20-003059 Connie Leonessa vs. Hodges University Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, January 22, 2021.

Summary: Degree Petitioner sought wasn?t required for profession. University didn?t discriminate because of religion. University terminated Petitioner due to failure to respect boundaries, accept feedback, & refrain from imposing her values on clients.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

C ONNIE L EONESSA ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case No. 20 - 3059

H ODGES U NIVERSITY ,

Respondent .

/

R ECOMMENDED O RDER

Administrative Law Judge John D. C. Newton, II, of the Division of

Administrative Hearings (Division), heard this case by Zoom conference on

November 16 through 1 8, 2020, with post - hearing submissions of deposition

excerpts filed November 25, 2020.

A PPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Matthew Brown McReynolds, Esquire

Pacific Justice Institute

Post Office Box 276600

Sacramento, California 95827

For Respondent: Thomas K. Rinaldi, Esquire

Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC

4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 105

Naples, Florida 34103

S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE

Did Respondent, Hodges University (Hodges), commit an unlawful

employment practice against Petitioner, Connie Leonessa, on account of

her religion, as defined and prohibited by section 760.10(5), Florida

Statutes (2018)? 1

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

Ms. Leonessa was enrolled in a master ' s degree in counseling program

at Hodges from 2015 until the fall of 2018. During that period, she also

participated in an internship program with several providers of counseling

services, including Healing Educational Alternatives for Deserving

Students, LLC (HEADS). HEADS terminated Ms. Leonessa from its

prog ram. Afterwards , Hodges terminated her from its program.

Ms. Leonessa filed discrimination complaints against Hodges and

HEADS with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission).

The Commission determined that there was no reasonable cause to

co nclude that Hodges or HEADS had discriminated against Ms. Leonessa

because of her religion.

She filed Petitions for Relief disputing both no cause determinations

and requesting formal administrative hearings. The Commission referred

both matters to the D ivision to conduct the requested hearings. The

undersigned consolidated the cases. On November 12, 2020, Ms. Leonessa

filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (of the claims against HEADS) with

Prejudice stating that all disputes between HEADS and Ms. Leoness a had

been resolved.

1 All references to Florida Statutes are to the 2018 codification unless otherwise noted.

During the time period for the facts involved in this dispute, 2015 - 2018, the relevant

provisions of section 760.10 did not change.

At the final hearing, Ms. Leonessa presented testimony from herself.

Leonessa Exhibits 1 through 51, 52 (for limited purposes), 53 (for limited

purposes), and 54 were admitted.

Hodges presented testimony from Thomas Hoffman, Mary N uosce, and

John Myer. Hodges also presented deposition testimony from Julie Jakobi,

Amber Pope, and Gerard Sprague (Hodges Exhibits 29 through 31 as

supplemented by Ms. Leonessa after the hearing). Hodges Exhibits

1 through 4 , 6, 7, 9 through 1 3, 17 through 22, and 24 through 31 were

admitted into evidence.

The transcript of the hearing was filed December 23, 2020. The parties

timely filed Proposed Recommended Orders. They have been considered in

the preparation of this Recommended Order.

F INDINGS OF F ACT

Parties

1. Hodges is a university located in Ft. Myers, Florida. It offers a

m aster ' s degree in counseling through the Clinical Mental Health

Counseling (CMHC) program housed within Hodges ' Nichols School of

Professional Studies. Ms. Leonessa was a student in Hodges ' CMHC

master ' s program.

2. Ms. Leonessa is an experienced registered nurse who has primarily

served pediatric patients over the years. She also volunteered regularly to

work with children in inner cities of the Northeast. Those experiences, her

compassion for children, and her personal trauma of molestation drove

Ms. Leonessa to want to serve children better. In her words, " a nd I just

felt that God wanted me to go back to school to get a master ' s so I can help

these victims. "

3. Ms. Leonessa was enrolled in Hodges from 2015 until the f all of

2018. Her goal was to prepare herself to provide counseling services to

child victims of trauma.

4. There is no persuasive, competent evidence proving that providing

counseling services to child victims of trauma is a profession, occupation,

or trade that requires a master ' s degree in counseling. In fact, paid

positions in the counseling field are available without a master ' s degree.

5. A master ' s degree, followed by two years of full - time , post -

graduation, paid supervised work experience is required to obtain a

mental health counselor license. So is passage of the NCMHCE Exam

administere d by the National Board for Certified Counselors. The

persuasive, competent evidence of record does not prove that

Ms. Leonessa intended to take the post - graduation steps required to

obtain a mental health counselor license or to seek a mental health

couns elor license.

Hodges ' Master ' s Program

6. Earning a master ' s degree in social work from Hodges requires

successful completion of academic coursework, a 200 - hour practicum, and

three 267 - hour internships. The providers of the practicum and

internships are n ot part of or controlled by Hodges. The student is

responsible for identifying and making arrangements with the practicum

and internship providers. Hodges assist s when it c an .

7. Hodges ' program, like counseling itself, require s students to develop

awarene ss of their preferences, prejudices, ethics, and philosophies and

separate them from the support and guidance provided clients.

8. Upon entering the program , students agree to abide by the

requirements of a Clinical Mental Health Counseling Professional

Attitude and Behavior Agreement (Agreement). Ms. Leonessa signed the

agreement on September 2, 2015.

9. The Agreement states the student ' s obligation to align her " personal

ethics with the professional ethics as defined by the American Counseling

Associa tion (ACA) 2014 Code of Ethics [ Code ] . Ò The Code was attached to

the Agreement. The Agreement emphasizes the priority of avoiding harm

to clients or future clients and taking care to not impose the counselor ' s

personal beliefs, values, and behaviors on cli ents. The Agreement

recognizes the ethical dilemmas the profession presents and articulates a

student ' s obligation to consult others about the dilemmas and develop " an

ever increasing ability to apply a professional ethic to difficult situations

involving ethical dilemmas and associated law È . " As part of the

Agreement, Ms. Leonessa agreed to have " an open and willing attitude

toward feedback and suggestions given by faculty, peers and site

supervisors to help the student reduce the possibility of harm. " T his tenet

supports the value of requiring a counselor to put " a high priority on

avoiding harm to clients or future clients. "

10. The Agreement obliges the student to understand and abide by the

Code.

11. The CMHC Student Handbook (Handbook) contains and

emphasizes requirements similar to the Agreement ' s requirements. It

encourages students to pursue personal therapy and growth, for their

intrinsic benefits and to provide insight into what clients experience. The

Handbook emphasizes that counselors are held to higher ethical

standards and higher levels of personal growth and mental health than

the average person. It states that evaluation of a student ' s progress in

those areas is part of judging a student ' s suitability for the counseling

profession.

12. Hodges ' program includes regular evaluation of a student ' s

progress in " interpersonal interactions with students, faculty, site

supervisors, and others involved with his/her academic progress. " The

program requires progress in those areas and provides for a Student

Development Plan for remediation if the student does not improve his or

her interpersonal interactions and skills. The Handbook directs students

to review the Code.

13. The Handbook requi res students to work professionally and

respectfully with fellow students, faculty, site supervisors, and site

employees. The Handbook also requires students to accept others without

rejection based upon, among other things, age, culture, gender identity,

sexual orientation, religion, or marital status. A student commits to be

" respectful of differing opinions and professional practice È . " A student

also commits to work " to continually improve her/his professional

relationship skills and clarify profession al boundaries. "

14. The Handbook, signed by Ms. Leonessa, concludes with this

affirmation :

I understand that the Hodges University Clinical

Mental Health Counseling Program requires

students to perform adequately in areas of academic

assessment that include the ability to form and

continue positive relationships with others; the

ability to acquire and correctly use counseling

knowledge and skills, and the ability to successfully

complete all practicums and internships in the

judgment of the faculty an d site supervisors. These

expectations are in addition to the didactic

coursework expectations and assessment

procedures. I understand that I will be expected to

continually improve my ability to demonstrate

counseling competencies as I progress in the

pro gram. I further understand that the American

Counseling Association 2014 Code of Ethics forms

the basis of professional standards to which I must

adhere.

15. In sum , the nature of the counseling field that Ms. Leonessa sought to

enter and the program at H odges required students to develop an open and

tolerant and patient way of communicating with people with whom they may

disagree, even disagree vehemently.

Conflict in Hodges ' Academic Program

16. Ms. Leonessa performed well in her academic work. But her

i nteractions with three fellow students and a professor were marked with

conflicts. She attributed the conflict to discrimination against her on account

of her religion. The evidence does not support the attribution. Ms. Leonessa ' s

sensitivity to the age di fferential between herself and other students and her

aggressive personality caused conflict with fellow students. Ms. Leonessa

acknowledged her aggressiveness, saying , " You know, I know I have a tone

a nd I ' ve been honest about that. I have a tone. " (Tr. V. I, p. 206) .

Ms. Leonessa also had a pattern of attributing any disagreement or conflict to

opposition to her Christian beliefs.

17. Dr. Thomas Hof f man taught many of Ms. Leonessa ' s classes. Like

Ms. Leonessa, Dr. Hoffman is a Christian. In email c ommunications each

referred to scripture. For instance , Dr. Hoffman, in counseling Ms. Leonessa

about alleviating her repeated personal conflicts, advised her to be " wise as a

serpent, but gentle as a dove. " Ms. Leonessa, in defense of her combative

approa ch said, " Jesus Christ spoke truth and was hated for it. "

18. Neither Dr. Hoffman nor any other Hodges representative ever

prohibited Ms. Leonessa from referring to her Christian beliefs in

communications with them. In addition , Dr. Hoffman never asked

Ms . Leonessa not to share her religious views, such as her anti - abortion

beliefs , in class.

19. As the years passed, Ms. Leonessa ' s communications to Dr. Hoffman

grew increasingly querulous and combative. Her tone was frustrated and

loud. She challenged Dr. Hoffman ' s competence, honesty, and integrity in a

disrespectful manner.

20. Ms. Leonessa clashed, in class and outside class, with three fellow

students. She felt the students did not treat her with the respect that was her

due because of her age . Ms. Leo nessa had a dispute with one student about

abortion. She had conflicts with another about the use of the " F " word in

class. Ms. Leonessa had a conflict with a third student who said that

Ms . Leonessa was trying to impose her values in class.

21. During th ese conflicts , Ms. Leonessa raised her voice and spoke

hostilely. Sometimes she pointed her finger. In an encounter outside of the

school, one of the students told Ms. Leonessa that Ms. Leonessa ' s beliefs were

" fÈed up " and that Ms. Leonessa should attend a Christian school. Once

Ms. Leonessa jerked on another student ' s purse strap to make a point. Those

three students did not have conflicts with other students or faculty. Also, as

will be addressed below, Ms. Leonessa had significant problems in her

intern ships, problems the other students did not have. The three students

were not similarly situated to Ms. Leonessa .

22 . Due to these conflicts and ways of interacting with Dr. Hoffman,

Hodges faculty met with Ms. Leonessa in February 2016 in an informal

coach ing session. The purpose was to address Ms. Leonessa ' s inability to

control her emotions and express herself in an appropriate manner. These

are all issues whose importance to counseling the Agreement, the Handbook,

and the Code all emphasize . Ms. Leonessa ' s religious beliefs were not the

reason for convening the coaching session or the communications during it.

23. The faculty also conducted informal coaching sessions with the other

three students.

24. Despite the coaching sessions, Ms. Leonessa ' s conflicts with the

students and Dr. Hoffman continued.

25. Hodges ' Handbook provides for establishing a formal Student

Development Plan (SDP) to assist students who are not performing in a

manner that is consistent with the Code. A n SDP ' s purpose is to for malize

concerns not resolved by the informal coaching and provide a plan for

addressing them. It is a remedial measure. Hodges established SDPs

infrequently. Since 2011 it ha s implemented seven .

26. The faculty created a n SDP for Ms. Leonessa and placed her on it in

October 2016. Ms. Leonessa ' s religious beliefs played no part in the decision

to create the plan or setting the plan ' s requirements.

27. The behaviors which the SDP addressed included the changes in

Ms. Leonessa ' s tone and raised volume when she disagreed with others, her

practice of interrupting others with whom she disagreed, and her belaboring

of class topics well after the instructor was trying to move the class to a

resolution and on to the next subject.

28. The plan provided supports an d measurable goals for Ms. Leonessa.

They were: (1) pairing her with a third - year student as a mentor ,

(2) completing a case study assignment, (3) completing role - playing exercise s ,

and (4) documenting her changes of tone and volume in class. Ms. Leonessa

disagreed with the SDP but agreed to follow it and signed it some two months

after the faculty presented it to her.

29. The role - playing exercises assigned to Ms. Leonessa involved same - sex

attraction and abortion. The faculty selected these two topics be cause they

recur frequently in counseling. Ms. Leonessa ' s religious beliefs were not the

reason for selecting the topics. Ms. Leonessa successfully completed the SDP.

30. The three students with whom Ms. Leonessa clashed were not placed

on SDPs. Their issu es did not match Ms. Leonessa ' s in frequency or intensity.

Practicum

31. Ms. Leonessa sought to establish a practicum placement at Cape

Christian , also known as Samaritan Health and Wellness Center (Cape

Christian). There was some uncertainty whether the supervision available at

Cape Christian met Hodges ' requirements. Ms. Leonessa ' s contact at Cape

Christian, Ms. Trout, was not satisfactorily respo nsive to Ms. Leonessa ' s

efforts to sort the issue out. This resulted in combative telephone calls and

emails from Ms. Leonessa to Ms. Trout.

32. An excerpt from one email illustrates Ms. Leonessa ' s pattern of

hostility and injecti o n of religion into disput es.

33. In a December 5, 2016, email to Ms. Trout from Ms. Leonessa

describing her displeasure with the responsiveness of Cape Christian and a

conversation with one of Ms. Trout ' s co - workers, Ms. Leonessa wrote:

You stated I chewed her out but you were n ot on the

phone. I did not disparage her character in any way,

I said as believers we are to keep our word and that

now I would have to find another place at the last

minute. That is all I said. The Bible says be angry

and sin not. According to what I have heard, you do

not believe people should be angry and I would bet

there are times in your life when you have had an

unprofessional tone. Also I have had to wait weeks

before hearing back from you, it amazed me how

quickly you called about this situation - se conds!

34. Ms. Trout replied:

If you were my student and you ' d have behaved in

the manner as this [sic], you would be put in a

professional development status, complete with

remediation, to determine your appropriateness to

move forward in the field of co unseling. The fact that

you sent this email in its current form further

highlights the display of lack of professionalism and

emotional maturity now exhibited in two separate

phone calls as well. I would encourage that you seek

some assistance in processin g your emotions, and

the manner in which you communicate those. I wish

you the best.

35. Ms. Leonessa replied to Ms. Trout, " Please do not contact me further. "

36. Ms. Trout forwarded the email exchange to Sue Hook and Dr. Mary

Nuosce of Hodges. Dr . Nuos ce answered, " Amy, I apologize for her total lack

of professionalism. We are working on this. Thank you for your patience. "

37. This incident triggered an update to the SDP. The update w as because

of Ms. Leonessa ' s conduct and unrelated to her religious be liefs.

38. Ultimately , Ms. Leonessa obtained and successfully completed a

practicum with FRS/Omega Center. Tina Friedman was her supervisor . Ms.

Friedman twice noted in the July 7, 2017, evaluation form that Ms. Leonessa

required ongoing attention in the area of values management. The values

criteri on relates to many of the requirements and principles of the

Agreement, the Code, and the Handbook. The evaluation form describes it

thus: " Value Management: How did the student cope with values? Were

attempts m ade to impose the student ' s values during the interview? "

39. Ms. Friedman ' s Session Evaluation Form noted, " Connie does

repeatedly offer her own values during client/student interaction. "

Ms. Friedman wrote a note to Ms. Leonessa on the form stating that

Ms. Leonessa ' s development was at an expected level save for in values

management. The note w e n t on to specify : " Please work more diligently in

this area as that may [prove] to be a problem in the future. "

40. The August 17, 2017, final evaluation emphasi zed the problem stating,

HER BURNING DESIRE TO INITIATE CHANGE,

MAY PROVE TO BE HER MOST DIFFICULT

PERSONAL CHALLENGE AS A CLINICIAN. IT IS

HOPED THAT IN TIME AND WITH FURTHER

EXPOSURE TO THE TENETS OF EFFECTIVE

COUNSELING, CONNI CAN LEARN TO ACCEPT

AND M EET THE CLIENT WHERE THEY ARE AT

IN THE PROCESS. CONNI HAS STRONG, DEEP

ROOTED BELIEFS AND VALUES, WHICH MAY

BE DIFFERENT THAN THOSE OF THE CLIENTS

AS WELL AS HER PEERS, THAT SHE

ENCOUNTERS. I HAVE SHARED THIS

OBSERVATION WITH CONNI AND HAVE

ENCOURAGED HER TO CONSIDER THE

IMPORTANCE OF BEING OPEN AND

ACCEPTING TO THE DIVERSITY OF THE

POPULATION SHE WILL SERVE.

Internships

41. Ms. Leonessa obtained an intern position with True Core Behavioral

Solutions (True Core). True Core provided services to the Ft . Myers Youth

Academy, a juvenile detention center. True Core terminated Ms. Leonessa ' s

internship after two days. The problems leading to her termination were

those of value imposition and boundary crossing presaged by her practicum.

42. Ms. Leonessa part icipated in two counseling sessions for the juveniles.

Her improper conduct included sharing personal information about her

abandonment by her husband and her celibacy since then. In the counseling

profession this boundary crossing behavior is often damagi ng to the

therapeutic process. Ms. Leonessa also criticized a young man who supported

his girlfriend obtaining an abortion, telling him abortion was murder and

talked about holding premature babies in her hands. She criticized some of

the youth for engagin g in premarital sex telling them it violated God ' s law.

She told one young man his troubles stemmed from abandonment by his

father. This conduct demonstrated emotionalism and an inability to respect

client perspective s that the SDP was intended to ameliorate. For this reason ,

Hodges updated the SDP.

43. Ms. Leonessa acknowledges that it would be professionally wrong for a

counselor to advocate her personal religious beliefs and values to clients. She

denies that she did so. But the preponderance of the competent, substantial

evidence proves that she did. True Core reported Ms. Leonessa ' s termination

and the causes for it to Hodges.

44. After Ms. Leonessa ' s termination from True Core, Dr. Mary Nuosce,

Dean of the Nichols Schools of Professional Studies and a faculty member,

tried to assist her in finding another internship placement. Dr. Nuosce was

the supervisor for Ms. Leonessa ' s internships. She approached Janean Byrne

from Serenity Counseling about accepting Ms. Leones sa as an intern.

Dr. Nuosce thought Serenity might suit Ms. Leonessa more because it was a

faith - based counseling provider. She gave Ms. Leonessa Ms. Byrne ' s contact

information and asked her to follow up on establishing an internship.

Ms. Leonessa did not seek the internship. She refused to contact Ms. Byrne

for non - specified reasons. She told Dr. Nuosce, " I just emailed her

[Ms. Byrne] and turned down the position. What occurred today has taught

me that I need to find a place where my values are shared an d respected so I

will continue to look for a sight [sic]. "

45. W hen Dr. Nuosce asked how she could be so judgmental about

someone she had never met, Ms. Leonessa responded , " I never said anything

against her [Ms. Byrne], however, I am looking for a place t hat shares my

biblical values especially after what occurred today that is all. I do have the

right to choose where I want to intern at! "

46. Hodges ' faculty continued efforts to help Ms. Leonessa locate an intern

position. Ms. Leonessa obtained an interns hip at HEADS. Within a few

weeks, HEADS dismissed her . Ms. Leonessa worked with therapist Julie

Jakobi attending sessions with clients. Jerry Sprague, HEADS ' s clinical

supervisor for Ft. Myers , selected Ms. Jakobi to work with Ms. Leonessa

because he was a ware of Ms. Leonessa ' s ardent Christian beliefs and Ms.

Jakobi held similarly strong Christian beliefs.

47. The first client Ms. Jakobi and Ms. Leonessa saw was a 13 - year old

female with a long history of running away and conflict with her mother.

The y s aw her at school in a room in the office. The student was very

concerned about telling her mother that she was gay. After the student left

the room, Ms. Leonessa turned and loudly and aggressively confronted

Ms. Jakobi telling her she was wrong in her counseling of the student.

Ms. Leonessa insisted Ms. Jakobi should have told the student that she

would catch sexually transmitted diseases, she would become depressed, and

she would commit suicide.

48. The room ' s door was open, and a secretary sat right o utside the door.

The lack of privacy and danger to client confidentiality concerned Ms. Jakobi.

49. They also visited a client, a man concerned about becoming an opioid

addict and the effect on him of growing up in a rough neighborhood. He and

his wife we re separated and had completed the documents necessary to

finalize their divorce. Ms. Jakobi had informed Ms. Leonessa of the pending

divorce before they arrived at the home. Ms. Jakobi and Ms. Leonessa met

with the client at his wife ' s home. Ms. Leonessa began talking to the man

about how he could work through his problems and learn to love his wife

better. This " froze " the client and sabotaged efforts to provide the addiction

counseling he sought.

50. On the drive back to the office, Ms. Leonessa was ver y rude and

hostile to Ms. Jakobi. Ms. Leonessa was physically tense. Her tone was

sharp.

51. Ms. Leonessa brought up homosexuality again and renewed advocacy

of " conversion therapy. " At the time , this was not permitted .

52. As soon as she left Ms. Leonessa at her car, Ms. Jakobi called

Mr. Sprague to report the day ' s incidents. He concluded that quick action was

required and asked Ms. Leonessa to apologize to Ms. Jakobi. It is worth

noting that Mr. Sprague ' s email signature quote s from the Bible, Psalm 82:3 .

53. Ms. LeonessaÔs apology read as follows: " I realize not everyone see ' s

[sic] things eye to eye. However when differences occur truth needs to be

spoken in a way that is gentle . I realize my ' tone ' is not always gentle and I

am working on this. " This is no apology and was not received as one.

54. Mr. Sprague spoke further to Ms. Jakobi and another counselor who

worked with Ms. Leonessa about their experiences with her. He concluded

that he was " not convinced that she will not cause harm. " He deci ded that

terminating Ms. Leonessa promptly was best. Mr. Sprague ' s September 27,

2018, email to Dr. Nuosce explaining his decision is persuasive and was

reasonably accepted by the Hodges faculty.

55. He began by reporting that Ms. Leonessa was very difficu lt to

communicate with. He reported that Ms. Leonessa " f ailed at a very basic

level to demonstrate the ability to maintain appropriate boundaries and to

demonstrated basic empathy skills. "

56. His email went on to state:

I would be surprised if you didn ' t already know this

as her strong personality, strong beliefs and

aggressive tendencies are hard for her to manage.

She had told me she has had conflicts with

professors so I imagine this is why.

57. He concluded that Ms. Leonessa was " stuck on a superficial

(immature) level of reasoning and so she is failing to both read others well

and to maintain appropriate social boundaries È . " Mr. Sprague strongly

suggested Ms. Leonessa consider a different career than counseling.

58. This report, supported by the evidence in this case, caused Dr. Nuosce

to conclude that Ms. Leonessa was not complying with her revised SDP. Also

Ms. Leonessa had failed to complete two internship programs and one

practicum . Failure to complete the practicum revealed significant problems

which persisted. Three internships are required to obtain a counseling degree

from Hodges. Ms. Leonessa completed none. For these reasons , Hodges

administratively withdrew Ms. Leonessa.

59. Ms. Leonessa appealed within the Hodges system. Her appe al papers

did not acknowledge what she had done wrong or how she proposed to

improve. Instead th ey discussed her background and accused Hodges of

repeatedly violating its policies and procedures.

60. Hodges ' Provost reviewed the many documents generated du ring

Ms. Leonessa ' s tumultuous enrollment. He noted the similarity of reports of

unacceptable behavior from different and unrelated sources, wi thin and

without the U niversity. He denied the appeal.

Summary

61. The record of Ms. Leonessa ' s three years in Hodges ' counseling

program, including her time in practicum and internships, is a record of

consistent, disputatious conduct . When the subject of religion, specifically

Christianity arose, it was because Ms. Leonessa initiated criticisms of others '

behavi or as unchristian, because Ms. Leonessa sought to advocate her

Christian views to counseling clients, and because she explicitly judged

clients ' actions, decisions, and options by her standards. The evidence does

not prove that Hodges took any actions agai nst Ms. Leonessa , including

imposition of the SDP and termination from the p rogram because of her

religion. Hodges ' terminated her because she violated the fundamental

counseling requirement to accept clients as they are and not seek to impose

he r values on them.

62. The record does not prove that any of the practicum and internship

providers took any actions against Ms. Leonessa on account of her religious

beliefs. Furthermore, the practicum and internship providers were

independent of Hodges. They were n ot subject to its control or direction or

acting in its stead.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

63. The Division has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of

this dispute. § § 120.569, 120.57(1) and 760.11(7), Fl a. Stat. (2020).

64. Ms. Leonessa seeks relief under section 760.10(5). It reads:

Whenever, in order to engage in a profession,

occupation, or trade, it is required that a person

receive a license, certification, or other credential,

become a member or an associate of any club,

association, or other organization, or pass any

examination, it is an unlawful employment practice

for any person to discriminate against any other

person seeking such license, certification, or other

credential, seeking to become a member or associate

of such club, association , or other organization, or

seeking to take or pass such examination, because of

such other person ' s race, color, religion, sex,

pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital

status.

65. The statute does not describe an employment practice in any

traditional sense. But , for purposes of c hapter 760, the Legislature has

defined what an unlawful employment practice is. The definition must be

applied. Metro. Dade Cty . v. Milton , 707 So. 2d 913 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).

66. To determine if Ms. Leonessa has proven a right to relief, at the outset

one must determine if the master ' s degree she seeks is required " in order to

engage in a profession, occupation, or trade. " Her claim fails at the outset.

67. Ms. Leonessa seeks to provide counseling services to you ng people.

Nothing in the record and no cited authority establishes that a master ' s

degree is required to provide counseling services to young people.

68. If a master ' s degree were required, Ms. Leonessa would have to prove

that Hodges terminated her enrol lment because of her religion. She may

prove the alleged discrimination by direct or circumstantial evidence.

Valenzuela v. Glo b e Ground N. Am., LLC , 1 8 So. 3d 17 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009).

69. Direct evidence proves the complained of discrimination without need

for interpretation, presumption, or inference. If the evidence suggests but

does not prove discriminatory intent, it is circumstantial not direct. Wilson v.

B/E Aerospace, Inc. , 376 F.3d 1079 (11th Cir. 2004). 2 There is no direct

evidence of discrimination against Ms. Leonessa in the record.

70. The case presents two possible theories of proof by circumstantial

evidence. The first is a " disparate treatment " theory , which requires proof

that Ms. Leonessa belongs to a protected class, that she was qualified to

remain in the program, and despite her qualifications she was terminated

while simila rly qualified student s were not. See Fla . Dept. of Cmty. Aff . v.

Bryant , 586 So. 2d 1205, 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)(applyin g the reasoning of

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d

668 (1973) , in interpreting c hapter 760).

71. Ms. Leonessa belongs to a protected class and she was terminated

from Hodges. But she did not prove that she was qualified to remain in the

program. She failed to establish qualification to continue in the program in

two ways. S he repeatedly failed to complete internship programs. Successful

completion of three was required to obtai n a degree. T he record does not

2 F ederal case law dealing with Tit le VII applies when interpreting c hapter 760 . School Bd.

of Leon Cty . v. Hargis , 400 So. 2d 103, 108 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

identify any students with similar qualifications and f ailing s who were

retained.

72. The second circumstantial evidence theory relies upon inferring

religious discrimination from the fact that the terminations from internships

involved words related to religious belief. But the evidence does not support

the inference. Ms. Leonessa inje cted the religious references in a way that

improperly sought to impose her values on clients. The evidence persuasively

establishes that Ms. Leonessa ' s comments violated the " values " requirements

of the counseling .

73. The evidence proved that Ms. Leoness a was unable or unwilling to

honor the requirement s of the program, the Agreement, the Handbook, and

the Code to refrain from imposing the counselor ' s values and beliefs upon the

client. She compounded this with hostile and combative reactions when

correct ed for that or other improper conduct. This violated the AgreementÔs

requirement to maintain an open , willing attitude to feedback.

74. In short, Ms. Leonessa failed to prove the unlawful discrimination she

alleged. Beyond that, Hodges proved it had legitimate, reasonable cause to

terminate Ms. Leonessa ' s enrollment.

R ECOMMENDATION

It is Recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations

enter a final order dismissi ng the Petition for Relief of Connie Leonessa.

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 22nd day of January , 2021 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

S

J OHN D. C. N EWTON , II

Administrative Law Judge

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

www.doah.state.fl.us

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Connie Leonessa

Florida Commission on Human American Liberties Institute

Relations Post Office Box 547503

Room 110 Orlando, Florida 32854

4075 Esplanade Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020 Matthew Brown McReynolds,

Esquire

Thomas K. Rinaldi, Esquire Pacific Justice Institute

Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC Post Office Box 276600

Suite 105 Sacramento, California 95827

4001 Tamiami Trail North

Naples, Florida 34103 Michelle Wilson, Executive Director

Florida Commission on Human

Cheyanne Costilla, Gen. Co. Relations

Florida Comm ission on Human 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110

Relations Tallahassee, Florida 32399

4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

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.