12-002302 Tyshoan Wilcox vs. Coastal Healthcare Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, November 26, 2012.

Summary: Petitioner did not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that she was discriminated against in retaliation for participation in a protected activity pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

TYSHOAN WILCOX , )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 12 - 2302

)

COASTAL HEALTHCARE , )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A n administrative h earing was conducted in this case on

September 19 , 2012 , by video conference in Daytona Beach and

Tallahassee , Florida , before Suzanne Van Wyk , Administrative Law

Judge with the Division of A dministrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Tyshoan Wilcox , pro s e

836 Birkshire Road

Daytona Beach, Florida 32117

For Respondent: David P. Steffen , Esquire

Consta ng y Brooks & Smith, LLC

100 North Tampa Street

Suite 3350

Tampa, Florida 33601 - 1840

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Respondent , Coastal Heal th , 1 / discriminated against

Petitioner , Tyshoan Wilcox , in violation of the Florida Civil

Rights Act of 1992 , sections 760.01 Î 760.11 and 509.092, Florida

Statutes , by disciplining and then suspending her , in

retaliation f or her participation in a n investig ation of a co -

workerÓs sexual harassment complaint against Coastal Health .

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On November 28, 2011, Petitioner filed a complaint

(Discrimination Complaint) with the Florida Commission on Human

Relations (Commission), alleging that Coa stal Health had

discriminated against her in employment in retaliation for her

participation in the investigation of a sexual harassment

complaint by a co - worker . On June 8, 2012 , following

investigation of Petitioner 's Discrimination Complaint, the

Commi ssion issued a Determination of No Cause finding that no

reasonable cause exists to believe that an unlawful employment

discrimination practice occurred . A n otice of the CommissionÓs

d etermination (Notice ) was sent to Petitioner on the same date

which not ified Petitioner of her right to file a Petition for

Relief for a formal administrative proceeding within 35 days of

the Notice. Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Relief with

the Commission , which was forwarded t o the Division of

Administrative Heari ngs on July 3, 2012 , for the assignment of

an administrative law judge to conduct a n administrative

hearing .

At the administrative hearing held o n September 19 , 2012 ,

Petitioner testified on h er own behalf and offered two exhibits

which were received into evidence . Coastal Health presented the

testimony of Jacklene Wolf, Christy Teater, Michelle Carroll ,

Michael Militello, Heather Jackson, and Dana Wood , and offered

eight exhibits which were received into evidence .

The p roceedings were recorded and a T ran script was ordered.

T he parties were initially given 10 days from the filing o f the

T ranscript within which to submit their p ropose d recommended

o rders. A copy of the T ranscript , consisting of one volume , was

filed on October 16 , 2012 . On October 24, 20 12, Petitioner

requested an extension of time to file a p roposed r ecommended

o rder, which was granted in part, and the deadline to file

p roposed r ecommended o rders was extended to November 7, 2012.

Respondent timely filed a Proposed Recommended Order which has

been considered in preparation of this Recommended Order. On

November 7, 2012, counsel retained by Petitioner following the

final hearing requested an additional seven days to file a

p roposed r ecommended o rder, which was granted, in part, and the

dea dline set for November 9, 2012. Petitioner filed an untimely

Proposed Recommended Order on November 13, 2012 .

FINDINGS OF FACT

1 . Coastal is a 120 - bed skilled nursing facility located

in Daytona Beach, Florida, operated by MF Halifax, LLC , d/b/a

Coastal Health and Rehabilitative Center (Coastal Health) .

2 . Coastal Health is an employer within the meaning of the

Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended ( c hapter 760,

Florida Statutes), and Ti tle VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended .

3 . Pe titioner is a female Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN)

who was employed by Coastal Health from sometime in 2005 until

her resignation on September 27, 2011. Her first position with

Coastal Health was as a floor nurse . She was promoted to

ÐWounds and Restora tive , Ñ then to Unit Manager in March 2011.

4 . The Unit ManagerÓs job de s cription is Ðto assist the

Director of Nursing (DON) in leading and directing the overall

nursing operation of a unit in the facility in accordance with

residentsÓ needs, government r egulations and company policies so

as to maintain excellent care for the residents whi le achieving

the facilityÓs business objective.Ñ Among the Unit M anagerÓs

essential job functions is the responsibility to Ðensure

practices that maintain high morale an d staff retention to

include effective communication, prompt problem resolution,

positive supervisory practices and maintaining a positive work

environment.Ñ

5 . Petitioner worked the seven oÓclock a.m. to three

oÓclock p.m. (7 to 3) shift and supervised s ix or seven

Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) and three nurses .

6 . As reflected in the Discrimination Complaint, the claim

asserted by Petitioner against Coastal Health in this proceeding

is unlawful retaliation by Coastal Health allegedly based upon

Pe titionerÓs involvement in an internal in vestigation into a co -

workerÓs complaint of sexual harassment.

Sexual Har assment Complaint

7 . One of the CNAs under PetitionerÓs supervision at the

time in question was Evelyn Clark. Petitioner is hostile toward

Ms . Clark. Petitioner believes Ms. Clark had a relationship

with the facility A dministrator , Michelle Carroll, which

undermined PetitionerÓs ability to supervise Ms. Clark .

8 . Petitioner testified that Ms. Clark made inappropriate

comments of a sexual nat ure to her and that she observed

Ms. Clark making inappropriate comments and sexual innuendos to

other employees . She testified that she reported these

incidents to Ms. Carroll and to then - Director of Nursing, Jeanie

Mendoza . Petitioner maintains that no action was taken against

Ms. Clark .

9 . Petitioner was friendly with another CNA, Chad Johnson.

Mr. Johnson was not supervised by Petitioner; in fact, he worked

the three oÓclock p.m. to eleven oÓclock p.m. shift (3 to 11),

and their shifts rarely overla pped.

10 . Sometime in the third week of August, 2011,

Mr. Johnson lodged a complain t with Coastal Health , claiming

Ms. Clark touch ed him inappropriately and ma de sexual comments

to him .

11 . Petitioner testified that Mr. Johnson reported

Ms. ClarkÓs all eged sexually inappropriate conduct to her prior

to complaining to management, and she directed him to go to

management with his complaint. She also testified that she

brought Mr. JohnsonÓs complaint to the attention of Ms. Mendoza

the same day he reporte d it to Petitioner .

The Investigation

12 . Christy Teater, Director of Operations for Coastal

Health, initiated an investigation in response to Mr. JohnsonÓs

sexual harassment complaint. The investigation entailed

interviews of over 30 employees at Coasta l, including the

Petitioner. During the interviews, employees were asked whether

they had witnessed inappropriate conduct at the facility, and if

so, the nature of the conduct and the names of the individuals

involved.

13 . Petitioner was interviewed in connection with the

investigation on August 23, 2011, by Ms. Teater and Jacklene

Wolf, Nurse Consultant for Coastal Health . During the

interview, Petitioner reported that she had witnessed Ms. Clark

engage in in appropriate behavior in the workplace . She

described Ms. ClarkÓs derogatory comments to her, such as

calling her a ÐT - backÑ (which is a reference to PetitionerÓs

underwear) , and making grab bing motions at her buttocks .

Petitioner did not name any other employee as having engaged in

inappropriate behavior at the facility.

14 . The investigation was an internal corporate

investigation and was not triggered by a complaint to either the

Florida Commission on Human Relations or the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission. While Mr. Johnson apparently did file

such a complaint, he did so only after his employment with

Coastal Health was terminated by his own resignation.

15 . Petitioner was not a target of the investigation and

was only interviewed in connection with Mr. JohnsonÓs sexual

harassment com plaint. However, during the investigatory

interviews, Petitioner was identified by other employees as

engaging in inappropriate behavior, gossiping and Ðstirring the

potÑ among other employees.

PetitionerÓs Behavior

16 . Petitioner admit ted to having repe ated gossip about

other employees in June 2011. The gossip related to LaTonya

Graham , who had previously worked with Petitioner in Wounds and

Restorative. While the testimony on the specific gossip was

mostly hearsay , it is clear that Ms. Graham had a re lationship

with a male employee at the facility that was disruptive and

created tension between Petitioner and Ms. Graham .

17 . Petitioner complained that Ms. Graham and her

boyfriend at the time, Freddy Sampson , would fight in the

parking lot Î usually ab out him paying attention to other

females at the facility, including Petitioner. At some point,

Mr. SampsonÓs relationship with Ms. Graham ended and he took up

with another employee, Wanda. 2/

18 . The testimony was not dispositive of who first

initiated gossip about Ms. Graham, whether Petitioner ;

Mr. Sampson, the ex - boyfriend ; or Wanda , the new girlfriend ; but

that is irrelevant. Petitioner admitted to participating in and

repeating gossip regarding Ms. Graham.

19 . Ms. Carroll testified that unprofess ional workplace

behavior was pervasive at the facility when she began as

Administrator o n August 9 , 2010. In July 2011, all employees

were ordered to attend a mandatory in - service training on

a ppropriate workplace behavior. 3 /

20 . Petitioner testified tha t she refrained from

additional gossip after the July 2011, in - service training.

Post - Investigation Actions

21 . Following investigation, Coastal Health management

concluded that Ms. Clark did engage in inappropriate behavior

with Mr. Johnson; however, the y found that Ms. ClarkÓs behavior

was not unwelcome and she did not harass Mr. Johnson .

Ms. Carroll described Mr. Johnson and Ms. Clark as having a

ÐconsensualÑ relationship .

22 . After the investigation, Ms. Carroll instructed

Ms. Clark and Mr. Johnson to stay away from each other.

23 . At the conclusion of the investigation Ms. Teater made

the decision to di scipline Petitioner, Ms. Clark , and

Mr. Johnson.

24 . According to the Coast al Health Human Resources

Policies and Procedures Manual, disciplinary action may be

imposed for both Category I and Category II offenses.

Petitioner was cited for Category I, no. 11 Î Ðconduct that

would be widely regarded as improper or inappropriate in a work

group (to include, but not limited to resident abuse or neglect )

or serious violations of Corporate Compliance Policies and

Privacy Rule Policies.Ñ

25 . Petitioner and Ms. Clark were both cited for

Ðinappropriate behavior in the workplaceÑ and received a

disciplinary counseling . Category I offenses may subject the

e mployee to discharge , but M s. Teater exercised her discretion

in this case to enter a written counseling rather than

discharge, or even suspend , both employees . The record is

silent as to discipline received by Mr. Johnson.

26 . In addition to written dis cipline, the company further

disciplined Ms. Clark by removing her as Ðculture coordinatorÑ

at the facility.

27 . With regard to written discipline, company policy GCHC

701, Disciplinary Action, provides:

A. An associate memorandum is to be used

for progr essive discipline. On each

occurrence, it should be noted:

1. The violation number; and

2. The event which will next take place

should further policy violation occur.

B. The associateÓs immediate supervisor

should explain in full the reason for the

disciplinary action. The associate may

respond in writing if he/she so desires on

the associate memorandum.

C. The associate is to sign the memorandum

to acknowledge that he/she has seen it. It

does not imply agreement. The associate may

comment i n writing if desired.

D. If the associate refuses to sign the

memorandum, the supervisor should have a

manager witness that the associate refused

to sign.

E. The associate will receive a copy of the

memorandum.

F. All disciplinary acti ons that have

reached their anni versary date should be

pulled from the pe rsonnel files and kept in

an al phabetical file for the time period

regarding re te ntion of the person nel files.

G. Gulf Coast Health Care reserves the

right, in its sole discretion, to vary from

t hese policies and take disciplinary action

without any written warnings.

28 . On August 24, 2011, Petitioner was called into

Ms. Carroll Ós office and given a disciplinary counseling . The

associate memora ndum cites her for violation number 11, Category

I , Ðinappropriate behavior . Ñ The memorandum explained that

Petitioner was identified by other employees during interviews

as having made inappropriate comments, that such behavior was

unacceptable practice for a supervisor, and that any future

occurrences w ould result in further disciplinary action, up to

and including termination.

29 . Petitioner responded in writing on the associate

memorandum, consistent with P olicy 701 . She denied having had

any inappropriate conversation with anyone at the facility.

30 . Also on August 24, 2011, all employees were required

to attend an in - service training on harassment in the workplace.

Each employee was given a copy of company policy 704 , Sexual and

Other Unlawful Har assment Policy Statement. Petitioner

acknowledged receipt of the policy by her signature dated

August 24, 2011.

31 . During th e August 24, 2011 , in - service training, all

emplo yees were also given a copy of P olicy GHCH 718, Problem

Resolution. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the policy by

her signatur e dated August 24, 2011, on the Sexual Harassment

Policy statement.

32 . P olicy 718 lays out the procedures for an employee to

present a problem, complaint, suggestion , or question to Coastal

Health and the procedures for resolving issues presented.

Gene rally, the procedure requires the employee to take issues

first to their supervisor, unless the supervisor is the problem,

then Ðup the ladderÑ to successively higher managers if the

problem is not resolved to the satisfaction of the employee.

The policy requires the complaint or problem be reduced to

writing, and sets forth specific timeframes in which actions

must be taken. The policy includes a Problem Resolution form to

be used by the employee. The form provides space for the

written complaint or pro blem, as well as the written resp onses

by each level of management, as applicable.

33 . Petitioner did not use the companyÓs problem

resolution policy to address her problem supervising Ms. Clark

or any other CNAs under her supervision. Nor did she use th e

companyÓs policy to address her concern with perceived Ðspecial

treatmentÑ of Ms. Clark based on a relationship with

Ms. Carroll . Nor did Petitioner use the problem resolution

policy to address Mr. JohnsonÓs report of sexual harassment to

her. In fact, Petitioner never followed the company Ós Problem

Resolution policy and, at hearing, denied knowledge of any such

policy.

34 . Michael Militello, Director of Nursing, made the

decision to suspend Petitioner pending an investigation into

additional complaint s of her unprofessional conduct re ported

after the August 24, 2011 , written counseling.

35 . On September 16, 2011, Mr. Militello and Heather

Jackson, Risk Manager, telephoned the Petitioner to notify her

of her suspension. They were unable to reach Peti tioner and

left a message on her voicemail to please call the facility.

36 . Petitioner returned the telephone call the same day

and spoke to Ms. Jackson, who informed Petitioner of her

suspen sion .

37 . Shortly after her first conversation with Ms. Jackson ,

Petitioner called the facility again and inquired into the basis

of her suspension. She spoke with Ms. Jackson , who reported

that Petitioner was being disciplined for violation number 11,

Category I , Ðinappropriate conduct.Ñ

38 . On September 26, 2011, Ms. Carroll left a message on

PetitionerÓs answering machine asking Petitioner to come to the

facility to meet with Ms. Teeter from Coastal Health , but did

not state what the meeting was about.

39 . Petitioner submitted her resignation letter to

Ms. Carro ll and Mr. Militello on September 27, 2011. She

testified that she assumed she was being fired and did not want

that on her resume. Petitioner resigned before Coastal Health

completed its investigation into the allegations of additional

inappropriate beh avior.

ULTIMATE FINDINGS

40 . Petitioner was disciplined twice by her employer,

Coastal Health , receiving a written counseling on August 24,

2011 , and a suspension on September 16, 2011.

41 . Petitioner did engage in unprofessional behavior, at

least in June 2011, by her own admission. At the final hearing,

Petitioner expressed disbelief that her discipline on August 24,

2011, could be for actions taken in July 2011, and argued that

the Ðwrite - upÑ must have been based on her cooperation in the

investigat ion the preceding day. However, there is no evidence

that the company was prohibited from delaying discipline.

Indeed , it appears that the employer only gained specific

knowledge of the behavior after the investigation in August.

42 . There appears to be no causal link between

PetitionerÓs participation in the investigation into

Mr. JohnsonÓs sexual harassment claim and PetitionerÓs

discipline. While the two occurred only one day apart, other

employees were also disciplined , including the alleged harasse r.

If Ms. Carroll had some special relationship with Ms. Clark by

which she received special treatment, it was not demonstrated at

final hearing . On the contrary, Ms. Clark received the same , if

not greater, discipline as Petitioner.

43 . The second disc ipline, suspension on September 16,

2011, was based on reports of PetitionerÓs continued

unprofessional behavior. PetitionerÓs resignation on

September 27, 2011, occurred before Coastal Health complete d its

investigation into the reports.

CONCLUSIONS OF L AW

44 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to s ection s 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes (20 11 ), 4/ and Florida Administrative Code Rule

60Y - 4.016(1) .

45 . Th e State of Florida, under the legislative scheme

contained in s ections 760.01 Î 760.11 and 509.092, Florida

Statutes, known as the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (the

Act), incorporates and adopts the legal principles and

precedents established in the fede ral anti - discrimination laws

specifically set forth under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964, as amended. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq .

46 . Pursuant to subsection 760.10(1), it is an unlawful

employment practice for an employer to discriminate agains t a

person because that person has Ð made a charge, testified,

assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation,

proceeding, or hearing under this section. Ñ This provision is

known as the Ðparticipation clauseÑ of the Act.

47 . Florida courts ha ve held that because the Act is

patterned after Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

amended, federal case law dealing with Title VII is applicable.

See , e.g . , Fla. Dep't of Cmty. Aff. v. Bryant , 586 So. 2d 1205,

1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

48 . As developed in federal cases, a prima facie case of

discrimination under Title VII may be established by statistical

proof of a pattern of discrimination, or on the basis of direct

evidence which, if believed, would prove the existence of

discrimination wit hout inference or presumption. Usually,

however, direct evidence is lacking and one seeking to prove

discrimination must rely on circumstantial evidence of

discriminatory intent, using the shifting burden of proof

pattern established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green ,

411 U.S. 792 (1973) . See Holifield v. Reno , 115 F.3d 1555, 1562

(11th Cir. 1997).

49 . Under the shifting burden pattern developed in

McDonnell Douglas :

First, [Petitioner] has the burden of

proving a prima facie case of discrimination

by a preponderance of the evidence. Second,

if [Petitioner] sufficiently establishes a

prima facie case , the burden shifts to

[Respondent] to Ðarticulate some legitimate,

nondiscriminatory reasonÑ for its action.

Third, if [Respondent] satisfies this

burden , [Petitioner] has the opportunity to

prove by a preponderance that the legitimate

reasons asserted by [Respondent] are in fact

mere pretext.

U.S. Dep't of Hous . & Urban Dev . v. Blackwell , 908 F.2d 864, 870

(11th Cir. 1990) (housing discrimination claim); accord

Valenzuela v. GlobeGround N . Am . , LLC , 18 So. 3d 17, 22 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2009) (gender discrimination claim) ("Under the McDonnell

Douglas framework, a plaintiff must first establish, by a

preponderance of the evidence, a prima facie case of

discrimina tion.") .

50 . Therefore, in order to prevail in her claim against

Coastal Health , Petitioner must first establish a prima facie

case by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. ; § 120.57(1)(j),

Fla. Stat. ("Findings of fact shall be based upon a

preponderance of the evidence, except in penal or licensure

proceedings or except as otherwise provided by statute and shall

be based exclusively on the evidence of record and on matters

officially recognized.").

51 . "Demonstrating a prima facie case is not onerous; i t

requires only that the plaintiff establish facts adequate to

permit an inference of discrimination." Holifield v. Reno , 115

F.3d 1555, 1562 (11th Cir. 1997); cf. Gross v. Lyons , 763 So. 2d

276, 280 n.1 (Fla. 2000) ("A preponderance of the evidence is

' t he greater weight of the evidence,' [citation omitted] or

evidence that 'more likely than not' tends to prove a certain

proposition.").

52 . In order to demonstrate a prima facie case of

retaliation, Petitioner must show: (1) that she was engaged in

statut orily protected expression or conduct; (2) that she

suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) that there is

some causal relationship between the two events. Holifield , 115

F.3d at 1566.

53 . There can be no doubt that Petitioner suffered an

adverse e mployment action. She was both Ðwritten upÑ on

August 24, 2011, and suspended on September 16, 2011.

54 . However, i n the case at hand, Petitioner did not prove

that she was engaged in statutorily protected conduct. The

participation clause of section 7 60.10(1) only protects

Ðactivities that occur Òin conjunction with or after the filing

of a formal charge with the EEOC . . . [A]t a minimum, some

employee must file a charge with the EEOC (or its designated

representative) or otherwise instigate proceedin gs under the

statute for conduct to come under the participation clauseÓ.Ñ

Guess v. City of Miramar , 889 So. 2d 840(Fla. 4 th DCA 2004)

(quoting E.E.O.C. v. Total System Services , 221 FD.3d 1171 (11 th

Cir. 2000)). Here, as in Guess , PetitionerÓs activity --

participating in the investigation of Mr. JohnsonÓs sexual

harassment complaint against Ms. Clark -- predated the filing of

a formal charge with the EEOC and relief under the Act is not

available.

55 . Having failed to prove the first prong of the three -

part test, Petitioner has not made a prima facie case for

retaliation. When a Petitioner fails to present a prima facie

case the inquiry ends and the case should be dismissed. Ratliff

v. State , 666 So. 2d 1008, 1013 n.6 (Fla. 1 st DCA 1996).

56 . Even if Petitioner had established a prima facie case,

that would not end the inquiry. Once a prima facie case is

established, the burden shifts to Respondent to Ðarticulate some

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasonÑ for its action. U.S.

Dep't of Hous . & Urban Dev . v. Blackwell , 908 F.2d 864, 870

(11th Cir. 1990).

57 . Coastal Health advanced legitimate, non - retaliatory

reasons for Petitioner's discipline. Petitioner violated

company policy by gossiping about oth er employees and failing to

follow company Probl em Resolution policies . Her conduct fell

short of the qualifications for unit manager, which included

prompt problem resolution and positive supervisory practices.

58 . O nce an employer offers a legitimate, non -

discriminatory reason to explain the advers e employment action,

a Petitioner must prove that the proffered reason was pretext

for what actually amounted to discrimination. Id.

59 . T he only support Petitioner has for Coastal Health Ó s

alleged discriminatory motives is Petitioner's unsupported

opi nion which, standing alone, is insufficient. Cf. Lizardo v.

DennyÓs, Inc. , 270 F.3d 94, 104 (2d Cir. 2001) (ÐPlaintiffs have

done little more than cite to their mistreatment and ask the

court to conclude that it must have been [based upon

discrimination] . This is not sufficient.Ñ) .

60 . In sum, Petitioner failed to prove her Charge of

Discrimination and it is otherwise concluded, b ased upon the

evidence, that Coastal Health did not violate the Florida Civil

Rights Act of 1992, and is not liable to Petitio ner for

discrimination in employment f or retaliat ion.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Florid a Commission on Human Relations

enter a Final Order dismissing PetitionerÓs Dis crimination

Complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of

this Recommended Order.

DONE AND ENTERED this 2 6th day of November , 201 2 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

Suzanne Van Wyk

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Adminis trative 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 2 6 th day of November , 201 2 .

EN DNOTE S

1 / At hearing, Respondent clarified that PetitionerÓs employer

is MF Halifax, LLC, d/b/a Coastal Health Care and Rehabilitative

Center , which operates several health care facilities . For

purposes of clarity, t he employer is referred to herein as

Ð Coastal Health , Ñ while the particular facility at which

Petitioner was employed is referred to alternately as ÐCoastalÑ

or Ðthe facility . Ñ

2/ The record contains no information on which to base a finding

of WandaÓs last name.

3 / It is unclear what ste ps , if any, were taken by the company

to correct inappropriate behavior by employees at Coastal

between August 2010 , and July 2011.

4 / Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Florida

Statutes are to the 2011 version. All references to Florida

Administrative Code or federal statutes and rules are to their

current, effective versions.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Suite 100

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

David Patrick Steffen, Esquire

Constangy, Brooks and Smith, LLP

100 North Tampa Street

Tampa, Florida 33601

David W. Glasser, Esquire

Law Office of David W. Glasser

116 Orange Avenue

Daytona Beach, Florida 32114

Cheyanne Costilla, Interim Gen eral Co unsel

Florida C ommission on Human Relations

Suite 100

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Michelle Wilson, Executive Director

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Suite 100

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EX CEPTIONS

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.