St. Johns County School Dist. v. O'Brien

Decision Date28 December 2007
Docket NumberNo. 5D06-1172.,5D06-1172.
Citation973 So.2d 535
PartiesST. JOHNS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, Appellant, v. Charles F. O'BRIEN, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Thomas J. Leek and Kelly V. Parsons of Cobb & Cole, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Charles F. O'Brien, Porite Vedra Beach, pro se.

THOMPSON, J.

St. Johns County School District challenges a final order of the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("FCHR") affirming the Administrative Law Judge's finding that the School District discriminated against the appellee, Charles F O'Brien, on the basis of a perceived disability of alcoholism.1

Mr. O'Brien alleged in his suit filed pursuant to the Florida Civil Rights Act, sections 760.01-.11, Florida Statutes (2004), that he was not offered a teaching position at Nease High School because of a perceived disability of alcoholism. The School District contends that Mr. O'Brien's preliminary qualification for employment was revoked and he was disqualified for the teaching position because of inaccurate answers on his application. Specifically, he did not disclose two DUI's that were revealed during a criminal background check. The School District contends the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") erred in its recommended order, adopted as part of the FCHR's final order, because its findings of fact and conclusions of law were not supported by competent, substantial evidence. Further, Mr. O'Brien was not hired because of a facially neutral policy that applied to all applicants for employment. We reverse because Mr. O'Brien failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination.

Because the School District's procedures and policies are at issue, we detail the chronology of the case. In January 2004, the School District discontinued its paper application process and adopted a computerized application process, known as PATS. The School District sent a letter to all previous paper applicants, including Mr. O'Brien, at the beginning of December 2003, instructing them to reapply for employment using PATS, and notifying them that the School District would no longer use any previously filed paper applications.2

Once an applicant completes a PATS application, he or she is preliminarily qualified based upon their responses, including any representation about prior criminal history. When individual schools within the School District post open teaching positions to the PATS system, PATS matches the applicant's specific area of interest and automatically generates an email notifying the applicant of the open position. The applicant must then access PATS and specifically apply for the position. The school interviews the applicants and selects the one who best meets its needs.

A two-part review process called "A & B" then initiates. Part A includes a drug test and fingerprinting to check the applicant's criminal background. Part B requires the applicant to attend an orientation session. If a criminal background check reveals a criminal history that is inconsistent with the applicant's representations in the PATS system, the applicant is automatically disqualified, and the school may choose another applicant from those interviewed or repost the position.

On 24 February 2004, Mr. O'Brien completed a PATS application and represented that he had no criminal history, contrary to answers he had given in his previous paper application. As a result, he initially qualified as an applicant and entered the general pool of preliminarily qualified applicants.

Nease High School posted a physical science/chemistry position for the 2004-2005 school year, and Mr. O'Brien applied for the position. He was one of three candidates selected for an interview with Mr. Corson, Vice Principal of Nease. Although Mr. O'Brien did not hold a valid State of Florida teaching certificate and lacked substantive teaching experience, Mr. Corson selected him for the open position as the most qualified candidate interviewed, thereby initiating the A & B review process.

The School District conducted Mr. O'Brien's criminal background check and learned that the representations on his PATS application were inaccurate. Mrs. Geiger, Director of Instructional Personnel of the Human Resources Department (HR), learned of the DUI's on 7 July 2004. She notified Mr. Corson and Mr. Robert Schiavone, Principal of Nease, that Mr. O'Brien was automatically, disqualified for the position and his offer of employment had been rescinded. She did not tell them about the DUI's, only that Mr. O'Brien's application and criminal background did not match. School District policy required Mr. Schiavone to either repost the position or hire one of the other two candidates from. Mr. O'Brien's applicant pool. Mr. Schiavone chose to repost the position on 13 July 2004.

The School District's policy is that any applicant with two or more DUIs, regardless of whether their PATS application was accurate, must provide proof of treatment to requalify as an applicant. This policy allows an applicant to cure what would otherwise be a defective application. The purpose is to fulfill the School District's obligations under its safe and drug free workplace policy, to increase the likelihood that the applicant will be a successful employee, and to ensure student safety in case the applicant is required to drive students.

The day after the School District disqualified Mr. O'Brien, he met with Mr. Springfield, Director of HR, and Mrs. Geiger. Mrs. Geiger recalled that. Mr. Springfield informed Mr. O'Brien of the results his criminal background check and that he could requalify for employment by updating the inaccurate answers on his PATS application and providing proof of treatment for his DUI convictions. However, Mr. Springfield could not recall whether he advised Mr. O'Brien of his need to document treatment or that he could reapply. Mrs. Geiger confirmed on 8 July that Mr. O'Brien's paper application disclosed the DUI convictions and date and place of treatment. Mrs. Geiger posted Mr. O'Brien's treatment requirement on PATS on 22 July and also sent him a courtesy email reminder that day.

Mr. O'Brien could have provided proof of treatment in person, by facsimile, or electronically. After the 8 July meeting, Mr. O'Brien revised his PATS application to accurately reflect his criminal background. A School District committee reviewed his answers and agreed that he could apply for an employment position upon proof of treatment. The School District's Executive Council met on 12 July and confirmed the committee's, decision to require Mr. O'Brien to provide proof of treatment.

After the Nease principal reposted the physical science/chemistry position on 13 July, Mr. O'Brien reapplied on 15 July for the teaching position. PATS again notified Mr. Corson and Mr. Schiavone of Mr. O'Brien's interest. Even though he had not yet provided proof of treatment, Mr. Corson and Mr. Schiavone again considered him for the reposted teaching position. Mr. Corson called Mr. O'Brien to let him know that he was being considered for the position and that, in light of his recent interview, there was no need for another interview.

On 26 July 2004, Mr. Corson and Mr. Schiavone recommended another candidate, Debra Nall, to HR for the teaching position. Although Ms. Nall had not applied in the initial posting of the position, she had a Florida state teaching certificate in general science and biology, many years of teaching experience, and an excellent recommendation from her former principal. When HR recommended Ms. Nall, Mr. O'Brien had not yet requalified as an applicant, and, therefore, he was not eligible for the position despite further consideration by Mr. Corson and Mr. Schiavone. Mr. O'Brien brought his military records to the School District's office and satisfied proof of treatment on 27 July 2004, one day after it hired Ms. Nall. Mrs. Geiger advised him that HR immediately requalified him as an eligible applicant.

In September 2004, Mr. O'Brien filed a complaint of discrimination with FCHR alleging that the School District did not hire him for the reposted teaching position because of his "perceived" disability of alcoholism and challenging the legality of the proof of treatment policy. He claimed a violation of the FCRA pursuant to section 760.10.

On 18 July 2005, the FCHR issued a "no cause" determination, and Mr. O'Brien then requested relief from the Department of Administrative Hearings. On 21 October 2005, an ALJ conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the School District discriminated against Mr. O'Brien on the basis of perceived disability. A human resources specialist represented Mr. O'Brien. At the outset of the hearing, Mr. O'Brien's representative affirmed that he was not asserting a claim that the proof of treatment requirement violated ADA; he was proceeding solely under the disparate treatment claim. Mr. O'Brien chose not to testify at the hearing and examined only those witnesses offered by the School District. He introduced no evidence.

On 29 December 2005, the ALJ found that the School District discriminated against Mr. O'Brien by revoking his offer of employment and requiring him to reapply, requiring him to provide proof of treatment and failing to notify him of such requirement, and reposting the teaching position and hiring a non-disabled individual. Its Recommended Order required that the School District "cease and desist in the practices mentioned; that the [School District] be directed to hire [O'Brien] upon his submitting an application for employment."

After considering the School District's Exceptions to the Recommended Order, FCHR issued an Order Awarding Affirmative Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice and Remanding Matter for Determination of Additional Relief. The School District appealed.

Mr. O'Brien brought suit under the FCRA, sections 760.01-.11, Florida Statutes (2004). The FCRA is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Abadi v. Walt Disney World Parks & Resorts
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 25 Mayo 2022
    ...42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Due to their similarities, the FCRA is construed in conformity with the ADA. See St. Johns Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. O'Brien , 973 So. 2d 535, 540 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) ; Byrd v. BT Foods, Inc. , 948 So. 2d 921, 925 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) ; Lenard v. A.L.P.H.A. "A Beginning" Inc. ,......
  • Smith v. Brevard Optometry Assocs.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 17 Abril 2014
    ... ... See42 U.S.C. § 12111; St. Johns Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. O'Brien, 973 So.2d 535, 540 (Fla. 5th ... ...
  • Smith v. Brevard Optometry Assocs.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • 27 Diciembre 2013
    ...disability discrimination through the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). See 42 U.S.C. § 12111; St. Johns Cnty. Sch. v. Hogan, 973 So. 2d 535, 540 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007). Under the ADA and the FCRA, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Second, the empl......
  • Wilson v. Sarasota Cnty., Case No. 8:10-cv-0489-T-27EAJ
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida
    • 25 Octubre 2011
    ...Plaintiffs have not stated a cause of action for discrimination under the ADA or Florida law. See St. Johns Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. O 'Brien, 973 So. 2d 535,540 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (Florida's disability discrimination law is construed in conformity with the ADA).Substantive Due Process Count IV......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT