Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in this case on February 13, 2009, in Orlando, Florida, before Susan B. Harrell, a designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division
of Administrative Hearings.
For Respondent: Aaron L. Zandy, Esquire
Jessica T. Walberg Ford & Harrison, LLP
The issue in this case is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner by
discriminating against her based on sex and race and by retaliating against her.
On July 17, 2008, the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) issued a Determination: No Cause to believe Respondent, Spherion Staffing (Spherion), had discriminated against Petitioner, Jocelyn Jones (Ms. Jones). Ms. Jones filed a Petition for Relief with the Commission, alleging that she was “subjected to a racially and sexually hostile work environment” and that she was “subjected to disparate disciplinary actions because of her race.”
The case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on July 29, 2008, for assignment to an administrative law judge to conduct the final hearing. The case was originally assigned to Administrative Law Judge Lawrence P. Stevenson, but was transferred to Administrative Law Judge Susan B. Harrell to conduct the final hearing.
The parties filed a Joint Prehearing Stipulation in which they agreed to certain facts contained in Section E of the Joint Prehearing Stipulation. To the extent relevant, those facts have been incorporated into this Recommended Order.
The final hearing was originally scheduled for October 1, 2008, but was continued twice. On February 12, 2009, Ms. Jones filed a motion to continue due to difficulties in serving
witnesses with subpoenas. The motion was denied, but Ms. Jones was given leave to take the depositions of Roberto DeJesus, Elaine Scott Hope, Sandy Boehly, and Eric Stephens within two weeks of the conclusion of the final hearing and to file the depositions as late-filed exhibits. No depositions were filed.
At the final hearing, Ms. Jones testified in her own behalf and called the following witnesses: April Jacques, Anthony Hinton, Jamie Jordan, and Dezeret Bright. Petitioner did not submit any exhibits for admission in evidence.
At the final hearing, Spherion called April Jacques, Stacy Futch and Matt Cooper as its witnesses. Respondent’s Exhibits 1 through 25 were admitted in evidence. Spherion was given leave to late-file Respondent’s Exhibit 26. Respondent’s Exhibit 26 was filed on March 23, 2009, and is admitted in evidence.
The three-volume Transcript was filed on March 16, 2009. The parties agreed to file their proposed recommended orders within ten days of the filing of the Transcript or the late- filed depositions, whichever was later. Ms. Jones filed her Proposed Recommended Order on March 19, 2009. Spherion filed its Proposed Recommended Order on March 26, 2009. Both Proposed Recommended Orders have been given consideration in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
Ms. Jones is an African-American female. From May 29, 2007, to December 5, 2007, Ms. Jones was employed by Spherion. Spherion provides temporary employees to businesses. Spherion had a contract with American Automobile Association (AAA) to provide temporary employees for an AAA call center in Lake Mary, Florida.
AAA does not pay the Spherion employees, Spherion does.
AAA can request that Spherion terminate a Spherion employee from an assignment at AAA.
Ms. Jones was employed as a customer service representative (CSR) at the AAA site in Lake Mary, Florida. Her duties included taking calls from AAA customers who were in need of roadside assistance. At the time Ms. Jones was working at the AAA site, approximately 150 to 200 Spherion employees were assigned to the AAA call center. Approximately 60 to 70% of the Spherion employees were female, and approximately 60 to 70 of the female employees were members of racially protected classes.
Ms. Jones received the CSR Performance Participant Guide, which is provided to all CSRs working on-site at AAA.
On May 21, 2007, Ms. Jones executed an acknowledgement of having received the Spherion Workplace Harassment policy, the Spherion Attendance and Punctuality policy, and Spherion’s Policies and Procedures – Application Supplement. She also executed an
acknowledgement of having received Spherion’s Equal Opportunity Statement. On June 7, 2007, Ms. Jones executed an acknowledgement of having received Spherion’s Customer Service Quality Commitment policy.
During her employment with Spherion, Ms. Jones was paid
$10.00 per hour.
Ms. Jones received approximately two weeks of training.
She began taking live calls on her own on June 10, 2007. Spherion allowed Ms. Jones two months to learn her job before Spherion began to evaluate her calls for quality assurance purposes.
Spherion has a progressive discipline policy. A verbal warning is first given followed by a written warning, and then a final warning. On July 30, 2007, Ms. Jones received a verbal warning for attendance. On August 23, 2007, she received a final warning for call avoidance because she had failed to follow Spherion’s policies and procedures related to receipt of incoming calls. On September 18, 2007, Ms. Jones received a verbal warning regarding safety because she did not use a safety statement in one or more of her calls.
According to the policies of Spherion and AAA, the goal for each skill set for a CSR is 90%.
On September 11, 2007, Ms. Jones’ performance for quality assurance (QA) for the month of August was rated as 79%.
She was given a verbal warning for performance on September 7, 2007, for her poor performance in August. Ms. Jones was advised that immediate action was required to correct her performance, and that failure to meet the quality standards could lead to further discipline, including termination.
Ms. Jones’ QA average for September was 69%. As a result of her QA average for September, Ms. Jones was given a Written Warning for Performance on October 11, 2007.1 Again, she was warned that she needed to take immediate action to improve her performance and that failure to do so could result in further disciplinary action, including termination.
Ms. Jones received a QA average of 77% for the month of October. As a result of her October average, she received a Final Warning for Performance on November 2, 2007. Once again, Ms. Jones was reminded that she needed to take immediate action to improve her performance and that failure to do so could lead to further discipline, including termination.
For the month of November 2007, Ms. Jones received a QA average of 78.2%. On December 2, 2007, Spherion received an e-mail from Matthew Cooper, an AAA supervisor, directing Spherion to terminate Ms. Jones assignment at AAA for failure to achieve QA from August through November, 2007.2 As a result of her poor performance, Ms. Jones’ assignment with AAA was terminated on December 7, 2007. At the time her assignment was
terminated, Ms. Jones was being paid $11 per hour and was working 40 hours per week.
AAA has requested that other Spherion employees assigned to the AAA call center have their assignments terminated for low performance for four months, and Spherion complied with those requests. Such employees included a white male, an African-American/Hispanic female, and an Asian/American male.
The termination of an assignment to the AAA site did not mean that Ms. Jones was terminated from employment with Spherion. If Ms. Jones desired to seek an assignment with another Spherion client, she could have contacted the Spherion branch office. Ms. Jones did not contact Spherion for another assignment. Ms. Jones filed for unemployment compensation and received one check for $182.00.3
During the second week of January 2008, Ms. Jones began to work for Kelly Services. She worked approximately 25 hours per week until she left Kelly Services during the first week of June 2008. Her hourly rate of pay was $10.75 per hour. From June 23, 2008, to September 22, 2008, Ms. Jones was employed by Careers USA. She worked approximately 40 hours per week, and her hourly rate of pay was $10.75. After leaving Careers USA, Ms. Jones went to work for Comcast, where she is
currently employed. She works 40 hours per week, and her hourly rate of pay is $10.75.
Spherion has a workplace harassment policy which was provided to Ms. Jones at the time of her hiring. The policy provides in pertinent part:
Spherion Corporation, including all of its divisions, business groups and subsidiaries [“Spherion”], is committed to providing a work environment free of unlawful harassment. Harassment based on an individual’s race, religion, color, national origin, citizenship, marital status, sex, age, sexual orientation, veteran status, disability or any other legally protected status is strictly prohibited and will not be tolerated at Spherion.
Employees have a right to be free from harassment from managers, co-workers, and non-employees with whom Spherion employees have a business, service, or professional relationship, including, but not limited to,
vendors, clients and client employees. Every Spherion manager and supervisor is responsible for ensuring that the spirit, intent, and goals of this anti-harassment policy are achieved.
* * *
All employees must report incidents of harassment. Any employee who believes that he or she is being harassed by a co-worker, supervisor, manager, or other individual at the workplace — whether employed by Spherion or not — or believes that his or her employment is being adversely affected by such conduct, should immediately report such concerns to his or her supervisor, next-level manager, or other manager or the HR department. A human resources representative may be contacted at – Human Resources, c/o Spherion Corporation, 2050 Spectrum Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309, 800-
839-1965, or employeerelations@spherion.com.
If a Spherion employee has a complaint about an AAA employee, the Spherion employee is to contact Spherion, not AAA. Spherion has the responsibility to look into the matter.
When Ms. Jones first became employed with Spherion, she made a complaint that one of the AAA security guards was rude to her concerning the use of a restroom. April Jaques, who was a Spherion client service supervisor and responsible for staffing and human resources at the AAA call centers, followed up on Ms. Jones’ complaint and learned that Ms. Jones had been using a restroom that was off limits to employees after the building was closed for the night. The security guard had correctly advised Ms. Jones about the use of the restrooms.
Ms. Jaques explained to Ms. Jones which restrooms could be used by overnight employees.
Ms. Jones claimed that John Sherwood, who was not her supervisor, had discriminated against her based on her gender because he was disrespectful and rude and had accused her of destroying a computer. Her basis for claiming discrimination was that she “didn’t see him talking to men that way.” She also claimed that Mr. Sherwood had retaliated against her because she had complained to management about his being rude and disrespectful. Her testimony was not clear how he retaliated against her. Mr. Sherwood had no control over Ms. Jones’ pay, benefits, or terms and conditions of employment.
While Ms. Jones was assigned to AAA, Anthony Hinton was an AAA supervisor. Because Mr. Hinton was employed by AAA, Spherion could not discipline Mr. Hinton. Mr. Hinton has been described as a “by-the-book kind of guy,” who sometimes “rubs people the wrong way.” He expected all employees to follow policy regardless of the employee’s race or gender. There were some complaints about his abrasive management style. Some complaints were made by employees who are not members of a protected class. The evidence does not support Ms. Jones’ assertions that Mr. Hinton was hostile only to African-American women or women of color. In November 2007, AAA required him to attend some anger management sessions with a therapist. He completed the therapy sessions.
On September 6, 2007, Ms. Jones sent an e-mail to Mike Fratus, an employee of AAA, complaining about Mr. Hinton. She stated that Mr. Hinton had been rude and hostile to her on her first day of work on the call center floor. She complained that Mr. Hinton had put her on notice because of her footwear,4 but had not said anything to an employee who was sitting nearby and wearing similar footwear. She further added, “[t]he word going around is he is hostile and demeaning to Black women only.”
Ms. Jones did not specifically name any other Black women to whom Mr. Hinton was rumored to be hostile and demeaning.
Mr. Fratus forwarded the e-mail to April Jaques on September 11, 2007. Ms. Jaques scheduled a time to speak with Ms. Jones regarding her concerns. It was Ms. Jaques’ understanding that AAA would follow-up regarding the complaint against Mr. Hinton because Mr. Hinton was an AAA employee.
Mr. Hinton credibly testified that he spoke to
Ms. Jones about her inappropriate footwear, but that he did not see any other employee at the time with similar footwear.
Mr. Hinton has spoken to non-African-American men and women about their attire.
On September 19, 2007, Ms. Jones sent an e-mail to April Jaques. Ms. Jones complained that Mr. Hinton had talked to her about logging in early.5 She denied that she had logged in early and asked that “[n]o action be taken.” She further stated:
Again after speaking with you and being counseled on compliance regarding my time I immediately wanted to correct the issue.
This is just very disturbing to me especially after sharing with you and Mike how he [Hinton] discriminates with his treatment toward women of color.
Ms. Jaques discussed the e-mail with Ms. Jones. Ms. Jones did not give Ms. Jaques any names of women that were being discriminated against by Mr. Hinton. Because Mr. Hinton was an employee of AAA, Ms. Jaques sent a copy of the e-mail to AAA.
In October 2007, Jamie Jordan, a dispatcher who was employed by Spherion, complained to Mike Fratus about an incident
concerning Ms. Jones that happened on the call center floor. Mr. Jordan had approached Ms. Jones about some information that was missing from a call that had been received requesting a tow truck. Mr. Jordan felt that Ms. Jones was rude and disrespectful to him when he approached her. Mr. Fratus sent an e-mail to Ms. Jaques, outlining Mr. Jordan’s complaint.
On October 5, 2007, Ms. Jaques spoke to Ms. Jones about the incident between Ms. Jones and Mr. Jordan. Ms. Jones claimed that Mr. Jordan was rude and harsh to her. During the conversation, Ms. Jones became angry and accused Ms. Jaques of discrimination and harassment. Ms. Jaques attempted to calm
Ms. Jones and told Ms. Jones that she would investigate the incident.
Ms. Jones gave Ms. Jaques the names of some employees who had witnessed the incident with Mr. Jordan. Ms. Jaques investigated the issue, including talking with other employees who had heard the altercation. Ms. Jaques concluded that both Mr. Jordan and Ms. Jones were to blame for the incident.
Based on Ms. Jones’ testimony, as of November 1, 2007, she had filed an employment discrimination complaint against Spherion with the Florida Human Rights Association. The complaint was forwarded to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Ms. Jones filed an amended complaint on
December 17, 2007.
On November 11, 2007, Ms. Jones sent an e-mail to Simon DeYoung, an employee of AAA, complaining of sexual
harassment, verbal abuse, and retaliation. Specifically, she was claiming that there were supervisors and a team leader who were listening to her calls and referring them to the quality assurance section; thus, her calls were not being monitored on a random basis. She also claimed that she had made a recommendation that the Dispatch section make return calls to members for updated information rather than having a CSR get the correct information and that Dispatch was upset with her for making the recommendation. Simon DeYoung forwarded the e-mail to Spherion management.
Stacy Futch was Spherion’s on-site client service representative at the AAA site in St. Mary. She met with
Ms. Jones on November 11, 2007, concerning Ms. Jones’ e-mail to Mr. DeYoung. Ms. Futch asked Ms. Jones about her claim of sexual harassment, and Ms. Jones said that it had happened months ago and that she had not brought the matter up before because she did not think that the issue would be addressed.
Ms. Jones did not go into detail with Ms. Futch about the alleged sexual harassment actions.
Ms. Jones felt that Mr. Jordan was sexually harassing her based on some comments that he had made to her. Mr. Jordan was not Ms. Jones’ supervisor. During the first week of
Ms. Jones’ employment with Spherion, Mr. Jordan asked her if she would like to go fishing. Mr. Jordan admitted that he had told
Ms. Jones that he thought she was beautiful, but that he had never seriously asked her to marry him. Ms. Jones went to
Mr. Jordan and asked him to stop making comments to her. Three days later he told her that she looked nice. Ms. Jones testified that in October 2007, Mr. Jordan told her that he was drinking milk and that he was growing. Ms. Jones said she took the comment to mean that his penis was getting larger.
Mr. Jordan denied he made any comments about drinking milk. Given Ms. Jones’s conversation to Ms. Futch in which she told Ms. Futch on November 11, 2007, that she had not experienced any sexual harassment for several months, and Ms. Jones’s testimony that after the October 5, 2007, altercation with Mr. Jordan that there had been no further incidents involving him, I find that Ms. Jones’ testimony about the milk to lack credibility.
Ms. Jones did not make a complaint to Ms. Jaques about Mr. Jordan’s comments.
Ms. Jones claims that her low performance scores were a result of her scores being manipulated by either AAA or Spherion as retaliation for making a complaint of discrimination and harassment. The evidence does not support Ms. Jones’ claim that her scores were manipulated. Ms. Jones had heard that some supervisors were dismissed for manipulating scores, and she concluded that if other scores could be manipulated then her scores must have been manipulated. The rumors that Ms. Jones
had heard about supervisors had nothing to do with the manipulation of QA scores and Ms. Jones’ claim of manipulation is based on pure speculation.
Ms. Jones claims that two other employees Jessica Robart and Marci Palumbo, who were white females, had low QA scores and were not dismissed for poor performance. Ms. Jones’s claim is unfounded. Ms. Robart had low performance scores for the last two weeks in June 2007 and for the last two weeks in July 2007. Marci Palumbo, referred to as Ricky or Marsha by
Ms. Jones, had a low performance score for August 2007. Neither Ms. Robart nor Ms. Palumbo had four consecutive months with low performance scores. At least one non-minority male employee’s employment has been terminated for poor performance relating to QA.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57, Fla. Stat. (2008).
Ms. Jones contends that Spherion racially and sexually discriminated against her by subjecting her to a racially and sexually hostile work environment and retaliated against her for complaining. Subsections 760.10(1)(a) and 7, Florida Statutes (2007),6 provide:
It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer:
To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise 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.
The Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Section 760.01, et seq., Florida Statutes, is modeled after Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000, et seq.; therefore, case law interpreting Title VII is also relevant to cases brought under the Florida Civil Rights Act. Florida Department of Community Affairs v. Bryant, 586 So. 2d 1205, 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
In a discrimination case, the petitioner has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792,
93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the petitioner must
establish that: (1) she is a member of a protected class;
(2) she was subject to an adverse employment action; (3) the employer treated similarly situated employees outside the protected class more favorably than she was treated; and
(4) she was qualified for the position. See Burke-Fowler v.
Orange County, Florida, 447 F.3d 1319, 1323 (11th Cir. 2006).
Ms. Jones has established that she is in a protected class; she is a female African-American. She did not establish that she was qualified to do the job of a customer service representative. The minimum level of performance for a customer service representative was 90%, and Ms. Jones never achieved a 90% QA performance level while she was at AAA. In her Proposed Recommended Order, Ms. Jones argues that she was subjected to disparate treatment based on her race and gender. She claims that she was relieved of her assignment at AAA and not given another assignment and Ms. Robart, a white female who had poor QA performance, was treated more favorably. Ms. Jones’ assignment at AAA was terminated. The evidence does not establish that Ms. Jones requested another assignment from Spherion and was denied an assignment. The evidence does not establish that Ms. Robart was treated more favorably than
Ms. Jones. Ms. Robart did not have a QA performance level under 90% for four months as did Ms. Jones. Ms. Jones has failed to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment based on
either gender or race.
If the petitioner proves a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the employer to proffer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the action it took. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248,
101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). The employer’s burden is always one of production, not persuasion, as it always remains the petitioner’s burden to persuade the fact finder that the proffered reason is a pretext and that the employer intentionally discriminated against the petitioner. Id. at
252-256.
Spherion has established that Ms. Jones’ assignment at AAA was terminated because she did not meet the QA performance level of 90%. Spherion has terminated assignments of other Spherion employees who are outside Ms. Jones’ protected classes for failure to meet the QA performance levels. Ms. Jones’s assignment termination was not based on sexual or racial discrimination.
The required elements of a prima facie case for retaliation7 are: (1) Petitioner participated in a protected activity; (2) Petitioner suffered an adverse employment action; and (3) there is a causal connection between participation in the protected activity and the adverse employment action. See Gupta v. Fla. Board of Regents, 212 F.3d 571, 587 (11th Cir.
2000); Farley v. Nationwide Mutual Ins., 197 F.3d 1322, 1336
(11th Cir. 1999).
Ms. Jones has failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Ms. Jones did file a discrimination complaint against Spherion, and her assignment at AAA was terminated. However, Ms. Jones has failed to establish a causal connection between her discrimination complaint or any of the verbal or
e-mail allegations she made against Spherion and the termination of her assignment at AAA. Mr. Cooper is the supervisor employed by AAA who made the recommendation to Spherion that Ms. Jones’ assignment be terminated based on her poor performance.
Ms. Jones did not think that Mr. Cooper’s recommendation was based on discrimination or retaliation. The recommendation based on poor performance was acted on by Spherion, and the evidence presented did not support any causal connection between the termination of the assignment and the filing of a discrimination complaint or any of Ms. Jones’ allegations concerning her treatment by AAA employees or Spherion employees.
To establish a claim of racial or sexual harassment, Petitioner must prove the following elements: (1) Petitioner belonged to a protected group; (2) Petitioner has been subjected to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment must have been based on the sex or race of the employee; (4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms and
conditions of employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment; (5) the employer is responsible for such environment under either a theory of vicarious or of direct liability. Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc., 277 F.3d 1269, 1275 (11th Cir. 2002); Mendoza v. Borden, Inc., 195 F.3d 1238,
1245 (11th Cir. 1999).
Ms. Jones has failed to establish a claim of racial or sexual harassment based on the actions of Mr. Hinton or
Mr. Jordan. Ms. Jones claims that Mr. Hinton was rude and hostile to her because she was an African-American woman. The evidence does not support her claim. Mr. Hinton’s militaristic management style applied equally to men and to women and to white employees as well as to employees of color.
Mr. Hinton counseled Ms. Jones on her footwear, which was in violation of the AAA dress code and about logging in early, which was also a violation of AAA policy. The counseling did not result in disciplinary action, did not affect her benefits or pay, or otherwise alter the terms and conditions of her employment. Ms. Jones did not establish that Mr. Hinton’s conduct was sufficiently pervasive or severe that it created a discriminatorily abusive working environment. He counseled her once about her footwear, once or twice about her logging in early, and once requested her to get out of after call.
Mr. Hinton was an employee of AAA and not of Spherion.
When Spherion received complaints about Mr. Hinton, Spherion forwarded the complaints to AAA, who had control over
Mr. Hinton. In one of her e-mails to Ms. Jaques complaining about Mr. Hinton, Ms. Jones stated “No action requested.” However, AAA did take some action to correct Mr. Hinton’s abrasive management style by requiring him to attend anger management classes.
Ms. Jones also complained that Mr. Jordan sexually harassed her. Mr. Jordan was a co-worker and not Ms. Jones’ supervisor. He could not fire or discipline Ms. Jones, alter her pay or benefits, or affect the terms and conditions of her employment. The conduct which Ms. Jones claims created an abusive working environment consisted of Mr. Jordan asking
Ms. Jones if she would like to go fishing; Mr. Jordan telling Ms. Jones that she was beautiful and looked nice; and of
Mr. Jordan asking Ms. Jones to marry him in a joking manner. Such conduct does not rise to the level of harassing conduct and at best are considered isolated incidents. “[S]imple teasing, offhand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not result in discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment.” Clark County School District v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 271 (2001).
Spherion has requested attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Subsection 760.11(6), Florida Statutes, which
provides that the Commission, in its discretion, may allow reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party as part of its costs and that the provision regarding attorney’s fees be interpreted in a manner consistent with federal case law involving a Title VII action. “Attorney’s fees may not be awarded to a defendant in a Title VII case unless the plaintiff’s claim is frivolous, unreasonable or groundless.” Yoder Brothers, Inc. v. Weygant, 973 So. 2d 625, 626 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Respondents have not demonstrated that Ms. Jones’ claim was frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Ms. Jones’ Petition for Relief and denying Spherion’s request for attorney’s fees and costs.
DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of April, 2009 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
SUSAN B. HARRELL
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of April 2009.
1/ Although Ms. Jones’ October 15, 2007, written warning indicates that her “average [QA] for the month of August was 69%,” the reference to the month of August was a typographical error by Spherion and should have said “September.”
2/ Mr. Cooper had no knowledge when he made the recommendation to Spherion to terminate Ms. Jones’s assignment that Ms. Jones had made a formal complaint of discrimination against Spherion. Ms. Jones testified that she did not feel that Mr. Cooper had discriminated or retaliated against her in any manner.
3/ Spherion uses a third party service to deal with unemployment compensation claims. Spherion advised the third party service that Ms. Jones’ assignment had been terminated due to poor work performance. The response filed to the claim advised that
Ms. Jones’s assignment had been terminated for poor work performance.
4/ AAA has a dress code policy which prohibits the wearing of “flip-flops” or shoes of a similar nature.
5/ AAA has a policy which prohibits employees from logging on to the computer more than six minutes prior to the beginning of
their shift. Mr. Hinton has counseled with non-African-American employees and male employees about logging in early.
6/ Unless otherwise indicated, all references to the Florida Statutes are to the 2007 version.
7/ Although retaliation was not mentioned in Ms. Jones’ Petition for Relief, both parties presented evidence at the final hearing concerning retaliation and both parties argued the issue of retaliation in the Proposed Recommended Orders.
Derick Daniel, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100
Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100
Jessica T. Walberg, Esquire Ford & Harrison LLP
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.
