STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
HARRY BURGE, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE No. 87-2805
)
NATIONAL FEDERATION OF )
INDEPENDENT BUSINESS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the above matter was heard before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Donald R. Alexander, on October 21 and 22, 1987 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: William R. Amlong, Esquire
101 Northeast Third Avenue, Second Floor Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
For Respondent: Christopher E. Cobey, Esquire
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2666 San Francisco, California 94101
BACKGROUND
This proceeding began when petitioner, Harry Burge, who was then 76 years old, filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) on April 2, 1986, alleging that respondent, National Federation of Independent Business, had terminated his employment with that firm because of his age. After conducting a preliminary investigation, the Commission issued an order on March 17, 1987 finding probable cause that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. Respondent's request for redetermination of that finding was denied by the Commission's executive director on May 19, 1987. When efforts to conciliate the complaint failed, a petition for relief was filed by Burge on June 18, 1987.
The petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 1, 1987 with a request that a hearing officer be assigned to conduct a hearing. By notice of hearing dated July 31, 1987 the final hearing was scheduled on October 21 and 22, 1987 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
At final hearing petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of John M. Mizenko and Robert W. Haverty. He also offered petitioner's exhibits 1-5, 8-14, 17-19, 21, 23-27 and 29. All were received in
evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Stanley J. Remick, Robert W. Haverty and John M. Mizenko. It also offered respondent's exhibits A-L. All were received in evidence.
The transcripts of hearing (two volumes) were filed on November 16, 1987. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed by the parties on December 1, 1987. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
The issue herein is whether petitioner was unlawfully terminated from his employment with respondent because of his age.
Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined:
FINDINGS OF FACT
An Overview
Petitioner, Harry Burge (Burge or petitioner), who was born on July 22, 1909, was hired by respondent, National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), on March 19, l981. 1/ The parties have stipulated that NFIB is an employer within the meaning of Subsection 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. The firm is a nonprofit, nonpartisan lobbying organization for small and independent businesses throughout the United States, having members in all fifty states. It is financed through the sale of memberships to small business owners. Such sales were made in one of two ways: by telephone (or telemarketing) and in person through a field force. Although its principal office is in San Mateo, California, it also has an office in Fort Lauderdale, Florida where its telemarketing division is located. When the events herein occurred, Burge was manager of the telemarketing division with responsibilities of employing, training and supervising the employees, who numbered around fifteen, and generally overseeing the division's operations.
The telemarketing division was established by NFIB in April, 1981 after Burge, with the assistance of Robert W. Haverty, brought the idea of doing so to the attention of NFIB. Basically, Burge and Haverty suggested that NFIB solicit (by telephone) former members who had decided, for one reason or another, not to renew their memberships. This type of sale was more commonly known as a "reinstatement." The idea resulted in the hiring of both, with Haverty, who was then sixty-two years of age, assuming the position of assistant manager. Although called the assistant manager, Haverty was actually considered to be a "co-manager" with Burge.
In 1985, NFIB made a management decision to create a western telemarketing division in Walnut Creek, California and to rename the Fort Lauderdale division as the eastern division. The western division was to be established on a one-year trial basis to determine if it was financially feasible and would be managed by Randall E. Parker, then a recently hired thirty-two year old contract employee. At the same time, NFIB's vice president for membership development, John M. Mizenko, who was also Burge's direct supervisor, made a decision to reduce "management costs" in the eastern division. To do this, he determined that only one functional managerial position was needed and that either Burge or Haverty could be terminated. Finding that Haverty was a more capable manager than Burge, Mizenko asked Burge to retire at the end of the year. Burge eventually did so on February 3, 1986,
albeit reluctantly, and later concluded that he had been forced to involuntarily
retire because of his age. This precipitated the filing of an age discrimination complaint against NFIB with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission).
Dialing for Dollars
The eastern division headquarters consisted of a telephone room and one "private" office which Burge and Haverty shared. In the telephone room was a bank of telephones used by NFIB sales representatives who solicited memberships for the organization. When the events herein occurred, the representatives telephoned former members who had failed to renew their memberships.
Commissions were paid to the solicitors based on the success of their spiel.
The success of the solicitors also had a direct bearing on the amount of compensation that Burge and Haverty received. Since being hired in 1981, Burge and Haverty were compensated on an "override" basis under which they received nine and eight percent, respectively, of total division revenues. This formula resulted in Burge receiving total compensation of $89,952 in 1984 and
$81,811.19 in 1985. For the first month of 1986, Burge received $8,181. His counterpart, Haverty, earned $81,879 in 1985 and approximately $86,000 the following year.
The Genesis of the Termination Decision
In the spring of 1985 Mizenko began formulating plans for expanding NFIB's telemarketing services. At that time, Mizenko was recruiting Parker from another organization and told him of his plans to open a second telemarketing center. Memberships were then on the decline, and Mizenko's goal was to create a second division and to devise more creative ways to telemarket NFIB memberships. Mizenko also had plans to hire Parker as the new center's manager, particularly since Parker had extensive telemarketing experience and would bring new sales techniques to NFIB. Mizenko's plan was crystallized in a confidential memorandum sent on June 25, 1-986 to NFIB's president, John Sloan. In it, Mizenko noted that member cancellations were increasing, that the Fort Lauderdale operations were "backed up," and that, by creating a new division, productivity could be increased through competition between the two divisions. He also noted that Parker, a contract employee since May 1985, would be an excellent choice for managing the division since Parker had significant prior telemarketing experience and several new ideas for increasing NFIB revenues.
The memorandum explained that under the proposal, both centers would do member reinstatements as well as new business work. Further, it pointed out that, pursuant to Parker's suggestion, two new types of calls would be made by the western division, both designed to enhance membership sales. Finally, Mizenko acknowledged that he could not "develop a cost expectation at that time" but anticipated an increase in revenues.
Not all of NFIB's management were convinced a new division should be established. One was W. E Critzer, then vice president of finance administration, who wrote Mizenko a memorandum on August 5, 1985 requesting that, before a new division be established, a specific "business plan" be developed and "the economy in having two telephone centers" be shown. It was Critzer's opinion that a single telephone operation "in the center of the country" with more solicitors and less "supervisory cost" was the most preferable course of action. In response to Critzer's concerns, Mizenko had Parker develop a written "proposed business plan" that was issued on August 16, 1985. After reading it, Critzer remained unconvinced as to the financial feasibility of the plan because the plan called for taking a substantial part of
"reinstatement leads" from the eastern division with no corresponding "reduction in staff" for its operations. By memorandum dated August 22, 1985, Critzer accordingly suggested that no changes be approved until the matter of the reduction in Florida's staff was addressed. In a memorandum from Sloan to Mizenko the same date, Sloan expressed surprise that Parker's business plan contained no financial pro forma or forecasting and suggested more thought be given to this matter. However, Sloan acknowledged "great interest" in the project and implied that approval was forthcoming.
Tangible evidence of Mizenko's intention to terminate Burge first surfaced in a second memorandum to Sloan dated August 16, 1985. In it, Mizenko stated that the "Fort Lauderdale office has an excess of management and management overhead" and that he (Mizenko) would "ask Harry Burge's retirement at year end." According to the memorandum, NFIB could achieve "a significant reduction in overhead costs" by cutting back from two shifts to one, adding a few WATTS lines, and having Burge retire. Mizenko also noted in the memorandum that the new center would receive 25 percent of the sales leads previously provided to the Fort Lauderdale office.
Mizenko gained Sloan's approval for his plan on September 18, 1985. Sloan authorized the new division to operate through 1986 but pointed out his "re-approval" would be necessary for any operations after that date. Sloan also emphasized the fact that western division employees would be hired on a "tentative" basis and that expenses must be closely monitored in both divisions. He added that "on a pure dollar and cents basis, a second telephone operation is not the most economical way to go." (Emphasis original)
At hearing, Mizenko admitted that when approval for the division was given, he had no precise figures to show that eastern division management costs could be reduced by terminating Burge. However, his best "judgment" led him to believe this action would produce favorable results in terms of cutting costs. Mizenko also had also decided by this time that Burge should be given the opportunity to retire rather than be terminated, since Mizenko believed Burge would be happier announcing his own retirement.
Dinner for Three
In late September 1985, Burge, Haverty and Mizenko had drinks and dinner at a cozy restaurant in Fort Lauderdale named the Bombay Bicycle Club. After drinks, and during the initial stages of the meal, Mizenko told Burge that a western telemarketing division would be established, that a new man, Randall Parker, would be its manager, and that two managers would no longer be needed in the eastern division. He also said that he intended Haverty to become eastern division manager and that he wanted Burge to retire at the end of 1985. Prior to these remarks, neither Burge nor Haverty were aware of the reorganization plan or the fact that NFIB considered the eastern division management costs excessive.
Burge appeared "surprised" at Mizenko's remarks. He asked, "Why me, instead of Bob (Haverty)?" Mizenko replied that he considered Haverty to be the more capable manager of the two, that Burge had been an excellent employee and that he should look forward to an enjoyable retirement. Mizenko also pointed out that, coupled with Social Security, Burge's pension package would provide a comfortable retirement.
Whether Burge enjoyed the remainder of his meal is debatable. However, Burge did not argue with Mizenko about the decision. Burge was not
offered any other options at that time, such as reducing his commission, accepting a lesser job, or transferring to another division. According to Mizenko, this was because Burge had refused a lesser sales position when he previously had been fired by NFIB in the mid-1970s. For that matter, neither Burge nor Haverty were ever considered by Mizenko for the position of western division manager. This was because Mizenko thought Parker, having developed the business plan, would be the best person to implement it. At one point, Burge asked Mizenko if he was going to give him another job, but Mizenko did not respond. When the evening ended, both Haverty and Mizenko were under the impression that Burge had accepted Mizenko's decision about retirement.
Second Thoughts
The next day at work, Burge did not appear happy. He told coworkers he had been "canned" and was being forced to retire. On October 15, Mizenko sent Burge a letter thanking him for his contributions to NFIB, confirming his "intention to commence active retirement," and advising him his retirement date had been extended through the end of January 1986 to "allow sufficient time for Bob Haverty to complete his vacation in January." It also told him to contact NFIB's personnel services director, Lucy Fontenot, if he had any questions "with reference to retirement." On October 23, Burge telephoned Fontenot and Ted Kochenriter, NFIB's treasurer, and during the course of their conversations, told both he had been fired again and did not wish to retire. 2/ This information was conveyed to Mizenko who learned for the first time that Burge was unhappy about his retirement. However, Mizenko did not believe Burge was serious when he made this statement and attributed it to Burge's sense of humor. On November 13, 1985, a memorandum was issued by NFIB to its field force announcing that a new western division was being established effective November
18 with Parker at its helm.
On December 5, 1985, or some seven weeks after receiving Mizenko's letter of October 15, Burge advised Mizenko by letter that he wanted to correct any impressions that his retirement might be voluntary and that the retirement was solely Mizenko's idea. He added that he did "not wish to retire," that he desired to continue working, and that his doctors assured him he was physically and mentally sound.
On February 3, 1986 Burge "retired" and was replaced by Haverty, who was sixty-eight years of age. The position of assistant manager was filled by another individual, but at a rate of pay (two percent commission) substantially less than was earned by Haverty in 1985. By this time, the western division had been in operation for two and one-half months, and Parker, then thirty-two years of age, was in place as its manager at a salary of almost $80,000 per year. The western division also had an assistant manager who earned less than $24,000 in 1986.
Burge's Managerial Style
Mizenko's decision that Haverty was a "better all- around" manager than Burge was based on several factors. First, Mizenko considered Haverty to have a better demeanor with other people than did Burge and to be "superior in interfacing with other managers." He also concluded that Haverty was "less caustic" than Burge and that Burge was more prone to exercise poor judgment due to his loose tongue. He believed Haverty to be more receptive to suggestions and criticisms than Burge and more cooperative with other company personnel. According to Mizenko, age had no bearing whatsoever on Burge's termination, particularly since he had been hired in 1981 at age 72 and was being replaced by
a 68 year old male. Finally, Mizenko saw no reason to keep two functional managers in the eastern division and determined that one of the two top-level managers must go.
Burge is an outspoken and outgoing person. He uses profanity and is prone to yell at employees if foul-ups occur. Although the office had one private area, Burge would reprimand or correct an employee in front of others if he observed any wrongdoing. Burge did not call employees "stupid" but on occasion used that adjective in describing their work. He characterized his co- manager Haverty as "lazy" and was of the opinion that Mizenko did not understand telemarketing. In relation to Burge, Haverty is not so loud or outspoken and has a more temperate managerial style. When disciplining employees, Haverty used more tact and did so in the privacy of his office. However, there is no evidence that any complaints were made against Burge by disgruntled employees.
While attending an NFIB convention dinner in San Mateo in early 1984, Burge was seated at a large table with others when the speaker introduced another NFIB manager named Mel Acles. Just when all the noise in the room unexpectedly abated, Burge, who had been drinking, made the comment that Acles was "the biggest asshole in the company." The comment was heard by everyone in the immediate area, including Mizenko and other management personnel. Burge later apologized and eventually wrote Mizenko a letter to that effect and promised that it would not happen again.
The NFIB used a form M350 to evaluate field personnel. On or about June 20, 1985 Mizenko instructed Burge to use the form in evaluating telemarketing personnel. Although Burge thought the form was "useless" for evaluating solicitors, he attempted to comply with Mizenko's order. Even Haverty agreed it was a "stupid document" and not appropriate for evaluating marketing personnel.
Cost Savings - Real or Hypothetical?
A considerable portion of the record is devoted to the question of whether NFIB actually saved any money by terminating Burge. Burge has raised this issue since he asserts that the so-called cost-saving motivation of Mizenko was really a pretext for firing him and that NFIB had no intentions of saving money. To this end, Burge argued that expenses actually increased after his discharge, while the employer contends that managerial costs have declined. To prove their respective contentions, the parties have used different measuring sticks to compare administrative costs when Burge was on the payroll and those incurred after his departure. It should be noted here that the western division experiment proved to be financially unfeasible and the division was discontinued in April 1987. 3/ Indeed, Mizenko characterized the project as a "financial disaster."
Mizenko believed that, prior to the decision to establish a new division, studies may have been performed by NFIB's accounting department to ascertain projected savings to be accomplished by terminating Burge. However, he did not know when they were made or if they were reduced to writing. He also acknowledged that there were no formal projections or studies made which formed the sole basis for terminating Burge. In any event, documentation introduced into evidence reveals that eastern division management compensation totaled
$162,454 in 1985 but dropped to $111,230 in 1986, or a decline of $51,224 in one year. At the same time, western division management compensation totaled
$78,362 in 1986, so that total telemarketing compensation increased by $10,160 during that time period. This figure must be tempered, however, by the fact
that the two divisions produced $458,668 in additional revenues over that generated by one division in 1985. Thus, the overall proportion of management costs to revenue fell from 18.0 percent in 1985 to 12.8 percent in 1986. In addition, management costs as a proportion of revenue in the eastern division alone dropped from 17.3 percent in 1985 to 11.0 percent in 1986. It also is noted that with the departure of Burge, and a 25 percent loss in sales leads, the eastern division still increased its revenues in 1986.
Projected budgets for the telemarketing division normally are prepared four to five months before the fiscal year. Accordingly, 1986 projected budgets would have been formalized around the time the western division plan was approved. For 1986 NFIB projected total revenues of $962,500 from both divisions and total management costs of $178,879. While the projected management costs exceeded 1985 costs by 18.6 percent, revenues were also projected to increase by $112,000 in 1986. Thus, NFIB predicted an increase in net revenues after its reorganization plan was in place.
Job Evaluations
No formal evaluations of Burge's performance were ever conducted by Mizenko, and Burge's personnel file did not contain any negative comments. All Burge's colleagues and subordinates appearing at hearing or through deposition testimony considered him to be a good employee and believed he had done a good job in leading the division. From a performance standpoint, it is noted that in 1985, the division exceeded its budgeted sales of $845,000 by approximately
$94,000.
Miscellaneous
Since leaving NFIB, Burge has attempted to find other work but has found none paying as much as he earned at NFIB. The record does not reflect whether he actually accepted any employment after February 3, 1986. Had he remained with NFIB in 1986, his annual compensation would have been nine percent of total revenues, or $91,196. The division's revenues for 1987 are not of record; therefore, lost wages in 1987 cannot be determined.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties thereto pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1986).
Initially, a brief comment is required as to the Commission investigative file offered into evidence by petitioner. Being "hearsay-ladened" in nature, it is, of course, admissible only for "limited corroborative" purposes under Subsection 120.58(1) (a), Florida Statutes (1985), School Board of Leon County v. Harqis, 400 So.2d 103, 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), and to establish that certain required procedural steps were taken before the case was submitted to this tribunal. Further, because the Section 120.57(l) proceeding is de novo in nature, McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569, 584 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), the Commission's preliminary determination as to cause or no cause is irrelevant. Therefore, in the absence of any testimony by the file's declarants, or a showing that such hearsay statements are otherwise admissible in a civil action, Subsection 120.58(l) (a), Florida Statutes (1985), the report cannot be used as substantive evidence.
Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985), is relevant to this proceeding and provides in part as follows:
It is unlawful employment practice for an employer:
To discharge . . . any individual . . . with respect to . . . employment, because of such individual's . . . age. . . .
The often-repeated allocations of proof in an employment discrimination case are as follows. First, the petitioner must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Having done so, the burden then shifts to respondent to rebut this preliminary showing by articulating or producing evidence of a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. Assuming the prima facie case has been rebutted, the burden shifts back to petitioner to show by a preponderance of evidence that respondent's proferred reason(s) for its employment decision were pretextual. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 101 S.Ct. 1089 (1981).
To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination where, as here, there is no direct evidence of discriminatory intent, federal decisional law and prior agency precedent teach us that Burge must show that (a) he is a member of a protected group, (b) he was discharged, (c) he was replaced by a person outside the protected group, and (d) he was qualified to do the job. See, for example, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 93 S.Ct. 1817 (1973); Maggio v. Martin Marietta Aerospace, 9 F.A.L.R. 2169, 2172-73 (FCHR 1986).
In the case sub judice, Burge has shown he is a member of a protected group, 4/ that he was discharged by his employer, and that he was qualified to do the job. The remaining element of proof requires Burge to show that he was replaced by someone outside the protected group. Under federal law, this would require a showing that Burge was replaced by someone outside the 40-70 age range (29 USC 621). However, having rejected the federal test in Sims v. Niagara Lockport Industries, Inc., 8 F.A.L.R. 3588 (FCHR 1986), the Commission requires only that Burge show he was replaced by someone of a different age than seventy- six, a task obviously not difficult for a claimant to prove. Here, Burge was replaced as manager of the eastern telemarketing division by Haverty, a sixty- eight year old male. While Burge contends he was replaced by Parker, then thirty-two years of age, the more persuasive evidence reflects otherwise. Even so, having shown his replacement was not seventy-six years old, Burge has produced evidence which gives rise to an inference of discrimination and has, therefore, established a prima facie case of discrimination.
To successfully counter petitioner's claim of discrimination, respondent must articulate a "legitimate, non- discriminatory reason" for Burge's termination. In this vein, the evidence demonstrates that a good faith business decision was made by respondent in 1985 to reorganize its telemarketing program in an effort to stimulate sales, that under this reorganization plan only one functional manager in the eastern division was needed, that Burge's managerial qualities did not measure up to those of Haverty, the person who replaced him, and that age played no role in the employment decision. The undersigned concludes that this is a legitimate non- discriminatory reason for respondent's decision and that respondent has shouldered the burden of rebutting petitioner's prima facie case and dispelled any inference of discrimination.
In response to respondent's case, Burge attempted to show the telemarketing reorganization plan and purported reduction in management costs
were but a pretext for his termination, that the choice of Haverty over Burge was tainted, and that age "made a difference" in the employment decision.
However, the evidence shows that NFIB's decision to reorganize and reduce costs was real, as evidenced by various memoranda between NFIB's corporate hierarchy and the testimony of Mizenko, and that management had a legitimate aim in reducing supervisory costs. Once the plan was implemented, management costs declined in relation to gross revenues, thereby confirming Mizenko's prediction. Finally, the evidence supports a conclusion that management's perception of the managerial styles of Burge and Haverty was not imagined or full of discrepancies. The differences between the two were sharp, and on balance, management preferred an employee of Haverty's temperament and demeanor.
In reaching the above conclusions, the undersigned has considered the numerous federal discrimination cases cited by Burge and their applicability to this scenario. However, Burge has not shown that age made a difference in NFIB's decision, or that reorganization was simply a scheme to rid NFIB of highly- paid older workers in favor of lower-paid younger employees, or that its proffered reasons were actually a ruse designed to conceal a discriminatory motive. Indeed, no inference of a causal connection between the employment decision and the prohibited motive of age reasonably can be drawn because of the proximity of Burge's age (76) to that of his replacement (68). Sims at 3591 (no discriminatory inference to be drawn from replacement of 45 year old employee with 41 year old employee). 5/ Therefore, the petition should be denied.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the petition for relief
with prejudice..
DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of December, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
DONALD R. ALEXANDER
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 1987.
ENDNOTES
1/ Burge had previously worked for NFIB on another occasion prior to 1981. 2/ Burge had been fired by NFIB many years ago at the end of his first stint
with the firm. This accounts for his statement that he was being fired "again."
3/ When the western division was discontinued, Parker was given the option of receiving a severance package or of applying for a position in the eastern telemarketing division.
4/ The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act, after which the state law is patterned, considers all persons between the ages of 40 and 70 to be within a "protected group." Therefore, under federal law, Burge would not fall within a protected class. However, the Commission interprets Chapter 760 more liberally, and prohibits "discrimination in employment on the basis of any age, birth to death." Sims v. Niagara Lockport Industries, Inc., 8 F.A.L.R. 3588, 3590-3591 (FCHR 1986). Hence, any person, no matter what his or her age, is presumably within the protected group. But, if this proposition is true, as the Sims case suggests, one could never show he was replaced by someone outside the protected group since all persons are protected. However, as noted in the main text of the order, the Commission has discarded this part of the federal test in favor of another standard.
5/ Were the rationale in Sims strictly followed, it could be argued that Burge made no prima facie case since no discriminatory inference could be reasonably drawn. Thus, the case would have ended at that point with no further legal analysis required. However, in testing the legal sufficiency of petitioner's case-in-chief, every reasonable inference in favor of petitioner has been made. By doing this, Burge passes muster on the sufficiency question.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE 87-2805
Petitioner:
Petitioner filed twenty-three legal sized pages of proposed findings. Many of the findings are cumulative, subordinate unnecessary or irrelevant, recitations of testimony, argument or conclusions of law, not supported by the evidence, or are otherwise objectionable (e.g., hearsay). To the extent the findings have been generally used or rejected, appropriate rulings are made hereinafter.
Covered in background.
Covered in finding of fact 1.
Covered in finding of fact 1.
Covered in finding of fact 3.
Covered in background.
Covered in conclusions of law.
Covered in findings of fact 1 and 2.
Covered in finding of fact 24.
Covered in finding of fact 8.
Covered in finding of fact 6.
Covered in findings of fact 6 and 8.
Covered in findings of fact 2, 11 and 13.
Covered in findings of fact 9 and 11.
Covered in finding of fact 16.
Covered in background.
Rejected as being a conclusion of law.
Rejected as being argument, conclusions of law or hearsay.
Covered in findings of fact 10, 22 and 26.
Covered in findings of fact 6-10.
Covered in finding of fact 17.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
Covered in findings of fact 18 and 19.
Covered in finding of fact 20.
Rejected as irrelevant since this matter played no part in petitioner's termination.
Rejected as irrelevant since this matter played no part in petitioner's termination.
Covered in background.
Rejected as a conclusion of law.
Covered in findings of fact 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15.
Rejected as a conclusion of law. 30a. Covered in finding of fact 22.
Covered in findings of fact 22 and 27.
Covered in findings of fact 9 and 16.
Covered in findings of fact 11, 13 and 21.
Rejected as conclusions of law.
Covered in findings of fact 17-21.
Rejected as being cumulative in nature or argument.
Covered in background.
Rejected as being a conclusion of law.
Covered in finding of fact 25.
Covered in finding of fact 25.
Rejected as being irrelevant.
Covered in finding of fact 25.
Respondent:
Covered in finding of fact 1.
Covered in finding of fact 2.
Covered in finding of fact 2.
Covered in finding of fact 3.
Covered in findings of fact 1 and 3.
Covered in findings of fact 1 and 3.
Covered in findings of fact 1, 2 and 3.
Covered in finding of fact 5.
Covered in finding of fact 24.
Covered in findings of fact 6-8.
Covered in findings of fact 6 and 7.
Covered in finding of fact 6.
Covered in finding of fact 6.
Covered in finding of fact 14.
Covered in finding of fact 22.
Covered in findings of fact 22 and 23.
Rejected as being contrary to the evidence.
Covered in finding of fact 16.
Covered in findings of fact 3, 17 and 19.
Covered in findings of fact 17-20.
Covered in finding of fact 15.
Covered in finding of fact 16.
Rejected as being argument.
Rejected as being unnecessary.
COPIES FURNISHED:
William R. Amlong, Esquire
101 Northeast Third Avenue
Second Floor
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Christopher E. Cobey, Esquire
44 Montgomery Street Suite 2666
San Francisco, California 94101
Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations
325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations
325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Dec. 14, 1987 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Dec. 14, 1987 | Recommended Order | Charge of age dicrimination not established. |
