STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
YOLETTE DALEY-BECKFORD,
vs.
Petitioner,
Case No. 19-2090
AGING AND DISABILITY RESOURCE CENTER OF BROWARD COUNTY,
Respondent.
/
RECOMMENDED ORDER
This case came before Administrative Law Judge June C. McKinney of the Division of Administrative Hearings for final hearing on June 25 and 26, 2019, in Lauderdale Lakes,
Florida, and on July 2, 2019, and August 6, 2019, by video teleconferencing in Lauderdale Lakes and Tallahassee, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Yolette Daley-Beckford, pro se
7863 Northwest 11th Street Plantation, Florida 33322
For Respondent: Shana Bridgeman, Esquire
Goren, Cherof, Doody & Ezrol, P.A.
3099 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of race; and, if so, what remedy should be imposed.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On or about May 22, 2018, Petitioner Yolette Daley-Beckford ("Daley-Beckford" or Petitioner") filed a discrimination complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("FCHR"), alleging that Aging and Disability Resource Center of Broward County ("ADRC" or "Respondent") discriminated against Petitioner based on her race.
FCHR investigated the case and issued a Notice of Determination: No Reasonable Cause on March 27, 2019, which notified the parties that "no reasonable cause exists to believe that an unlawful practice occurred." Thereafter, Petitioner elected to contest the decision and pursue administrative remedies by filing a Petition for Relief ("Petition") with FCHR on or about April 17, 2019.
On April 17, 2019, FCHR transmitted the Petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH"), and the undersigned was assigned to hear the case. The final hearing was held on June 25 and 26, 2019; July 2, 2019; and August 6, 2019.
At the hearing, Petitioner presented two witnesses: Marie Laurent and herself. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit, pages 1 through 75, was admitted into evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of six witnesses: Amy Parks, Lauren Nadel, Marion Conner, Patricia Alonso, Natasha Elfarghali, and Elizabeth
Lombardo. Respondent's Exhibits 1 through 11, 13 through 35, and
37 through 76 were admitted into evidence.
The proceedings were recorded and transcribed. On July 18, 2019, the June 25, 2019, and July 2, 2019, hearing Transcripts were filed at DOAH. On August 1, 2019, the two-volume hearing Transcripts from June 26, 2019, were filed at DOAH. On September 18, 2019, the August 6, 2019, hearing Transcript was filed at DOAH. Both parties submitted timely proposed
recommended orders, which have been considered by the undersigned in rendering this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
ADRC is an organization that is the primary planning, coordinating, monitoring, evaluating, and funding body for various groups, agencies, organizations, and projects relating to primarily senior residents in Broward County.
In January 2015, Daley-Beckford, a black female, started her employment at ADRC as an information and referral specialist in the helpline unit. She had originally applied for a position in the triage unit but was offered and accepted the position in the helpline unit.
Triage Unit
In February 2016, ADRC posted a job opening for a triage specialist. Daley-Beckford applied for the position, interviewed
on or about February 24, 2016, and was chosen for the position over the other applicants.
On or about April 15, 2016, Daley-Beckford started her position in the triage unit. Daley-Beckford's offer letter for the triage specialist detailed her work shift hours from
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and she was placed on a 90-day probationary period.
ADRC's triage unit was a two-person quality assurance Medicaid department that ran reports, vital statistics, made sure the Medicaid long-term process ran smoothly, and maintained the Medicaid in-home care waitlist for clients.
When Daley-Beckford started in the triage unit, her assigned desk and work space for the new position was in a shared office with the contract manager down the hall separate and apart from where the triage office was located. Daley-Beckford was the first triage specialist to work in a separate office from the triage unit.
Daley-Beckford felt that she missed learning opportunities and training because she was not performing triage duties in the office with the other triage employee. She believed she was being treated differently because she was black.
Eventually, Daley-Beckford was moved to the triage office where the other triage specialist, Leslie Clark ("Clark"), a white female, was located.
On July 22, 2016, Daley-Beckford received her 90-day probationary evaluation. The performance appraisal stated that her strengths were "willingness to learn and ability to apply the knowledge." The evaluation meeting took approximately two hours to discuss her evaluation and was exhausting for Daley-Beckford. She believed Elizabeth Lombardo ("Lombardo" or "Director"), ADRC's program director, a white female, was harassing her. The meeting concluded with Petitioner being removed from probation.
On January 25, 2017, Daley-Beckford received her annual evaluation. She received a one percent raise effective February 20, 2017. Daley-Beckford was not pleased with the evaluation and felt she should have received a higher evaluation and pay raise.
ADRC provided raises for their employees based on the following scale: zero percent pay raise if on probation; one percent raise if performing the job; two percent raise if doing a good job; and three percent raise if doing an excellent job.
ADRC had monthly birthday gatherings to acknowledge birthdays of employees. ADRC does not have a formal policy where it provides cakes or parties for employees. Instead, at the monthly birthday celebrations, individual employees volunteer to purchase gifts and/or cake and/or dessert(s) if they choose to contribute. Daley-Beckford felt her co-workers did not celebrate her birthday like they did for other co-workers. However, for
one of Petitioner's birthdays, she did not even eat the cake that was provided for her.
Clark worked in the triage unit with the door shut.
Clark also attended partner meetings, met with health care companies, and the Department of Children and Families while working in the triage unit. Daley-Beckford only attended one meeting.
Daley-Beckford was asked to create a PowerPoint to present to staff about the long-term care process. She completed the PowerPoint but was never given the opportunity to present it.
Amy Parks ("Parks"), a white female, was the triage supervisor. Lombardo was Parks' supervisor.
Parks oftentimes requested Clark to update the triage procedures on the work drive. Daley-Beckford wanted to update the work drive but was told by Parks and Clark not to update the procedures.
In mid-2017, Clark resigned, which made Daley-Beckford the sole employee working in the triage unit. During that time, Parks still requested that Daley-Beckford not update the procedures. Parks started helping out in the triage unit and updating the procedures herself.
On May 19, 2017, Daley-Beckford requested that
Lombardo change her work shift to the early shift that started at
8:30 a.m., but her request was denied. By email dated May 31, 2017, Lombardo informed Daley-Beckford:
Thanks for meeting with me this morning regarding your request to change hours. As discussed, I have noted your interest in changing your hours, but until the new triage person is hired and trained, your hours will remain the same. We can re-address this once the new person has been trained in approximately three months.
After Clark left, Lombardo did not allow the door to be shut in the triage office.
On or about June 15, 2017, Lauren Nadel ("Nadel"), a white Jewish female, interviewed for a position in finance at ADRC. She did not get the position in finance but was offered a position in the triage unit, which she accepted.
Nadel was hired for the 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. shift in the triage unit.
When Daley-Beckford and Nadel were working in the triage unit office, Lombardo would not allow either of them to close the door. A chair was even propped at the door to keep it open. Lombardo requested that all ADRC staff keep their doors open.
Lombardo frequently questioned Daley-Beckford about her work to stay abreast of her workload and monitored how it was going. Daley-Beckford felt Lombardo was taunting her when asking about the work she believed she could see in the triage inbox.
Daley-Beckford also felt Lombardo was harassing her by micromanaging and causing her anxiety.
After several months, Daley-Beckford reported to Edith Lederberg ("Lederberg"), ADRC's executive director, a white female, that it was not fair that she could not work the
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. shift. Lederberg informed Daley-Beckford that her contract required her to work 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Daley-Beckford also reported to Lederberg that Lombardo was harassing and bullying her.
Daley-Beckford continued to request that her work schedule be changed.
Lombardo informed Daley-Beckford that she still could not change to the early morning work shift because Nadel needed to be trained by Parks who worked the early shift and the triage unit required coverage until the end of the day.
On or about August 14, 2017, Daley-Beckford was late for work. When Daley-Beckford signed in at the main desk, Lombardo had written "late" by Daley-Beckford's name. Daley- Beckford felt that this was additional harassment and humiliating, so later in the day she scribbled out the "late." Daley-Beckford was the only one that Lombardo ever wrote "late" by her name.
Also, Lombardo spoke to Daley-Beckford and documented by memorandum dated August 15, 2017, an incident regarding Daley-
Beckford. The memorandum stated that Daley-Beckford "should not be claiming you completed work you did not do." Daley-Beckford denied such actions and believed that Lombardo was just continuing to harass her.
On or about August 31, 2017, Lombardo verbally told Daley-Beckford that her work schedule was changing to the requested early shift, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., effective September 5, 2017. Lombardo followed up and confirmed the schedule change by email.
Daley-Beckford was assigned to do a weekly report that she believes Clark did not do when she was in the triage unit. The report consisted of Daley-Beckford turning in a weekly list of her work to Lombardo. Daley-Beckford did not understand why she had to turn in weekly reports if the triage inbox contained the emails that she worked on daily and was updated daily to represent the work that was completed.
When Nadel started in the triage unit, she did not immediately prepare weekly reports because she was not aware that it was a job duty. However, after she was informed about the weekly reports, she completed her weekly reports.
Nadel wanted Daley-Beckford to call out what emails she worked on during the day because she believed it increased the efficiency of the unit since they both worked on assignments from the same inbox.
Daley-Beckford did not like the process, and ADRC did not have a policy that required calling out the emails.
Nadel was named evacuation team leader for the triage unit.
After a while, Nadel did not enjoy working with Daley- Beckford and complained about her to their supervisor Parks.
Daley-Beckford could hear Marion Conner ("Conner"), a black Hispanic female, whose office was next to the triage office. Conner used profanity often and was very loud, which Daley-Beckford also believed added to the harassment at her job.
While reviewing employee background screening due dates, Lombardo requested Daley-Beckford's Social Security number to put in the system to check her background screening due date. Lombardo also requested Parks and Conner's Social Security numbers to check their due dates.
Daley-Beckford declined to provide her Social Security number. Lombardo informed Daley-Beckford that she would get it from Natasha Elfarghali ("Elfarghali"), the finance director, a white female. Daley-Beckford decided Lombardo was harassing her because she was told Lombardo's request was not the proper procedure.
Daley-Beckford requested time off from work and would often have to discuss her leave requests with Lombardo. Daley- Beckford thought that her questioning regarding leave approval
was another form of the continued harassment because she was black. On one occasion, Lombardo inquired about Petitioner's medical condition, which Daley-Beckford did not like.
When the triage unit was slow, Parks and Lombardo would assign the unit to work on "The Dead Project," which consisted of updating the file room with deceased individuals' files. Clark, Daley-Beckford, and Nadel all were instructed to work on the project and worked in the file room during their stints with the triage unit.
ADRC Funding
ADRC is funded by the Florida Department of Elder Affairs. The use of the funds is governed by contract, and ADRC may only use funds to pay employees for the duties and functions in their contract.
After Petitioner started working in the triage unit, the Florida Department of Elder Affairs amended ADRC's contract. The amended contract prohibited ADRC from having any triage employee positions.
When ADRC discovered that the triage unit was not allowed under the funding contract, Lombardo started planning to reorganize ADRC, correct the invalid unit, and transition the triage employees elsewhere at ADRC.
Before the transition plans for the triage unit were solidified, an opening became available in the finance
department. Elfarghali advertised the opening to all ADRC employees by email on December 8, 2017. Nadel applied for the opening, interviewed, and was chosen for the fiscal assistant position. Daley-Beckford did not apply for the position.
On December 15, 2017, Nadel left the triage unit and started her fiscal assistant position on December 18, 2017.
On January 18, 2018, Daley-Beckford received her annual performance appraisal. Lombardo evaluated Daley-Beckford as doing a good job and provided her with a two percent raise. However, Lombardo also determined Daley-Beckford still had a number of duties she needed to continue to work on to master.
The appraisal indicated that Petitioner had the following areas to improve: "Accuracy and thoroughness of work being completed; ability to move quickly from one task to another so that the work is being completed; needs to understand funding streams."
Daley-Beckford did not agree with the evaluation and believed that she should have gotten a three percent raise and that the lowered results of the evaluation were because she was black.
Soon after the evaluation, Daley-Beckford requested a meeting and met with Lederberg and Shirley Snipes ("Snipes") to discuss all of her concerns: the annual review ratings; her inability to close the door in the office; sign-in sheet having
"late" written by her name; schedule change request; write up; and Social Security number request.
Daley-Beckford told them in the meeting that she believed what occurred was "racially motivated."
ADRC Transition Plan
Lombardo evaluated all ADRC units to create a transition plan to comply with the Florida Department of Elder Affairs' amended contract. She concluded that one of the two triage specialists had already left the unit, that she should not fill the open position, that ADRC could eliminate the triage unit, and that Daley-Beckford be reassigned to another lateral position at ADRC.
On or about April 23, 2018, Lombardo informed Daley- Beckford the triage unit was closing. She also offered Daley- Beckford a lateral transfer to a Medicaid benefits specialist position with the same pay, benefits, and many of the job duties of a triage specialist. Daley-Beckford requested that Lombardo "put it in writing."
Daley-Beckford knew the new position included more phone time and felt it was a lesser position.
On May 9, 2018, Lederberg provided Daley-Beckford a letter stating that her triage job was ending on June 29, 2018, and that she needed to inform Martha Martin by May 14, 2018, whether she was applying for the Medicaid waiver
specialist/screener position that is being added as part of the transition, and that the present triage duties will be assigned to the screeners and counselors.
On May 11, 2018, Daley-Beckford unexpectedly resigned.
Hearing
At hearing, ADRC's employees collectively testified to ADRC's bad work environment and how nasty, condescending, and rude Lombardo was toward all the employees.
Parks testified that she had worked with Lombardo for seven years and that many days she did not want to come to work because of Lombardo's sharp tongue and snarky, condescending tone of voice toward everyone, which made you not want to deal with her. Parks also explained that Lombardo micromanaged and did not provide support. Instead, Lombardo would jump on you "white people, Hispanic, black no preference equal opportunity."
Nadel described Lombardo as rude based on her tone and word choices. Moreover, she testified that Lombardo spoke negatively to staff and would yell and even belittle some.
Conner explained that Lombardo talks in a stern voice and "snaps on everyone."
Patricia Alonso ("Alonso"), a white female, who started working at ADRC in June 2016 as a contract manager for the SHINE program, labeled Lombardo as very disrespectful, condescending, ignores employees, and her mood was all over the map. Alonso
admitted that she felt like resigning but realized it was the culture of the agency because Lombardo treated everyone the same, whether white, black, or Hispanic.
Alonso also testified that she requested a schedule change from Lombardo multiple times and that she denied it. Alonso did not get a schedule change until she went above Lombardo to the new executive director.
Discrimination Claim
On or about May 22, 2018, Daley-Beckford filed a discrimination case with FCHR, alleging ADRC discriminated against her by subjecting her to harassment and bullying by management and retaliation based on race.
On March 27, 2019, FCHR issued a Determination: No Reasonable Cause. Daley-Beckford filed a Petition on or about April 17, 2019, to contest the determination.
Daley-Beckford claims in her Petition that being placed in a separate office from the triage co-worker of an opposite race, prohibition of performing supervisory job duties, being deprived of a full raise twice, denial of schedule change, request of Social Security number, analysis of her sick and vacation time, being accused of stealing work, requiring the triage office door stay open, triage co-worker obtaining the finance position, the proposed job not being a lateral position,
and management eliminating Petitioner's triage position were harassment, discrimination, and retaliation because of her race.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2019).
Daley-Beckford alleged employment discrimination by harassment, bullying, and retaliation in her Petition based on her race.
The Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("Florida Act"), chapter 760, Florida Statutes, prohibits discrimination in the workplace and prohibits employer retaliation for engaging in protected activity.
A "discriminatory practice," as defined in the Florida Act, "means any practice made unlawful by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992." § 760.02(4), Fla. Stat.
Petitioner has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice. See St. Louis v. Fla. Int'l Univ., 60 So. 3d 455
(Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Fla. Dep't of Transp. v. J.W.C. Co., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Section 760.01 of the Florida Act explains that the general purpose is to:
[S]ecure for all individuals within the state freedom from discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status and thereby to protect their interest in personal dignity, to make available to the state their full productive capacities, to secure the state against domestic strife and unrest, to preserve the public safety, health, and general welfare, and to promote the interests, rights, and privileges of individuals within the state.
As to Petitioner's claim of discrimination, section
provides, in relevant part:
It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer:
To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire an individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status.
The undersigned must look at the charges of discrimination Daley-Beckford claimed in her Petition.
Discriminatory intent can be established through direct or circumstantial evidence. Schoenfeld v. Babbitt, 168 F.3d 1257, 1266 (11th Cir. 1999). Direct evidence of discrimination is evidence that, if believed, establishes the existence of discriminatory intent behind an employment decision without inference or presumption. Maynard v. Bd. of Regents, 342 F.3d
1281, 1289 (11th Cir. 2003).
"Direct evidence is composed of 'only the most blatant remarks, whose intent could be nothing other than to discriminate' on the basis of some impermissible factor." Schoenfeld v. Babbitt, 168 F.3d at 1266. Complainants alleging unlawful discrimination may prove their case using direct evidence of discriminatory intent. In this matter, Daley- Beckford presented no direct evidence of race discrimination.
When no direct proof of discrimination exists, complainants may establish a prima facie case circumstantially through the burden-shifting test established by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-05 (1973)(The Supreme Court of the United States established the analysis to be used in cases alleging claims under Title VII that rely on circumstantial evidence to establish discrimination.).
Under McDonnell-Douglas, Petitioner has the burden of
establishing by a preponderance of the evidence a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. Under the McDonnell-Douglas analysis, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Daley-Beckford must establish the following four elements:
(1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) she is qualified for the job at issue; and (4) ADRC treated similarly-situated employees outside the protected class more favorably.
The first three elements for the foregoing test are satisfied. Daley-Beckford has established that she is a member of a protected class, in that she is a black female.
Daley-Beckford also showed that she suffered an adverse employment action with the elimination of her triage specialist position and transfer to a Medicaid waiver specialist/screener position. The decision to transfer an employee is an adverse employment action. See Pennington v. City of Huntsville,
261 F.3d 1262, 1267 (11th Cir. 2001).
Additionally, Daley-Beckford's positive evaluations provide the evidence to demonstrate she was qualified for
the job. See Gregory v. Daly, 243 F.3d 687, 696 (2d Cir.
2001)(holding that a plaintiff "need only make the minimal showing that [she] possesses the basic skills necessary for the performance of [the] job" to satisfy the requirement that the plaintiff was qualified).
However, Daley-Beckford fails to bring forward any evidence of the fourth element showing that ADRC treated similarly-situated employees outside her protected class more favorably.
In order to prove the fourth element and make a valid comparison, Petitioner must show that the employees are similarly situated "in all relevant aspects." See Wilson v. B/E Aero.,
Inc., 376 F.3d 1079, 1091 (11th Cir. 2004)(comparator must be
nearly identical to petitioner to prevent courts from second- guessing reasonable decisions by an employer).
Even though the record shows that Daley-Beckford was the only black triage specialist and that she was placed in a separate office from the triage unit, the record is void of evidence that her workspace assignment was based on race or that any other triage specialist was treated more favorably than Daley-Beckford because of the location of their workspace. Moreover, Petitioner was moved into the triage office.
Also, Daley-Beckford's claim that the other triage specialists were able to perform supervisory functions fails to show Clark and Nadel received favorable treatment because no evidence was presented to show any supervisory duties were because of race, part of Petitioner's job description, or her employment contract.
In addition, no evidence in the record demonstrates another triage specialist either obtained a full pay raise twice or Petitioner failed to get a full raise twice based on race. In fact, ADRC demonstrated in Petitioner's evaluations that she was still not performing her job at an excellent level, the requirement for a full three percent pay raise.
Furthermore, the greater weight of the evidence shows that Daley-Beckford agreed to the late shift when she accepted the triage specialist position; so, Nadel was not being treated
more favorably when she worked her early shift so she could train with Supervisor Parks. Likewise, Petitioner covered the triage unit until it closed by working until 5:00 p.m. Moreover, ADRC eventually changed Petitioner's schedule to the requested earlier shift.
Daley-Beckford's claim regarding the Social Security number request also fails to meet element four. The compelling evidence demonstrates that while checking employee background screening due dates, Lombardo requested that both another black female as well as a white female provide their Social Security numbers when she made the request of Petitioner. Hence, she was not treated differently in this incident, and no one was treated more favorably.
Daley-Beckford's dislike of Lombardo's analysis of her sick and vacation time also fails to meet the fourth element of the test because the record is void of evidence to show another employee outside the protected class was being treated more favorably regarding leave requests.
Daley-Beckford might not have liked Lombardo writing her up on August 15, 2017. However, the record lacks any compelling evidence that the incident was based on race.
Also, the record is clear that Daley-Beckford's discriminatory claim regarding the open door policy lacks evidence of any favorable treatment to another employee. To the
contrary, the record shows that the same triage door had to stay open when Nadel worked in the triage unit. Additionally, the evidence shows Lombardo requested that all staff keep office doors open.
Another claim that Daley-Beckford contends was part of her discrimination is Nadel obtaining the finance position. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Nadel responded to an open advertisement for the finance position, which Petitioner had the opportunity to apply for, but did not.
Daley-Beckford also claims that Lombardo's supervisory actions were harassment and bullying. Unfortunately, the record demonstrates that Lombardo did not make ADRC's work environment a pleasant place. However, Petitioner was not treated any differently by Lombardo than the other employees. More specifically, Lombardo micromanaged all employees and was condescending, rude, and unprofessional to Nadel and others: black, white, and Hispanic alike.
Therefore, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate the fourth element of the test, favorable treatment, with respect to her aforementioned claims. Having failed to prove the final element, Petitioner has not met her burden and established a prima facie case of unlawful employment practices of race discrimination in the claims above.
Petitioner also maintains that ADRC's closing the triage unit, eliminating her job, and offering her a Medicaid waiver specialist/screener position was harassment and discrimination, because of her race. This claim is unique in that Petitioner was the only employee left in the triage unit when it was dissolved and, therefore, no employee comparative exists to determine the favorable treatment variable. Where the evidence does not fit neatly into the prima facie case formula, disparate treatment can be established by any proof of an action the employer takes where one can infer discriminatory animus. See Hill v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 841 F.2d 1533, 1540 (11th Cir. 1988). Hence, the undersigned will examine this claim as if the prima facie case has been met.
If a prima facie case of discrimination is established, the burden then shifts to the employer to articulate some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the action taken against Petitioner. It is a burden of production, not persuasion. If a non-discriminatory reason is offered by Respondent, the burden of production then shifts back to Petitioner to demonstrate that the offered reason is merely a pretext for discrimination. "[T]he factfinder must believe the plaintiff's explanation of intentional discrimination."
St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 519 (1993).
Shifting the burden to ADRC, ADRC presented sufficient evidence that it dissolved Daley Beckford's triage specialist position in the triage unit to comply with the amended funding contract. More specifically, ADRC demonstrated that the legitimate reorganization and a transition plan for funding compliance provided Daley-Beckford a lateral transfer to a Medicaid benefits specialist position including the same pay, benefits, and some of the same duties she previously held. ADRC's transition plan and actions were decisions made to comply with the amended funding contract so the agency could maintain its funding, a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason.
On this point, Petitioner did not credibly refute ADRC's legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the job transfer. Instead, the record only shows ADRC's compliance with the amended funding contract is a reasonable business decision. Accordingly, Petitioner's job transfer race discrimination claim also fails. Retaliation
Petitioner also alleged retaliation in her petition.
Section 760.10(7) provides in relevant part:
(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.
For Petitioner to succeed on an unlawful retaliation claim under section 760.10(7), she must show that: (1) she was engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) she suffered an adverse employment action by her employer; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Blizzard v. Appliance Direct, Inc., 16 So. 3d 922, 926 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009).
The first two prongs for the foregoing test are satisfied. The record demonstrates Daley-Beckford established that she complained and addressed her concerns in the meeting with Lederberg and Snipes specifically describing them as "racially motivated." Hence, the record is clear that Petitioner's complaint establishes the first prong, protected activity.
The second prong for a prima facie case of retaliation is also met in this matter. Daley-Beckford was informed that her position was being eliminated and that she was being transferred. Paragraph 78 shows that the transfer is an adverse employment action.
With respect to the causal link element, Daley- Beckford did not clearly establish one. However, the causal link requirement for a retaliation claim is construed broadly; a
plaintiff merely has to prove "that the protected activity and the negative employment action are not completely unrelated." Wideman v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 141 F.3d 1453, 1457 (11th Cir.
1998)(Citations omitted); Meeks v. Comput. Assocs. Int'l, 15 F.3d 1013, 1021 (11th Cir. 1994)(quoting EEOC v. Reichhold Chem.,
Inc., 988 F.2d 1564, 1571-72 (11th Cir. 1993)). Hence, the
causal link element has been met since Daley-Beckford reported the "racially motivated" actions and then ADRC transferred her within only three months.
Next, the burden-shifting analysis that must be applied to the causal link requirement of an unlawful retaliation claim is as follows: once the prima facie case is established, the employer must proffer a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the adverse employment action. The plaintiff bears the ultimate burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the reason provided by the employer is a pretext for prohibited, retaliatory conduct. Wells v. Colo. Dep't of
Transp., 325 F.3d 1205, 1212 (10th Cir. 2003).
In light of Daley-Beckford meeting all three prongs of a prima facie case of retaliation, the burden shifting analysis must be applied. As detailed in paragraph 95, ADRC has provided compelling evidence of a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for Daley-Beckford's transfer by establishing the transfer was lateral and was part of ADRC's reorganization to comply with the
amended funding contract. Therefore, as established above in paragraph 96, Daley-Beckford also failed to refute ADRC's business reason, compliance with the amended funding contract, and prove the business decision is a pretext for any retaliatory conduct.
Accordingly, Daley-Beckford does not meet her burden to demonstrate ADRC either retaliated against her or that ADRC committed any unlawful employment practices of racial discrimination as alleged in her Petition. Therefore, Daley- Beckford's Petition should be dismissed.
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief.
DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
S
JUNE C. MCKINNEY
Administrative Law Judge
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060
(850) 488-9675
Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2019.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk
Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
Shana Bridgeman, Esquire
Goren, Cherof, Doody & Ezrol, P.A.
3099 East Commercial Boulevard, Suite 200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308
(eServed)
Yolette Daley-Beckford 7863 Northwest 11th Street Plantation, Florida 33322 (eServed)
Cheyanne M. Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
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.
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Feb. 18, 2020 | Agency Final Order | |
| Oct. 22, 2019 | Recommended Order | Petitioner failed to demonstrate any unlawful employment practices of racial discrimination or retaliation. |
