STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

TOMMIE L. WATKINS, JR.,

Petitioner,

vs.

GREATER BETHEL AME CHURCH,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

) Case No. 03-3219

)

)

)

)

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A formal hearing in the above-styled case was held before Florence Snyder Rivas, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings, on December 2, 2003, via video teleconference at sites in Miami and Tallahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: David H. Nevel, Esquire

Nevel & Greenfield, P.A.

11900 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 806 North Miami, Florida 33181

For Respondent: Robert L. Norton, Esquire

Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A

121 Majorca, Suite 300 Coral Gables, Florida 33134

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Respondent violated Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by terminating Petitioner's employment on account of his marital status.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

These proceedings were commenced on July 22, 2002, by Petitioner, Tommie L. Watkins, Jr. (Petitioner or Watkins), by filing of a Charge of Discrimination against Greater Bethel AME Church (Respondent or Greater Bethel) and Rev. John White, Sr. (White), with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR). On July 28, 2003, the FCHR issued a no cause determination, stating there was no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. Thereafter, Watkins timely asserted his right to an administrative hearing. At the hearing, Petitioner withdrew his claim against White.

The identity of witnesses, exhibits and attendant rulings are contained in the one-volume transcript of the proceeding filed on January 15, 2004. The parties timely submitted Proposed Recommended Orders, which have been carefully considered.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Watkins was employed by Greater Bethel, a congregation within the AME (African Methodist Episcopal) Church, from June 2000 through August 8, 2001.

2. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, popularly known as the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA). At all times material to this case, Respondent acted through its duly-authorized representative,

   White, who served as Greater Bethel’s senior minister and chief executive officer.

3. At relevant times, Greater Bethel provided an AIDS outreach ministry. White hired Watkins to direct its AIDS prevention programs, under the direct supervision of Rev. Marilyn Hardy (Hardy). It was also White who eventually fired Watkins.

4. Watkins is gay, and his sexual orientation was known to White at all relevant times.

5. Throughout his decade-plus tenure at Greater Bethel, White had hired other gay individuals, married and single, to work there. In Watkins' view, White hired Watkins for the AIDs prevention position precisely because Watkins was gay (as well as African-American) because, in Watkins’ words, the program

   ". . . targeted black men who have sex with men. "

   
   

6. Yet, Watkins contends, the governing bodies of the AME Church, and individuals who served on them at times relevant to this case, were opposed to allowing practicing homosexuals to serve in positions of spiritual leadership within the Church. It is undisputed that religious organizations have a constitutional right to ordain their clergy without the constraints imposed by anti-discrimination laws applicable to jobs which are performed at the church, but not specifically related to its religious mission.

7. While Watkins continued to work in the AIDS program, and White continued as Greater Bethel's pastor, both men campaigned for election to positions involving spiritual leadership.

8. Soon after Watkins was hired in June 2000, he sought election to the Board of Examiners, which represents the South Florida Conference of the AME Church (the Board). Election to the Board is a prerequisite to becoming ordained as an AME clergyman. For Watkins to be considered for admission to the Board, his application needed to be sponsored by an incumbent board member. Though not required to do so, White, a Board member, supported Watkins' application. Watkins' application was denied by the Board in October 2000.

9. Watkins argued, but did not prove, that his failure to be elected to the Board and ultimately ordained, as well as his employment termination, was related to Watkins' marital status. Watkins claimed that by remaining single, Watkins posed an obstacle to White's prospects of being elected Bishop of Florida.

10. The only competent evidence regarding White's candidacy for Bishop of Florida was provided by White himself, who testified that from November 1996 to November 2000, White offered himself as a candidate for that post. White's candidacy was unsuccessful.

11. Watkins resented the fact he had not been elected to the Board and, therefore, had no chance to be ordained. Watkins was convinced that he was rejected because the then Bishop felt that gays seeking to serve in the AME ministry should at least attempt to cover up their sexual orientation by participating in a sham marriage.

12. Watkins' theory is based entirely upon his own speculation, and is unpersuasive. Watkins admits that White said nothing about Watkins’ marital status, or White's candidacy for Bishop of Florida, until May 2001. This was some five months after White's campaign for Bishop had ended.

13. Watkins fell far short of proving he was fired on account of his marital status. It appears instead, that he fell out of favor with his boss, White, months after he was hired and months after White's campaign for Bishop had ended when in May 2001, he launched a protest of AME's failure to elect him to the Board.

14. Watkins wanted White's support on this issue and was upset that it was not forthcoming. White, for his part, was upset that Watkins wanted to challenge the Board with regard to what Watkins perceived to be the former Bishop’s bias against gays in the ministry.

15. Relations between Watkins and White deteriorated from May 2001 to August 2001, when White fired Watkins and demoted Hardy to perform White's job duties.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

16. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter at this proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.57(1) and 120.569 and Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2001).

17. Under the Florida Civil Rights Act, it is unlawful to discharge or to refuse to hire an individual on account of his martial status. In this case, there is no evidence that Respondent's decision to hire and later to fire Watkins was related to Watkins' marital status. Rather, it was Watkins' insistence that White join him in protesting the Board's failure to admit him into membership and to ordain him, which resulted in the elimination of his job.

18. It is not a violation of Chapter 760 for Greater Bethel to become impatient, and ultimately intolerant, about Watkins' growing militancy on the subject of gays in the AME ministry.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order which

DENIES Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination and dismisses his complaint.

DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

(850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675

Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 2004.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

David H. Nevel, Esquire Nevel & Greenfield, P.A.

11900 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 806 North Miami, Florida 33181

Robert L. Norton, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A

121 Majorca, Suite 300

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of 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: 03-003219

Orders for Case No: 03-003219