The Issue Whether Respondent, David Costa Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a McDonald’s (“Costa Enterprises”), discriminated against Petitioner, Labrentae B. Claybrone, in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Claybrone is an African-American male, approximately 25 years of age. He resides in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, with his mother. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Claybrone was working at one or another of the 21 McDonald’s restaurants operated by Costa Enterprises. Mr. Claybrone presents as a somewhat effeminate person, with braided, colored hair, earrings, polished fingernails, etc. He admits to being either gay or bisexual despite being married to-–but not living with-–a woman. In his Petition for Relief filed at FCHR, Mr. Claybrone refers to humiliation being imposed on him due to his “transgender and sexual orientation.” In March 2015, Mr. Claybrone was hired as a shift worker at the McDonald’s restaurant located inside the WalMart in Destin, Florida (hereinafter the “WalMart McDonald’s”). He had been hired by the general manager of that store, Ligaya Mumford. Mr. Claybrone did not at any time discuss his sexual orientation with his employer or other store personnel. On or around April 28, 2015, Mr. Claybrone thought he heard the general manager, Mrs. Mumford, refer to him as “ma’am.” He said that Mrs. Mumford also made comments about the way he walked and talked and that he reminded her of a female. Mrs. Mumford, whose testimony under oath at final hearing was entirely credible, denies making any such comments to Mr. Claybrone. Rather, Mrs. Mumford remembers talking to a young female employee on that day as they stood at the grill in the restaurant. The young lady was very respectful and always called Mrs. Mumford “ma’am,” so Mrs. Mumford had responded to the employee in kind, calling her “ma’am” as well. Mrs. Mumford believes Mr. Claybrone mistakenly believed she was referring to him when in fact she was not. As to the other comments Mr. Claybrone testified about, Mrs. Mumford categorically denied making them at all. When Mr. Claybrone went home that night and told his mother what he thought had happened, his mother insisted he complain about the comments. Mr. Claybrone says that his mother immediately called Roza Atanasova, general manager of the WalMart McDonald’s and another store known as the Destin McDonald’s. By virtue of her position as general manager, Ms. Atanasova was Mrs. Mumford’s supervisor. Ellie Montero, shift manager at the Destin McDonald’s, later notified Mrs. Mumford that Mr. Claybrone’s mother had called Ms. Atanasova with a complaint. Mrs. Mumford attempted to call Mr. Claybrone and sent him texts asking Mr. Claybrone to call her. He intentionally ignored the calls and texts because he did not want to talk to Mrs. Mumford. When Mr. Claybrone came to work for his next assigned shift, Mrs. Mumford apologized to him for the comment he (thought he) had heard. According to Mrs. Mumford, Mr. Claybrone was a good employee and never gave anyone trouble. He was kind to the customers and worked hard. She had absolutely no problem with Mr. Claybrone being one of her shift workers. Mrs. Mumford is one of Costa Enterprises’ most dependable, respected, and admired workers. She has received numerous citations and awards relating to her work ethics and skills. She is known to help employees in need, lending them her car, loaning money, and providing other assistance. Within a week after the misunderstanding with Mrs. Mumford, Mr. Claybrone heard that another co-employee, Ken Hislop, had mentioned to a fellow worker that he (Hislop) was surprised to hear that Mr. Claybrone had a child because Mr. Hislop presumed Mr. Claybrone was gay. Mr. Hislop cannot fully remember making the comment, but he meant nothing negative about Mr. Claybrone, it was just an observation. When he was advised that Mr. Claybrone was offended, Mr. Hislop offered an apology. He did not feel like the apology was accepted by Mr. Claybrone. Mr. Claybrone did not feel like the apology was sincere. Mr. Claybrone said that he was uncomfortable working with Mrs. Mumford and Mr. Hislop after the alleged slurs. At some point, it was mutually agreed by Mr. Claybrone and Costa Enterprises that Mr. Claybrone would be transferred to a different store, the Destin McDonald’s. Mr. Claybrone was transferred to the Destin McDonald’s and was, at first, a dependable worker. Then he began to be tardy and to miss his shifts, even though the Destin McDonald’s was closer to his home than the WalMart McDonald’s had been. After a while, Mr. Claybrone’s supervisor reduced his weekly hours in an effort to motivate him to do better about his attendance. Mr. Claybrone took offense to the reduction in hours and, after clocking in one day, immediately clocked out, left the store as he cursed loudly, and did not return. Mr. Claybrone effectively abandoned his position. Meanwhile, Mr. Claybrone filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, which ultimately led to the instant action at DOAH. Mr. Claybrone admitted that the alleged discriminatory events all transpired within a few days, no longer than a week in duration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Costa Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a McDonald’s, did not discriminate against Labrentae B. Claybrone. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of October, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 21st day of October, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, by discriminating against Petitioner based on an alleged handicap.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as that term is defined in Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Respondent employed Respondent in January 1990. Respondent reassigned Petitioner to the Division of Recreation and Parks in 1993. At the time of his dismissal in October 2003, Petitioner was working as a park ranger at the St. Marks GeoPark in Wakulla County, Florida. Petitioner is a history aficionado. He enjoys researching Florida and Civil War history. He has authored a 200-page book entitled The Civil War in and Around St. Marks, Florida. He has written an article entitled "Forts in St. Marks during the War Between the States." Petitioner enjoys participating in history interpretations for the public. Several times in the past decade, Respondent nominated him for an award for his activities in history interpretations. Petitioner has constructed colonial-era equipment and musical instruments. Although they are his personal property, Petitioner has used them in displays for the public at state parks. Petitioner researched the historical accuracy of his projects both at home and at work. Petitioner had surgery in 2000 for a cervical herniated disc. After the surgery, Respondent made accommodations for Petitioner in the form of lighter duty assignments during his recovery period in keeping with his doctor's request. In a letter dated August 28, 2000, Petitioner's doctor set forth the specific type of work that Petitioner could and could not perform. The doctor released Petitioner to perform desk work, telephone duties, and visitor services but no maintenance duties. At all times relevant here, Thomas Nobles was Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Mr. Nobles and Petitioner have known each other since high school. However, they did not have a good relationship at work. In 2001, Petitioner filed gender discrimination charges against Mr. Nobles. Respondent conducted an investigation and exonerated Mr. Nobles. Mr. Nobles wrote several counseling memoranda and one reprimand, which criticized Petitioner's work performance. Among other things, Mr. Nobles warned Petitioner not to visit a music store in Tallahassee during work hours. In a memorandum dated July 19, 2002, Mr. Nobles discussed his concern over Petitioner's work habits that allegedly caused damage to a state-owned vehicle and other property and Petitioner's inability to complete paperwork. Petitioner responded to each of Mr. Nobles' criticisms in a memorandum dated July 28, 2002. On September 20, 2002, Mr. Nobles wrote a memorandum to document an earlier conversation with Petitioner regarding Mr. Nobles' concern that Petitioner was not keeping the park neat. In the memorandum, Mr. Nobles instructed Petitioner not to bring "personal projects" to work, specifically referring to a mandolin that Petitioner had been sanding in the park office. In a memorandum dated October 22, 2002, Mr. Nobles criticized Petitioner for reading a book about musical instruments. Mr. Nobles warned Petitioner not to let personal projects take priority over the park's appearance and cleanliness. On February 25, 2003, Petitioner called his office to provide his employer with the date of his second neck surgery, which was scheduled for March 5, 2003. During the telephone call, Petitioner asserted that he required further surgery due to his work-related injury. However, Petitioner never filed a workers' compensation claim; he believed that he was not eligible for workers' compensation due to a preexisting condition. After Petitioner's March 2003 surgery, Respondent returned to work. In a letter dated April 10, 2003, Petitioner's doctor released him to work running a museum. On or about May 7, 2003, Petitioner's doctor released him to light- duty work assignments, including no more than one hour of lawn maintenance at a time. In a letter dated July 29, 2003, Mr. Nobles' doctor once again restricted Petitioner's work assignments. Petitioner was not supposed to use heavy machinery or operate mowers, edgers, or similar equipment for prolonged periods of time. The doctor recommended that Petitioner avoid repetitive gripping and lifting. There is no evidence that Respondent failed to provide Petitioner with these accommodations. In the meantime, on July 23, 2003, Mr. Nobles requested Respondent's Inspector General to investigate a posting on the eBay Internet site involving a replica of a 1800s guitar, advertised as being made of wood from the Gregory House, a part of Torreya State Park in Gadsden County, Florida. The Inspector General subsequently commenced an investigation. Petitioner posted the advertisement for the guitar under his eBay site name. Petitioner makes replica mandolins and guitars and occasionally sells them on eBay. Petitioner bragged to at least one co-worker in 2003 that he had made a lot of money selling musical instruments on eBay. One of Petitioner's friends made the "Gregory House" guitar out of discarded roof shingles. Petitioner merely posted the advertisement on his internet site because his friend did not know how to use a computer. During the Inspector General's investigation, Petitioner admitted that he had accessed eBay at work but denied he had used it for bidding. An inspection of the hard drive of the computer at Petitioner's office revealed that someone using Petitioner's eBay password had accessed eBay four times from April-July 2003. Around the general time and date of one of those occasions, someone placed an eBay bid on the "Gregory House" guitar. Additionally, the computer at Petitioner's office had been used to access numerous musical instrument and/or woodworking Internet sites other times from April-July 2003. Petitioner was at work on most, but not all, of the days. A park volunteer admitted that she sometimes used the office computer to access eBay. Respondent's policy prohibits an employee from accessing the Internet for personal use if that use adversely affects the employee's ability to perform his job. Personal use of the Internet should be "limited to the greatest extent possible." Petitioner was aware of Respondent's Internet policy. Nevertheless, he used the Internet for personal reasons at work to access eBay and sites related to his woodworking business after he had been counseled not to let personal projects interfere with his park duties. This caused him to not be available to do park business and, therefore, adversely affected his ability to do his job. Petitioner violated Respondent's Internet use policy. Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment on September 25, 2003, for alleged rule violations, conduct unbecoming a public employee, and perjury. Petitioner appealed to the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC), contending that Respondent lacked cause to discipline him. PERC appointed a Hearing Officer to conduct a hearing and issue a Recommended Order. The PERC Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing on October 28, 2003. The Hearing Officer issued the Recommended Order on November 10, 2003. In the instant case, the parties stipulated that they would not re-litigate issues previously litigated at the PERC hearing. The PERC Hearing Officer found as follows: (a) Respondent had cause to discipline Petitioner for violating the computer use policy; and (b) Respondent had discretion to discipline Petitioner by terminating his employment. On November 24, 2003, PERC entered a Final Order adopting the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent did not allow employees, other than Petitioner, to read books unrelated to work during office hours. In fact, Respondent did not terminate Petitioner for any of the following reasons: (a) because he read history books at work; (b) because he might file a workers' compensation claim for a work-related injury; (c) because he filed a gender discrimination against Mr. Nobles; or (d) because Respondent intended to eliminate his position. Rather, Respondent dismissed Petitioner for using the office computer for personal reasons. Respondent has fired other employees for the same reason. At the time of his dismissal, Petitioner believed that he was physically incapable of performing the duties of his position. However, there is no evidence that Respondent failed to provide Petitioner with appropriate accommodations as requested by Petitioner's doctors.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2005, 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 28th day of March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Allen Gerrell, Jr. 10750 Kilcrease way Tallahassee, Florida 32305 Marshall G. Wiseheart, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue This matter was referred by the Public Employees Relations Commission to the Division of Administrative Hearings for hearing to determine: Whether the Respondent, Seminole County, is a Public Employer within the meaning of Chapter 447, Florida Statutes. Whether the Petitioner, Union, is an employee organization within the meaning of Chapter 447, Florida Statutes. Whether there has been a sufficient showing of interest has required for the filing of a representation election petition under Chapter 447, Florida Statutes. Whether the employer organization is a properly registered organization with the Public Employees Relations Commission. What is the appropriate unit of public employees within the Public Employer? PRE-HEARING MATTERS Prior to the commencement of the hearing, Respondent filed the following motions with the Hearing Officer who made the indicated disposition of the motion: Motion for Discovery; denied on the basis of prior PERC rulings. Motion to Transfer Jurisdiction to Local PERC; denied because the local ordinance had not been approved by the Public Employees Relations Commission. Motion for Oral Argument on Motion to Transfer Jurisdiction; denied, see Petitioner's Motion to Amend, below. Motion to Dismiss Based on Employer Not Having Denied Recognition; denied. Motion to Dismiss or Limit Hearing on the Basis that Local PERC Ordinate Controls; denied. Motion to Dismiss on the Basis of Inappropriateness of Units Sought; denied. Motion to Quash Hearing on Basis that Acting Chairman Lacked Authority to Notice Hearing; denied. Motion to Dismiss on Basis of Lack of Due Process and Lack of Authority; denied. The Petitioner moved orally in response to the suggestion that paragraph 11 of the Petition indicated concurrence in local PERC authority to amend paragraph 11 to "no". Motion was granted by the Hearing Officer. After having presented its motions the Respondent thereafter filed its Answer, asserting therein certain affirmative defenses. Succinctly stated the position of the Respondent was that the county had defined the appropriate units within the Public Employer by local ordinances as professional, supervisory and blue collar, and that the unit sought by the Petitioner did not conform to the units the County had defined by ordinance. The Petitioner sought all employees of the Road and Arthopod Divisions of Seminole County excluding officers, clericals, supervisory and guard employees.
Findings Of Fact The Hearing Officer directed the Employer to go forward and present its evidence in support of its definition of the units. The Employer sought to call Pat Hill and Jack McLean, both previously subpoenaed by the Employer. Neither of the individuals were present in the hearing room. The Hearing Officer, noting that the time had not expired to oppose the subpoenas but that no opposition had been filed, allowed the Employer to proffer the testimony these witnesses would have given if present. The Hearing Officer notes that subsequently these subpoenas were quashed. Therefore, the proffered testimony will not be considered by the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer would, in light of the fact that the Commission's file was not present at the hearing, direct the Commission's attention to the proffer as it relates to the Commission's file for resolution of any matters appropriately raised. The Employer then called Carl Crosslin who was present but whose subpoena had been timely opposed by his Counsel. The subpoena having been issued by the Acting Chairman, the Hearing Officer deferred to the Acting Chairman for his ruling on the subpoena in question. The Hearing Officer allowed the Employer to proffer the testimony which would have been presented by Carl Crosslin and Commissioner Paul Parker. Thereafter, the Employer moved for a continuance which motion was denied by the Hearing Officer. The Employer then made a demand for presentation of the authorization cards, which were not present at the hearing. The Employer then sought to introduce the affidavit of Chris Haughee which was rejected by the Hearing Officer. The Employer then filed its motion for Determination of Managerial and Confidential Employees. This motion is preserved for consideration by the Commission. It is appropriate to note at this point that upon the conclusion of the taking of testimony the Petitioner amended its petition to seek a unit composed of non-exempt employees of the Road Construction and Maintenance Division, the Heavy Equipment and Vehicle Maintenance Division, and Arthopod Division of the Public Works Department of the County of Seminole, or in the alternative, all non-exempt employees of the Public Works Division and as a final alternative, a unit of all blue collar workers of the Public Employer who are in construction, maintenance and trades, but excludes clerical, secretarial and similar positions. The parties also stipulated to the managerial status of division directors within the Administrative Services Department and their secretaries. However, in light of the fact that not all division directors within the employ of the Public Employer were not included within the stipulation, and further, because the Employer has filed a motion for Determination of Managerial and Confidential Status and because the stipulation between the parties would not be binding upon others who might have an interest, the facts relating to the duties and functions of division directors and similar positions are set forth so that the Public Employees Relations Commission may resolve the status of these employees as it relates to the motion filed by the Public Employer. The general organization of the Public Employer is indicated on Exhibit 6. The Board of County Commissioners, as the elected representatives of the citizens of Seminole County, head the Public Employer. An executive assistant manages the office and staff of the Board of County Commissioners and functions as general coordinator for the other department heads of the county government. Each of the several departments of government is headed by a department head. Each department head is directly responsible for the management of his department to the Board of County Commissioners. Although the executive assistant, as a coordinator, would have some coordinating function with the department heads, the department heads are the first level of management below the Board of County Commissioners. The department heads prepare the budgets for their department, manage and direct their personal staffs and their division heads, make policy within their department, and participate in the resolution of grievances. They have the authority to hire and fire all employees making less than $10,000 per year and they participate in evaluations of all employees. Department heads have the ability to effectively recommend the employment and discharge of division heads and employees making more than $10,000 per year. All of the department heads meet on Mondays to discuss their joint duties and coordinate their activities. The division heads or directors have the authority to effectively recommend hiring and firing of personnel. The division heads assign work and determine the manner in which work shall be done by their subordinates. The division heads have the authority to discipline their personnel or effectively recommend disciplinary measures dependent upon the action taken. Division directors prepare and submit budget data to the department heads upon which the departmental budget is based. The division heads constitute the second level of supervision or management in county employment. Among their other functions they make determinations regarding the manner in which programs will be accomplished and participate in the resolution of grievances. In all but the smallest divisions and in all of the departments, the department heads and division directors have secretaries assigned to them to handle their personal correspondence, In the larger divisions and in the majority of the departments there are additional clerical personnel assigned to handle general typing and filing and to maintain fiscal records. The parties with regard to the RC petition in question have stipulated that the secretaries to the department heads and division directors should be excluded as confidential. There are divisions within the county government whose function is primarily administrative and whose employees perform administrative duties. These divisions or activities would include the Personnel Division, Microfilm Division, Division of Manpower Planning, Purchasing Division, Office of Management and Evaluation, Veterans' Service Officer, Division of Social Services and Seminole County Industrial Development Authority. In the aforelisted activities, all of the personnel are involved in totally administrative functions. In addition to these totally administrative divisions or activities, there are additional divisions in which there are mixed administrative and other functions. The administrative employees of these divisions would include Switchboard Operators and the Mail Clerk in Support Services Division; the Biologists in Operations Division of the Department of Environmental Services; the Operator Inspector, Pollution Control Technician, Account Clerk in the Division of Environmental Control of the Department of Environmental Services; Cashiers within the Division of Motor Vehicles of the Department of Public Safety; the Deputy Civil Defense Director in the Division of Civil Defense, Department of Public Safety; Permit Clerks and a Secretary II of the Building Division of the Department of County Development; two Secretaries and a Site Planner within the Office of the Land Development Administrator, Division of Land Development, Department of County Development; a Secretary, two Draftsmen, two Planners, Drafting Technician II, Planner (current plans), Senior Planner, Principal Planner and County Planner within the Planning Division of the Department of County Development. The following personnel hold positions within the county government below that of division director and perform functions which are not clerical or administrative in nature. These remaining personnel will be discussed by division. Within the Building Maintenance Division there is a Supervisor of Custodial Services, Supervisor of Courthouse Custodians, and Building Custodian Supervisor, all of whom report to the Director of Building Maintenance. The Supervisor of Courthouse Custodians directly supervises the fifteen custodians assigned to the Seminole County Courthouse. The Supervisor of Custodial Services supervises the custodians assigned to the maintenance of the other county buildings. The Building Custodian Supervisor supervises the electrical, carpentry, plumbing and air conditioning foremen under whose direction maintenance workers perform such maintenance as is required upon the various county buildings. These three supervisors have the authority to effectively recommend hiring, firing and disciplinary action and assign specific work to those employees under their direction. These supervisors constitute the first level of direct supervision over the county employees for although there are trades foremen designated they function as lead workers. Within the Support Services Division there are three Night Watchmen who are responsible for security of the County Courthouse and one Senior Night Watchman who assigns the work shifts of the Watchman. The testimony would indicate that the Senior Night Watchman functions in the role of a lead worker. It should be noted that this Division does not have a division director but is under the control of the acting executive assistant. Within the Division of Human Services is the Office of Animal Control which is headed by the Animal Control Officer. The Animal Control Officer is responsible for the operation of the County Pound and the supervision of the work of the four Animal Control Officers. He is assisted in his functions by the Animal Control Supervisor who is specifically charged with maintenance of the County Pound. The Animal Control Officer has authority to recommend hiring, firing and discipline of these employees who he evaluates. Within the Operations Division of the Department of Environmental Services there is a Chief Operator and three Operator Trainees who are responsible for the operation and maintenance of the county's water and sewage treatment facilities. The Operator Trainees are under the direct supervision of the Chief Operator whose responsibility is to train then to operate the system and to assign their duties. The Operator Trainees perform maintenance, read meters, and perform such other duties as the Chief Operator assigns necessary to the operation of these facilities. Within the Office of the Director of Public Safety and under the Director's control is Fire Prevention and Arson Investigator, a Training Officer, and two Mechanics. The Investigator and the Training Officer are trained firefighters. The two Mechanics are physically located at Station 14 and are responsible for the maintenance of the County Fire Department's Vehicles. The Fire Department is divided into three shifts or platoons. Each shift or platoon being supervised by a Sector Fire Coordinator. The Sector Fire Coordinator prepares the budget for his shift, establishes field operating procedures, and directs fire fighting, and has access to the personnel files of the employees. Also within the Department of Public Safety is the Communications Division which at present relates primarily to the Fire Department but which will in the future also encompass the 911 telephone number. The Communications' personnel are under the supervision of the Communications supervisor. The Communications' personnel are generally not firefighters, but receive emergency calls and dispatch equipment. Within the Motor Vehicle Inspection Division of the Department of Public Safety there are three Inspection Stations located within the county. The Motor Vehicles Inspection function is under the supervision of the Motor Vehicles Inspection Supervisor who acts as a division director and effectively recommends hiring and firing and discipline of employees and who helps prepare the budget for the Motor Vehicles Inspection activities. He is also responsible for work assignments and development of work procedures. Each Inspection Station is under the direction of a Chief Inspector who is responsible for assigning work at each station and responsible for the function thereof. There are four Motor Vehicle Inspectors at each Inspection Station and one Cashier. Within the Division of Parks and Recreation of the Department of County Development there is a Parks Coordinator/Designer who can effectively recommend hiring and firing and disciplinary action of personnel within the Division. The Parks Coordinator/Designer is also responsible for the direct or specific supervision of work. He functions as an assistant division director. The Parks Supervisor is also able to effectively recommend hiring, firing and disciplinary action. The Parks Supervisor provides direct supervision of the five Maintenance Workers, the Equipment Operator II, and three Trades Workers assigned to the Parks and Recreation Division. In addition to the positions enumerated above there are an additional twenty-nine CETA Workers assigned to Parks and Recreation primarily in the grades of Maintenance Worker and Equipment Operator. Within the Building Division of the Department of County Development the construction inspection function within the county is the responsibility of the Building Official who functions as the division director of the Building Division. He is assisted in his duties by the Plans Examiner who functions as the Deputy Building Official. Both employees have the authority to effectively recommend the hiring, firing and discipline of their subordinate employees. The actual inspection of construction is carried out by one of ten inspectors. There are three Chief Building Inspectors; one assigned to general construction, one to electrical, and one to plumbing, There are six Inspectors who work under the three Chief Inspectors and one Trailer or Mobile Home Inspector who reports directly to the Building Official. Within the Land Development Division of the Department of County Development is the Zoning Department. The Land Development Administrator functions as the division director. He is assisted in his Duties by the Zoning Administrator who acts as the Assistant Division Director. Both employees have the authority to effectively recommend hiring, firing and disciplinary actions. There are three Inspectors assigned to the Land Development Division. One inspects for compliance with the County Tree Ordinance, one inspects with regard to commitments made to the county by developers and the third inspects for violations of the county zoning code. The Engineering Division of the Department of Public Works is responsible for three basic functions: Traffic engineering, design and survey, and survey and inspection. The Traffic Engineer is responsible for the traffic engineering activity and supervises the other employees directly. Signs are prepared in the County Sign Shop which is under the supervision of the Sign Shop Foreman. An Electrician is also assigned to this activity together with an Electronics Technician. They are responsible for the installation and maintenance of traffic signals. A Radio Technician is also assigned to the Traffic Engineer activity. The Radio Technician is responsible for the repair of all county radios. The Design and Survey activity consists of a Design Engineer and a Design Technician who design and draft plans for county construction projects. The Assistant County Engineer heads up the survey and inspection type activity for the Engineering Division. He is responsible for the county's two survey crews which are made up of a Party Chief and three to four crew members. The Assistant County Engineer is responsible for directing the work functions and activities of his subordinates and has the authority to effectively recommend hiring, firing and discipline. The Assistant Road Superintendent is in charge of the Road Construction and Maintenance Division of the Department of Public Works. He is assisted in the performance of his duties by two foremen and three to four crew leaders. The Road Maintenance function contains three supervisors, two of which supervise a foreman and two crew leaders and the third supervisor who supervises a crew leader. Under each crew leader there are from four to six maintenance workers or equipment operators. The Assistant Road Superintendent and the three supervisors in maintenance all function in assigning work to crews and individuals and supervising the work activity. In addition, the Assistant Road Superintendent acts as the assistant to the Road Superintendent who functions as the division director. Both men would have authority to effectively recommend hiring, firing, and disciplinary action together with the three supervisors, The Division of Heavy Equipment Maintenance is under the supervision of the Shop Foreman who functions as a division director, He is assisted by the Parts Manager who acts as the assistant division director. The position of Chief Mechanic is currently vacant and the duties are being performed by the Assistant Chief Mechanic. The primary function of the Parts Manager is the purchasing and stockage of spare parts. The Shop Foreman, Parts Manager and Assistant Chief Mechanic all have the authority to effectively hire, fire and recommend discipline. These three individuals would also provide evaluations of the mechanics, mechanic helpers and equipment servicemen assigned to the Heavy Equipment Maintenance Division. The Arthropod Division of Seminole County is responsible for refuse disposal. The division director is the Refuse Superintendent. Working under him are the Refuse Supervisor and a Landfill Foreman. The Landfill Foreman is responsible for supervision of the actual landfill operations and directly is responsible for three Equipment Operator III's and an Equipment Operator IV. The Landfill Foreman is also responsible for supervision of truck drivers while they are at the landfill area. The Landfill Foreman, Refuse Supervisor and Refuse Superintendent (division director) all have the authority to effectively recommend hiring, firing and discipline and to make work assignments and to evaluate performance. There were approximately twenty-eight employees within the Arthropod Division at the time of hearing. With regard to the employees of the county generally the testimony indicates that all employees of the county are entitled to the same vacation, retirement, and insurance benefits and that their salaries are established within the framework of the pay classification plan. The Petitioner has argued that each division is a totally independent unit, therefore, a unit composed of employees of the Arthropod and Road Construction and Maintenance Divisions of the Department of Public Works would be appropriate. The Employer has urged that the employees of the county be divided into three units: (1) all professional employees (2) all supervisory employees and (3) all employees not contained in the first two units. The Employer's proposal would appear to lump all the clerical employees, all custodial and maintenance employees, and certain highly skilled or specially trained employees in the same unit. The record does not support the Petitioner's contention that the divisions of Seminole County government are independent. The record clearly indicates that divisions are subordinate to the departments of which they are a part. The record further indicates that even departments are not totally independent or autonomous since the department heads are responsible to the County Commission which in turn establishes the salaries and other benefits of employment for all employees of the county. The record clearly indicates that a unit limited to the Arthropod and Road Divisions or even to the Public Works Department would not encompass many employees with essentially the same job functions and in some instances the same job titles and pay classifications. There are maintenance workers, equipment operators and certain custodial personnel and mechanics located in other divisions of county government. The position of the Employer fails to recognize the disparity of interest between the employees which would be "left over" and compose the third unit it has proposed. The record indicates that there are essentially three types of employees below the grade or position of division director as follows: (1) Clerical, (2) Maintenance/Custodial, and (3) Highly skilled. A large portion of the total number of county employees would fall into the clerical category to include secretaries, clerk typists, filing clerks, and fiscal assistants. The maintenance/custodial category would appear to be the next largest grouping of employees and would include custodial and maintenance workers, vehicle operators, watchmen, and mechanics. The highly or specially skilled category would include various planners, biologists, draftsmen, personnel specialists, zoning and building inspectors, and the highest level of skilled trades workers and sanitariums. Based upon the foregoing categorization of county employees, the unit composed of maintenance/custodial employees would encompass all of the job titles and job classifications sought by the Petitioner within the Department of Public Works and consolidate a substantial portion of the total number of county employees who share similar duties and work environments. A unit composed of this category would be almost identical to the last alternative unit sought by Petitioner. At the same time it would prevent fractionalization within county government and better meet the criteria stated in Section 447.009(4), Florida Statutes. This report is respectfully submitted this 11th day of April, 1976. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas J. Pilacek, Esquire Bowels & Pilacek 131 Hark Lake Street Orlando, Florida 32803 David Richeson, Esquire Alley, Alley & Blue 205 Brush Avenue Tampa, Florida Henry Swann, Esquire Alley, Alley & Blue 205 Brush Avenue Tampa, Florida Chairman Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 300, 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent has committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and if so, what remedy should be ordered?
Findings Of Fact Bonita Sneiderman, a/k/a Bonita Mattingly (Ms. Mattingly), is a Caucasian female born March 17, 1953. At the time of the events complained about in this proceeding, Ms. Mattingly was 53 years old. Ms. Mattingly was then known as Ms. Sneiderman and was single. Ms. Mattingly married and changed her name shortly before the hearing in this case. Dillards, Inc., is a corporation that operates a chain of department stores, referred to as Dillards. In many of the Dillards stores, there are styling salons. The Dillards department store at the Orange Park Mall in Orange Park, Florida is referred to as Store #232. During the time period relevant to this case, Susan Konstantatos was the Salon Manager of the salon at Store #232. On July 26, 2005, Ms. Konstantatos attended a manager's meeting, in which she received and discussed new policies for the salons. One such policy dealt with the schedules for salon employees and stated that all new hires would work five-day, full-time schedules. This policy, however, did not necessarily apply to employees already employed at the salons. For example, employees that worked in the Iveys salon before Dillards took over what used to be the Iveys store were considered to be "grandfathered in." Dillards honored whatever scheduling terms the employees had negotiated when taking their positions with Iveys. George Craywick, Cynthia Anderson and Marie Cox were three such salon employees. In September 2005, Ms. Mattingly applied for and received a position as a hair stylist in Dillards Store #232. Her application for employment with the store indicates that she applied for a full-time position. The application also indicates that she was hired for a full-time position. On September 21, 2005, Petitioner attended a new employee orientation session and signed the new employee orientation sheet, acknowledging that she had received orientation on Respondent's Associate Work Rules and Attendance Policy. Petitioner also signed an Associate Acknowledgment Form indicating that she received and understood Respondent's Associate Work Rules and General Policies. The Associate Work Rules and General Policies for Dillards reiterated the importance of attendance and provided notice that a "no show" would not be tolerated and would result in termination of employment. Among the stylists' job duties was an activity called "instant eventing." Instant eventing was an activity designed to generate interest in using the salon's services. Stylists could choose the type of instant eventing they would perform, such as handing out business cards, setting up a paraffin wax table and offering demonstrations, or setting up a color table with hair color swatches. Petitioner's chosen method of instant eventing involved setting up the paraffin wax demonstration. Instant eventing not only created interest in the salon, but hopefully helped new stylists to establish a following for their services. Stylists were expected to participate in instant eventing when they had no appointments. As a consequence, the more customers a stylist had, the less time he or she had to devote to instant eventing and the less stylists were expected to participate in the activity. Petitioner complains that George Craywick was not required to instant event and claims that she never saw him participate in any instant eventing activity. Mr. Craywick had more customers than any other stylist working at the Dillards salon. As a result of the number of repeat customers he served, he did not have the need for or the opportunity to engage in the same amount of instant eventing that Petitioner had. There is evidence that Mr. Craywick participated in a color table as an instant event, but it is unclear whether his participation in this activity was during the time that Petitioner was employed. Petitioner admitted that while she never saw Mr. Craywick participate in instant eventing, she had no knowledge as to whether he participated at times when she was not working with him. During May 2006, all of the salon's stylists at Store #232 were scheduled to work five days per week and one Sunday per month. When an employee worked on Sunday, Ms. Konstantatos attempted to schedule another day off for the employee during that week. Often the day off would be Monday, but the coverage needs of the salon would control. Mr. Craywick often worked on his scheduled days off at Ms. Konstantatos' request to ensure overage for the salon. Others sometimes did the same. Petitioner was scheduled to work Sunday, May 7, 2006. On or about May 1, 2006, Ms. Konstantatos checked the posted schedule and saw that Petitioner's name had been crossed off the schedule for Monday, May 8, 2006. Ms. Konstantatos had not removed Petitioner from the schedule and assumed that Petitioner had crossed her name off because she was working Sunday. Ms. Konstantatos needed Petitioner to work Monday, May 8, 2006, in order to ensure that the salon was adequately staffed. Petitioner had not worked the previous Monday. Ms. Konstantatos left Petitioner a note stating that Petitioner needed to work on Monday, May 8, 2006. After receiving the note, Petitioner called Ms. Konstantatos on Wednesday, May 3, 2006, and told her she could not work on Monday because she had made arrangements to go out of town that day. Petitioner's regular day off is Tuesday. Ms. Konstantatos advised that she needed Petitioner to work Monday to make sure that there was proper coverage for the salon, but that she could give Petitioner Wednesday off so that her days off would be consecutive. Petitioner insisted that she could not work on Monday, May 8, 2006. Ms. Konstantatos informed her that if she did not work on Monday, she would be considered to have abandoned her job and her employment would be terminated. Whether or not she worked on Monday, May 8, 2006, remained Petitioner's choice. Petitioner worked Thursday through Saturday, May 4-6, 2006. On Saturday evening, Petitioner packed up her belongings and left a note indicating that she had arranged for someone else to cover her shift on Sunday and would not be at work on Monday. She never returned to work because she considered herself to have been fired. On May 11, 2007, Respondent terminated Respondent for job abandonment. Between September 2005 and May 2006, Respondent terminated several other salon employees for job abandonment or excessive absenteeism. Those employees were both male and female, married and single. Their ages ranged from 21 to 35. After Petitioner's termination, Ms. Konstantatos hired Debra Doss as a stylist. At the time she was hired, Ms. Doss was a 49-year-old single female.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing Petitioner's complaint of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 10th day of October, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Bonita Y. Mattingly 2040 Wells Road, Apartment 2-E Orange Park, Florida 32073 Grant D. Petersen, Esquire Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3600 Tampa, Florida 33602 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner, Margie Ann Sims, was unlawfully terminated (by Respondent), Niagara Lockport Industries, Inc., due to her age in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1983).
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. Petitioner is forty eight (48) years old. She commenced work for Respondent, Niagara Wires, a subsidiary of Niagara Lockport Industries, Inc., located in Quincy, Florida during 1965 as an Accounts Payable Clerk. Petitioner was terminated on August 5, 1983, as a result of a reduction in staff and unsatisfactory work performance.1 During Petitioner's job tenure, she held various accounting and secretarial positions. Petitioner's initial duties were that of an accounting clerk and she later progressed to Assistant Chief Accountant. She later served as Corporate Bookkeeper and Secretary. Throughout her employment, her job duties were very broad and encompassed many areas of responsibility including overseeing accounts receivable, billings, payroll, bank statements, journal entries, wire transfers and financial statements. During 1975, Respondent's corporate office was moved to Quincy, Florida and Petitioner handled accounting and secretarial duties for the corporate office, dealt with banks making fund transfers, loan balancing and note arrangements; managed financial consolidation of Respondent's eight companies on a quarterly basis; maintained all pension plan records for Respondent's fourteen pension plans which included calculations of pension benefits, submission of wages and credited service to actuaries in preparation of various pension reports. Petitioner's other duties involved maintenance of company minute books, typing, submission and maintenance of files for all letters of credit issued; keeping patent and trademark files and assisted with telecopy, switchboard and TWX. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). During 1976, Petitioner worked directly for Respondent's corporate secretary/treasurer, Robert Worrall. The assignment occurred as a result of a recommendation by Respondent's manufacturing manager, Don Anderson. Petitioner was considered the best of the three employees available to work for Worrall. Thereafter, several changes were made in Respondent's corporate makeup including the addition of the Lockport Felt Division in 1977. As a result, additional employees were placed in the accounting department and Petitioner's duties became more secretarial and clerical in nature than accounting. This situation remained unchanged until Petitioner's termination in 1983. Although Petitioner worked directly for Worrall, she was also expected to perform secretarial and clerical work for others in the accounting department, specifically including Harry Kurtz, Vice-President of Finance, Bruce Kennedy, Controller and Hank Burnett, Corporate Administrative Manager. While Petitioner's primary responsibility was to complete Worrall's work, she was also expected to perform work for other accountants and fiscal employees in the accounting department as she was the only trained employee in the accounting department available for typing duties. (TR 35, 106, 133-134, 117-119, 138, 142 and 153). Respondent has not maintained a formal policy concerning employee discipline or warnings for salaried employees, as Petitioner. (Testimony of Cairns and Worrall, TR 19, 46-47, 60 and 77). Commencing in 1980, Worrall became unhappy with Petitioner's work performance. This unhappiness took the form of counseling with Petitioner during year-end annual reviews and included the following deficiencies: "away from her work station when needed; too much time spent socializing with others; unwilling to work; pushing work back on Worrall; untimeliness and failing to timely complete work as assigned." (TR 85, 110, 116- 117). Like Worrall, other employees in the accounting department for whom Petitioner worked were dissatisfied with her performance during the years 1980-1983. Harry Kurtz, Vice- President of Finance, experienced problems with Petitioner's work quality including errors in typing and formatting, misspelled words and inaccurate numbers to the point where he did not want her (Petitioner) to perform his (Kurtz) work. He was thus forced to seek assistance from persons outside the accounting department, including Pat Simmons who replaced Petitioner, to perform his work. Kurtz related these problems to Worrall. (TR 128, 129-133, 131 and 136). Bruce Kennedy, Controller, experienced similar problems with Petitioner's work quality. He noted Petitioner frequently misspelled words and transposed numbers. Kennedy experienced problems concerning timeliness and the invalid excuses by Petitioner for failing to complete assigned work as scheduled. (TR 137-139). Based on Petitioner's poor work quality, Kennedy went outside the accounting department to get assistance in performing his clerical and secretarial duties. Kennedy informed Worrall of his dissatisfaction with Petitioner's work. Hank Burnett, Corporate Administrative Manager, also experienced problems with Petitioner's work quality in regards to accuracy and neatness. Burnett related an incident where Petitioner used so much "white-out" to make corrections that numbers on ledger sheets were not legible. Burnett also experienced problems with Petitioner in getting work returned timely. He also found it necessary to go outside the accounting_ department to solicit the assistance of Pat Simmons to perform his work. Burnett related to Worrall his dissatisfaction with Petitioner's performance. (TR 128, 150). Linda Jaudzimas is presently employed with Niagara Wire Weaving Employees Credit Union. She has held that position since approximately May of 1980. During the years 1978 through May of 1980, Jaudzimas was employed as an accounting clerk in the corporate accounting office for Niagara Lockport Industries. During that time period, she worked directly with Petitioner and Worrall. Jaudzimas described Petitioner and Worrall as having a very good work relationship and that Worrall depended upon Petitioner a lot. However, since May of 1980, Jaudzimas had only limited contact with Petitioner The typical degree of contact would be only to "pick up reports; I would get information from pensions for time reporting periods." (TR 54 and 58). Don Anderson is presently employed as the Manufacturing Manager for Respondent. Anderson has been in Respondent's employ since 1971. From 1971 through January 1, 1974, Anderson was Respondent's Chief Accountant. Anderson had no direct knowledge concerning Petitioner's work performance since January of 1974. Anderson corroborated Cairns and Worrall's testimony that Respondent had no formal policy concerning disciplinary action taken against salaried employees, as Petitioner. (TR 60). Respondent conducted informal evaluations of salaried employees, including Petitioner, at the end of each year in conjunction with salary increases. During Petitioner's 1981 work performance evaluation, Worrall discussed his concerns with Petitioner including the fact that she spent too much time talking to other people; that he always had to look for her and she pushed work back on him. Petitioner's time away from her work station and her negative attitude toward the company's insurance program were items of discussion. (TR 17; 84-88). An entire list of Worrall's concerns respecting Petitioner's job performance were placed in her personnel file during the 1981 annual performance review. (Respondent's Exhibit 1). Petitioner recalls Worrall using that list during their meetings. (TR 36). Petitioner's performance did not improve during the following year and Worrall expressed the same concerns to her during her annual work performance review during 1982. (TR 115-116). Petitioner received "good" salary increases during the late 70's however, due to her poor performance from 1980-1982, Worrall recommended that she receive only the minimum cost of living increases for the years 1981, 1982 and 1983. In mid 1983, Respondent made a decision to reorganize its corporate offices by moving the sales office of Niagara Lockport from Quincy to Starkeville, Mississippi and by making a change in the research and development department. Pat Simmons, age 41, was secretary for the vice-present of research and development. Worrall was familiar with Ms. Simmons and her work having seen it first hand. Additionally, she was highly recommended by her then supervisors. Finally, she had performed work considered to be "high quality" by other employees in the accounting department including Kurtz, Kennedy and Burnett. When Simmons became available due to the reorganization, Worrall decided to replace Petitioner with Simmons. Petitioner's job had become primarily secretarial and clerical in nature and Worrall desired a competent executive secretary to replace her. (TR 88 90, 92, 94, 121-122, 127). Petitioner was 45 years of age at the time of her termination. (Respondent's Exhibit 3). Petitioner's duties were assumed by Simmons (95 percent) and Elaine Hall (5 percent) who was retained since she- possessed requisite accounting skills. Hall was able to complete the cash report in two hours, a job that had taken Petitioner the better part of a day to perform. (TR 86). As a result of the reorganization, two other employees, Loretta Hood (mid 30's) and Virginia Jeffcoat (mid 50's) were terminated. Petitioner was terminated in August, 1983 for the reasons that her performance was not satisfactory and a qualified person (Simmons) had become available due to Respondent's corporate reorganization and staff reduction. This was told to Petitioner at the time of her termination. (Respondent's Exhibit 2; TR 68, 93). Subsequent to her termination, Petitioner requested that Worrall write her a letter of recommendation. Worrall complied, however, Petitioner was not pleased and asked him to write a second one giving him an example to follow (Respondent's Exhibit 7). Petitioner wanted a "good" letter of recommendation so that she could easily obtain another job. In writing the recommendation, Worrall followed his policy of not commenting on negatives but merely set out the type of work Petitioner performed. Petitioner was still unsatisfied with Worrall's second letter and she therefore asked the Respondent's President, Malcolm Cairns, to write a letter of recommendation for her. As with Worrall, Petitioner participated in the drafting of the letter for Cairns by providing him with an example. (TR 22, 23 and 70). Cairns did not include anything negative in the letter so that it would be easier for Petitioner to obtain another job.
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 finding that Petitioner was not terminated due to her age in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended. Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1983) and that Petitioner's Petition for Relief be DISMISSED. DONE and ORDERED this 10th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of March, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven L. Seliger, Esquire 229 E. Washington Street Quincy, Florida 32351 Swift, Currie, NcGhee and Hiers, P.A., by Victor A. Cavanough 771 Spring Street, N.W. Post Office Box 54247 Atlanta, Georgia 30379-2401 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240/ Tallahassee, Florida 32303. Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether Respondent terminated Petitioner from her employment based on perceived handicap discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was hired by Respondent on March 5, 1991, to work as a server at Respondent's restaurant, Bon Appetit. Shortly thereafter, on or about April 8, 1991, Petitioner was promoted to restaurant manager. During her tenure as restaurant manager, Petitioner was counselled about her appearance and personal hygiene. Additionally, Petitioner had problems with Respondent's performance including balancing the cash and credit card receipts collected during her shifts. Respondent required its managers to notify Respondent in advance of any absence due to a medical condition where possible. In all cases; however, managers were required to communicate with Respondent concerning their absence so that Respondent could schedule and plan for a manager's absence to avoid any disruption in its business and the scheduling of other employees. During her employment as restaurant manager, Petitioner was diagnosed as having "hammer toes". Petitioner was out of work for three weeks to have this condition surgically corrected. This absence was approved in advance by Respondent and Petitioner received full compensation for that medical leave. Following the scheduled three week absence for the surgery, there was an additional two to three week period during which Petitioner reported for work late or would leave early. Respondent considered those late arrivals and early departures to be unexcused absences. Following foot surgery, Petitioner returned to her position as manager with the same pay. Subsequently, during May 1992, Petitioner was out of work for surgery to have an ovarian cyst removed. This absence was approved by Respondent and Petitioner was out of work for five days. During this period of medical leave, Petitioner received her pay and returned to work following surgery. Following the cyst surgery, Petitioner complained of lower back pain which her gynecologist attributed to swelling from the cyst surgery. On May 30, 1992, Petitioner went to the emergency room at Morton Plant Hospital in Tampa suffering from lower back pain. Petitioner contacted restaurant manager, Leo Enciso, and told him of her visit to the hospital and "not to count on her reporting for work that day". Petitioner also informed Enciso that she would call as soon as she had been examined to give an update on her status. Subsequent to her initial phone call to Enciso on May 30, 1992, Petitioner did not speak with Enciso nor did he receive any messages from Petitioner concerning her status from May 30, 1992 to June 8, 1992. Following her treatment in the emergency room at Morton Plant, Petitioner sought treatment on that same date, May 30, 1992 from chiropractor Dr. Lynn Colucci. At that time, Petitioner knew she would be out of work until at least one more day. Petitioner did not communicate that information to Respondent or any of its management personnel. Petitioner's next consultation with her chiropractor to evaluate her condition was June 1, 1992. Following that session, Petitioner was advised that she would be out of work for at least two more days. Petitioner did not communicate this information to Respondent or any of its management staff. Petitioner again met with her chiropractor on June 3, 1992 and was told that she would be unable to return to work until June 8, 1992. Petitioner failed to communicate this information to any of Respondent's management or staff. Kailie Borzoni, Peter Kreuziger and Sharon Verhage, all managerial employees of Respondent, made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Petitioner by phone. Verhage left a message on Petitioner's answering machine but Petitioner did not return her phone call. Petitioner was released to return to work by her treating chiropractor on June 9, 1992. There were no restrictions placed on her when she was released for work and her physician related that Petitioner's back problem had "resolved itself". Petitioner was discharged by Respondent on June 9, 1992, when she reported for work. Peter Krueziger made an independent decision to discharge Petitioner based on what he considered to be poor performance, poor appearance, excessive absences and failing to truthfully advise of her work status and whereabouts from May 30, 1992 to June 8, 1992. When Petitioner was initially employed as a restaurant manager, Respondent's manager, Krueziger, noticed that Petitioner's dress apparel did not meet up to the standards of a "four star" restaurant that Respondent was operating. As a result, Respondent spoke with Petitioner about his expectations with regard to her dress and advised the controller to advance Petitioner some funds to purchase a wardrobe. Respondent sent one of its managerial employees to accompany Petitioner on a shopping trip to upgrade her wardrobe to reflect what Respondent considered to be appropriate dress for a restaurant manager. Respondent's managerial staff noted and complained to Petitioner on several occasions after she was given a new wardrobe, that her attire did not measure up to the standards that they expected of a manager. Negative comments were made about Respondent's stained clothing, her fingernails and her unkempt hair. Petitioner conceded that she had an exceptionally hard time balancing her cash and credit card accounts at the end of each shift. While some managers experience difficulty at the outset of their employment because an antiquated accounting system was being used, they soon became proficient in closing out the cash and credit card accounts following their shift. Respondent discharged Petitioner based on her failure to properly notify it of her absence from work during the period May 30, 1992 through June 8, 1992. Petitioner's medical condition, real or perceived, played no part in Respondent's decision to terminate her.
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 as she failed to establish that she was terminated from employment because of a perceived handicap. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 6th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 3 adopted as modified, paragraph 2 recommended order. Paragraph 4 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraph 5 recommended order. Paragraph 5, adopted as modified, paragraph 4 recommended order. Paragraph 7, adopted as modified, paragraphs 9 and 10 recommended order. Paragraph 8 rejected, irrelevant. Paragraphs 9 and 10 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraph 15 recommended order. Paragraphs 11-16 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Paragraph 17 rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary. Paragraphs 18 and 19 rejected, conclusionary. COPIES FURNISHED: C. A. Sullivan, Esquire 311 S. Missouri Avenue Clearwater, FL 34616 Charles A. Powell, IV, Esquire Peter W. Zinober, Esquire Zinober and McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1750 Tampa, FL 33602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
The Issue Whether Respondent County is guilty of an unlawful employment practice pursuant to Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is female, and within a class protected by Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes. Respondent County is an "employer" within the meaning of Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner claimed that Respondent treated her disparately from male employees on the basis of her gender in the areas of pay during her probationary period, reprimands and discipline, provision of equipment, poor performance evaluations, and training. Petitioner's initial relationship with Respondent was as an independent contractor at Respondent's Sanitary Landfill under a written contract entered into on September 15, 1989. In this capacity, she acted as a "spotter." As an independent contractor, she received $250 per month and salvage rights to whatever material customers brought to the Respondent's Sanitary Landfill. Effective August 14, 1990, the State Division of Personnel and Retirement required Respondent to put all contractual people on the County payroll. Thereafter, Petitioner was paid $350 per month and continued to have salvage rights only at the sufferance of the Respondent. After that date, Petitioner earned retirement and social security benefits. Withholding of federal taxes and deduction of social security benefits were also provided.(P-12). The value of the salvage rights were never calculated by anyone. While she was employed as a "spotter," Petitioner was the only female "spotter." Petitioner was on probation as an employee from August to December 1990. Petitioner was paid $1.442 per hour from August 12, 1990 through October 1990, and $1.63 per hour from October 1990 through December 3, 1990. At that time, her rate of pay was raised to $3.85 per hour. The record contains no evidence of what was paid to any male employee similarly situated during this period. Without proof that similarly situated male spotters were consistently paid better, there is no proof of gender discrimination in pay during Petitioner's probationary period.3 Mark Hawes, a male, was hired as a spotter on June 1, 1993. He was paid $4.35 per hour while on probation. Willie George, also male, was hired as a spotter on October 1, 1993, and was paid $4.4805 per hour while on probation. There is no evidence of how much Petitioner was being paid during this period, so there is no means of assessing disparate treatment in pay, if any, during this period.4 During the period that Petitioner was employed as a "spotter," there was no statute or rule requiring that "spotters" receive formalized training or be certified in any field. During Petitioner's employment, no spotter were provided more than a printed Job Description and on-the-job oral instructions. They were expected to use courtesy and common sense in dealing with the public. Two employees (gender unspecified) who were not spotters were sent to train at a state "school" to become Certified Landfill Operators. A State Rule was enacted after Petitioner was terminated which required that all spotters must have eight hours of specialized training. Thereafter, the Respondent provided such training to spotters. At all times material to any Personnel Citations, Petitioner was a union member, and all benefits of her union's collective bargaining agreement with the Respondent accrued to her. No performance evaluations were submitted in evidence. With the exception of the events related within the following findings of fact, no witness found any fault with Petitioner in the performance of her job description as a "spotter" at Respondent's landfill. (P-1) Wayne Hardee, Director of the Landfill, issued a Personnel Citation against Petitioner early in her employment on the basis of lack of personal hygiene. The citation was later removed from Petitioner's personnel file as an act of good will. On or about January 16, 1994, Petitioner admitted to an immediate supervisor that her carelessness with a hand-held CB radio had resulted in loss of the radio. She offered to pay for the radio. Mr. Hardee did not require her to pay for the radio, but issued a written Personnel Citation to her on January 20, 1994 for her carelessness. This Personnel Citation simultaneously cited Petitioner because Mr. Hardee had received complaints that Petitioner was overly concerned about other spotters doing their jobs. In this Personnel Citation, Mr. Hardee warned Petitioner to do her job without complaining about other employees. Petitioner admitted that she signed this citation and that she did not grieve it through her union. The radio was later recovered, but the citation remained in Petitioner's personnel file. (P-2) On Saturday, July 9, 1994, Petitioner called her union's senior shop steward, Jessie Ellzey, to the landfill to complain about items left at her spotter station. Mr. Ellzey's perception was that Petitioner was accusing another employee of putting the items in the wrong place. Petitioner also told Mr. Ellzey that another employee had threatened her. After investigation and interviews the following week, Mr. Ellzey and Mr. Hardee determined that the items had been brought by a landfill customer to the landfill between shift changes. Mr. Hardee's and Mr. Ellzey's perception was that Petitioner had unfairly complained about another spotter, Willie George, not doing his job. At least three days and two meetings were involved in this investigation and counseling procedure. Mr. Hardee issued a written Personnel Citation against Petitioner for complaining about a co-employee. (P-3) Petitioner also was suspended without pay for one day and warned that if the problem was not corrected, further disciplinary action would be taken against her. Petitioner did not grieve this citation through her union. Based on all of Mr. Ellzey's credible testimony, due to reputation testimony about Mr. Ellzey's standard operating procedure, and because Petitioner was actually suspended for one day without pay, I reject as not credible Petitioner's testimony that she never knew of this citation in time to grieve it. On August 13, 1994, Ann Harrell, a landfill customer, filed a written complaint of rudeness against Petitioner. (P-9) A written complaint of rudeness by Petitioner was also filed by another customer, Mr. Richburg, at about the same time. Mr. Hardee considered courtesy to customers to be an unstated policy of County government and further perceived rudeness to customers to be an on-going problem in Petitioner's relationship with the public. Due to the foregoing written complaints and many similar oral complaints he had received, Mr. Hardee assigned Petitioner two days' suspension without pay by a written Personnel Citation issued August 15, 1994. The citation also warned Petitioner she would be terminated if there were another complaint about her. Petitioner refused to sign this citation. (P-4) On August 25, 1994, Petitioner grieved the August 15, 1994 Personnel Citation through her union. (P-5) A hearing was held in response to Petitioner's grievance. All concerned agree that Mr. Ellzey, the union representative advocating Petitioner's position, and not a representative of management, kept Petitioner from testifying. Chester Humphries testified on Petitioner's behalf at the grievance hearing that he had been unable to hear what Mr. Richburg said but could hear what Petitioner said to Mr. Richburg. From this, Mr. Hardee inferred that Petitioner had raised her voice to Mr. Richburg. Mr. Hardee assessed Petitioner's character witnesses in Petitioner's favor but noted that they knew nothing about the specific incident between Petitioner and Mr. Richburg. Ultimately, Mr. Hardee relied on Mr. Richburg's testimony concerning the incident. (P-6) Mr. Hardee denied Petitioner's grievance and disciplined Petitioner in accord with the August 15, 1994 Personnel Citation. Upon advice of her union steward, Petitioner did not appeal the grievance hearing result. It was further agreed that if Petitioner's behavior resulted in no more complaints against her for 30 working days, the August 15, 1994, citation would be removed from her personnel file. Petitioner met this requirement, and the citation was removed from her personnel file. (P-6; P-7). Petitioner's December 13, 1994, charge of discrimination before the Florida Commission on Human Relations listed August 11, 1994, as the last date of alleged discrimination. No witness at formal hearing herein, including Mr. Ellzey and Mr. Humphries, both of whom also had been present at the grievance hearing, confirmed Petitioner's perception that her gender had affected the result of her grievance hearing. Another female employee (not a landfill spotter) currently works in Respondent's administrative offices. That female employee also has had employment disputes with Mr. Hardee which she attributes to his gender bias, but the type of dispute was not clearly specified on this record. Therefore, no similarity to Petitioner's situation can be discerned and no pattern of gender bias was proven on that basis. This female employee is still employed by Respondent. A different female employee (also not a spotter) employed by Respondent's Emergency Medical Services (EMS) was terminated by Mr. Bill Beddow, EMS Director, for failing to timely report (or complain about) her immediate supervisor for "doing something [Mr. Beddow] thought he shouldn't be doing with drugs." The male supervisor resigned for "personal reasons." The female employee was rehired by Mr. Beddow after intercession by her union. This means another female not similarly situated to Petitioner was terminated for not complaining about a male employee's job performance and was then hired back, whereas Petitioner was progressively disciplined with reprimands and suspensions for repetitive unsubstantiated complaints about male employees' job performances. Petitioner seeks to have the conclusion drawn that female employees were disciplined both for reporting and for not reporting male employees' misbehavior. However, the two isolated situations are so dissimilar as to develop no pattern recognizable at law. I accept as credible and unrefuted Petitioner's testimony that all of the complaints she initiated about other employees were oral. However, Petitioner's testimony that she did not complain about other employees' performance of, or failure to perform, their jobs and her assertion that her complaints were only motivated by the requirements of her Job Description to "inspect loads" and "report all problems" was not corroborated by any other witness. Petitioner's testimony that her concerns were directed not at individual employees but at addressing hazardous wastes also was not corroborated by any other witness.5 Petitioner's middle level supervisor acknowledged that Petitioner told him that other employees had improperly handled hazardous materials as well as non-hazardous materials but that he did not cite anyone as a result of Petitioner's complaints about hazardous wastes because it was impossible to prove who was responsible. He counseled all subordinates about each incident whenever he considered counseling appropriate. Otherwise, all witnesses with reason to know the situation generally acknowledged that Petitioner's oral complaints were recurring almost daily and were directed to other employees' job performances rather than hazardous materials. It is the repetitive and personal nature of Petitioner's complaints rather than their being oral that management found offensive. The evidence also generally shows that all employees orally complained about each other and that Petitioner's two immediate supervisors, Felippe McCelroy and Robert Murray, orally reprimanded everybody who complained or who was complained about as they each saw fit within their supervisory discretion on individual occasions. No gender pattern is to be discerned from the foregoing. Only on those occasions that either an oral or written complaint reached Mr. Hardee was anyone written up and/or disciplined. Petitioner complained about not being assigned or provided with one of Respondent employer's trucks when other male employees were provided trucks. With the exception of the following findings related to the Respondent's trucks, there is no relevant evidence in this record concerning employees' use of trucks. All employees were cautioned against carelessness. Tommy Dean, a male employee, dented one of Respondent's trucks. He was not disciplined for careless driving. There is no evidence the dent was caused by Mr. Dean's careless driving. In February 1995, Charles Kennedy, a male spotter, filed a written complaint or incident report. Therein, he claimed that Petitioner had attempted to prohibit his bulldozing landfill material out of the way because Petitioner was trying to remove salvageable items. He further alleged that Petitioner had thrown a jar of grease at him. Petitioner was requested to file a written account of the incident. In her written account, she basically admitted the incident but not any intent to hit Mr. Kennedy with the grease jar. Mr. Kennedy was not disciplined for filing the written complaint/report. Petitioner was not disciplined for the actions complained about by Mr. Kennedy. Instead, as of February 3, 1995, landfill spotters were prohibited from salvaging at the landfill. (P-13) Petitioner desires that the conclusion be drawn that male spotters who complained in writing about other employees were not disciplined for complaining but that Petitioner, a female, was disciplined for making oral complaints. However, it appears Respondent addressed Mr. Kennedy's written complaint in much the same way as it had addressed Petitioner's oral complaint against Willie George, by giving each participant in the dispute a chance to state his or her position, before management decided who should be disciplined. The difference was that Mr. Kennedy was not a chronic complainer and management's investigation revealed some fault on both sides, so a neutral solution was found rather than discipline being imposed. There is no evidence beyond Petitioner's assertion that she was ever asked to do more work or heavier work than male spotters. From this point on, the dates that events occurred or their chronology is not entirely clear from the record. However, approximately April 14, 1995, there was an occasion when Petitioner was asked to move metal pieces in a wheelbarrow-sized pile over a three-hour period. The largest piece weighed 21 pounds. The next day, Petitioner reported a workers' compensation back injury or aggravation. She was then off work until approximately May 11, 1995, when she returned to "light duty." She worked for awhile for only four hours per day. Respondent hired someone to help her. It is disputed whether Petitioner was reinjured or whether Mr. Hardee just sent her home. However, on or about July 8, 1995, Mr. Hardee discussed the situation with "the workers' compensation people," and it was agreed there was not enough light duty work for Petitioner. Three months later, Petitioner returned to full duty. Because a spotter had been hired to do her work, Petitioner was assigned to a variety of jobs. She worked at the dog pound, the recycling building, and even washed Mr. Hardee's truck.6 One day, Petitioner's immediate supervisor ordered her to cut out the top of a metal drum. At formal hearing, Petitioner asserted that this was heavier work than she should have been required to do on light duty, but there is no evidence the supervisor's order was motivated by gender bias. There also is no evidence a full-time male spotter was never required to do similarly heavy work. Petitioner advised her supervisor that she had hurt her arms and elbows and she went home on sick leave. Petitioner had complained over the term of her employment about not being provided one of Respondent's trucks so that she could conveniently get from her sector of the landfill to a restroom. After her workers' compensation injury, Respondent arranged for male employees to drive Petitioner to the restroom. Eventually, Respondent provided Petitioner with a portable toilet in her work sector. Mr. Hardee maintained that no spotter had ever been assigned a truck but that all spotters, including Petitioner, had access to one. There is evidence to show that male employees drove the trucks and Petitioner did not, but insufficient evidence to show this was an active management decision or that Mr. Hardee acquiesced in male employees preempting trucks as a result of any gender bias. On or about November 13, 1995, Petitioner informed Mr. Hardee that she was permanently physically disabled and would have to be on light duty indefinitely. After consultation with his "workers' compensation people," Mr. Hardee terminated Petitioner as of that date. 7 At formal hearing, Petitioner admitted Respondent was still paying her workers' compensation benefits and that her workers' compensation claim has not been settled.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding no discrimination and dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 1997.
