The Issue The issue in the case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by terminating her employment in violation of the Age Discrimination Employment Act.
Findings Of Fact Lombardi started her employment as a judicial assistant with Dade County in 1971. Judge Mattie Belle Davis was the first judge who hired Petitioner. Judicial Assistants serve at the pleasure of the appointing Judge.1 Judge Bruce Levy hired Lombardi as his judicial assistant after Judge Davis retired. In December 2004, Judge Levy lost his re-election bid and Petitioner no longer had a full-time position as a judicial assistant with a judge. Lombardi started working in the temporary pool of judicial assistants. The position allowed Petitioner to retain her benefits while seeking a permanent judicial assistant position. While serving in the pool, Petitioner worked for Judge Leon Firtel from February 14, 2005, through February 28, 2006, before he let her go. Petitioner then worked for Judge Rosa Rodriguez from April 1, 2006, through May 23, 2007, until she let her go. Petitioner last worked for Dade County when she served as retired Judge Roger Silver's ("Silver") judicial assistant from September 1, 2007, until January 7, 2008. Lombardi was terminated in Silver's chambers with a bailiff and Ms. Suarez from Human Resources present. Silver informed the Petitioner her services were no longer needed and he was letting her go. Petitioner questioned why she was being terminated; however, Silver did not provide an explanation. Silver terminated Petitioner because he was not happy with her work performance. Silver testified that Petitioner had the following problems regarding her work: taking lunch breaks beyond the one hour he had discussed with her; numerous complaints from attorneys; selling Avon at the work place; not answering the phones and allowing calls to go to voicemail; and repeatedly setting unnecessary hearings on the docket. Prior to terminating Lombardi, Silver inquired with Human Resources about a replacement and was informed that he could not be assured that he would be able to get a temporary assistant to replace Lombardi due to the unavailability of funding. He still choose to terminate Petitioner because, "[he] felt having no one was better than what [he] had under the circumstances." Petitioner was not able to go back in the "temporary pool" of judicial assistants as she had in the past after Silver terminated her. In 2008, the Eleventh Judicial Circuit had a hiring freeze whereby the temporary pool was no longer funded. Human Resources eventually sent Elizabeth Gonzalez, whose date of birth is May 26, 1965, to Silver as a temporary judicial assistant. Silver had never met Gonzalez prior to her coming to work for him. There was no discussion of age when Silver requested a judicial assistant or when Gonzalez was assigned to him. Gonzalez served as Silver's temporary judicial assistant for a number of weeks and, when personnel advised him he could hire someone, including Gonzalez, Silver hired Gonzalez on or about March 10, 2008, because he was pleased with her work. Gonzalez worked with him until his retirement in December 2008. At the time when Petitioner filed her Charge of Discrimination, Petitioner was unaware of the exact age of her replacement. Petitioner's date of birth is May 18, 1948.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2009, 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 30th day of November, 2009.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent has committed an act of employment discrimination by totally reducing the employment hours of the Petitioner, such that the Petitioner was constructively discharged and whether such action was on account of his race, in the manner proscribed by Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Lavon A. Baker, was employed by the Respondent at a convenience store which operated in Jackson County, Florida, at times pertinent hereto. He performed various jobs involving cooking, cleaning, cashier duties, checking and maintenance of inventory at the "Jr. Food Store" involved. His employment record is without blemish, having no disciplinary incidents on his record with that employer, the Respondent. The Petitioner's immediate supervisor and employment decision-maker was Dina C. Bonine, the manager of the store involved. The Respondent, Jr. Food Mart of America, Inc., is a corporation headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi, which owns and operates convenience stores in various locations, employing more than 15 employees. The Petitioner is a black man. He was employed at the Respondent's store until October 1992 with no difficulties with his employer. His work record was good and free of disciplinary incidents. Beginning in early October 1992, he began to have his hours of employment per week reduced in number. This became a problem for him because he was earning insufficient income to meet his monthly expenses. He discussed the possibility of obtaining a second job so that he could earn sufficient income, but his supervisor, Ms. Bonine, advised him that he had to work "at her convenience" and would risk termination if he took a second job. Upon his hours of employment at the Respondent's place of business being reduced to approximately 8-10 hours per week, he was forced to take a second job at the Pizza Hut. He began working at the Pizza Hut for 28 hours per week at the minimum wage rate of $4.65 per hour, beginning in March of 1993. Although his supervisor, Ms. Bonine, cautioned him against taking a second job at the risk of being terminated from his job with the Respondent, she allowed a white female employee, Becky Baxter, and a white male employee named "Bobby", who were more recently hired than the Petitioner, to get additional hours of employment, while the Petitioner's hours were being reduced. At the same time, she allowed these two white employees to work at a second job with another employer, as well. Both Ms. Baxter and "Bobby" had been discharged by the Respondent, or Ms. Bonine, in the past, but had been rehired by her and given preferential treatment, in terms of working hours and accommodation of a second job, which treatment was not accorded to the Petitioner. In fact, Ms. Baxter worked in a second job at the Pizza Hut at the same time the Petitioner did, but received the overtime hours formerly given to the Petitioner at the Respondent's place of employment, while the Petitioner's hours were cut to nothing. The Petitioner testified that "she was already at 40 hours and she just got more". These employees, hired since the Petitioner, got all the working hours they wanted from the Respondent and convenient working time schedules, as well, compared to the Petitioner's hours. Ultimately in April of 1993, the Petitioner's working hours were totally eliminated and therefore his employment was effectively terminated. Upon taking the second job at the Pizza Hut, his employer at that facility allowed him to schedule his hours at the Pizza Hut so that he could still obtain all of the working hours he needed at the Respondent's facility. Nevertheless, his hours were constantly reduced by Ms. Bonine to the point that, in April, he had no hours scheduled for several weeks, effectively resulting in his termination. Debra McDaniel is a home health aide and certified nursing assistant. She is a friend of the Petitioner, and when he lost his automobile due to his reduced working hours and reduced income, she often transported him to and from his job. She therefore was able to observe on several occasions the work schedule placed at the Respondent's facility. She observed, for several weeks at a time, that the Respondent had given the Petitioner no working hours. She testified that Ms. Bonine told the Petitioner that she would post a new schedule with his working hours on it, but that never occurred. This observation was made sometime in April of 1993. Ms. McDaniel's testimony thus corroborates that of the Petitioner. Up until the first of October of 1992, the Petitioner earned $160.00 per week at the Respondent's employment facility, without overtime hours calculated in that figure. There is no evidence of what he earned in terms of overtime hours. His employment hours at the Respondent's facility were reduced to 8 hours per week by March 1, 1993. At that point in time, he took the job at Pizza Hut at 28 hours per week at a rate of $4.25 per hour. He worked at that job at Pizza Hut at the rate of 28 hours per week until the end of November, 1993. He was out of employment and looking for work until December 18, 1993, when he became employed with "Seminole Outdoors", at the rate of $5.00 per hour for 32 hours per week. He remained with that employer at that rate until February 28, 1994, when he resigned to return to school full time. He is in a law enforcement education program at Chipola Junior College. The Respondent adduced no evidence in this proceeding and failed to appear. The notice of hearing was issued on April 11, 1994 and served on the Respondent at its address of record, as previously mentioned in the above Preliminary Statement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations finding that the Petitioner has established that he is a victim of employment discrimination in the form of constructive discharge, following discriminatory reduction of his hours of employment, and opportunity to hold non-conflicting outside employment, all on account of his race, and that he be reinstated in his position with the Respondent and awarded back pay in an amount reflective of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Lavon A. Baker Post Office Box 1276 Sneads, FL 32460 Ms. Cheryl Little Administrative Assistant Jr. Food Mart of America, Inc. P.O. Box 3500 Jackson, MS 39207-3500 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
The Issue Did Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, commit an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of race?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 35-year-old Black male. Prior to December 1986, Petitioner was employed by Respondent in an OPS position in "Central Files". His work performance in Central Files was both superior and exemplary, and he was offered a State Career Service position as a Senior Clerk within Respondent's "Complaint Section". Upon accepting the Career Service position, Petitioner entered into a mandatory six months' probationary period. In the Senior Clerk position, Petitioner's primary duties were to answer the phone a specific 4-hour daily shift; to assist or act as backup for phone answering during Senior Clerk Terri Jones' (Black female) 4-hour daily phone shift; to prepare and distribute Class II complaint cases to Respondent's "Legal Section"; and to distribute mail and other materials as assigned by his immediate supervisor, Louise Bull (white female). On January 5, 1987, Petitioner took 4 hours unauthorized leave without pay for which he received a written reprimand on January 6, 1987. He had previously been orally reprimanded for the same practice. It was established by competent substantial evidence that Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Louise Bull, had had a number of absences without leave, some of which occurred before Petitioner's termination and some of which occurred after his termination, and that she also received at least one written reprimand for these absences. For some of her absences, Ms. Bull was required to reimburse money to the State, however it was not clear whether the reimbursement was because she was absent when she falsely claimed to be present or was standard reimbursement procedure when the leave actually taken is not covered by accrued leave time. Either way, Ms. Bull was not in a probationary status at any material time and, clearly, as Petitioner's supervisor, hers was not a substantially similar position to that of Petitioner. Petitioner and Cindy Dexter testified that many permanent employees in addition to Ms. Bull were playing fast and loose with tardiness and absenteeism, but their evidence is very indefinite and the race and gender of the employees accused was not established. Ms. Dexter's testimony was vague and not credible on this point. Their testimony on this subject was not confirmed by other credible witnesses nor was it ever established that any of the permanent employees accused by Petitioner held positions substantially similar to his. From almost the beginning of his probationary period, Petitioner had difficulty adjusting to his new position. He evidenced difficulty accepting supervision from Ms. Bull. This disrupted standard office practice. Over the probationary term, Ms. Bull orally counselled Petitioner approximately seven times concerning his lack of acceptance of her supervision as well as excessive tardiness and excessive personal phone usage. Diane Orcutt, the regular Complaint Office Supervisor and Ms. Bull's superior, described Petitioner as avoiding Louise Bull and coming directly to her about problems he perceived in the office operation. Petitioner and Terri Jones, his female job counterpart who is also Black, had an early but undefined job- related dispute, after which he sent her flowers to "make-up". On one occasion, after a loud and disruptive argument arose between Petitioner and Ms. Bull in the general office area, Evelyn McNeely, who was acting supervisor to them both during Ms. Orcutt's vacation, required Ms. Bull to prepare a memorandum clarifying Petitioner's job duties because, in Ms. McNeely's view, the Petitioner did not seem to understand his duties. This was done on June 17, 1987. This memorandum, headed "Performance Evaluation" from Ms. Bull to Petitioner also warned Petitioner that Ms. Bull would recommend extension of his probationary period because he was falling short on acceptable performance in several areas. Louise Bull prepared, delivered, and discussed with Petitioner her performance evaluation, indicating, based upon her personal observations, his failure to satisfactorily perform in the following areas: repeatedly tardy over the last several weeks; failure to properly handle routine telephone duties; failure to comply with their section's procedures for routing of case files; and continued failure to accept supervision under their section's chain of command. Ms. Bull admitted that she suffered emotional problems while Petitioner worked for her and apparently thereafter. She had crying jags and consulted a psychologist. She also received a prescription from some source for the tranquilizer valium. Ms. Bull denied that she and the psychologist ever identified a reason for her emotional state. Melinda Wagoner testified that Ms. Bull related to her that her emotional problems stemmed from living in a Black neighborhood and fighting with Black children when she was a child. The foregoing hearsay is admissible as an admission of a party (DPR) through its supervising agent (Louise Bull), but even if fully credible, this evidence would be insufficient to establish a nexus between Bull's behavior and the reason for Petitioner's eventual termination, in light of the record as a whole. Terri Jones, the permanent employee most substantially similar to Petitioner, was also a Senior Clerk. She is also Black. Her job duties were identical to those of Petitioner, except that they had primary responsibility for phone calls during different parts of each day. Ms. Jones had no supervisory problems of her own with Louise Bull. Ms. Jones asserted that Petitioner had excellent telephone manners but confirmed that Petitioner's regularity in answering the phone either on his shift or as her backup was often insufficient. The Complaint Section's phone was often placed on "hold" with no one waiting on the other end. Although anyone in the office could place a call on "hold" and any caller could hang up before an employee returned to the phone, the inference from all witnesses' testimony as a whole was that this "hold" procedure was being done excessively by Petitioner. Diane Orcutt, regular Complaint Office Supervisor, reviewed Petitioner's phone logs prior to evaluating him at the six months' point. The representative phone logs of the two substantially similar employees, Petitioner and Terri Jones, show that Petitioner logged only 34 calls in the same period that Ms. Jones logged 359. This vast discrepancy can be interpreted in a number of ways: either Petitioner was not answering the phone as directed, or he was not logging all calls as directed, or he was not maintaining the logs as directed. By any interpretation of this empirical data, Petitioner was not fulfilling a prime requirement of his job. At the time of his six months' evaluation, on June 22, 1987, Diane Orcutt made a joint decision with Louise Bull to extend Petitioner's six months probationary period by four months. Ms. Orcutt did this for a number of reasons: his early absences without leave, oral complaints from lower echelon employees that Petitioner would frequently neglect his telephone duties in one way or another, and the disruptive nature of his failure to accept Ms. Bull's supervision. In requiring the additional probation, Ms. Orcutt gave greater weight to the administrative/managerial friction and less weight to Petitioner's reprimanded early absences; however, with regard to the complaints of other employees, she testified that she felt sure Petitioner could do the work because of his past excellent performance on OPS and because of her personal observation but that he needed more time to actually do the job instead of engaging in uncooperative disputes with Ms. Bull. Additionally, Ms. Orcutt was giving Petitioner the benefit of any doubt by taking additional time to sort out whether the disruption problem arose from Ms. Bull or from Petitioner, because at that point, Ms. Bull had no problems supervising other Black or white employees; no oral complaints had been made by other employees against Ms. Bull; and oral complaints against Petitioner confirming Ms. Bull's unrecorded observations of Petitioner had been received personally by Ms. Orcutt. When presented with Orcutt's Mid-Cycle Appraisal and the 4 months' additional probation plan on June 22, 1987, Petitioner was hostile, refused to sign the appraisal, and another disruptive scene arose among Petitioner, Ms. Bull and Ms. Orcutt. Petitioner spent all of the workday of June 23, 1987 in "Personnel" complaining that his evaluation and the 4 months' additional probation was unjust. On two of the remaining successive days of that work week, Petitioner accomplished some work. On one of the remaining successive days in that week, he took his "Personal Leave Day". A weekend intervened, and on Monday, June 28, 1987, Diane Orcutt reassessed the situation, determined that Petitioner was not intending to cooperate, and terminated him, as had always been her option during his probationary period.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Human Relations Commission dismissing the complaint and petition for relief filed by Robert Baucham. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0712 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact None filed Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent's proposals have been accepted in substance and modified to conform to the record. Where they have not been accepted, they are rejected as misleading as stated or not supported by the record as stated. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Baucham Hearings 1021 Idlewild Drive, P-161 Tallahassee, FL 32301 E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
The Issue Whether Respondent Employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice by discrimination due to Petitioner’s national origin.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Employer is a paper packaging plant located in Cantonment, Florida. It fills orders from retailers as specified on purchase order forms (POFs). Respondent manufactures a variety of bags for containing retail goods. Petitioner worked for Respondent for more than eight years. During part of this time, he was a member of a union which had a collective bargaining contract with Respondent. At all times material, he did shift work involving heavy machinery "on the floor." Petitioner was terminated on June 13, 2003, after a series of disciplinary actions, the last of which arose out of events occurring on June 9, 2003. Petitioner contends in his Proposed Recommended Order that Respondent did not follow the guarantees of his union’s collective bargaining contract, the established grievance procedures, and/or Respondent’s policy and procedure manual for tier-disciplining or for counseling him. However, Respondent’s failure to comply with these artificial standards, or Respondent's failure to only partially comply with them, is not determinative of any issue under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, unless Petitioner also can show that other employees, who were not of Petitioner’s protected class, were treated differently or more favorably than Petitioner in a similar situation. It appears, however, that each time Petitioner requested union representation, he was provided with union representation. When he did not request union representation, he was not provided with union representation. On his Charge of Discrimination, Petitioner checked only the box for “national origin.” He did not check the box for “race.” However, under the portion of the form reserved for “The Particulars Are:”, Petitioner filled in: During my employment, I was constantly harassed by being called racially derogatory names. On June 13, 2003, I was terminated because of national origin (Native American). I was told that I was terminated for negligence. On his Petition for Relief, Petitioner complained, among other things, of “ethnic slurs” such as: Hay [sic.] Indian called Derogatory – names such as two Dog about my color and race. About a year before his termination, Petitioner had a feud with a white male co-employee, Clifford Stuckey. This feud is described below more fully and in sequence with other events. Generally, however, Petitioner was a non-confrontational employee with a good work ethic. With regard to his job performance, Petitioner was a model employee until he was promoted to machine operator more than two years before his termination. Petitioner had done well as an assistant machine operator, but after promotion, Petitioner was disciplined for a rash of quality control errors. The nature of his quality control errors was the same as that of many other similarly-situated employees, but his errors differed from other employees' errors in that he accumulated more quality control errors in a shorter period of time than any of his co- workers; he demonstrated too many such flaws within a single twelve-month period; and he cost the employer a considerable amount of money in wasted goods. For the eight-plus years of his employment, nicknames were the common way Petitioner and his co-employees addressed one another, day-in and day-out on the floor of the plant. Some supervisors picked up these nicknames due to their regular and pervasive use among subordinates. Many employees had nicknames that they did not object- to. One Black male employee purchased a vanity license plate which read "African," so co-employees called him "African," without anyone considering the nickname to be a racial slur or otherwise derogatory. Carl Broadnax (Black male) was proud to be called "Black Stud." Ronald Moran (white male) was known as "Big Ron." A Puerto Rican employee named Tony Crevice (phonetic spelling) was called "Julio." Eric Adkins (Black male) called another employee (race and gender unspecified) "Pooh Bear." Wesley N. Houston (white male) was called "Cowboy." In the course of disciplinary actions against him during the last fifteen months of his employment, (see Findings of Fact 52-53, 65-70, 80 and 81), Petitioner told Nancy Glass, Respondent's white female Human Resources Director, that he was an "Indian." She understood that he perceived himself to be an "Indian." During his eight-plus years in Respondent's employ, Petitioner was perceived by many of his co-employees as an “Indian” or “Native American.” Some of them called him by his first name, "James," but most of them also called him by the nicknames, “Indian,” “Two Dog,” “Two Dogs,” and/or “Two Dogs Fucking.” No clear evidence was presented as to how often any or all of these nicknames were used to address, or in reference to, Petitioner, but their usage must have been as common, continual, and pervasive as any of the other nicknames used day- in and day-out on the floor. The foregoing nicknames for Petitioner were used by co- employees and accepted by Petitioner for more than eight years without rancor or dismay on either side. For more than eight years, the users did not perceive that the nicknames might be racially provocative or demeaning of Petitioner's race or national origin, and they did not sense that he might be hurt by the nicknames, because he did not express hurt feelings or offense to anyone. Only one witness thought Petitioner's nicknames were a bad thing. Ronald Williams (Black male and current union president) knew that "Two Dogs" was a common name given to Petitioner and that it was an abbreviation for "Two Dogs Fucking." He heard the abbreviation "Two Dogs" directed to Petitioner, but he never heard the full phrase even used around Petitioner. He considered both phrases to be racial in origin and racial in context, but even Williams could not say that Petitioner ever reacted oppositionally to any of the nicknames. No other witness acknowledged hearing the nickname "Two Dogs Fucking." All of them thought the other nicknames which were applied to Petitioner were neither racial nor offensive. For instance, on a regular basis, Ricky Mitchell (white male) called Petitioner "Indian," without considering it a racial slur. Petitioner addressed Mitchell as "Paw Paw." Ronald Moran (white male) called Petitioner "Two Dogs," as a nickname, without assuming any racial connotation. Frank Talamo (white male, and sometimes-union shop steward) has used the term "Nigger" in his private life, but stated that he would not use it on the job, because it is, in his opinion, a racial slur. Mr. Talamo heard Petitioner referred-to as "Indian" and "Two Dogs" on a regular basis. Mr. Talamo testified that although he did not, himself, use the nicknames "Indian" and "Two Dogs" with Petitioner, he also did not consider them to be racial slurs, as he would have considered the word "Nigger." Eric Adkins (Black male) heard Petitioner called some "bad" or "harsh" names, but he did not specify what the names were; he also did not characterize the bad or harsh names as "racial." Carl Broadnax (Black male) testified that he called Petitioner "Two Dogs" because Petitioner's Cousin Joey, another Indian who worked in the plant, told Broadnax to call Petitioner by his Indian name, "Two Dogs" or to call Petitioner "James," Petitioner's given name. Because of Joey's instruction, Mr. Broadnax thought everybody called Petitioner "Two Dogs." Mr. Broadnax heard Petitioner called "Indian" by others. Ivory Stallworth (white female) heard Petitioner called "Two Dog." Aaron Hodges' paternal grandmother is "Indian" or "Native American." Mr. Hodges does not make a distinction between the two designations, "Indian" and "Native American," and does not consider either designation to be derogatory language toward his grandmother or toward anyone else. He picked up the nickname, "Two Dogs" from its general usage on the plant floor to, and about, Petitioner. Cynthia Perkins (white female) stated that Petitioner was called "Two Dogs" in "general talking." Wesley N. Houston heard Petitioner called "Indian" and "Two Dogs," but did not consider these nicknames to be racist remarks or derogatory language. Clifford Stuckey (white male), with whom Petitioner feuded for a time, regularly called Petitioner "James" and "Two Dogs," because those names were what Petitioner was being generally called when Mr. Stuckey came to work for Respondent. He only knew Petitioner by his nicknames for two years, while they were "on the job friends" and "house visiting friends." Stuckey never heard anything else added to "Two Dogs." Apparently, Stuckey called Petitioner both "James" and "Two Dogs" before, during, and after the height of their feud, described more fully below. Also, at least two supervisors (Allen Givens and Eddie Jeffres) used some of these nicknames in addressing Petitioner. Jeffres participated in an early disciplinary action against Petitioner, but neither Jeffres or Grimes participated in Petitioner's eventual termination. Allen Givens was a machine operator, and thus a co- employee of Petitioner. Sometimes, he was also an "acting supervisor" over Petitioner. He heard others on the floor call Petitioner "Indian" and "Two Dogs." He personally called Petitioner "Indian" or "James." Givens testified that if Petitioner had ever intimated, while Givens was "acting supervisor," that Petitioner had a problem with any nickname, he, Givens, would have put a stop to it. At some point, Givens, while he was "acting supervisor" over Petitioner's shift, took Petitioner into the office and explained that Petitioner needed to do something about his body odor. The meeting between Givens and Petitioner was one-on-one, with no union representative or other employees present, and it was not written-up. Petitioner did not testify concerning this meeting. Givens was the only other person in the meeting, and he testified that he had initiated the conversation informally when he did, because he personally had noticed Petitioner's unpleasant body odor that day and because other employees had complained to him that day about Petitioner's body odor. Givens, whose grandmother is an American Indian or Native American, did not consider his comments to Petitioner about body odor to be racial in nature, and race or national origin was never mentioned by either himself or Petitioner during their meeting. Givens further testified, without refutation, that such a meeting happened only the one time; that the conversation was in the nature of "counseling," as opposed to the formal disciplinary step of "coaching" Petitioner; that he had felt he was protecting Petitioner's feelings and privacy by not making a record of this counseling session; and that no record was made because it was not part of the employer's three- tiered disciplinary formula. Other witnesses confirmed that general day-to-day supervision, which did not lead to some form of oral or written warning or other standardized disciplinary action against an employee, was not normally written-up for the employee's personnel file. Not making a record of a minor counseling session was to the employee's advantage, because once something was recorded, it could be used against the employee as part of the employer's three-tier progressive discipline formula. Although all witnesses concurred that working in the employer's un-air-conditioned plant, around heavy machinery, was sweaty work and that everyone smelled bad at some time or other, Frank Talamo, Eric Adkins, and Aaron Hodges also testified that at some point, Petitioner had a particularly offensive body odor. On one occasion, Talamo had asked a foreman to speak to Petitioner about it. No witness attributed Petitioner's body odor problem to his national origin or his race. Although Petitioner may have been the only employee counseled about body odor by Givens, other supervisors had counseled other employees. After being told about his body odor problem, Petitioner kept deodorant in his tool box and used it. Respondent never disciplined Petitioner for body odor. Eddie Jeffres, (white male) was Petitioner's team manager/supervisor. Many witnesses heard Jeffres address Petitioner as "Two Dogs." Mr. Jeffres addressed Petitioner as "Two Dogs," without any add-on, because that was the nickname Petitioner's co-workers used. He testified that he did not consider the nickname "professional," but he used it in a spirit of levity and camaraderie. He further testified that he would not have used it if, at any time, Petitioner had objected to it or had acted embarrassed by it. Because Petitioner always replied professionally and without rancor when the nickname was used, Mr. Jeffres did not equate its use with giving offense or hurting feelings. Jackie Hodge was department manager. He considers himself to be "Cherokee-Irish." He never heard "Two Dogs" used with an add-on. He did not hear the abbreviated form used in Petitioner's presence, either, but he heard Petitioner referred- to as "Two Dogs." He, personally, did not refer to Petitioner as "Two Dogs," but he also did not think the term was racially demeaning. If he had thought that the term were racially demeaning, he would have sought out Petitioner's opinion on the matter. If Petitioner had complained to him, he would have prevented use of the nickname by other employees. However, it is his managerial style not to start an inquiry unless an employee complains, and Petitioner never came to him directly. Indeed, none of Respondent's co-employees or supervisors thought Petitioner objected to any of the nicknames used to his face or used about him in general conversation, because Petitioner answered to the nicknames and did not complain or answer back with rancor when the nicknames were used. Additionally, Ms. Stallworth thought "everyone was okay with what was going on," because Petitioner answered to "Two Dog." Robert McCollough was production manager. He considers himself to be "an American with an Indian great-grandmother who was full-blooded Cherokee." McCollough's wife of over 30 years is a Creek Indian, and his children went to college on an Indian grant. He never heard of "Two Dogs" and was not aware it was being used to refer to Petitioner, but he testified that unless Petitioner complained about the nicknames, the employer's management would not root out a problem where none was perceived. Respondent Employer's predecessor in interest had an Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy in its employee's manual as of 1988. This policy was carried over by Respondent Employer. Petitioner received, and signed for, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy when he was first employed by Respondent Employer in approximately 1995. In 1999, when Respondent promulgated a similar Anti-Workplace Harassment Policy that specifically prohibited discrimination on the basis of race or national origin, Petitioner received a copy of it.6/ The employer's Anti-Workplace Harassment Policy incorporates a procedure for confidentially addressing employee discrimination complaints, including harassment complaints. Briefly, that policy provides that an employee who feels harassed should directly tell his or her harasser what act or speech is offensive. If that confrontation does not end the problem, the offended employee is encouraged to go to the Human Resources Office, or to any supervisor on the chain of command, to lodge a confidential complaint. Even an "800" telephone number is provided so that a harassed employee may report the problem in complete confidentiality to the employer's legal office. Since 1999, Petitioner has attended annual meetings discussing the Anti-Workplace Harassment Policy.7/ The Anti-Workplace Harassment Policy is posted in the plant where any employee can refer to it, and it is sent out to employees' homes in newsletters. Respondent Employer also has in place, and has posted, an Equal Employment Opportunity Policy. All witnesses agreed that while employed, Petitioner never raised his nicknames as a harassment or racial issue or as an issue of national origin to anybody.8/ Nancy Glass confirmed that, despite her "open door policy," Petitioner never filed a formal written protest with the employer's Human Resources Office because of any nickname. Petitioner took the machine operator certification course, but he did not pass it the first time. The second time he took the course, he passed. He became an operator about 1999. Prior to that time, he was an assistant operator a/k/a "a feeder" or "a helper." Machine operators receive an Operator Skills Training Handbook during their initial 40-hour machine operator certification course. The handbook describes the functions of the machines on which the operators work and the policies and procedures that operators and their assistants are required to follow, including proper preset procedures, proper set-up procedures, proper sleeve types, and how often quality checks should be done by both operators and assistant operators. As an operator, Petitioner received quality assurance training twice-a-year. If an employee's job performance requires correction, he first would be provided additional training. This training would be documented as a coaching session, rather than as discipline. Other than that, the employer has a three-tiered corrective action (discipline) program in place, as set out in the employees' handbook. All levels of discipline are documented in writing, even oral warnings. If supervisors do not perceive an error as correctable by retraining an employee, an "oral warning" is issued "in writing" for the employee's first error. The employee's next substandard performance results in a "written warning." The third step is to put the employee on paid Decision Making Leave (DML) for one day, to go home and think about how to correct his flaws and to write out a letter saying how he is going to accomplish that correction. If all three steps occur in a 12 month-period, a fourth error is supposed to result in termination. If the employee passes the 12 months' mark without a third error, the tiers recycle. On average, the employer expects its operators and assistant operators to check their machines for accuracy every half hour. Usually, the operator and assistant operator stagger their respective checks in hourly sequences, so one man checks on the hour and one man checks on the half-hour. This means that the machine/product is checked every half hour by one or the other of them. Some POFs require more frequent quality control checks. At the beginning of each shift, each new operator coming on duty is responsible for comparing the POF to be run, or still running from the last shift, with the product currently coming off the end of his machine. If that operator does a quality check at the very beginning of his shift, and then checks repeatedly at the required intervals throughout his shift, no more than thirty minutes (and thirty minutes' equivalent of non-conforming bags) can go by before an error is noticed. The point of quality control checks is to ensure that the employer avoids running non-conforming bags. Sometimes, non-conforming bags can be sold to a different buyer, often at a lesser profit. More often, they cannot be sold, cannot be recycled, and must be trashed. There was no substantial difference in the discipline the employer applied to employees producing non-conforming bags which could be sold to a different buyer and the discipline it applied to employees who produced non-conforming bags, all of which had to be destroyed for a total loss. The employer has been reasonably consistent in holding responsible everybody associated with a machine's quality control error who was on the shift when the quality control error was discovered, such as that shift's assistant operator, operator, and ending supervisor, for the same machine. Depending upon when respective POFs were started and finished, the employer has also held responsible whichever operator preset the machine on the previous shift and that operator's assistant operator, both of whom should have performed the quality control checks on the previous shift. Sometimes that shift's ending manager was disciplined, too. Usually, the operator coming on shift and his assistant operator also have both been disciplined if non-conforming bags are run. Sometimes that shift ending manager was also disciplined. Basically, if the prior operator and his assistant run bad bags, they are disciplined for their own error, and if the next shift operator comes on shift and does not immediately check to prevent further errors, both operators and their assistants are written-up. Put another way, if there was a bad pre-set by an earlier shift, the operator, assistant, and manager on that shift are disciplined for the bad bags they have actually run, and the next shift operator, his assistant, and his manager are disciplined if bad bags result from the new operator's failure to check the pre-set as soon as the new operator comes on duty. If it is a totally new set-up by the new shift operator, then only that operator, his assistant, and his ending manager, are disciplined. The degree of discipline for quality control flaws imposed upon any of the respective employees from either shift depended upon whether they already had gone through any of the three tiers of progressive discipline within the preceding 12 months. Neither race, national origin, nor union membership affected who was disciplined or the degree of discipline any employee, including Petitioner, received for producing non- conforming bags. On March 19, 2002, a random quality audit was performed by a manager. Petitioner received an oral warning which was written-up, because he had personal items (two packs of cigarettes) on his work bench/machine, and for failing to make on-going quality control checks of the weight of the bags his machine was running. No evidence of other employees also being written up for the offense of personal items in view was offered, but there also was no evidence others had personal items on their work benches in the same time frame without being written-up. Several witnesses testified that at one time having personal possessions in view had been permissible, but then a rule or instruction by the employer had prohibited this "in view" practice. Petitioner did not contest this discipline at the time. On April 3, 2002, Petitioner set the product up to run with the wrong sleeve paper and then went off shift. His feeder had brought him the wrong sleeve paper. The feeder had not been disciplined previously, so she received a write-up of oral coaching. Petitioner did not run non-conforming bags himself, but he failed to follow the preset procedure, so he did not catch the feeder's error. The wrong sleeve paper resulted in 12,500 defective bags being run on the following shift. These bags could not be used and had to be thrown away. Petitioner was orally counseled, by two supervisors, regarding his quality control flaw, and received a written warning for his failure to follow proper preset procedures. Eric Adkins, the operator on the next shift, and Adkins' helper, Larry Calhoun, both of whom actually ran the non-conforming bags using Petitioner's improper preset, and supervisor Eddie Jeffres, also were written-up for this error. The type of write-up each person got depended upon where his particular error ranked in the sequence of his respective number of prior errors, if any. Petitioner did not dispute this discipline at the time. Clifford Stuckey had come to work for Respondent about three years after Petitioner. This was perhaps early 1998. Petitioner and Stuckey were "on-the-job friends" and "house- visiting friends" in their private lives for awhile. Unfortunately, about a year before Petitioner was terminated, perhaps June 2002, they had a falling-out. Because Petitioner did not testify, the only first- hand explanation of what started their feud came from Stuckey. Apparently, Petitioner left his wife's car at Stuckey's home, with the intent of buying a second car for use as parts. The two men had an expectation that Mr. Stuckey, who was a good shade tree mechanic, would use the parts of the second car to fix Petitioner's wife's car. However, Petitioner's wife's car was left at Stuckey's home, without the "parts" car being supplied by Petitioner, for seven months, a period of time that was longer than Stuckey thought appropriate. Stuckey gave Petitioner an ultimatum that if Petitioner's wife's car were not removed, Stuckey would leave it on the road. When Petitioner and his wife arrived at Stuckey's home to get the car, Stuckey was still on the job at the plant. Petitioner and his wife phoned Stuckey from a neighbor's home, but Stuckey refused to leave work and come home with the key to his house so that Petitioner and his wife could get their car key. Harsh words were exchanged over the telephone, and Stuckey addressed Petitioner's wife disrespectfully. It is unclear whether Stuckey also made an oral threat of unexplained consequences against Petitioner over the phone, but it is clear that Stuckey was in no position to physically assault Petitioner or his wife over the telephone line. Later, Petitioner and his wife found their car in a ditch by the side of the road leading to Stuckey's home. Stuckey testified that for awhile after the car incident, Petitioner, while passing Stuckey's work station in Respondent's plant on his way to the restroom, would grab his own crotch or "flip me the finger." These are universal signs of contempt, designed to provoke another into striking the first blow. After one such crude challenge by Petitioner, Stuckey told Petitioner "if he did it again, I would whip his tail." It is presumed that Stuckey's foregoing on-premises oral threat was actually delivered in somewhat cruder and more urgent language than he admitted-to on the witness stand. Nancy Glass testified that shortly after the car incident, and still about a year before Petitioner's termination, Petitioner approached her and Robert McCullough in her office, and told them that he was "not saying he wouldn't or couldn't work with Stuckey," but that there had been an off- premises incident involving Petitioner's car being found on the road; that the dispute between himself and Stuckey had gotten "pretty nasty"; and that Stuckey had "smart-mouthed" him in the plant, as they had passed each other when Stuckey was going off shift and Petitioner was coming on shift. Petitioner acknowledged to them that no one had witnessed the "smart-mouth" incident. Petitioner did not tell Glass or McCullough that he had been threatened by Stuckey or that his feud with Stuckey involved any discrimination against him. He told them he did not want to have a sit-down discussion with Stuckey and that he did not want to make a big deal out of the incident, but he thought they should know about it. Petitioner said nothing about discrimination on the basis of his being Indian or Native American. He said nothing about any nicknames applied to himself. Since Petitioner did not wish to pursue the matter, Glass just told him to let them know if there were any further trouble between himself and Stuckey. Robert McCullough recollected, not that Petitioner had mentioned Stuckey in a meeting in Glass's office, but that Petitioner told McCullough while they were both on the plant's floor, that he and Stuckey had "a cussing" at one another off the plant premises. McCullough also did not recall Petitioner ever saying any incident had occurred on the plant premises or that Petitioner wanted to stay away from Stuckey. Petitioner said nothing to McCullough about discrimination, race, or national origin before his termination a year later. (See Finding of Fact 81.) For an indeterminate period of time, Petitioner and Stuckey avoided each other at the plant, and it was clear to some co-workers that there was "bad blood" between them. During this time, never proven rumors circulated on the floor that Petitioner and/or his wife had been threatened by Stuckey. A never proven rumor reached Stuckey that Petitioner and his wife had "telephoned" Robert McCullough about the car problem. However, Nancy Glass confirmed that Petitioner never filed a formal protest concerning his problems, whatever they might have been, with Stuckey, and he never said anything more about their feud to her for the year leading up to his June 2003 termination. Some co-employees never heard about the feud until after Petitioner's termination, when a never proven rumor started that Stuckey had sabotaged Petitioner's machine after Petitioner went off shift, thereby subjecting Petitioner to the final discipline of termination (see Findings of Fact 83-84) There was another never-proven rumor that Stuckey had rifled Petitioner's tool box while Petitioner was on suspension. Still other co-employees did not hear about the feud between Petitioner and Stuckey until a few days before the merits hearing on this case, when one party or the other contacted them about subpoenas. Most of the co-employees who had heard of Petitioner's and Stuckey's feud before Petitioner's termination thought the feud had blown over by the time Petitioner was terminated in June 2003. On December 3, 2002, Petitioner was given a "written warning" for failing to follow an order approval on a quality checklist which resulted in 1,500 defective bags being run. These bags had to be thrown away because they were created with a crease cut so that they could not be filled with the customer's product. The error should have been detected on the set up or on a later quality check. Petitioner was counseled regarding this error, as was the manager who approved the bag. Because Petitioner already had received an "oral warning" and a "written warning," his December 3, 2002, error should have resulted in Petitioner being placed on DML. However, Jackie Hodge wanted to work with Petitioner, rather than to have to retrain someone new. Hodge also felt that steps in the disciplinary tier system should not be duplicated. Therefore, he reduced Petitioner's December 3, 2002, write-up to a "coaching session" and required Petitioner to retrain on the order approval procedure for the type of bag he created and on its quality checklist procedures. Petitioner's manager was also counseled. On January 13, 2003, Petitioner was placed on DML, with one day's pay, for failing to perform quality check procedures which resulted in approximately 6,000 bags, with cuts on the main score, which had to be scrapped. If Petitioner had made the required quality checks, the error would not have occurred. Petitioner's union representative attended the meeting in which Petitioner was placed on DML. Jackie Hodge also gave Petitioner a card for confidential Employee Assistance counseling, which is an employee benefit. Petitioner's manager was also counseled and written-up, consistent with his own respective number of substandard performances. Petitioner returned to work with his DML letter dated January 24, 2003. The DML letter Petitioner composed and turned in did not set a specific date for formal review of his performance and improvement progress.9/ However, in the letter, Petitioner pledged to follow quality control procedures in the future. The letter was accepted by management, and Petitioner was put back to work. Because the management team had not been physically able to meet with Petitioner within one day to review his DML letter, and because DML is technically a suspension, Jackie Hodge arranged for Petitioner to be paid for a second day without his actually working. This was a deviation from the standard disciplinary policy, but it was a deviation to Petitioner's advantage. On May 16, 2003, although Petitioner's quality checklist accompanying an order indicated that quality checks had been performed every half hour, the sleeve construction and placement on the bags produced were not correct. As a result, nearly 7,000 defective tubes had to be thrown away. Petitioner, his manager, and his helper were all disciplined for this quality control error. One of the concerns of management at this stage was that Petitioner and his helper may have falsified their checklists showing that the quality control checks had been made when the checks were not, in fact, made. If the checks had been made, in reality, and not just the paper work filled-out, the error would have to have been "caught" in less than an hour, and far fewer non-conforming bags would have been created. If the checks had been made and apparent errors corrected at any stage, 7,000 non-conforming bags could not possibly have been created. Petitioner's union representative signed-off on his suspension. Petitioner met with Jackie Hodge, Ron Williams, Nancy Glass, Robert McCullough, and Leo Willoughby on May 22, 2003, while he was on suspension, pending probable termination for too many progressive disciplines within a 12-month period. Petitioner agreed that if they brought him back to work, he would follow all plant procedures, including quality control checks. Management side-stepped a union grievance and brought him back to work, with the understanding that if he again failed to follow instructions, he would be terminated. It was Jackie Hodge's job to schedule available workers' hours and shifts in order to keep Respondent's plant fully operational at all times. On June 9, 2003, he assigned Petitioner, as operator, and Stuckey, as assistant operator, to the same machine on the same shift. Stuckey testified, without refutation, that it was "just luck" he and Petitioner were not scheduled to work together on the same shift or same machine while their feud had been in progress. It was management's mind-set that in the absence of discrimination, "problems were not moved, but solved," and that any disputes arising off-premises were up to employees to work out on their own. The same was essentially true for personal, non-discrimination problems arising within the plant. There is a discrepancy in the testimony as to when, precisely, Jackie Hodge found out that Petitioner and Stuckey had their feud. Nancy Glass testified that she "thought" she told Hodge about the off-premises car incident and on-premises "smart mouth" incidents a year before June 9, 2003. (See Findings of Fact 57-58). Hodge, himself, testified that he knew nothing about the off-premises car incident and on-premises "smart mouth" remark until Petitioner was "on suspension." Because Petitioner was on suspension of some kind on January 13, 2003, May 16, 2003, and after June 9, 2003 (See Findings of Facts 67-70 and 79-81) it is hard to say with any assurance whether or not Hodge knew, when he assigned them to the same machine for June 9, 2003, that Petitioner and Stuckey had feuded a year before. Yet, regardless of when Jackie Hodge knew Petitioner and Stuckey did not get along, there is absolutely no evidence that Petitioner's and Stuckey's personal problems, on or off the employer's premises, were motivated, affected, or prolonged because of discrimination against Petitioner as an Indian or Native American. Moreover, Stuckey testified that although he and Petitioner never sat down and formally discussed their problems or agreed to be friends again, he also testified, without refutation, that he thought that he and Petitioner had resumed their friendship by the time they were scheduled to work together on Petitioner's last night of employment, June 9, 2003. Finally, after Jackie Hodge posted the machine and shift assignments for June 9, 2003, neither Stuckey nor Petitioner approached him to request that he reassign one or the other of them to a different shift or machine. Petitioner and Stuckey worked the same machine on the same shift on June 9, 2003. When Petitioner and Stuckey went off shift on June 9, 2003, their machine was producing bags without a tuck-in sleeve, contrary to the POF. Defective bags were created with the glue under the valve, in the wrong position on the bag. If Petitioner and Stuckey had performed the required quality control checks, the machine should have been producing the correct type of bag when they turned it over to the next shift. Because they had left the incorrect set up, and because the operator coming on shift after them did not immediately catch their error, the machine continued to create unusable, non- conforming bags well into the following shift. Petitioner's June 9, 2003, quality checklist indicated that he had performed all the quality checks. However, the order ran at the rate of 2,000 bags per hour and the order called for quality checks to be performed every 15 minutes. Thus, during the six hours it took to run close to 12,000 bags, a total of 24 quality checks should have been performed by Petitioner, Stuckey, and the next operator and his assistant, each of which checks could have caught the error. Because the error was not caught during the quality check procedure, all 10,850 bags actually produced had to be scrapped. Petitioner and Stuckey were both disciplined for the June 9, 2003, problem. At this point, Petitioner's accumulated disciplinary record clearly required that he be terminated. As before, he was suspended, pending a decision on termination. Stuckey's situation had not reached that stage, and he received a written warning. After a review by McCullough and McCullough's superior, the decision was made to terminate Petitioner and he was notified by telephone. Petitioner filed a union grievance. During the review and grievance process, Petitioner admitted to McCullough that he and Stuckey had been signing off on the quality control checks for each other on June 9, 2003. Only after these reviews and grievance procedures were completed and the grievance was denied, did Respondent consider Petitioner "terminated," as opposed to "suspended." In all, the employer calculated that Petitioner was fully or partially responsible for 39,000 bad bags at approximately 33 cents per bag, or $12,870.00, worth of bad bags. Stuckey testified without refutation that he had not altered the machine in question. After some more operators (race and national origin unspecified) were disciplined for quality control errors on the same machine to which Petitioner and Stuckey had been assigned on June 9, 2003, it was discovered that a part on the machine was gradually slipping a little more each half hour so that the bags became increasingly non-conforming as time progressed. That discovery enabled Respondent to fix the machine, but the discovery did not alter anyone's prior discipline because timely quality control checks still would have prevented the production of so many non-conforming bags. There was no evidence that any of Petitioner's disciplinary problems was due to his race or national origin. There was no evidence that any of Petitioner's disciplinary problems or quality control issues arose from errors he made because of the nicknames he was called.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 17th day of September, 2004.
Findings Of Fact William H. Mathias was initially employed by SWFWMD as Director of Employee Relations on January 30, 1980, at pay grade At the time of Petitioner's employment William C. Tatum was Executive Director of SWFWMD. Petitioner has over ten years' experience in personnel relations and security and holds two master's degrees. Due partly to Petitioner's aggressiveness and strong personality, he began exerting influence in the personnel division in pushing the Personnel Department in directions not necessarily approved by Tatum. Tatum wanted to reduce the influence the Personnel Department was having on SWFWMD. On July 26, 1982, Petitioner was transferred to the Field Operations Division with no change in grade. Exhibit 5, which announced this transfer, stated Petitioner was transferred as Assistant Director. On July 28, 1982, a subsequent memorandum, Exhibit 6, was issued by Tatum changing Petitioner's title from Assistant Director to Acting Administrative Assistant. Prior to this transfer Tatum spoke with William F. Sietman, Director of Field Operations, who advised Tatum that he had no need for Petitioner in the Field Operations Division however, Tatum insisted that Petitioner, with his two master's degrees, could make a valuable contribution to SWFWMD if placed in the right niche. Shortly thereafter, Tatum was replaced as Executive Director by Gary W. Kuhl, who was promoted to that position from Assistant Executive Director. The first evaluation report submitted by Sietman on Petitioner, at the end of his first six months on the job, was unsatisfactory. Petitioner appealed to Kuhl, who withdrew his evaluation partly because no job description had been prepared for the position occupied by Petitioner. Kuhl directed the preparation of a job description for the work to be done by Petitioner. When the job description_ was prepared, the position was given the title of Program Management Analyst and the duties to be performed are as contained in Exhibit 1. Principally, Petitioner's function was to do some coordinating of the budgets prepared by the various sections in Field Operations, coordinate planning and negotiate and oversee the building maintenance contract. This position was a staff function as opposed to a line function in which the incumbent would exercise direction, or command, over the section heads. As a staff function his duties were coordination as opposed to direction. Subsequent to his initial unsatisfactory evaluation at the end of his six months probationary period, Petitioner's evaluations improved each evaluating period and at the time of his termination his performance can be described as very good. However, on several occasions complaints about Petitioner giving personnel advice to Respondent's employees regarding overtime, job classifications, and pay grades reached Kuhl. This was the subject of a memorandum addressed to Petitioner and Sietman by Kuhl on May 15, 1984 (Exhibit 7). Petitioner was told to leave personnel matters and advice to the Personnel Department or face disciplinary action. Changes in the functions imposed on Respondent in 1984 necessitated the employment of additional technical people and the establishment of additional technical positions at SWFWMD. The Governing Board indicated to the Executive Director that the budget could not be raised by the amount needed to fund all of these positions and that cuts would have to be made. Kuhl met with the various division heads to require more justification for the proposed new positions and to ascertain which existing positions they could eliminate. This resulted in a proposed list of positions including the librarian, Petitioner's position, and other positions currently unoccupied. As a result of these discussions it was concluded the unfilled positions and the position of Program Management Analyst could be eliminated. By memorandum dated August 17, 1984 (Exhibit 4), Kuhl advised the Governing Board of the proposed reduction in work force. By letter dated August 20, 1984 (Exhibit 15), Kuhl advised Petitioner that the position of Program Management Analyst was eliminated effective immediately and that he was eligible to apply for any other position in SWFWMD for which he was qualified. Petitioner appealed the termination to the Governing Board and, when the Board affirmed his termination, he filed the instant petition. Prior to the transfer of Petitioner to the Field Operations Division, the budget was prepared by each section chief for his section, and the division director coordinated the budgets. While Petitioner was assigned to Field Operations, he performed this budget coordination role previously taken by the director. When Petitioner's position was eliminated, the division reverted to the way it operated before Petitioner's arrival, with little, if any, noticeable effect. The role Petitioner had assumed in supervising the maintenance contract also reverted back to where it was before Petitioner's arrival, again with no noticeable effect.
Findings Of Fact On July 9, 1986 Petitioner, a Clerk Typist Specialist employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, signed a receipt acknowledging that she had received a copy of the Department's Employee Handbook which contains the information that an employee who is absent for three consecutive workdays without authorization may be considered to have abandoned his or her position and thereby to have resigned. On September 3, 1987 Petitioner telephoned her supervisor to advise him that she had an interview scheduled and that she would be at work by 9:30 a.m. She, however, thereafter failed to appear at work and failed to make any further contact with her supervisor on September 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, and 11, 1987. On September 11, 1987 by certified letter the Department advised Petitioner that, as of the close of business on September 9, she was deemed to have abandoned her position and to have resigned from the Career Service due to her unauthorized absence for three consecutive workdays, i.e., September 3, 4, and 8, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered deeming Petitioner to have abandoned her position and to have resigned from the Career Service. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 30th day of November, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Ruby Holloway-Jenkins 649 West 4th Street Riviera Beach, Florida 33404 K. C. Collette, Esquire District IX Legal Counsel 111 Georgia Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on March 26, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner first interviewed for the position of Assistant Manager Trainee with Respondent on March 17, 1999. Her first interview was with Traci Dickerson, Assistant Manager for Operations. Ms. Dickerson was impressed with Petitioner's presentation and recommended that she be interviewed a second time by Mitchell Day, District Manager. After the interview, Petitioner was offered a position as Assistant Manager Trainee to begin work at Wal-Mart Super Center on Apalachee Parkway in Tallahassee, Florida, on May 10, 1999. The Assistant Manager training program is a seventeen- week program conducted at selected Wal-Mart stores throughout the country. The Wal-Mart store in question in the present case is one of just a few stores in Florida that were utilized for this training program. Ms. Dickerson was the person responsible for administering the program in the store in question during the relevant time frame. Another Assistant Manager Trainee, Sean Mitchell, began the training program on the same date as Petitioner. Mark Whitmore, another Assistant Manager Trainee, began the training program sometime prior to Petitioner. Mr. Whitmore was a long- time employee of Wal-Mart who transferred from management in the home office into the retail sales side of the business. Because of his prior experience with Wal-Mart, his training program was handled differently from the training administered to Petitioner in that it was accelerated. Mr. Mitchell's training was the same type as Petitioner's although each trainee may have been given various assignments on different days and in different sequence. Sometime during the training process, certain members of management with Respondent became concerned about Petitioner's attitude toward the training program, her willingness to take constructive criticism, and her communication/people skills. Sometime around the second week of Petitioner's employment with Respondent, she was observed by Assistant Manager Wendy Rhodes, to be engaged in a conversation with Sean Mitchell during working hours. It appeared to Ms. Rhodes that the two individuals were socializing rather than working. Mr. Rhodes approached the two and instructed them to begin the workday. Later, Ms. Dickerson, in her role as the Program Supervisor, provided constructive criticism to Petitioner that she should concentrate on her work and not socialize during work hours. On or about May 29, 1999, while Petitioner was working in lay-away, she was asked to come to the front of the store to assist Brenda Meyers, a front-end manager, because of an increase of customers at the various cash registers. As an Assistant Manager Trainee, Petitioner was expected to "pitch in" and assist throughout the store where needed. Petitioner responded to Ms. Meyers' request by indicating that she was intending to go on her break and refused to come and assist at that time. Because of Petitioner's refusal, George Wilkins (a co-manager and directly below the store manager in the chain of command of the store) took a turn working at a cash register. Every manager at Wal-Mart is expected to be a team player and assist when the need arises. Mr. Wilkins arranged to meet with Petitioner to discuss the incident and general concerns he had as result of feedback he received from other members of management about her unwillingness to do certain tasks, and to give counseling advice on how to conduct herself as an Assistant Manager. Petitioner immediately became defensive and asserted that because she had a bachelor's degree, she did not have to "take this." Mr. Wilkins attempted to explain to Petitioner that her degree was important, but her attitude toward her work and her willingness to do her fair share were more important. Petitioner was not receptive to Mr. Wilkins' efforts to provide constructive criticism. Sometime in late-July 1999, Petitioner traveled with Mike Odum, an Assistant Manager and Lisa Green, who at the time was Personnel Manager at the store in question, to Georgia to attend a new store opening. On the return trip, Petitioner became upset because she was concerned that the group would not return to Tallahassee in time for her to pick up her child from daycare. She confronted Mr. Odum, very upset about the possibility of returning to Tallahassee after 5:00 p.m. However, he returned to Tallahassee prior to the time that Petitioner needed to be back in Tallahassee. On or about August 20, 1999, Petitioner was assigned to the 2:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift to assist the Customer Service Manager (CSM) in closing the store. The function of the "closing CSM" is important, and Petitioner was needed to assist in that regard. Because the store manager and other members of management were out of town at a meeting, Mr. Odum was in charge of the store. Instead of coming in at 2:00 p.m., Petitioner arrived at the store at 9:00 a.m. She clocked in on the time clock and proceeded to the break room where she warmed her meal and sat down to eat. After she completed her meal, she proceeded to the front of the store to assist the Customer Service Manager. Not long after Petitioner arrived at the store and assumed her position, she was called to the Manager's office to discuss her work schedule for the day. At that time, Mike Odum and Traci Dickerson (Ms. Dickerson participated by phone) reminded Petitioner that her scheduled shift was from 2:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. The importance of this was that if she had worked too many hours without prior approval, she would have been in an unauthorized overtime situation. Additionally, it is important to have a "closing CSM" at the appropriate time. Petitioner left work to return in the afternoon as originally scheduled. Petitioner returned to work in the afternoon. She reported to the front temporarily but became frustrated with one of the assistant managers. Feeling that what she was doing was a waste of time, she proceeded to the training room where she reviewed her training materials. She was paged to the front of the store on numerous occasions but did not respond to the calls. Mike Odum went to the training room and told Petitioner to come to the front of the store to assist. Petitioner refused and stated that she would remain in the back of the store and continue reading her manual. When Petitioner refused, Mr. Odum instructed Petitioner to clock out and to come back when the District Manager would be available for a conference. Petitioner left the store shortly thereafter. Petitioner arranged to meet with Mitchell Day, the District Manager who oversees nine stores and approximately 4,800 employees, on August 25, 1999. Mr. Day understood the meeting to be for the purpose of resolving concerns about the issues involving Petitioner and giving Petitioner an opportunity to express her concerns. Management saw this meeting as an opportunity to "get everything out on the table" so that Petitioner could continue with her training program. Accordingly, Mr. Day scheduled the meeting with Todd Peterson, Store Manager; Mike Odum; George Wilkins and Traci Dickerson. All of these individuals expressed concern about Petitioner's performance, her attitude toward the training program, her willingness to accept constructive criticism, as well as their willingness to assist her in completing the training program. There is no evidence that Mr. Day or any other member of management intended that the meeting be conducted for the purpose of terminating Petitioner. Petitioner entered the room and walked past other members of management and approached Mr. Day in a confrontational manner. She was upset at the presence of the various members of management. Despite being asked to be seated, she refused to sit down and begin the meeting. Every participant in the meeting who testified at hearing gave consistent testimony that she raised her voice to an inappropriate level, was hostile and explosive. All recalled her using profanity, with the exception of Mr. Day who did not specifically recall her use of profanity. Every person in the room was stunned at her demeanor, in particular that it was addressed to an upper level management person. Based upon the unprofessionalism of this outburst, Mr. Day advised her that her employment was terminated. The formal reason given for her termination was insubordination. There is nothing in the evidence presented at final hearing to indicate that any of the actions taken by Respondent or members of Respondent's management were based on Petitioner's gender or on any other form of discrimination.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission for Human Relations enter a final order denying and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 27th day of April, 2001.
The Issue The ultimate issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discharging the Petitioner from his position with the Respondent. Petitioner contends that he was discharged on account of his sex. Respondent contends that Petitioner was discharged on account of a severe attendance problem. Petitioner contends that female employees with similar or worse attendance problems were not terminated.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a corporation which does business in the State of Florida. The Respondent is a distribution warehouse for Seven-Eleven Stores. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977. Petitioner is a male citizen of the United States. He was employed in various capacities by the Respondent from January, 1974, until he was discharged on November 24, 1981. At the time of his discharge, he was employed as a receiving clerk in one of the Respondent's warehouse facilities. Petitioner filed a Complaint of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations concerning his discharge in a timely manner. A determination of reasonable cause was issued by the Commission, effort at conciliation failed, and Petitioner filed his Petition for Relief in a timely manner. From late in 1978 until the time that Petitioner was discharged, all of the Petitioner's supervisors at the Respondent experienced difficulties with Petitioner due to a poor attendance record. At the time, the Respondent followed a four-step disciplinary procedure. Step 1 was employee counseling. Step 2 involved issuance of what was called a "pink slip," or unsatisfactory employee report. At Step 3, a final letter of warning would be issued. Step 4 was discharge. The first formal record that Respondent entered Step 1 of the disciplinary procedure was an employee counseling record issued October 31, 1978. It was therein noted that Respondent had failed to call in prior to an absence from his work shift. The second employee counseling record was issued April 4, 1978. The Petitioner's supervisor discussed repeated tardiness and absences with him on that occasion. Additional counseling records were issued April 11, 1979, and April 30, 1979, and raised the same problems. While these were apparently the only formal records of employee counseling, the Petitioner had been counseled on numerous other occasions regarding excessive tardiness and absenteeism. Respondent entered Step 2 of the disciplinary procedure on November 28, 1979, when a "pink slip," or unsatisfactory performance report, was issued. It was therein noted that the Respondent had been counseled about excessive absenteeism and that his performance had not improved. Petitioner's record did not improve, and on March 19, 1980, a warning letter was issued, thus placing Petitioner in the third step of the disciplinary process. The Petitioner's record regarding excessive tardiness and absenteeism was set out in the warning letter, and it was stated that if Petitioner did not improve, it could lead to termination of his employment. Despite issuance of the warning letter, Petitioner's performance did not improve. He continued to be frequently absent or tardy. A second warning letter was issued January 28, 1981. It was therein stated: As indicated to you on your performance review January 14, 1981, you have shown little or no improvement in your attendance since the warning letter of March 19, 1980. Since several months have passed without action, you are being given this letter to serve as formal notice that you remain at the third step of our disciplinary policy. If immediate improvement in [sic] not shown it could lead to termination of your employment. Despite the second warning letter and continuing efforts by Respondent's supervisor to counsel Petitioner, Petitioner's record of excessive absenteeism and tardiness continued. On November 24, 1981, his employment was terminated. At the time of Petitioner's termination, the Respondent did not have an established policy regarding how many times an employee could be late or absent without being subjected to various stages of the Respondent's disciplinary process. The Respondent did, however, have good grounds for counseling, reprimanding, warning, and ultimately terminating Petitioner. The Respondent's supervisors were lenient with Petitioner. He was counseled continuously and warned twice, once more than usual, before he was terminated. Petitioner alleged that three specific female employees of the Respondent had absentee problems as severe or more severe than Petitioner's, but were not terminated. The evidence does not support this allegation. Each of the three female employees, Theresa Roberts, Lisa Watt, and Gloria Sanders, had attendance problems. Each was subjected to disciplinary action by the Respondent. Sanders had received a Step 3 warning in October, 1981. Roberts had received a Step 2 unsatisfactory performance report in November, 1981. Watt had been counseled respecting her problem. None of these three female employees had attendance problems as severe as Petitioner's. Furthermore, each showed some improvement following counseling, unsatisfactory performance reports, or warnings. Nothing in the treatment of these three women vis-a-vis the Respondent's treatment of Petitioner demonstrates any sex-based bias, or discriminatory action, on the part of Respondent. The Respondent now has a set policy that includes a point system regarding discipline based upon excessive absences. The policy was not in effect when Petitioner was terminated. Some people with absentee problems less severe than Petitioner's were terminated for excessive absences during the years 1977 through 1981. Other employees with attendance problems more severe than Petitioner's were not terminated. It does not appear that this disparity had any basis other than the fact that Respondent had no set policy regarding excessive absences and dealt with the issue through its individual supervisors subjectively on a case-by-case basis. In 1981, the Respondent had approximately 170 laborers or unskilled workers in its warehouse. Forty-four of them were females. During the period 1977 through 1981, 20 employees at the warehouse were terminated for excessive absences or tardinesses. Thirteen of them were male, and seven were female. Five of the seven women who were terminated had fewer absences or tardinesses than Petitioner after receipt of the Step 3 warning. Neither these statistics nor any specific evidence regarding disciplinary action taken by Respondent demonstrates any sex-based bias or discrimination.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for filing a prior complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2006).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as defined by Section 760.01(7), Florida Statutes (2006). Respondent manufactures various animal-related products, such as horse tack and pet collars. Petitioner is an African-American female. Beginning on January 13, 2003, and at all times relevant here, Respondent employed Petitioner as a production-line assembler. Martha Robinson, a white female, has worked for Respondent for over 17 years. Ms. Robinson was Petitioner’s direct supervisor for most of the time that Petitioner worked for Respondent. JoAnn Lake is Respondent’s production manager. Ms. Lake was Ms. Robinson’s immediate supervisor. On December 27, 2005, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with FCHR. The charge alleged that Respondent had discriminated against Petitioner based on her race. On April 20, 2006, FCHR entered a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's discrimination charge. Respondent has a disciplinary point system which is described in Respondent’s Employee Handbook. Under the system, employees are assessed points for unexcused absences, tardiness, or leaving work early. Employees can recoup lost points after a 30-day period without a disciplinary occurrence. When employees accrue 20 points, they are subject to a three-day suspension. Employees are subject to suspension or termination the second time they accumulate 20 disciplinary points. All supervisors and Penny Peterson, Respondent's personnel director, are responsible for tracking the disciplinary-point totals for employees. Supervisors send Ms. Peterson a written notice every time they assess disciplinary points. When there is a discrepancy in the point total between the supervisors' records and Ms. Peterson's personnel records, Respondent first reviews supporting documentation. If the supporting documentation supports Ms. Peterson's calculation of points, her total point count becomes official. If the supporting documentation does not support Ms. Peterson's total, the supervisors' calculation of points becomes the official count. During Petitioner’s employment, Respondent issued Petitioner five verbal warnings and nine written warnings for accumulating too many disciplinary points. Petitioner typically carried a high balance of disciplinary points. On May 10, 2006, Respondent suspended Petitioner for three days for accumulating 22 points. When she returned to work, Petitioner thanked her supervisors for giving her a five- day vacation for Mother's Day. On July 27, 2006, Petitioner asked Ms. Robinson how many disciplinary points Petitioner had accrued. Ms. Robinson erroneously informed Petitioner that she had 14 points. Petitioner then left work before the end of her work day. Ms. Robinson subsequently assessed Petitioner an additional three points and sent the notice to the personnel office. Contrary to Ms. Robinson's records, Petitioner actually had 18 points on July 27, 2006. When Respondent assessed another three points for leaving work early, Petitioner had a total of 21 disciplinary points. On or about August 7, 2006, Ms. Robinson was on leave. Therefore, Ms. Lake informed Petitioner that she had 21 points and was due to be suspended. Petitioner protested the suspension, stating that she only had 17 points according to Ms. Robinson. Ms. Lake checked Ms. Robinson's records that showed Petitioner had 17 points. Ms. Lake sent Petitioner back to work and conferred with David Brakefield, the plant manager, and Ms. Peterson. Petitioner's personnel records confirmed that she had accumulated 21 disciplinary points. Ms. Lake enforced Petitioner's three-day suspension on August 8, 2006, through August 10, 2006. Petitioner had a doctor's excuse for missing work on August 11, 14, and 15, 2006. Petitioner returned to work on August 16, 2006. That same day, Petitioner informed Ms. Robinson that she was quitting her job because it was too stressful. Petitioner told Ms. Robinson that she was resigning based on her psychologist's recommendation. During the hearing, Petitioner presented no evidence, not even her own testimony, to contradict Ms. Peterson's point total, showing that Petitioner had 21 disciplinary points on July 27, 2006.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's charge of retaliation. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 15th day of August, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Brenda Lissimore Simmons 1818 Northwest Martin Luther King Avenue Ocala, Florida 34475 Garry D. Adel, Esquire Blanchard, Merriam, Adel & Kirkland, P.A. Post Office Box 1869 Ocala, Florida 34478 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denis Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
