Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

CATHERINE SCOTT vs. HOLIDAY INN, 82-002525 (1982)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 82-002525 Visitors: 37
Judges: R. T. CARPENTER
Agency: Commissions
Latest Update: Nov. 15, 1990
Summary: Petitioner failed to rebut evidence produced by Respondent that her discharge was not motivated by discrimination, but by her inadequacy.
82-2525.PDF

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS


CATHERINE SCOTT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 82-2525

)

HOLIDAY INN, )

)

Respondent. )

)


RECOMMENDED ORDER


This matter came on for hearing in West Palm Beach, Florida, on February 3, 1983, before the Division of Administrative Hearings, and its duly designated Hearing Officer, R. T. Carpenter. The parties were represented by:


APPEARANCES


For Petitioner: Catherine Scott

12712 Ellison-Wilson Road Juno Isles, Florida 33408


For Respondent: Eugene W. Murphy, Jr., Esquire

Murphy, MacLaren & Littell, P.A.

341 Royal Poinciana Plaza Post Office Box 2525

Palm Beach, Florida 33480


This matter arose on Petitioner's complaint charging that Respondent fired her because of her sex and because she participated in an employment discrimination investigation. Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact which are incorporated herein to the extent they are relevant and consistent with the evidence.


FINDINGS OF FACT


  1. Petitioner was hired by the Palm Beach Gardens Holiday Inn in 1974. She began work as a cashier and later worked as a hostess in the restaurant. She was promoted to Food and Beverage Manager in 1978.


  2. On November 27, 1978, Respondent purchased the Holiday Inn and appointed Mr. John Astarita as its general manager. Astarita made several personnel changes in late 1978 and early 1979, and on March 9, 1979, discharged Respondent.


  3. Immediately prior to her discharge, Petitioner had given information to an investigator regarding a sex discrimination complaint of a female employee who had been discharged earlier by Respondent. Astarita questioned Petitioner about her conversation with the investigator the day before he discharged her. She refused to give him the information he sought.

  4. Petitioner's evidence of sex discrimination is limited to a rumor she had heard that Astarita did not want women in management positions. This hearsay evidence lacks credibility and is uncorroborated.


  5. Respondent's evidence established that Petitioner's job performance was not satisfactory. The ratio of liquor costs to sales had increased above an acceptable level, and she had failed to clean up the bar area after having been instructed to do so by Astarita.


    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW


  6. Section 23.167, Florida Statutes, provides in part:


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

      (a) To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to

      discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.

      * * *

      (7) It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer, an employment agency, a joint labor-management committee, or a labor organization

      to discriminate against any person because that person has opposed any practice which is an unlawful employment practice under this section, or because that person has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner

      in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this section.


  7. The above provisions prohibit an employer from discharging an employee because of her sex or participation in an employment practice investigation.


  8. Petitioner presented no credible evidence that she was fired because of her sex. The evidence of discharge for participation in an investigation consisted only of the proximity of her discharge to the date she was questioned about her involvement in the investigation.


  9. Any inference that could be drawn from the timing of her discharge was overcome by Respondent's evidence that Petitioner failed to meet reasonable requirements established for her position. Thus, there has been no showing of any unlawful employment practice in violation of the above provisions.

RECOMMENDATION


From the foregoing, it is


RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's complaint.


DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1983, at Tallahassee, Florida.


R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675


Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 1983.


COPIES FURNISHED:


Ms. Catherine Scott

12712 Ellison-Wilson Road Juno Isles, Florida 33408


R. E. Williams, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human

Relations

2562 Executive Center Circle, East Suite 100, Montgomery Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301


Eugene W. Murphy, Jr., Esquire Murphy, MacLaren & Littell, P.A.

341 Royal Poinciana Plaza Post Office Box 2525

Palm Beach, Florida 33480


Docket for Case No: 82-002525
Issue Date Proceedings
Nov. 15, 1990 Final Order filed.
May 30, 1983 Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED.

Orders for Case No: 82-002525
Issue Date Document Summary
Aug. 10, 1983 Agency Final Order
May 30, 1983 Recommended Order Petitioner failed to rebut evidence produced by Respondent that her discharge was not motivated by discrimination, but by her inadequacy.
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer