also testified, credibly, that

during a conversation regarding placement of a child for which

Ms. Rodriguez was responsible, the Respondent told her that she

was "fucking placing the child in the home" as directed by the

Respondent. Ms. Rodriguez was offended by what she considered

to be the Respondent's unprofessional language in dealing with

the situation.

46. CPID Investigator Sarah Pierce testified that, after

dyeing her hair a different color, Ms. Pierce passed an office

where the Respondent sat with another CPID supervisor and that

the Respondent saw her and loudly stated that her new hair color

made her "look like a slut." Ms. Pierce heard the other

supervisor speak to the Respondent and heard the Respondent

indicate that she was permitted to make the statement.

47. Ms. Pierce, who testified that the incident made her

feel "degraded" and "belittled," reported it to her supervisor,

Msifilo, and to Sergeant Robert Mosley. Rather than file an

official complaint, Ms. Pierce decided to address the matter

directly with the Respondent, and the two women subsequently

discussed the incident. Ms. Pierce testified that the

Respondent apologized to her during the discussion.

48. Sergeant Mosley also discussed the incident with the

Respondent and advised her it had been inappropriate, a

conclusion with which the Respondent admittedly concurred.

49. Nonetheless, the Respondent was again verbally abusive

towards Ms. Pierce when, during a later discussion related to

case management, the Respondent called Ms. Pierce a "stupid

shit." The discussion was conducted on a speakerphone and other

CPID employees were present and involved.

50. Ms. Pierce reported the comment to Sergeant Mosley

and, thereafter, filed a formal complaint. The Petitioner's

investigation into the complaint formed the basis for a portion

of the dispute at issue in this proceeding.

51. The Respondent admitted the verbal incidents about

which Ms. Pierce testified.

52. Jesteen Stewart testified that on more than one

occasion, the Respondent passed the witness and made contact

with the witness' body. Such contact included the Respondent's

arm being placed on Ms. Stewart's waist and the Respondent's

hands being placed on Ms. Stewart's hips.

53. Ms. Stewart also testified that the Respondent rubbed

the witness' buttocks and pressed her body against the witness

while passing in a hallway, at which time the witness, who

previously believed the contact to have been accidental, became

convinced it was intentional and sexual in nature. She reported

her concern to Msifilo, who testified that Ms. Stewart was

distraught during the conversation.

54. Although the Respondent denied rubbing her hands on

any employee's buttocks, she stated that she may have placed her

hands on someone to move them out of the way so that she could

pass through a doorway.

55. The evidence establishes that the Respondent

inappropriately placed her hands on Ms. Stewart's buttocks to

force Ms. Stewart to move, a gesture that for reasons personal

to Ms. Stewart, was interpreted by her as sexual in nature.

56. There is no evidence to suggest any reason that the

Respondent could not have requested that Ms. Stewart move from

the Respondent's path if Ms. Stewart blocked passage.

57. Ms. Stewart subsequently minimized her interaction

with the Respondent and would route her travel through the

building to avoid passing near the Respondent's office. At

times, she called in sick to avoid working with the Respondent

and, eventually, was transferred to another shift to eliminate

the contact with the Respondent.

58. Pamela Wright, a child protective investigator who has

worked with the Respondent, testified that at some time in 2000,

while she was eating grapes, the Respondent picked up some of

the grapes and threw then towards Ms. Wright's chest, in an

attempt to toss them inside Ms. Wright's shirt. Ms. Wright

believed the behavior to be sexual in nature because the grapes

were thrown towards her breasts. She reported the incident to

Laurie Gray, her supervisor. The Respondent could not recall

the grape-tossing incident involving Ms. Wright.

59. Ms. Wright also testified that the Respondent would

sometimes massage her shoulders or rub her back, and the contact

made her sufficiently uncomfortable to cause Ms. Wright to make

various efforts to minimize being in the vicinity of the

Respondent, but she did not file a complaint against the

Respondent about the physical contact.

60. Samantha Krenek, who has been employed for the

Petitioner as a child protective investigator for about four

years, testified that shortly after beginning her employment,

she approached the Respondent, seeking to either have a document

signed or notarized, at which time the Respondent placed her

hand on Ms. Krenek's hip and left it there for a few seconds.

Ms. Krenek believed the contact to be somewhat sexual and

intentional because there was no need for the contact to have

occurred.

61. Ms. Krenek was uncomfortable with the contact and

thereafter attempted to reduce her interactions with the

Respondent by locating other supervisors to perform certain

tasks, or by maintaining physical distance from the Respondent

if there were no other supervisors available.

62. At the hearing, the Respondent generally denied that

she made sexual advances or had sexually harassed any of the

testifying employees of the CPID.

63. The Respondent testified that she was not aware that

she was pressing her chest against the backs of seated employees

while reviewing their work with them at their desks and

attributed the contact to the limited space in the office.

64. It is not plausible to believe that the Respondent's

chest and breasts would be pressed against the back of another

employee without the Respondent's knowledge, or that the entire

office was so small as to preclude reviewing materials or

computer screens with seated employees without making physical

contact with them. The Respondent's testimony explaining the

reason for the contact was not credible and is rejected.

65. The Respondent engaged in a pattern of physical

contact and behavior directed towards some CPID employees. The

Respondent was cautioned about such contact in 2002 based on the

complaint of another employee and, thereafter, was presumably

aware that some employees were offended or intimidated by the

behavior. Nonetheless, the Respondent continued to make

physical contact with other employees, at least some of whom

were offended or intimidated by the behavior.

66. The evidence also establishes that the Respondent

spoke disrespectfully to several employees, including

Ms. Rodriquez and Ms. Pierce, and did so even after having been

warned that her behavior was inappropriate.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

67. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this

proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (2008).

68. The Petitioner has the burden of proving by a

preponderance of the evidence the allegations underlying the

disciplinary action at issue in this proceeding. Florida Dept.

of Transportation v. J.W.C. Company, Inc. , 396 So. 2d 778

(Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

69. Pinellas County Sheriff's Office General Order 3-1.1,

Rule and Regulation 5.16, provides as follows:

Sexual Harassment and Discrimination--No

member of this agency or member of the

public shall be subjected to unsolicited and

unwelcome conduct by another member which

includes references to that member's

religion, color, race, national origin, age,

disability, gender, pregnancy, sexual

orientation, marital, or any protected

status. The Pinellas County Sheriff's

Office prohibits any offensive physical,

written, or spoken conduct regarding any of

these items including conduct of a sexual

nature, as defined in paragraphs B, 1 and 2

of the definition of sexual harassment in

General Order 3-4, Discrimination, Sexual

Harassment, and Hostile Work Environment.

Additionally, no member shall engage in or

knowingly be a party to the creation of, or

continuation of a hostile work environment,

as defined in General Order 3-4,

Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, and

Hostile Work Environment.

70. The referenced definition of "discrimination" states

as follows:

Any and all slurs, insults, ridicule,

epithets, anecdotes, or jokes, whether

verbal, by gesture, or written, pertaining

to religion, race, national origin, gender,

age, pregnancy, disability , sexual

orientation, marital, or any protected

status whether made in the course of general

conversation or specifically directed at one

or more members. This includes comments

about national origin, race, age, body,

disability, or appearance where such

comments go beyond mere courtesy; i.e.

telling "dirty jokes" or making offensive

sexually oriented comments, innuendoes, or

other epithets slurs, negative stereotypes,

or similar statements or actions that are

unwanted and considered offensive.

71. The referenced definition of "sexual harassment"

states as follows:

1. All unwelcome or unwanted advances ;

including sexual advances or unwanted sexual

attention, whether between person(s) of the

opposite or same sex. This includes, but is

not limited to, leering, touching, patting,

brushing against , hugging, kissing,

fondling, or any other similar physical

contact, or quid pro quo arrangements (i.e.

a situation in which an employee is forced

to engage in unwanted sexual conduct in

order to protect or advance his/her job).

2. Unwelcome requests or demands for

favors, including sexual favors. This

consists of subtle or blatant expectations,

pressures, or requests for any type of

favor, including sexual favor, including

unwelcome requests for dates, whether or not

the request is accompanied by an implied or

stated promise or preferential treatment or

negative consequences.

3. Inappropriate third party comments or

one time comments made which do not

constitute a hostile work environment,

language not directed at the offended

member, jokes (spoken, printed or drawn)

that are not directed at the offended member

or joint banter of a sexual or offensive

nature in which the offended member may or

may not be a party. (Emphasis supplied)

72. The referenced definition of "hostile work

environment" states as follows:

Behavior that has the purpose or effect of

unreasonably interfering with the members

work performance which creates an

intimidating, hostile or offensive work

environment. Factors may include but not

[be] limited to frequency of the

discriminatory act, severity, whether it is

physically threatening or humiliating , and

whether it was sufficiently severe or

pervasive to alter the member's work

environment.

Creating a work environment that is

intimidating, hostile, abusive, or offensive

because of unwanted conversations,

suggestions, requests, demands, physical

contacts or attentions, whether sexually

oriented or otherwise related to a

prohibited form of harassment.

The distribution, display, or discussion of

any written or graphic material, including

calendars, posters, cartoons, or names

slandering character or reputation, show

hostility or aversion toward an individual

or group because of race, color, religion,

age, sex, pregnancy, national origin,

disability, marital, or other protected

status.

Factual assessment of a member's skills,

abilities, or performance by a training

officer, supervisor, or member of a chain of

command, does, not constitute the creation

of a hostile work environment. (Emphasis

supplied)

73. Violation of Pinellas County Sheriff's Office General

Order 3-1.1, Rule and Regulation 5.16, is classified as a "Level

Five" violation.

74. The evidence establishes that the Respondent committed

acts of sexual harassment and created a hostile work environment

by pressing her chest against the backs of seated coworkers as

she leaned over them to review materials on their desks or

computer screens. The evidence establishes that the Respondent

was warned of the behavior in 2002 by Captain Fowler and that

she nonetheless continued the behavior.

75. The fact that not all employees were uncomfortable

with physical contact with the Respondent (including the chest-

pressing and hip-touching behavior) and that some believed it to

be more a form of personal greeting rather than sexual in

nature, does not establish that those employee who felt

otherwise had no reasonable basis for their personal reaction to

the behavior. The Respondent clearly had reason to know that

the physical gestures were not welcomed by all CPID employees.

76. The evidence establishes that the Respondent committed

an act of sexual harassment by placing her hands on

Ms. Stewart's buttocks. Such behavior created a hostile work

environment because the contact affected Ms. Stewart's ability

to freely perform the responsibilities of her employment.

77. The evidence establishes that the Respondent committed

an act of sexual harassment by placing her hand on Ms. Krenek's

hip. The behavior also created a hostile work environment

because the contact affected Ms. Krenek's ability to freely

perform the responsibilities of her employment.

78. The Respondent testified at the hearing that she was

unaware until the internal investigation in this matter that

some employees felt she routinely invaded personal space. The

Respondent testified that she believed the behavior was an

attempt to compensate for an alleged hearing loss. The

testimony is not credible and is rejected.

79. Although there is no evidence that the Respondent's

hearing loss does not exist, to accept the Respondent's

assertion that her hearing loss was sufficient to prevent her

from hearing normal office conversation, it would be reasonable

to expect that the Respondent would have frequently moved around

a room so as to be close to whichever person was speaking, but

there is no evidence that the Respondent did so.

80. Pinellas County Sheriff's Office General Order 3-1.3,

Rule and Regulation 3.5, provides as follows:

Conduct towards Superior and Subordinate

Officers and Associates--Members shall treat

supervisors, subordinates, and associates

with respect and candidness. They shall be

courteous and civil at all times in their

relationships with one another. When on

duty, and particularly when in the presence

of the public, deputies should be referred

to by rank.

81. Violation of Pinellas County Sheriff's Office General

Order 3-1.3, Rule and Regulation 3.5, is classified as a "Level

Three" violation.

82. The evidence establishes that the Respondent failed to

treat coworkers courteously, civilly, and respectfully,

specifically as to the statements made to Ms. Rodriguez and

Ms. Pierce and the tossing of grapes at Ms. Wright's chest.

83. The Respondent suggested several motives for the

various persons involved in filing or prosecuting the complaints

against her.

84. The Respondent testified her role in resolving a

"missing cases" situation within the unit supervised by Wanda

Goodridge in 2001 was the underlying reason for Ms. Goodridge's

involvement in this case, but the reason for Ms. Goodridge's

involvement is immaterial because her allegations have not been

credited.

85. Similarly, the Respondent suggested that her

assignment in 2001 as supervisor for the backlog unit where

Ms. Johnson was employed, who had been the acting supervisor and

who was allegedly unhappy with the Respondent's level of

supervision, explained why Ms. Johnson voiced her complaint in

2002. Ms. Johnson's accusation that the Respondent touched her

thigh has been rejected. Ms. Johnson's complaint about the

Respondent's routine chest-to-back contact is clearly supported

by other evidence.

86. Further, the incidents that the Respondent cites as

precipitating the Goodridge and Johnson participating in the

investigation at hand preceded the initiation of this dispute by

approximately seven years.

87. The Respondent suggested that she has a strong

personality as do other employees within the CPID and that

personality clashes were the reason this matter had been

pursued. Although there are clearly personal issues between

various CPID employees, the reason for the imposition of

discipline in this case is not personality differences, but the

Respondent's violations of the Petitioner's employment policies.

88. Finally, the Respondent, an openly gay female,

asserted that this disciplinary action was the result of

homophobia by certain employees within the CPID. The evidence

fails to support the assertion. Knowledge of the Respondent's

orientation appeared to be widespread and of long-standing. It

is reasonable to assume that such homophobia, assuming its

existence, would have resulted in the filing of complaints long

ago, since the activities about which credible evidence was

presented have extended over a period of years.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the disciplinary action taken by the

Petitioner against the Respondent be sustained.

DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2009, 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

[phone]

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 6th day of February, 2009.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Joseph M. Ciarciaglino, Esquire

Ciarciaglino, Gell & Fiorentino, P.A.

6671 13th Avenue North, Suite 1B

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

Benjamin R. Welling, Esquire

Ford & Harrison LLP

101 East Kennedy Boulevard

Suite 900

Tampa, Florida 33602-5133

James L. Bennett, County Attorney

Office of the County Attorney

315 Court Street

Clearwater, Florida 33756

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 issue the Final Order in this case.