STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

SHEILA D. CRAWFORD, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-3619

) ABB POWER DISTRIBUTION, INC., )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing in the above-styled matter was held on September 25, 1991, in Sanford, Florida, before Joyous D. Parrish, a designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties were represented at the hearing as follows:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Sheila D. Crawford, pro se

3650 Washington Street

Sanford, Florida 32771

For Respondent: Stuart I. Saltman

ABB Power T & D Company, Inc. 630 Sentry Park

Blue Bell, Pennsylvania 19422 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner was terminated from her employment with the Respondent in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This case began on May 15, 1989, when the Petitioner, Sheila D. Crawford, filed a charge of discrimination against the Respondent with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission). That charge alleged that Petitioner had been discriminated against on account of her race when she was discharged from her employment on May 5, 1989. Subsequent to its investigation of the allegations, the Commission issued a notice of determination of no cause finding that there was no reasonable cause to believe that the Respondent had committed an unlawful employment practice. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a petition for formal proceedings and the matter was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 10, 1991.

At the hearing, Petitioner testified in her own behalf. The Respondent presented the testimony of the following witnesses: Michael McDonnell, human resources manager for the Respondent; Richard Gardner, manufacturing supervisor

for the Respondent; and Runette Giles, a wiring assembler employed by the Respondent. The Respondent's exhibits numbered 1 through 3 were admitted into evidence.

After the hearing, the parties were granted ten days leave to file proposed recommended orders. The Petitioner elected to so file and her proposed order has been considered in the preparation of this order. Specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact are included in the attached appendix. A transcript of the proceedings has not been filed.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made:

1. Petitioner is a black female who was employed by the Respondent on or about March 21, 1989.

   
   

2. Petitioner's job with the Respondent was to assemble and wire electrical devices in a designated configuration and to a specified standard.

   
   

3. Petitioner was the only black employee stationed in her job location, but the company employes other blacks in other areas of production. Petitioner's job was an entry level position which required minimum skills but aptitude for the work and attention to detail were necessary.

   
   

4. During her employment with the Respondent, Petitioner was supervised by Charlie Goodman. Mr. Goodman was known to be a demanding and sometimes brusk individual.

   
   

5. Petitioner perceived the corrections Mr. Goodman required to be personally directed toward her. Others besides Mr. Goodman observed Petitioner's work and deemed it inadequate to the requirements of the job. Both Mr. Gardner and Ms. Giles observed that Petitioner made errors or took too long to perform routine tasks.

   
   

6. Mr. Gardner confronted Petitioner on two occasions regarding her work performance. In both cases, Petitioner responded by claiming Mr. Goodman was "nit picking" her work and was demeaning to her personally.

   
   

7. Finally, on May 5, 1989, when Petitioner's work performance did not improve, Mr. Gardner advised Petitioner that she was terminated.

   
   

8. Respondent is an employer within the definition of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.

   
   

9. Respondent did not terminate Petitioner on account of her race but because her work performance fell below company standards.

   
   

10. Subsequent to Petitioner's termination, Respondent's production demand decreased resulting in layoffs. Those positions, including Petitioner's, have not been filled.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

11. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of these proceedings.

12. Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part:

    
    

    1. It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer:

       1. To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compen- sation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.

          
          

13. In cases such as this, the burden of proof requires that the Petitioner go forward to present facts which establish a prima facie case of discrimination in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Once a Petitioner meets that burden, the burden of proof then shifts to the Respondent to articulate and substantiate legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the actions complained of and which Petitioner has established. Those reasons may not be pretextual but must be well-founded and articulated in pursuit of some legitimate business purpose.

    
    

14. In this case, the Petitioner has not established that Respondent terminated her from employment in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner was terminated because she did not meet the company's standards for assemblers. The Petitioner was trained for approximately one month, when her performance did not improve, Respondent elected to terminate her. The Petitioner was not entitled to a specified training period or to a shield from the personalities of her coworkers. Unfortunately, Petitioner worked with Mr. Goodman and they, evidently, did not work well together. The Respondent did not terminate Petitioner unlawfully just because Mr. Goodman was apparently difficult at times. The record in this case does not suggest that Mr. Goodman was difficult because Petitioner is black. To the contrary, Mr. Goodman was apparently demanding of everyone.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's claim of discrimination against this Respondent.

RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

JOYOUS D. PARRISH

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904)488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd

day of October, 1991.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-3619

RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER:

1. Paragraphs 3, 5, and 6 are accepted.

   
   

2. All other paragraphs are rejected as irrelevant, argument, or unsupported by the weight of the credible evidence presented in this case.

RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT:

None submitted.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Margaret Jones, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations

325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570

Dana Baird General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570

Sheila D. Crawford 3650 Washington Street

Sanford, Florida 32771

Stuart I. Saltman

ABB Power T & D Company, Inc. 630 Sentry Park

Blue Bell, PA 19422

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS:

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 91-003619

Orders for Case No: 91-003619