During the hearing, Barrington denied all of the Department of Health's charges, and claimed that the proffered reasons for termination were merely a pretext for illegal racial discrimination and retaliation. Counsel represented the parties and had the opportunity to present and cross-examine witnesses. Linville Atkins held a full evidentiary hearing on Barrington's claims. On July 10 and 22, 1998, hearing officer M. On May 20, 1998, Barrington appealed her dismissal by filing a complaint with the Florida Public Employment Relations Commission ("PERC"). By letter dated May 8, 1998, the Department of Health notified Barrington that she was being dismissed for threatening and/or abusive language and disruptive conduct. Barrington provided "direct observed therapy treatment," which meant that she delivered doctor-prescribed medication to the Department of Health's clients, and watched them ingest the medication. The Department of Health employed Barrington beginning in September 1996 as a Health Support Technician. Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the defendant's motion for summary judgment be GRANTED, and that the case be DISMISSED. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeals ("Fifth DCA") has previously affirmed the Florida Public Relations Commission's ("PERC") decision upholding Barrington's termination. Following a thorough review of the case file, relevant law, and the parties' arguments, the Court finds that the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata bar Barrington's claims. The case is presently before the Court on the Department of Health's motion for summary judgment to which Barrington has responded. Plaintiff Barbara Barrington ("Barrington"), who is appearing pro se, brings this action against the defendant, the Florida Department of Health ("Department of Health"), alleging wrongful termination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. This cause came on for consideration at a hearing on March 3, 2000, on the following motion: GLAZEBROOK, United States Magistrate Judge. The Report is adopted by this court.įor the reasons stated in the Report of the Magistrate Judge, summary judgement is granted to the defendant and this case is dismissed. The Magistrate Judge's recommendation that this suit is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel *1301 is correct in fact and law. Also before the court is a letter from plaintiff in which she states that she is not filing the same as "a letter of objections." The court has, however, considered the same as if it were objections filed to the Report and Recommendation.įrom a review of the entire case it appears that the plaintiff has fully litigated the issues she raises in this Title VII suit before the Florida Public Employment Relations Commission and on appeal therefrom to the Florida District Court of Appeals. Florida, Orlando Division.īefore the court is the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Glazebrook in which he recommends that the Motion of defendant for Summary Judgement be granted.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |