STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
MARGARETTE A. DUBLIN, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 87-3088
)
BELK LINDSEY DEPARTMENT )
STORES, INC., )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
The formal hearing in this proceeding was conducted in Titusville, Florida, on March 15 through 19, 1988, before Mary Clark, Hearing Officer from the Division of Administrative Hearings.
The parties were represented as follows:
For Petitioner: Susan K. W. Erlenbach, Esquire
503 South Palm Avenue Titusville, Florida 32796
For Respondent: G. Thomas Harper, Esquire
4905 West Laurel Street, Suite 300
Tampa, Florida 33607 BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS
Petitioner, Margarette A. Dublin (Dublin), filed a Complaint of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) on April 1, 1986. She alleged that she was discriminated against on the basis of her age and her race when she was terminated from employment by Respondent, Belk Lindsey Company of Orlando, Inc. (Belk).
On June 6, 1987, Donald A. Griffin, Esquire, Executive Director, issued an FCHR Determination: Partial Cause and Partial No Cause. The preliminary investigations found no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice occurred based on age, and reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice occurred based on race.
Dublin filed her Petition for Relief on July 21, 1987, and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Belk responded with a timely answer.
After one continuance, granted at the request of the Petitioner and addressed in an order dated November 4, 1987, the final hearing commenced on March 15, 1988. At the outset, Respondent presented a Motion in Limine to
exclude evidence relating to the FCHR determination, the opinions of customers and certain damages based on a claim of pain and suffering. After argument by both parties, the Motion was denied.
Later, during the course of the hearing, it was suggested, and the parties agreed, that the proceeding would be limited to evidence on the employer's liability and that, if necessary, a subsequent hearing would be conducted on the issue of damages.
In support of her case, Petitioner presented the following witnesses: Margarette Dublin, Paul Chalfant, Hortense Horne, Barbara Worthington, John Land, Jason New, Alberta Chabas, Ken Thomas, Martha Thomas, Patricia Dexter, Connie Malloy, Ann Marie Gallard, Patricia Carr, Shirley Dublin (rebuttal), Debbie Worthington (rebuttal), and Sandy Stallings (rebuttal). Forty-five exhibits were marked for identification. All were admitted, with the exception of Petitioner's Exhibits #23 and 27 (which were withdrawn) and Petitioner's Exhibit #13, a deposition rejected for lack of sufficient notice to Respondent. Petitioner's Exhibit #42 was submitted, by stipulation, on May 23, 1988.
Respondent's witnesses included Cheryl Doer, Reba Jones, John Land, George Browne, Pat Carr, and Thomas Stabenau. Respondent's Exhibits #1-19 were admitted into evidence.
No transcript was filed, although both parties submitted thorough post- hearing briefs and proposed findings of fact. Those findings are separately addressed in the attached Appendix.
On May 9, 1988, Petitioner filed a Motion to Reopen Evidence along with a supporting affidavit. The Motion was argued with the participation by counsel of record for both parties in a telephone hearing on May 23, 1988. Petitioner sought to present testimony of an individual who was not called to testify at the hearing because when contacted by Petitioner's counsel he did not dispute the testimony of Respondent's representative. Later, after the hearing, the individual approached Petitioner's counsel to explain that he had not been truthful with her and he wanted to clear the record.
The Motion was denied on the basis that the proffered testimony was not so material to the issues in the case as to justify reopening the proceeding. The evidence was not so substantial as to likely affect the outcome of the proceeding.
ISSUES
The primary issue in this case is whether Respondent committed a violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, as alleged, by terminating Petitioner because of her race and age.
Respondent claims that Petitioner was terminated for a legitimate business reason, her job performance, and that other employees similarly situated were treated the same way.
Petitioner admits that her sales declined, but claims that her performance was sabotaged. She also claims that white, young employees were not fired for similar performance problems.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Margarette Dublin, a black female, was born on October 24, 1932. She has a 12th grade education and a high school diploma, but no other formal education. Her work experience has been solely in retail sales.
In 1965, she was working as a salesperson at McCrory's in the Big Apple Shopping Center in Titusville, Florida. George Browne, the store manager at Belk Lindsey in Titusville, personally recruited and hired her to work as a sales clerk in the women's ready-to-wear department at his store.
In 1972, Dublin was promoted to buyer for women's ready-to-wear when her supervisor, Donna Smith, a white female in her mid-thirties, was terminated for poor performance (failing to stay within her buying limits and declining sales) and alcoholism.
In addition to purchasing stock for her department, as buyer, Dublin was responsible for supervising the sales clerks, keeping the department organized and presentable, taking markdowns on the merchandise, and assisting with sales.
Over the years, Margarette Dublin built excellent relations with certain customers. She had a pleasing and helpful personality and went out of her way to select items she knew they would like. Some of these women depended on her to establish their wardrobe. They would call her before a trip or special occasion, and she would have a selection ready when they came in. Their husbands would shop in Dublin's department for their gifts, and some would spend several hundred dollars on the clothes and accessories she picked out for them. George Browne was proud of her sales work and would call her when he saw her special customers on the floor. She received Belks' sales club certificates in 1976, 1977, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984 and 1985, for "outstanding customer service and sales achievement."
Margarette Dublin was terminated on February 22, 1986, without notice. She was given 13 weeks severance pay and approximately $23,000.00 as her share in the Belk profit-sharing program.
Belk Lindsey Company of Orlando, Inc., owns department stores located primarily throughout the central Florida area. There are Belk stores throughout the southeast, but they are separate corporations. All are served by another separate corporation, Belk Stores Services, Inc., in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The Belk stores operate under a merchandising system known as the "retail system," used in various forms by major retail companies in the United States. The purpose of a retail merchant is to buy and sell merchandise at a profit.
Under the retail system, appropriate inventory levels are planned. Based on anticipated sales for a period, an open-to-buy account is established to allow the buyer to know how much money is available for additional purchases.
By maintaining appropriate inventory levels in relationship to sales, a retailer is able to achieve a turnover in inventory which maximizes his return on the investment in the inventory. As sales are made, the sales dollars are added to the open-to-buy account in order to replace merchandise sold. The retail system uses the phrase, "You buy back your sales."
Merchandise that fails to sell freezes the investment; thus markdowns are a major tool to stimulate sales. The retail system has established optimum percentages and schedules for markdowns for different types of merchandise.
George Browne, the Titusville Belk store manager, understands the retail system, and in that sense, is a "good" manager.
He is white and was born on July 17, 1926. He has approximately 40 years experience with Belk Lindsey and has been manager of the Titusville store since January 1960. He is in charge of the overall operation of the store and supervises the buyers and department managers. The Titusvilie store, with 45-50 employees and approximately $3 million in annual sales, is moderately sized in comparison with other Belk Lindsey stores.
Browne does a good job in planning, documentation and working with people, but he has serious problems with taking decisive disciplinary action against employees. He has never single-handedly fired a manager under his supervision. He has difficulty enforcing demands. He recognizes these deficiencies in himself and relies on the advice and assistance of John Land, the Belk Lindsey Vice-President for Personnel.
John Land works out of the corporate office in Tampa and has 18 years experience with Belk Lindsey. He functions as an administrative assistant to the corporation's Senior Vice-President, A. J. "Del" Finieri. He oversees the performance of the store managers and is personally familiar with their personnel and with the stores' overall operations. His birthdate is 9/30/33.
In the last two years, 1987 and 1988, the Titusville store has had excellent performance. In calendar year 1987, it had the highest percent increase in sales of any other store in its size class among all Belk stores in the southeast. It was among the top twelve of all stores, regardless of class.
Prior to 1987, however, the Titusville store's performance was poor. The company was dissatisfied with its sluggish sales since the late 1970's.
There were problems with lack of sales, lack of inventory turnover and lack of general profitability. Other stores in the Belk Lindsey group had problems as well, but the performance of the Titusville store was poor compared to the company as a whole. While sales generally increased annually, the increases were smaller than the increases company-wide.
The Belk Lindsey store managers meet annually in Tampa in February at the end of the fiscal year. They take inventory and are given their bonuses, based on the performance of their individual store.
The February 1985 annual meeting was a jolt to George Browne. His store had a 1.3% increase in sales in the past (1985) fiscal year, compared to the company's overall 6.7% increase. Del Finieri told him that he was tired of defending the Titusville store's poor performance to the Belk family. Browne was told that he would have to take control of his buyers and improve gross margins. Browne had some indication previously that problems existed, but the distinct impression that he got from the 1985 meeting was that his job was on the line. John Land participated in the meeting and confirmed this.
A shaken George Browne met with his buyers in Titusville the following day for their annual inventory and bonus meeting. Buyers receive a weekly salary based on the sales volume in their department, but they, too, receive
year-end bonuses based on the performance (profit) in their department. At their meeting, they are given a sheet ("P. and L.") with the prior fiscal year's breakout of sales, inventory, gross margin, operating cost, profit and bonus calculations.
George Browne attempted to communicate the company's dissatisfaction to his managers. The general message was "my job is on the line, but before I go, some heads are going to roll here." The buyers were each given, orally, their gross margin goals for the 1986 fiscal year (February 1985 - January 1986)
Gross margins are computed by subtracting the retail cost of goods sold from the total retail sales and dividing by the sales.
The Titusville store did not improve in fiscal year 1986, but rather plummeted to a 12.9% decrease in sales. The company also decreased 2.4% that year.
At the February 1986 meeting in Tampa, Del Finieri told George Browne that his store's performance was unacceptable and intolerable. They went through each of the departments, and after discussing the women's department decrease of 18.9%, Browne asked Finieri, "Should we fire her?" Land asked Browne, "Is that what you want?" In the absence of a clear answer, Land asked "Do you want to do it or do you want me to?" Browne responded in stumbling terms that he would like Land to come over to help.
John Land came to Titusville on Saturday, February 22, 1986. He and George Browne discussed the possibility of moving Margarette Dublin to sales in a different department. Browne felt the store was too small and said a demotion would not be in the store's best interest.
Dublin was at work on Saturday morning and was called in to George Browne's office. John Land did all the talking. He told her that he had bad news, that she was being terminated for a decline in sales. She was at first incredulous, but when Land said they were serious, she became upset and left. She returned later to clean out her desk.
Prior to the termination, Margarette Dublin was never specifically told orally or in writing that her job was in jeopardy. Except for a brief period in the 1970's, Belk Lindsey did not have a policy of providing performance evaluations. The company expected its managerial level employees to track their performance through the sales records of their department. These figures were available to buyers in the form of computer printouts prepared monthly. Since the buyers' compensation was based in part on those figures, they were motivated to keep track regularly.
Superficially, at least, George Browne and Margarette Dublin had a good relationship. She admits that no manager or official at Belks ever made statements to her regarding her race or age. She called him, "Mr. B"; he called her, "Mar-gar-ee-ta", with a sort of Spanish accent. She knew her sales were declining, but felt that it was a store problem and that if Browne had a problem with what she was doing, he would tell her. John Land spent a lot of time at the Titusville store in 1975. He never told Dublin about problems because he felt it was Browne's job. Whenever he asked her how things were going, she would say, "fine."
From time to time, Browne would discuss Dublin's inventory and open-to-buy with her. She attended buyers' meetings out of town and visited other stores. Generally, Browne left purchases entirely up to the buyers so long as they had open-to-buy available.
In retrospect, George Browne believes that Margarette Dublin was complacent about the performance of her department. She understood and enjoyed sales work, but did not spend enough time managing her department. She could have earned much higher bonuses if she had spent less time selling and more time with her managerial duties. On several occasions, Browne and women from the stockroom went to the floor to take markdowns on Dublin's merchandise. He did this with other departments as well, but not as much as with the women's department.
George Browne was accessible to discuss problems with his buyers. Margarette Dublin claimed that she did not ask for help as he was always in the stockroom. She admitted not questioning practices because the "boss knew best."
In retrospect, Margarette Dublin believes that George Browne deliberately sabotaged her performance by refusing to allow her to make purchases, by cancelling her orders and by not giving her the sales help she needed. She felt as long as she worked at Belk that Browne was a good manager, that the morale was good and that she was liked and appreciated. Her opinion has changed during the course of litigation.
Given George Browne's concern about his own job and the fact that his own compensation is tied to the performance of his store, the sabotage theory is not credible.
It is undisputed that after the memorable meeting in Tampa in February 1985, George Browne took a hard look at his inventory and made a concerted effort to cut back in divisions, such as the women's ready to wear, that were overbought. Browne did cancel Dublin's orders to reduce the inventory.
Cancelled orders included statements such as "Dublin, let me know" or "Dublin, suggest you cancel. Let me know by return memo." She never questioned Browne about these nor suggested that the stock was vital to her operation.
Although her monthly inventories were available on a twelve month merchandise plan, Dublin was unaware of her inventory and concentrated on her open-to-buy dollars.
All buyers are told to stay within their open-to-buy dollars, although on occasion, with Browne's consent, they are allowed to exceed those. Dublin was also allowed to exceed her open-to-buy.
At the hearing, Dublin was unable to interpret the twelve month merchandise plan.
Although approximately 43% of Dublin's purchases were mandated by Belk's statewide buyers, all store buyers were required to take mandated stock. This allowed the company to take advantage of special prices based on large quantity purchases and to engage in statewide advertising campaigns. The store buyers, including Margarette Dublin, attended buyers' meetings where the purchases were discussed and voted on.
The number of sales persons in each department is dictated by that department's volume of sales. Staff allocations are determined in the same manner in each store division, although the percentages vary.
When sales declined, the staff hours were cut back. Pat Carr, the office manager, computed the staff hours available for each department. She was never told to deviate from the formula in order to cut back on Dublin's staff.
In her direct testimony, Dublin claimed that Pat Carr never explained to her how the payroll worked or how she got her staff. She said she was never told that if she sold more dresses she would get more help. These admissions, as well as her testimony that she was not told when she was hired that her compensation was tied to her sales, and her failure to question Browne about her cancelled orders, confirm Respondent's claims regarding Dublin's lack of initiative, her complacency and her ignorance of the management of retail sales.
In fiscal year 1985, Margarette Dublin's department sold $631,691.00; her gross margin was 41.18%, and her profit before year-end expenses was
$76,914.00. In fiscal year 1986, her sales dropped 18.9% to $512.532.00; her gross margin was 40.82%, and her profit before year-end expenses was $53,902.00. Her drop in sales was the largest in any Belk Lindsey women's department in 1985 and 1986, with the exception of the Gainesville store, which had a fire in 1985, and was temporarily closed.
Immediately after Dublin was terminated, her successor, Anne Gillard, was hired. She had been mentioned by John Land as a replacement when George Browne was in Tampa for the February 1986 annual-meeting. She was the only candidate interviewed for the position.
Anne Gillard, a white female, was born on February 14, 1954. She began working for the company in September 1982. At the time that she was hired by George Browne, she was an assistant buyer for two stores in Melbourne. Under the Belk compensation plan, she was making $255.00 base salary per week, $55.00 more than the $200.00 per week that Dublin made. Because the move to Titusville was considered a promotion, her weekly salary was not cut, but she was told by John Land that the extra would come out of her bonus at the end of the year.
When that time came, the company was so pleased with her turnaround in the women's department, she was allowed to keep her full bonus.
In fiscal year 1987, the first year under Gillard, the Titusville's women's department sales increased 39.4% to $714.686.00. In 1988, they increased another 17.7%, to $848.193. Anne Gillard's gross margin in 1987 was 41.14%, and profit before year-end expenses was $88,193.00. ,The profit, therefore, increased 38.8% over fiscal year 1986.
Her inventory increased substantially from a beginning $81,241.00 to
$125.626.00 at the end of the fiscal year, but the volume of sales supported the increase, as her profit kept pace with her rate of increase in sales.
Gillard's tenure in Titusville has not been entirely problem-free.
She has failed to meet her gross margin goal of 44%, and understands that her job is in jeopardy if she does not meet the goal next year. Recently she made a large (over $30,000.00) purchase of stock without George Browne's permission when she had no open-to-buy. She received a written reprimand from John Land informing her that the next violation would result in her immediate termination.
Margarette Dublin was not the only buyer in the Titusville store with a substantial sales decline in 1986. Jason New, a white male, over 40 years of age, had a 7.6% decline in his men's department in 1985 and a 12.7% decline in 1986.
He, also, was the subject of discussion at the February 1986 company meeting. Finieri did not want to fire him at the same time as Dublin, as New's was the largest department in the store, and the women's and men's departments produced over half of the store's sales volume. Moreover, New had been in the department only about two years, and the company felt he should have a chance to improve.
New resigned in 1987 and was replaced by Darrell Pulido, a young (under 35 years) Hispanic.
Velda Knight's termination was not considered. She is white and was born September 11, 1927. She is the buyer for the children's department and has been with the store for 24 years. Her sales decline in 1986 was 25.7%, substantially higher than Dublin's. The children's department has a much smaller volume than any other department in the store and is considered a "follower" department. That is, most of the sales in that department are made to customers who are in the store for other purchases. In 1987, after Anne Gillard's 39.4% increase, the children's department increased 16.4%.
Other Belk managerial employees have been terminated for poor performance over the years. Dublin's predecessor was, of course, terminated for poor performance and alcoholism.
Georgianna Shaw, a buyer in the Ocala store, was terminated in 1986, for a decrease in sales. She is white and was approximately 30 years old at the time of termination. She had been with the company for five years and had been a buyer for about one year.
P. Ball is a white male store manager in the Cocoa store and was fifty years old when he was terminated in 1981. He had been employed by the company in 1956. His store had a slightly higher volume than the Titusville store, but had a reputation for bad profits. John Land was informed when Ball had past-due invoices. The company investigated the situation for less than a week and fired the manager without warning.
Ruby Secosh, a buyer in the Titusville store, was fired in 1979 for defiance and refusal to stay within her open-to-buy. She is white and was 49 years old at the time of her termination.
In the past ten years, approximately 19 management employees, other than Dublin, have been terminated by the Belk Lindsey company for performance related problems. Of these, all 19 are white, and 16 were younger than Dublin.
Since 1970, approximately 23 employees, at all levels, have been terminated from the Titusville store. Twenty-two are white and 19 were younger than Dublin.
Although white buyers in other Belk Lindsey women's departments had substantial decreases in 1986 and were not fired, the company had valid reasons not to terminate these individuals.
Carolyn Wilson, in the Bartow store, had a 13.8% decrease in 1986; Mary Jo Robinson in the Lake Wales store had an 11.1% decrease. Both stores are located in Polk County, an economically depressed area due to problems in the citrus industry and phosphate industry. Polk County's unemployment rate was over twice that of Brevard County in the immediate preceding years.
Brevard County was also affected by the freezes and canker in the citrus industry, but at the same time the Brevard County area was enjoying the economic benefit of the space industry's preparation for the Challenger launch.
Belk Lindsey has written policies and procedures for establishing employees' base compensation bonuses and staffing patterns. Margarette Dublin's
$200.00 per week salary, the same level throughout her fourteen years as a buyer, was consistent with that policy. So also were her bonuses and the staffing patterns in her department.
Belk Lindsey, at the time of Dublin's termination, did not have a clear policy with regard to disciplinary actions. Just as the buyers were given considerable autonomy in the operation of their departments, the store managers were given the authority to manage their stores. Some managers were tough and decisive; others, like George Browne, were easy-going.
In the absence of gross misconduct or illegal activity, the test of effectiveness of buyers and managers is the bottom line each year: the sales, the profit and the gross margin.
George Browne failed that test, but to a greater degree so did Margarette Dublin. The company's willingness to terminate her before further action in the Titusville store was a business decision unrelated to the race or age of this employee.
The abruptness and insensitivity of the manner of termination obscures, but does not obviate, that fact.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Respondent is an "employer" as defined in subsection 760.02(6), Florida Statutes, as ". . . any person employing 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks .
Subsection 760.10(1)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that it is an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discharge or otherwise discriminate against an individual because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.
Since Florida's employment discrimination statute is patterned on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2, resort to federal court interpretations of that act is appropriate. School Board of Leon County
v. Hargis, 400 So.2d 103 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
In McDonald Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) and Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 258 (1981), the U. S. Supreme Court established the basic allocation of burden of proof in discrimination cases.
Petitioner retains the burden of proof throughout the proceeding, although once a prima facie case of discrimination is established, the Respondent must articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the challenged action. Then Petitioner must prove that the reasons offered are not true, but rather a pretext for discrimination.
The prima facie case ". . . 'raises an inference of discrimination only because we presume these acts, if otherwise unexplained, are more likely than not based on the consideration of impermissible factors.' . . ." Furnco Construction Co. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567 (1978), cited in Burdine, supra.
Petitioner established a prima facie case:
That her age and race placed her in a protected case is uncontroverted.
Although there was competent substantial evidence, including her own testimony, that she never grasped the intricacies of the retail system, Dublin's fourteen-year tenure is overriding evidence that, at least for that period, her employer considered her qualified and able to perform her duties.
Dublin was summarily discharged and replaced with a young, white individual with less experience for the position.
Belk Lindsey articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory business reason, for its action: Dublin's poor performance, as evidenced by her precipitous decline in sales. Whether the action was fair or correct, whether Belk Lindsey should have given Dublin a more explicit warning, whether she should have been given another chance, whether the department would have turned around anyway under her direction, are not the proper focus of inquiry.
Petitioner failed to prove that the articulated reason was pretextual or that Petitioner's poor performance was caused by Respondent.
The endurance of Browne and Knight negate Petitioner's theory that the Titusville store was in the process of a "youth movement" that would evidence age was a motivating factor. Lovelace v. Sherwin Williams Co., 683 F.2d 230 (4th Cir. 1982)
Dublin failed to prove that other persons similarly situated were treated substantially differently, or that Respondent's reasons for failing to terminate other employees for declining sales were not valid.
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED:
That Petitioner's Petition for Relief be denied.
DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida.
MARY CLARK
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 7th day of July 1988.
APPENDIX
The following constitute my rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties.
Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact
Adopted in paragraph #1.
Adopted in part in paragraph's #2 and #6. The fact that she was able to perform to the reasonable satisfaction of her employer is rejected as inconsistent with the weight of evidence that, at the time she was terminated, she was not performing satisfactorily.
3-7. Rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence.
8. Rejected as irrelevant.
9-10. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact
1-2. Adopted in paragraph #1.
3. Adopted in paragraph #2.
4-5. Adopted in paragraph #3.
6-7. Adopted in paragraph #6.
Adopted in paragraph #19.
Adopted in paragraph #21.
Rejected as unnecessary.
Adopted in paragraph #37.
Adopted in paragraph #36.
Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary.
Adopted in paragraph #37.
15-19. Adopted in substance in paragraph #34. 20-21. Adopted in substance in paragraph #38. 22-25. Adopted in substance in paragraph #35.
26-27. Rejected as unnecessary.
28. Adopted in paragraph #35.
9-30. Adopted in substance in paragraph #20.
31. Adopted in paragraph #33.
32-33. Adopted in paragraph #39.
34-36. Adopted in paragraph #31.
37. Rejected as unnecessary.
38-41. Adopted in substance in paragraph #2&. 42-45. Rejected as unnecessary.
46-47. Adopted in paragraph #23.
Adopted in paragraph #25
Rejected as unnecessary.
50-52. Adopted in paragraph #29.
Adopted in paragraph #32.
Rejected as unnecessary.
Adopted in paragraph #12. 56-57. Adopted in paragraph #8.
58. Rejected as unnecessary.
59-60. Adopted in paragraph #22. 61-64. Rejected as unnecessary.
65. Adopted in paragraph #22. 66-75. Rejected as unnecessary.
76. Adopted in paragraph #26. 77-78. Rejected as unnecessary.
79. Rejected as inconsistent with the weight of evidence. The buyers could order as long as they had "open-to-buy".
80-81. Adopted in paragraph #25. 82-93. Rejected as unnecessary. 94-95. Adopted in paragraph #25. 96-97. Rejected as unnecessary
98. Adopted in paragraph #25.
99-103. Rejected as unnecessary. 104-106. Adopted in paragraph #25. 107-116. Rejected as unnecessary. 117-118. Adopted in paragraph #22. 119-122. Rejected as unnecessary.
123-124. Adopted in substances in paragraph #14.
125. Adopted in paragraph #15.
126-128. Adopted in paragraph #16.
Rejected as unnecessary.
Adopted in paragraph #16.
Rejected as unnecessary. The evidence never established that these written goals were given to the buyers.
Adopted in paragraph #8.
Rejected as irrelevant.
Adopted in paragraph #9.
Adopted in paragraph #11.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Susan K. W. Erlenbach, Esquire
503 South Palm Avenue Titusville, Florida 32796
G. Thomas Harper, Esquire Suite 300
4905 West Laurel Street Tampa, Florida 33607
Margaret Agerton Clerk
Human Relations Commission
325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
Donald A. Griffin Executive Director
Human Relations Commission
325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
Dana Baird General Counsel
Human Relations Commission
325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jul. 07, 1988 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jul. 07, 1988 | Recommended Order | Poor performance was basis for firing employee not discrimination |
