The Case Of Norma Gilo Versus The Department Of Corrections

In a civil trial, it is the duty of the judge or jury to examine the evidence, and determine if the defendant should be held legally responsible for allegations presented by the plaintiff. As we analyze the case of Norma Gilo versus The Department of Corrections, we will discuss the allegations, positions of each party, and laws involved to factually support allegations and refutes. Before we can analyze the case of Norma Gilo versus The Department of Corrections, we must first understand the positions of each party and the allegations that uniquely makes the case. Norma Gilo, the plaintiff, requested legal action against her former employer, The Florida Department of Corrections, alleging that she was fired because of: (1) Gender Discrimination,

The report was then brought to the attention of Gilo’s supervisor Dr. Hantz Hercule. On August 15, 2012, Dr. Hercule traveled to the institution to meet with the plaintiff Norma Gilo, Warden William Churchwell, Assistant Warden Norma Kelly and Health Services Administrator Monica Crutchfield to discuss the investigation of unsigned DNRs. In the meeting, Gilo proved her unprofessionalism by questioning the reason for the meeting and challenging the supervisors’ credentials to question her. After order of temporary reassignment to Holmes CI for two weeks until the investigation was complete, Gilo insisted that she would not be reporting to Holmes CI and requested two weeks of annual leave. Gilo was then ordered to submit a written statement of her refusal to accept her temporary assignment. Dr. Hercules then strongly recommended termination for Gilo’s unprofessionalism, in which Dr. Ogunsanwo (Dr. Hercules’s supervisor) made the final decision of termination. Later, it was discovered on Gilo’s application for Chief Health Officer that she was willing to relocate if necessary. Although this evidence was not a major influence in the termination of Gilo at the time, it served as supporting evidence and reasoning of her termination, and proved it was

The plaintiff stated that she was rejected a job opportunity with Corizon after the employer contacted Dr. Ogunsanwo for further review before hire. In order to establish a case for retaliation under Title VII, “the plaintiff must show that: (1) she engaged in a statutorily protected activity: (2) she suffered materially adverse employment action; and (3) there is a causal connection between her participation in the protected activity and the adverse employment action.” There are many proven reasons why retaliation is contradictory to the facts of the case. Succeeding the termination of the plaintiff, the Department privatized majority of its health care through