The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes (2002), by forcing the termination of Petitioner's employment with Respondent because of his gender (male), and/or national origin (Venezuela), and/or his age (37); and because Petitioner alleged that younger, female lifeguards were given better work assignments.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent from November 26, 2002, until April 17 2003, in the position of deep water lifeguard at Respondent's facility at the Grand Floridian Hotel (Grand Floridian) located in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. He worked in that position until his resignation on April 17, 2003. Petitioner is a Hispanic male, aged 37, and a member of a protected class. Respondent is an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA). Petitioner was hired for a full-time position to work 40 hours per week. He normally worked a ten-hour shift, four days a week. Petitioner never applied for any other position or promotions during his employment. All full-time lifeguards at the Grand Floridian are covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Respondent and the Services Trades Council Union. A lifeguard working at the Grand Floridian does not have to be a member or pay dues to the union in order to be covered by the terms of the CBA. Petitioner is not a member of the union. At the time of his hire, Petitioner was provided with a packet of materials containing Respondent's employment policies. Respondent had a policy regarding harassment that covered all of its employees and prohibited all types of harassment in the workplace, including any such behavior based on age, national origin, and/or gender. Respondent also has an "equal opportunity" policy that applies to all of its employees. This policy provides that all employees should be treated equally in terms of hours, work location, and scheduling based on seniority. Operations at the Grand Floridian Of the class of lifeguards hired at the same time, Petitioner was the only one assigned to the Grand Floridian. At the time of being assigned to the Grand Floridian, there were approximately 25 lifeguards employed there. The lifeguards at the Grand Floridian are full-time, part-time casual, or part- time regular employees. There are also "college program" lifeguards who perform all of the same duties as the full-time and part-time employees. The starting times for employees are staggered, based on the needs of the area and the time of the year. The main duties of a lifeguard at the Grand Floridian are to ensure safety and guard the pools, clean the pool and beach areas, work the cash register, and operate the marina. The head supervisor of the Grand Floridian lifeguards during Petitioner's employment was Jerry Davis. Davis has been employed with Respondent for nine years. He has served in his current position as the recreation operations manager for six years. His duties in this position include supervising the outside recreation areas, including the pools, boats, and lifeguards at the Grand Floridian. Davis plays no role in hiring the employees that report to him, but rather Respondent's Employee Relations Department is responsible for hiring these employees. Davis has the authority to terminate lifeguards that report to him. Prior to terminating an employee, however, Davis seeks the input of the Employee Relations Department. The evidence is credible that Davis is accessible to his direct reports and makes sure that his office is always open to them. If a lifeguard wants to speak with Davis, he will make himself available to him or her. As a manager, Davis has undergone training from Respondent regarding its equal employment policies and anti- harassment policies. He has also been trained that employees may raise complaints about working conditions with either their manager or the Employee Relations Department. All employees are made aware of these policies and complaint procedures as a part of their orientation program. Under Davis, the next supervisor was Darin Bernhard. Bernhard has been employed with Respondent for eight years and is currently employed as a recreation guest service manager. Until October 2003, Bernhard was employed at the Grand Floridian. In that capacity, Bernhard directly supervised lifeguards, marina employees, and activities' employees. Bernhard had continuous interaction with lifeguards throughout the day while at the Grand Floridian. Bernhard had an open-door policy to all employees and made himself accessible to them. Under Davis and Bernhard, there were three coordinators who served as the immediate supervisors of the lifeguards. The weekly work schedule for lifeguards was posted on the wall every week. Bernhard, along with Respondent's Labor Office, was responsible for preparing this weekly schedule. The factors used in preparing this schedule were a scheduling bid submitted by each employee, scheduled vacations, and operational needs. As for operational needs, Bernhard would try to give a combination throughout the week based on full-time, part-time, and college program employees and avoid having all college program employees on duty at one time, thereby providing more experience on each shift. The CBA contains a provision stating as follows: "The principles of seniority shall be observed in establishing days off and work schedules by department, location, or scheduling pool." As a result, the schedule bids of all employees were considered based on the seniority of the employees. At the time of his hire, Petitioner spoke with Bernhard about special scheduling requests. Specifically, Petitioner asked to receive early shifts and weekends off. He wanted the weekends off due to child-care issues with his son. Bernhard informed Petitioner that he would attempt to work with Petitioner on this, but that he was limited in what he could do based on the seniority requirements set forth in the CBA, as well as the fact that most of the lifeguards preferred to have weekends off. At that point in time, Petitioner had the least amount of seniority of all the full-time lifeguards, since he was the most recently hired employee. Despite the CBA restrictions, Bernhard made every effort to provide Petitioner with at least one day each weekend off and tried to provide him with two, whenever possible. On a regular basis, Petitioner was scheduled to have Saturdays off. In addition, on numerous occasions, he was given Friday, Saturday, and Sunday off from work, in accordance with his special request. At no time during his employment did Petitioner ever complain to Bernhard about not getting enough days off on the weekend. Employees would occasionally complain to Bernhard about the weekly schedule. When he received such complaints, Bernhard would listen to their complaints and not take any adverse action against any employee for complaining to him about scheduling issues. On occasion, lifeguards would be sent home early due to slow business or inclement weather. This decision would be made either by the immediate supervisor on duty or one of the coordinators. The lifeguards would be allowed to volunteer to go home on a "first-come, first serve" basis. No lifeguard, however, was forced to go home early. Similarly, Bernhard did not receive complaints from any lifeguard about being forced to go home early. The coordinators at the Grand Floridian were responsible for making the daily rotation schedules. There were five primary positions that the lifeguards could be assigned to on a daily basis, consisting of two lifeguard positions at the pool, the slide, the marina, and cashier. The coordinators made these assignment decisions based on the people they had available that day. The primary focus was to make sure that all of the areas were properly covered. Such daily rotation assignments were also based on certain needs during particular periods of the day. In addition, certain assignments were given to certain employees if they are more capable of performing the task. It is also not uncommon for the daily rotation to be changed during the day based on unexpected factors, such as absent employees. In terms of shift assignments, an effort is made to make sure that regular employees and college program employees are working together so that the regular employees can provide guidance when needed. During a workday, most of the employees rotate positions every 30 minutes to an hour. The rotation of duties for the lifeguards changed on a daily basis. Petitioner enjoyed working as a lifeguard because he considered himself a stronger lifeguard than others in his department. He also described himself as the "leader of the lifeguards." All lifeguards are trained in the cashier duties, but very few individuals are chosen to actually work as a cashier. These cashiers undergo special training prior to performing these duties. The primary attributes for a cashier are good guest interaction and good phone skills because a cashier is required to interact with guests, both on the telephone and in person. This assignment also differs from the other assignments in that the employee assigned to this position normally does not rotate throughout the day to other assignments. It is not uncommon for the same employee to serve as a cashier for an entire day. Petitioner was sometimes assigned to work at the marina, but not as a cashier. Petitioner never spoke with any of his supervisors or coordinators about working more at the marina or as a cashier. Each lifeguard at the Grand Floridian was required to complete four hours of in-service training each month, either at his home resort or at another resort. Attendance at these training sessions were tracked on a daily sign-in sheet. If a lifeguard failed to complete his or her in-service training for the month, he would be reprimanded. Davis prepared a reprimand for Petitioner on April 1, 2003. This reprimand was the result of Petitioner's failing to complete his in-service training hours for the month of March 2003. As a result of failing to complete this training, Petitioner received a two-point reprimand for poor job performance. Petitioner did not know when Davis prepared the Poor Job Performance Memorandum dated April 1, 2003. Davis and Petitioner did not see each other between Petitioner's accident on March 30, 2003, and the date Petitioner signed the Poor Job Performance Memorandum on April 9, 2003. At the time that Davis prepared this memorandum, Petitioner had not made any complaints of discrimination or harassment to Davis. The attendance of the lifeguards on a daily basis was tracked by the use of an electronic swipe card. The daily schedule and attendance of the lifeguards was also tracked on a daily sheet completed by the coordinators. This sheet was kept in the managers' office and was forwarded to the Respondent's Labor Office when it was completed. Bernhard usually reviewed these sheets on a daily basis as well. The lifeguards did not have access to these sheets on a daily basis. Under the attendance policy in the CBA, three absences in a 30-day period warranted a one-point written reprimand. An employee had to receive three written reprimands within a 24- month period before he could be terminated for attendance issues. The reasons for an absence did not make a difference for purposes of accruing points under the policy. On March 24, 2003, Petitioner called in sick and did not appear for work. On his way home from work on March 31, 2003, Petitioner was in a car accident in a parking lot on Respondent's property. As a result of that accident, Petitioner's car had to be towed because it was not drivable. Petitioner did not, however, seek medical treatment as a result of the accident. Shortly after the accident occurred, Petitioner contacted Bernhard. He informed Bernhard of the accident and told him that he would not be available for work the next day because his car had been destroyed. He did not inform Bernhard that he had been injured in any way. Petitioner was absent from work on April 1, 2003, because he had no transportation. Petitioner called in his personal absence on April 1, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 16, 2003, and was a "no show" on April 2, 2003. As a result of these numerous absences, Davis made a decision to contact Petitioner by telephone and inquire about the reasons for these multiple absences. Petitioner informed Davis that he still did not have transportation. Petitioner expressed concern to Davis that he was afraid he was going to accrue too many points and get himself terminated. Davis responded to Petitioner that if he did not return to work, he would accrue points under the attendance policy. Petitioner asked Davis if it would be better if he terminated himself or if he was terminated by Respondent. Davis also informed Petitioner that if he terminated himself, at some point he might be able to return to his job at Respondent, though he did not guarantee him that he could simply return. Davis made it very clear to Petitioner that this was a decision he had to make. At the time of Davis' phone call to Petitioner, he had accrued sufficient points under the applicable "attendance policy" set forth under the CBA to warrant giving him a one- point written reprimand. Davis had not been able to give the reprimand to Petitioner, however, because he had not returned to work. At no time had Davis ever informed Petitioner that such a reprimand was waiting for him. In addition, such absences would not have provided a basis for terminating Petitioner at that point in time. Petitioner contacted Davis the following day and informed Davis that he was going to voluntarily resign his employment. Upon learning of this decision, Davis informed Petitioner that he needed to return his uniform and all other of Respondent's property prior to receiving his last paycheck. All employees are required to return their uniform and Respondent's property at the time of resignation. Davis never informed Petitioner that he was being terminated or that he had an intention of terminating him. Similarly, Davis never told Petitioner that he had no option but to resign. Davis had no problem with Petitioner returning to work, provided he could obtain proper transportation. After Petitioner's resignation, Davis completed the required paperwork and indicated that Petitioner should be classified as a "restricted rehire." Davis chose this restriction due to Petitioner's tardiness and attendance issues, as well as his failure to take responsibility to make it to work. This decision to categorize him as a "restricted rehire" was not based on Petitioner's age, national origin or his gender. Petitioner visited Respondent's casting center (human resource department) on June 17, 2003, approximately two months after his resignation, with the intent to reapply for his prior position. Petitioner wanted to return to his same position at the Grand Floridian, working for Davis and Bernhard, as well as working under the same coordinators. On June 17, 2003, Petitioner met with Fernanda Smith, who has served as a recruiter for Respondent for five years. Smith was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and is Hispanic. As a recruiter, Smith is responsible for interviewing, selecting, and hiring the strongest candidates for positions at Respondent. She is responsible for hiring employees for all hourly, entry- level positions. The hiring process used by Respondent is the same for both new applicants and former employees of Respondent. That process is set forth in the "Rehire Review" policy given to each recruiter. Once Smith is randomly assigned an applicant, she brings them to her office and reviews their personal data in the computer. She then reviews the application for accuracy and completeness. She also confirms that they are qualified to work in the United States and their criminal background. Smith reviews the conditions of employment with the applicant, including compensation, appearance, ability to attend work and transportation. If the applicant was previously employed by Respondent, Smith also reviews the application for the reasons the employee previously left employment and the applicant's rehire status. The different rehire statuses are "yes rehire," "restricted rehire," and "no rehire." If a former employee has been categorized as a "restricted rehire," Smith then must confirm that the person is currently employed and that he or she has been at that employment for a period of at least six months at the time of re-application. Assuming they can satisfy these requirements, the applicant is required to provide an employment verification letter from their current employer within one week of the interview. At that point, the information is forwarded to a rehire committee for consideration. On June 17, 2003, Smith interviewed Petitioner for potential rehire with Respondent. She recalls that when she met him in the lobby, he was very professionally dressed. Upon entering her office, Smith reviewed the information on Petitioner's application with him. At that point, she noticed that he had a recent date of termination from Respondent and asked him the reasons for his termination. Petitioner responded that he had left his employment because of transportation problems and that he had missed a number of days from work. In reviewing Petitioner's application, she realized that he did not meet the requirements for consideration as a "restricted rehire." First of all, Petitioner did not offer any evidence of current employment at the time of the interview. Secondly, Petitioner had only been gone from Respondent for a period of approximately two months, and thus, did not have the six months of continuous employment to be considered for rehire. Smith shared with Petitioner that he did not meet the minimum requirements for a "restricted rehire." Petitioner had no idea what that designation meant. At that point, Petitioner responded by getting very upset, yelling and screaming at Smith, standing up and pointing his finger at her. He then informed Smith that he was going to sue Respondent for discrimination and left her office. Petitioner did not allow Smith to make any other comments to him. Immediately after Petitioner had left the building, Smith prepared the standard evaluation that she prepares for all applicants she interviews, including the incident that occurred in the interview with Petitioner. If Petitioner had allowed Smith to explain the process and eventually provided the appropriate documentation, he might have been considered for rehire. Based on his behavior in the interview, however, Smith recommended that he not be considered for rehire, particularly for the position of lifeguard where he would be dealing with guests on a regular basis. Allegations of Discrimination Petitioner alleges that one of the coordinators referred to his national origin in a derogatory manner on one occasion. Other than this isolated alleged comment, he stated he never heard anyone else at Respondent make any derogatory comments about his being Hispanic or Venezuelan. Petitioner did not complain about this comment to anyone at Respondent and specifically did not complain to Davis, Bernhard, or employee relations about it. Other than this one comment by an unnamed coordinator, Petitioner offered no evidence that any actions or decisions were taken against him based on his national origin. In support of his age discrimination claim, Petitioner alleges that some of his co-workers referred to him once or twice as "old." Petitioner did not offer any evidence that any of his supervisors or coordinators ever used any of these terms in reference to him. Petitioner does not know whether or not he ever discussed his age with other workers. At the time of Petitioner's resignation, he was not the oldest lifeguard working at the Grand Floridian. Penny Ivey and Sherry Morris were both older than Petitioner, and Davis was born on February 5, 1951. At the time of Petitioner's resignation, Davis was 52 years old. Other than these alleged isolated comments, Petitioner offered no other evidence that any actions or decisions were taken against him based on his age. Petitioner claims that one example of gender discrimination was that the rotation schedule was not equal. In particular, he alleges that the "young and beautiful girls" were preferred in the rotation schedules because they were allowed to work in the marina and at the cash register more than males. Petitioner alleges that Jaimy Tully, a 23-year-old female lifeguard, was always late. For example, Petitioner alleges that Tully was late on March 2, 2003, based on the fact that she was supposed to be there at 10:00 a.m. The daily schedule indicates that she arrived for work at 9:30 a.m. In reviewing the document, however, it indicates "S/C" which means that a schedule change was made, and Tully showed up for work half an hour early, not late, and she still worked her scheduled day of ten hours. A schedule change would occur for several reasons, including the need to have certain employees come in early for an in-service session or the personal request of an employee. It sometimes required employees to come in for work early and other times required them to work later. Petitioner similarly alleges that Tully was late on March 22, 2003, and should have been fired for that. In reviewing the daily schedule for that date, however, it is evident that a schedule change was made, and Tully was scheduled to work from 9:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., a regular 10-hour day, and that she actually worked those hours. Petitioner admitted at the hearing that she was actually early to work and not late. Petitioner alleges that Tully was late again for work on April 7 and April 16, 2003. A review of those daily schedules, however, reveals that Tully had a schedule change on each of those days and that she worked the hours that she was assigned. Of all these allegations of Tully being late to work, Petitioner never complained to anyone about it. Petitioner then alleges that Tully arrived for work early on February 15, 2003, and that she was allowed to work extra hours and earn overtime. On that particular occasion, however, Tully was called in early because she needed to attend an in-service training session that was occurring that day. Petitioner conceded that Tully was not late on that day. Petitioner admitted that both males and females were called in to work additional hours as lifeguards. For instance, Michael Whitt, a male employee, was allowed to start work earlier based on a schedule change on March 4, 2003. Similarly, a schedule change was made involving Whitt on February 25, 2003, and he was required to report to work at 11:40 a.m., not 10:00 a.m., and as a result, was not given any breaks that day. Petitioner never received any discipline as a result of being late to work or for leaving work early. Petitioner claims that he suffered discrimination on January 12, 2003, because Tully was allowed to start work later than he and then was allowed to work as a cashier for the majority of the day. He claims that she should have been on a rotation like him and that she was given more hours than he was. Tully was trained as both a lifeguard and a cashier, but she had more cashier experience than the majority of the other lifeguards. She also had good guest-interaction and cash- handling skills, and thus, she was placed as a cashier more than most of the other lifeguards. The cashier assignment also differed from the other assignments in that the employee assigned to this position normally did not rotate throughout the day, and it was not uncommon for the same employee to serve as a cahier for an entire day. Petitioner never spoke with any of his supervisors or coordinators about serving as a cashier, nor did he ever complain to Bernhard about any of his daily assignments. He alleges that the woman and the "young girls" were always placed at the marina. When asked to identify "these girls," he stated he was referring to Mindy and Matt, a male employee. In particular, Petitioner testified that on December 25, 2002, Matt served in the marina for three consecutive rotations on that particular day. He also points out that Matt had a longer break than he did on that particular day. There was no pay differential between employees who were assigned to work at the marina and those who worked at the pool. Similarly, there was no pay differential between employees working as a cashier and those at the pool. Petitioner never made any complaints to Davis about his weekly schedule or his daily rotation assignments. Similarly, Petitioner never complained to Davis about any disparate treatment or harassment based on his age, national origin, or gender. Petitioner never raised any complaints about discrimination or any other working conditions with Bernhard. Bernhard never made any derogatory comments to him or about him. Bernhard does not give any preference to any employees based on age, national origin, or gender. Petitioner was aware that there was an Employee Relations Department located at the casting center, but never complained to them about his working conditions or alleged discrimination.
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 which DENIES Petitioner's Petition for Relief and dismisses his complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 14th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Fernando J. Conde 4732 Olive Branch Road Apartment No. 1205 Orlando, Florida 32811-7118 Paul J. Scheck, Esquire Shutts & Bowen, LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 4956 Orlando, Florida 32802-4956 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 Whether Respondent, American Support, discriminated against Petitioner, Linda Dodge, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (the Act) sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes, based upon her sex or in retaliation for participation in a protected activity.1/
Findings Of Fact American Support is a third-party telemarketing contractor for providers of cable and satellite service, with an office located in Daytona Beach, Florida. American Support is an employer within the meaning of the Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Petitioner is a 61-year-old female who was hired on August 19, 2008, as a telemarketer for Evergreen, a predecessor company to American Support. Petitioner worked in telemarketing for approximately one year, was laid off by Evergreen, but was shortly thereafter reemployed by Evergreen as a receptionist/administrative assistant. Between October 2011 and December 2011, Petitioner solely performed receptionist duties. Petitioner was replaced as company receptionist by Debora Jenkins, whom Petitioner helped train. Ms. Jenkins was hired on a full-time temporary basis as the company was transitioning to new ownership. In December 2011, Petitioner was promoted to Human Resources Assistant by Nancy Cantero, Human Resources Director for American Support beginning in November 2011. Petitioner’s duties were to initiate and process criminal background checks and credit checks on applicants, validate I-9 information received for newly hired employees, create personnel files for new employees, and manage employee personnel files. Employee personnel files contain personal identifying information including dates of birth, social security numbers, driver’s licenses, and the results of criminal background and credit checks. Both parties agree that keeping applicants’ and employees’ personal information protected is a high priority for the Human Resources Department. Ms. Cantero left American Support in February 2012 and was replaced by Steven Schaible, first as a Human Resources Generalist under contract, then as corporate Human Resources Manager in March 2012. In his capacity as Manager, Mr. Schaible supervised Petitioner and two Human Resources Recruiters: Warren Hernandez and Elaine Zoe. Ms. Zoe was a virtual recruiter operating from her home in Phoenix, Arizona. Petitioner described Mr. Schaible as very friendly and outgoing when he first became Human Resources Manager. In mid-April 2012, Mr. Schaible hired a third recruiter, Anthony Sarelli, at a rate of $17 per hour. No evidence was introduced to establish the hourly rate of either Mr. Hernandez or Ms. Zoe, but Mr. Hernandez earned less than $17 per hour. Petitioner earned $13.50 per hour as Human Resources Assistant. On Thursday, April 19, 2012, Ms. Jenkins, the temporary receptionist, gave her notice and stated that she would be starting a new job Monday, April 23, 2012. Ms. Jenkins’ last day on the job was Friday, April 20, 2012. Mr. Schaible, together with Mary Celle, Vice President of Operations, made a decision to eliminate the position of receptionist. Mr. Schaible had been unable to keep Ms. Jenkins busy full-time with receptionist duties such as answering and routing phone calls, accepting parcel deliveries, handing out job applications, and directing individuals to appropriate offices. Mr. Schaible determined Petitioner was competent to perform these duties, in light of her previous service as company receptionist. Petitioner had the day off on Friday, April 20, 2012. When she returned to work on Monday, April 23, 2012, Mr. Schaible informed Petitioner that she would take over the receptionist duties while continuing to serve as Human Resources Assistant. Petitioner was physically moved from her desk to the receptionist desk at the front of the building.2/ Neither Petitioner’s title nor her salary changed when she was moved to the receptionist desk. Mr. Schaible made efforts to reduce Petitioner’s duties as Human Resources Assistant, reassigning responsibility of managing Kahuna, a software program through which new telemarketers were assigned log-in and password information, to a payroll employee, Maryanna Hilton. Additionally, Mr. Schaible instructed Petitioner to discontinue sending personal faxes for other employees. The company had taken some steps to streamline the receptionist function to make it more efficient and less time- consuming. For example, the company moved from paper applications to an online application system. The receptionist was to direct persons inquiring about job applications to computer terminals located at the building entrance in front of the receptionist desk. Similarly, the company telephone system was changed from a switchboard to automatic routing of calls to direct extensions by department. Petitioner was instructed to continue her regular Human Resources duties, but to place personnel files in a locked Human Resources file room located ten feet from the receptionist desk when she was away from her desk. On April 24, 2012, Mr. Schaible arrived at work early and noticed a stack of employee personnel files on the receptionist desk. Petitioner was not at the desk. Mr. Schaible concluded that the files had remained on the desk overnight. The files contained copies of social security cards, driver’s licenses, and the results of criminal background checks and credit checks for newly hired employees. Mr. Schaible secured the files and addressed Petitioner about the issue later that day. Mr. Schaible stressed with Petitioner the importance of keeping personnel files secure, and offered to get her a rolling file cabinet. The next day, April 25, 2012, Petitioner sent Mr. Schaible the following e-mail: “I apologize for the files when I left . . . it won’t happen again.” The following day, April 26, 2012, Mr. Schaible found a personnel file containing personal identifying information on Petitioner’s desk. Mr. Schaible removed the file and placed it in the locked file room. Later that same day, Petitioner sent the following e-mail to Mr. Schaible: “Will make sure forms are upside down on my desk before I take a break . . . my bad.” Mr. Schaible spoke to Petitioner that same day and explained that turning files upside down on the desk in her absence was not sufficient. He explained that personnel files must be secured in the locked file room when she was not at her desk. On Monday, April 30, 2012, Petitioner was on vacation, and Mr. Schaible sat at the front desk for at least some part of the day.3/ He discovered in one of the desk drawers over 50 completed W-4 forms for current employees. Mr. Schaible discussed with Ms. Celle the need to initiate the company’s progressive discipline policy and give Petitioner a verbal warning.4/ Mr. Schaible planned to meet with Petitioner late in the afternoon on May 1, 2012, and deliver the verbal warning. Petitioner was back in the office on May 1, 2012. While Petitioner was on a break and Ms. Hilton was manning the receptionist desk for Petitioner, Mr. Schaible discovered six personnel files on the desk. Mr. Schaible removed the files and decided to modify the verbal warning to a written warning, in essence moving to the second step of the company’s progressive discipline policy. Mr. Schaible did not have a meeting with Petitioner on May 1, 2012, as planned. On May 2, 2012, Mr. Schaible planned to meet with Petitioner at 3:00 p.m. to present her with the written warning and discuss the confidentiality issues. He requested that Carrie Santana, Manager of Customer Care and Quality, attend the meeting as well. At 3:00 p.m., Mr. Schaible asked Petitioner to come to his office. She was busily working in the Kahuna program, adding two new employees at the request of a manager in the Jacksonville office. Petitioner requested Mr. Schaible to wait until she completed the log-in and password information for the new employees. Mr. Schaible became angry, told her that task would have to wait, and ordered her into his office immediately. Petitioner accompanied Mr. Schaible to his office, where Ms. Santana was waiting. Mr. Schaible confronted Petitioner with the W-4 forms he had found in the receptionist desk on April 30, 2012, as evidence of her failure to follow his directions to secure personal information of company employees. Before Mr. Schaible brought up the six personnel files he had removed from the desk the previous day, Petitioner stated, “I quit,” stood up and left Mr. Schaible’s office, then exited the building. Petitioner denies that she quit her job on May 2, 2012, instead testifying that she stated, “I quit this,” meaning she quit Mr. Schaible’s treatment toward her. However, Mr. Schaible’s testimony that Petitioner stated, “I quit” on May 2, 2012, was corroborated by Petitioner’s own e-mail dated May 3, 2012, to company President Matthew Zemon, as well as Ms. Santana’s written memorandum dated May 3, 2012, in which she memorialized the events of May 2, 2012. The evidence conflicted as to whether Petitioner returned to the office on May 2, 2012, following the disciplinary meeting. Mr. Schaible testified he did not see Petitioner after the meeting that day or the next day, May 3, 2012. Petitioner testified that she returned to the building within 30 minutes, stating first that she went into Mr. Schaible’s office to complain about his treatment of her, but later testifying that his office door was closed, so she did not go in to see him. Mr. Schaible’s testimony on this issue is credible and accepted by the undersigned. Mr. Schaible e-mailed Ms. Celle following the disciplinary meeting on May 2, 2012, informing Ms. Celle that Petitioner had resigned. Mr. Schaible then completed a Record of Termination for Petitioner showing a separation date of May 2, 2012. The evidence showed that American Support did not accept Petitioner’s resignation. In response to Petitioner’s email of May 3, 2012, Mr. Zemon e-mailed Mr. Schaible and asked him to contact Petitioner and offer her a position in inbound/outbound sales at the high end of the pay range. Mr. Schaible did so, but Petitioner did not accept the offer. Petitioner clearly considered her assignment to the receptionist desk to be demeaning. She was subjected to comments from other employees suggesting she had been demoted because she could not perform Human Resources duties. She felt that the Human Resources Assistant did not belong at the front desk. Petitioner was overwhelmed with performing Human Resources duties while assisting job applicants at the computers, answering telephone calls that were not automatically routed, accepting delivered parcels, and dealing with the myriad inquiries typically made of the receptionist at any business. Petitioner complained that it was impossible to secure applicants’ and employees’ personal information with other employees passing by the front desk on their way in and out of the building. She noted that running back and forth to the Human Resources file room every time she was required to get up from the desk -- even though it was only ten feet away -- rendered her work inefficient, if not impossible. In support of her argument that she was discriminated against based on her sex, Petitioner alleged that Mr. Schaible hired a second male recruiter out of a mixed pool of applicants, that Mr. Schaible made inappropriate comments about some applicants, and that he hired a male recruiter at a rate of $17 per hour -– higher than other Human Resources employees. Petitioner submitted no evidence to establish what comments were made about any applicant for the position of Human Resources recruiter. As to hourly rates of pay, Petitioner testified that the new recruiter was paid at a higher rate than Mr. Hernandez. Further, Petitioner did not produce any evidence as to the rates of pay for either Ms. Zoe or Mr. Hernandez. Petitioner also alleged that following her move to the receptionist desk on April 23, 2012, Mr. Schaible instructed her not to take breaks with Mr. Hernandez, not to check her work e- mails from home, and excluded her from meetings with other Human Resources employees. However, Petitioner was unable to testify with certainty that other employees were allowed to continue checking e-mails from home. Ms. Zoe, the female virtual recruiter on the team, continued to participate in Human Resources meetings. Petitioner likewise complained that she was denied a raise while Mr. Hernandez received one. On April 19, 2012, in response to Mr. Schaible’s request, Petitioner submitted a self- evaluation for Mr. Schaible’s consideration. Petitioner testified that Mr. Hernandez told her a week later that he received a raise. Petitioner then asked Mr. Schaible about the time period for a decision on her raise; Mr. Schaible responded, according to Petitioner, “Not sure about it yet.[5/]” Petitioner’s hearsay statement alone is insufficient to support a finding that Mr. Hernandez received a raise. No evidence was introduced as to the status of other employees’ evaluations or raises. Petitioner’s most-repeated claim is that Mr. Schaible treated her unprofessionally by speaking to her sharply in front of other employees, yelling when he ordered her into his office on May 2, 2012, and “slamming” the W-4 files on the desk during the disciplinary meeting. Petitioner felt his treatment of her was demeaning, harassing, and embarrassing. Petitioner presented no evidence, however, that Mr. Schaible’s treatment of her was related in any way to her status as a female. In fact, when Mr. Schaible hired a replacement Human Resources Assistant, he hired another female. Petitioner alleged that Mr. Schaible acted in retaliation, but could not articulate any event for which the retaliation was lodged. When questioned by the undersigned as to her retaliation claim, Petitioner testified, It just didn’t seem like the right thing for an office atmosphere, I should say, or speak to an employee in such a manner. So it’s just his mannerism and his attitude toward me that made me feel like it was a retaliation [sic] for something, and I couldn’t figure out what it was.[6/] Petitioner may very well have been put in an impossible work situation, treated unfairly, or forced to resign. However, there is no evidence that her treatment was related in any way to her status as a female. Petitioner did admit to improperly handling employee personnel files and applicant files on at least two occasions. She denies that leaving the six files on the desk when Ms. Hilton was covering for her break was improper because Ms. Hilton worked in the payroll department and had access to employee personal information. As to the W-4 forms in her desk, Petitioner admitted that even if the forms were left in the desk by Ms. Jenkins, Petitioner was ultimately responsible for securing those documents.
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 Discrimination Complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 6th day of June, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was a lead operator on the first shift of the data entry section of Respondent company. Mr. John Goolsby was also a lead operator but on the second shift in the data entry section. Petitioner was discharged due to elimination of the position of lead operator and Mr. Goolsby was not. During the period encompassing the elimination of Petitioner's job, Respondent reduced its staff from 73 to 57 people and the data entry staff was reduced from 12 to less than 8 people. The decision as to which lead operator in the data entry section would be released from employment was based upon a decision to keep the most productive employee on the basis of quality and quantity of work. Although both the Petitioner and Mr. Goolsby were satisfactory employees, the most productive individual was identified through a series of evaluations by interviewing management personnel to Mr. Christman, Respondent's Executive Vice-President. Probably the most significant- input in the decision-making process was from Sandra Howell, immediate supervisor of both Petitioner and Goolsby, and the tabulations and comparisons of data were done by Walter E. Wilfong, Operations Manager. They all identified John Goolsby as the most productive individual and the decision to release Petitioner was made by Mr. Christman. At the time she was released, the company had no alternative position to offer Petitioner. She has since been offered reemployment in a different position. Petitioner was unable to establish that in making their recommendations to Mr. Christman either of the middle managers gave special or undue consideration to Mr. Goolsby's school schedule. Petitioner never received any written complaints or warnings or reprimands about her work performance and it was unrebutted that her job performance was satisfactory. Petitioner testified that the comparison of production between herself and Mr. Goolsby was invalid because Mr. Goolsby worked the night shift and Petitioner worked the day shift. Witnesses for the Respondent conceded that the night shift was generally not as productive as the day shift. However, the immediate supervisor of both the Petitioner and Mr. Goolsby both before and Mr. Goolsby after Petitioner's termination testified that Mr. Goolsby's work quality and quantity was superior to that of the Petitioner. This testimony was unrebutted. In addition, it was unrebutted that Mr. Goolsby had been nominated for company-wide awards for his quality as an employee on several occasions both before and after the Petitioner's termination and the Petitioner had never been nominated. Although there is some indication in Mr. Wilfong's testimony that Mr. Goolsby had the "edge" with him because Wilfong wanted someone who could communicate with Wilfong for liaison between various shifts, the evidence falls short of establishing this consideration was a deciding factor or that any edge was given Goolsby in the evaluation reports. Further, Wilfong attempted to compensate for Goolsby's showing greater productivity due to the "less people- more work" element of the night shift by reviewing Petitioner's productivity records from then she had previously been on the night shift, which did not compare favorably with Goolsby's for quantity. There is no competent evidence that Respondent terminated Petitioner on the basis of her gender, female, by the ruse of eliminating her position. Further, at the date of formal hearing, Mr. Goolsby's supervisor remained female (Sandra Howell) and there are 6 female/6 male supervisors and a higher female to male ratio of the total 57 retained employees.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Human Relations Commission enter a final order dismissing the Petition/Complaint herein. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 4th day of November, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-2866 All of the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are accepted. All are adopted, as modified to conform more closely to the record in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Terri Tibble 3040 Aloma Avenue, Apt. J-9 Winter Park, Florida 32791 Thomas R. Pepplar, Esquire Graham, Clark, Pohl & Jones 369 New York Avenue Post Office Drawer 1690 Winter Park, Florida 32790 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32299-1570
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 The issue is whether Respondent, Pritesh, Inc., d/b/a IHOP 36-151 ("IHOP"), committed unlawful employment practices contrary to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2011),1/ by discharging Petitioner from her employment in retaliation for her complaints regarding racial and religious discrimination in the workplace.
Findings Of Fact IHOP is an employer as that term is defined in subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. IHOP is a restaurant in Leesburg. IHOP is owned by Pritesh Patel, who owns and operates a total of four International House of Pancakes stores in the Leesburg area through his corporation, Pritesh, Inc. Petitioner is a black female who is an observant Jew. Because of her religious beliefs, Petitioner does not work on the Sabbath, from sundown on Friday until sunset on Saturday. Petitioner was hired to work as a server at IHOP on March 19, 2012. She made it clear that she did not work on the Sabbath, and IHOP agreed to respect her religious beliefs. There was some difference in recollection as to the notice Petitioner gave to IHOP. Petitioner testified that she made it clear she could not work until sundown on Saturdays. The store manager, Brian Jackson, also recalled that Petitioner stated she could only work Saturday evenings. Mr. Patel testified that Petitioner said that she could work on Saturday "afternoon." Petitioner's version is credited as being more consistent with her stated beliefs, though there is no doubt that Mr. Patel was testifying honestly as to his recollection. Petitioner was the only black server working at IHOP at this time. Both Mr. Patel and Mr. Jackson credibly testified that IHOP has had many black servers through the years. Mr. Jackson noted that Petitioner only worked for IHOP for a period of two weeks and therefore was in no position to judge IHOP's minority hiring practices. Petitioner testified that assistant manager Hemanshu "Shu" Patel, a relative of the owner, created a hostile working environment for her from the time she started on March 19. She complained that Shu would alter the seating chart so that she would have fewer tables to cover, meaning a reduction in her tips. Petitioner also stated that Shu was disrespectful and rude, in a manner that caused her to believe there was a racial motivation behind his actions. Despite the fact that Shu was subordinate to Mr. Jackson, Petitioner believed that Shu was really in charge because he was a relative of Mr. Patel and therefore "untouchable" as an employee of IHOP. Petitioner's main complaint was that Shu, who was in charge of work schedules for the restaurant, scheduled her to work on Saturdays. Petitioner testified that on the first Saturday of her employment, March 24, Shu called her to come into work at noon. She replied that she could not come in until after sundown. This problem was apparently worked out to Petitioner's satisfaction, and she was not required to report to work on Saturday afternoon. However, when Shu posted the next week's schedule on the following Tuesday, Petitioner saw that she had been scheduled to work on the morning of Saturday, March 31. Petitioner complained. Both Mr. Patel and Mr. Jackson testified that Shu had merely made an error in scheduling that was rectified as soon as Petitioner notified them of the problem. Petitioner did not deny that the problem was resolved mid-week, well before any Sabbath conflict could arise. Mr. Patel testified that he wanted Petitioner to work from 4 p.m. until midnight on Saturday, March 31, so that she would not lose a day's work due to the scheduling error. Shu phoned Petitioner early on Saturday afternoon and asked her to come in. Petitioner told Shu that she could not come in until 8 p.m. Mr. Patel testified that he did not need someone to work a four-hour shift, and that Petitioner was told not to come in. As a further reason for declining to work on Saturday evening, Petitioner testified that she had only been trained for the morning shift. Mr. Jackson testified that the only distinction between the dayshift and the nightshift is that the latter is less busy. All servers are trained for the morning shift. Mr. Jackson stated that, once trained for the morning shift, a server would find the night shift "a piece of cake." Petitioner's reason for not working in the evening was not credible in this respect. Mr. Patel testified that he had no problem with Petitioner's not working on that Saturday, provided that she understood she was going lose a day. Mr. Patel stated that from his point of view the problems began when Petitioner insisted that he give her weekday hours to make up for the lost Saturday hours. Mr. Patel declined to cut another employee's hours for Petitioner. Petitioner came in to work on the morning of Sunday, April 1. Sunday morning is a busy time for IHOP. According to head server Bernadine Hengst, Petitioner stood near her at the register and voiced her complaints about Shu, who was working in the kitchen. Shu heard Petitioner and stepped into the dining room, asking her, "You got something to say to me?" Petitioner and Shu became loud, and their argument was moved outside for fear of disturbing a restaurant full of people. Petitioner finished her shift then went home and composed a letter to Mr. Patel. She made copies of the letter for every employee at IHOP. Ms. Hengst was the first to see the letter. She phoned Mr. Jackson at home to tell him about it, and Mr. Jackson phoned Mr. Patel. The letter read as follows: On March 19, 2012, I was hired to work as a server. I am a professional, pleasant, respectful, prompt and dutiful individual. As the only African-American server, it is imperative that you know since I have arrived at IHOP, I have faced fierce blatant hostility from a manager ("Shu") and co- workers ("C.C., Misti and Cherish"). I feel Shu has deliberately created a divisive and hostile working environment. It is my understanding Shu is a family member yet his behavior is definitely bad for business. On two separate occasions, Shu altered the seating chart that Brian originally created and took two tables from me. He lacks proficient management skills and is totally unprofessional, disrespectful and rude. On Sunday, April 1, 2012, Shu spoke to me in a loud, impolite manner in front of staff and customers. Shu communicated in a very bellicose fashion and for a moment, it felt as though he would physically attack me. You must take it serious that Shu's conduct is detrimental to your business. When Shu hired me I made it clear that I am Jewish and do not work on the Sabbath ("Saturday"). Nevertheless, Shu called me to come into work on Saturday about noon; I told him I would come in after the Sabbath at 7:00 p.m. The following week I was scheduled to work a Saturday, which in turn caused me to lose a day of work. Also on April 1, 2012, Shu assigned me only two booths for the whole day; when I spoke up about it he threatened to take another booth from me. This type of attitude and his unfair behavior cannot be tolerated in the United States of America in 2012. Shu is outwardly mean, discriminative, and racist towards me. He acts like a tyrant, a bully and he feels he is untouchable. On Sunday, April 1, I was only assigned two booths while my co-workers had four to six tables. This was unfair seating arrangements. At the end of the day, Bernie [Hengst] told all the servers to tip out the busboy, yet I did not because I was unjustly treated by only being assigned two tables. This was one-sided and insulting. I am an exceptional waitress and I depend on this job to pay my bills. During my first week, I was scheduled to work 36.10 hours and this week I was only given approximately 23.0 hours. Everyone should be treated fairly and equally. I ask that you continue to give me a full schedule each week. This letter officially informs you of the battles I have dealt with in your establishment and I have not worked here for one whole month. All Americans have the right to work without being harassed. I urge you to intervene and equitably resolve this issue. Ms. Hengst testified that Shu is a loud person who "talks with his hands," but she saw nothing that gave her the impression that Shu would "physically attack" Petitioner. She did not detect that Shu treated Petitioner any differently than he treated other servers. Ms. Hengst saw Petitioner as an equal participant in the April 1 confrontation. As to Petitioner's complaint about the number of tables to which she was assigned, Mr. Jackson testified that servers are always trained on two booths and then moved to four booths after training is completed. He stated that Petitioner was doing a "terrible" job working four booths, which caused Shu to move her down to two. Mr. Jackson stated that it is counterproductive to overwhelm a new server, and that the server must demonstrate the ability to perform the basics before taking on more tables. On the morning of April 2, after reading Petitioner's letter, Mr. Patel went to the IHOP and sat down for a meeting with Petitioner in hopes of addressing her complaints. Mr. Patel testified that the first thing Petitioner asked him was, "Do you know how many black employees you have?" Though he had been willing to discuss Petitioner's grievances concerning scheduling, Mr. Patel decided to fire Petitioner when she started "threatening us" based on claims of "black and white discriminating." He decided to fire Petitioner for the future of his business, because he did not want the problems associated with allegations of discrimination. Mr. Jackson was also at the April 2 meeting, and testified that Petitioner claimed she was being singled out because of her race. Based on all the testimony, it is found that Petitioner had little basis for claiming that IHOP was discriminating against her based on her race or religion during the actual course of her job. She was mistakenly scheduled to work on Saturday, but was not required to come in to the store once she made management aware of the error. She did lose one shift's worth of work for March 31, but that was partly due to her declining to work the evening shift. The evidence established that Shu Patel was loud, somewhat hotheaded, and perhaps not the ideal choice for managing a busy restaurant, but did not establish that he singled out Petitioner for particular abuse because of her race or religion. The evidence established that Petitioner's poor job performance was the cause of at least some of the friction between her and IHOP management. However, Mr. Patel's own testimony established that he dismissed Petitioner in direct retaliation for her complaint of discriminatory employment practices. IHOP offered no legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Petitioner's dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Pritesh, Inc., d/b/a IHOP 36- 151 committed an act of unlawful retaliation against Petitioner. It is further recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations remand this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary proceeding to establish the amount of back pay/lost wages owed to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 5th day of March, 2013.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent violated Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, as alleged, by its refusal to allow Petitioner to rescind a resignation.
Findings Of Fact Ardie Collins, a Black female, lives in Rockledge, Florida, and is currently self-employed as a beauty salon owner. She began working for the State of Florida in 1973, as a salon inspector with the Cosmetology Board. She maintained her title of investigator and continued employment after reorganization with the Department of Occupational and Professional Regulation and the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR), as the agency is now known. During the relevant period Ms. Collins worked out of the DPR Regional Office in Orlando. In August 1982, Ms. Collins was terminated by DPR. The case went to arbitration, and by order of the arbitrator dated December 17, 1982, she was reinstated with full back pay. She reported back to work on February 10, 1983. In January 1983, before she reported back to work Ms. Collins went to see the AFSME union representative, Eric Tait, in Cocoa. The union had represented her in the 1982 proceeding and Tait had assisted the union. In that January meeting, two letters were drafted, later typed by a clerk and signed by Ms. Collins. These letters were characterized by both Ms. Collins and Eric Tait as "intent to resign" and a letter of resignation. The "intent to resign" is dated, in error, January 12, 1982, and is addressed to Howard Kirkland, Personnel Officer. It provides, This is to inform you that it is my intention to submit my resignation from State Employment, effective June 6, 1983. This resignation is now held by Eric D. Tait, AFSME President, Local 3040. (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) The second letter is dated June 6, 1983, is also addressed to Howard Kirkland, and provides: Kindly accept this as my resignation as Investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation effective June 6, 1983. The Department of Professional Regulation has informed me that as of June 6, 1983 I will have completed 10 years creditable service in the Florida Retirement System. (Petitioner's Exhibit #11) The first letter was mailed to DPR in Tallahassee and the second was held by Eric Tait. The January 12th letter was stamped received in the DPR Personnel office on January 24, 1983. Howard Kirkland took this letter to be a resignation. He discussed it with the Division Director and with the Assistant Secretary and was authorized to accept the resignation. He then sent a letter to Ardie Collins, dated January 25, 1983, stating: Please be advised that we have accepted your resignation from employment with this agency effective June 6, 1983. (Petitioner's Exhibit # 3) Later, on January 31, 1983, in response to a contact from Eric Tait, James Kirkland sent a letter to Ms. Collins explaining that, if necessary, her date of resignation would be extended to insure that she had the necessary ten years of creditable service. DPR commenced advertisement and recruitment to fill the anticipated vacancy. Sometime in early May 1983, Eric Tait mailed the second letter dated June 6, 1983. The letter was stamped received in the DPR Office of Personnel on May 5, 1983. On May 6, 1983, Ms. Collins wrote to Howard Kirkland informing him: Notice is hereby given that proposed or intended resignation is cancelled until further notice. (Petitioner's Exhibit #7) Between January and May, DPR received no word from Ms. Collins or her representative about her resignation. Kirkland again discussed the matter with his supervisor and responded by letter to Ms. Collins dated May 25, 1983, that her voluntary resignation had already been accepted in good faith. (Petitioner's Exhibit #8) There is no written policy or rule at DPR regarding the rescinding of resignations. The agency follows the general personnel management principle that until the resignation is accepted, withdrawal is negotiable; after acceptance, withdrawal is solely within management prerogative. Generally it is considered bad personnel management to permit an employee to rescind a resignation once it is accepted, and in particular, once the position is advertised. Ms. Collins claims that DPR has allowed other employees, white males and females, and black males, to rescind resignations. In his personal knowledge, and after reviewing DPR personnel files, James Kirkland found one individual who was allowed to rescind a resignation - a clerk, who had given probably only an oral notice and shortly later asked to withdraw it. In that case, nothing had been done to act on the resignation. The individuals named by Ms. Collins: Robert Fleming, Edward Bludworth, and Will Merrill, were not allowed to rescind resignations. Rather, they each reapplied after leaving DPR. Each was hired again on probationary status. Ms. Collins claims that she reapplied by mail to DPR sometime in late June 1983. However, neither the Tallahassee office nor the Orlando regional office have a record of her application. If she had reapplied for a vacant position, she would have been considered with the rest of the applicants. DPR has received resignations from employees in a variety of forms and in various ways. Sometimes resignations are submitted directly to an immediate supervisor; other times they are directed to the personnel officer. It is not uncommon to have a resignation expressed as an "intent to resign". DPR acted in good faith and consistent with established personnel practices when it accepted Ms. Collins' letter dated January 12th as a resignation and when it refused to allow her to rescind that resignation when requested some four months later. DPR determined that Ms. Collins had obtained her ten years of service as of June 6, 1983. This was the only condition regarding her date of resignation of which it was on notice. The agency received both the "intent to resign" and the "resignation" letter prior to receiving Ms. Collins' "cancellation". The agency simply ratified its acceptance in its response to Ms. Collins.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of race and national origin in violation of the Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has a department General Services Administration (hereinafter “GSA”) responsible for providing security to County departments and facilities. GSA provides security services by contracting with private vendors. Two of the private security vendors are Delad Security (hereinafter “Delad”) and Forrestville Security (hereinafter “Forrestville”). In 2005, GSA, on behalf of Respondent, entered into a contract with Delad and Forrestville to assign security guards at County posts. The “General Terms and Conditions” of the contract provide in pertinent part: 1.16 Responsibility As Employer The employee(s) of the successful Bidder shall be considered at all times its employee(s) and not employee(s) or agent(s) of the County or any of its departments. . . . The County may require the successful bidder to remove any employee it deems unacceptable. . . Even though Delad and Forrestville as vendor companies provide security officers through a contract with Miami-Dade County, only the vendor companies have the authority to terminate one of its employees. Dangervil secured his security officer position by applying for employment through the vendor companies who set his schedule, administered his leave time, paid his salary and taxes, monitored his actions to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the contract, as well as provided his job duties and assignments. Dangervil is a black male whose national origin is Haitian. On June 27, 2007, Dangervil was working for Delad assigned to the 140 West Flagler Building for his security post. His job duties were patrolling the parking lot and checking the floors in the building. Joseph Wolfe (hereinafter “Wolfe”), a white male, is the GSA supervisor responsible for County facilities. On June 27, 2007, he reported to the 140 West Flagler Building location to look into a complaint about a possible disturbance on the 16th floor during a code compliance hearing. When he arrived on the 16th floor, Wolfe met Dangervil who was dressed in a uniform Wolfe determined had a sweat-stained shirt. Wolfe began to ask Dangervil a series of questions regarding his being assigned to the disturbance location, but was unable to ascertain why Dangervil was there. Dangervil did tell him "I don't work here." Wolfe determined that Dangervil was not properly prepared for the security detail and that Dangervil lacked the requisite ability to effectively communicate using the English language. After the incident, Wolfe contacted a Delad supervisor who confirmed that Dangervil had been instructed thru the chain of command to go to the hearing location for his post June 27, 2007. Section 3.41 of the security contract with Delad provides an English proficiency qualification for security personnel and states in relevant part: * * * C) Ability to Communicate in English . . . all Contractor Security personnel must be fully literate in the English language, (e.g., able to read, write, speak, understand, and be understood). Oral command of English must be sufficient to permit full communication. . . . The contract further allows a security guard to be removed from the contract if s/he has difficulty understanding or speaking English. Wolfe subsequently wrote a Guard Infraction Report against the security vendor directing that Dangervil be removed from the Delad contract with the County stating: I was dispatched to location ref a code compliance hearing and protesters carrying signs criti[c]izing Dade County. Upon arrival to the 16th floor I met with S/O Dangervil, Brunel. Dangervil was unable to tell me why he was there, stating, "I don't work here." Then he asked someone on their way to attend hearing to help me as if he thought they were a county employee. It was determined the officer was not pro[p]erly briefed prior to being sent to the detail. The officer was allowed to work with what appeared to be a sweat stained uniform shirt. Dangervil's removal from the Miami-Dade contract did not affect Dangervil's employment status with Delad. On October 26, 2007, GSA dispatched Wolfe to the Opa Locka Elderly Facility, a County public housing facility, to investigate a complaint that a Forestville security officer did not want to work his assigned post. David Thibaudeau (hereinafter “Thibaudeau”), Wolfe's supervisor and GSA Deputy Chief, and GSA Supervisor Sanchez also reported to the Opa Locka Elderly Facility after receiving a call from the dispatch center. There had been several reports from security vendors that officers were being assaulted and Thibaudeau and Sanchez went to the location to help resolve the problem regarding the security officer assigned to the post and the supervisor refusing to work at the post. On duty at the location was Dangervil, the assigned security officer. Upon arriving, Thibaudeau had a conversation with Dangervil, Wolfe, and two Forrestville supervisors. The Forrestville supervisor explained that Dangervil did not want to work the post and was going to leave. Dangervil explained to Thibaudeau that he didn't want to work the location because he heard bad things happened at the location.1 Subsequently, Thibaudeau instructed the Forrestville Supervisor to work the post since Dangervil was leaving. The supervisor also refused to work the facility but ultimately agreed when Thibaudeau explained that he would have to call their company to get the project manager to resolve the issue. Wolfe recognized that Dangervil was the same Delad security officer he had dealt with in June 2007 at the 140 West Flagler incident. Dangervil had been placed on a “do not hire” list by Wolfe because of the previous incident that took place at the 140 building. Wolfe wrote up a second Guard Infraction Report which directed that Dangervil be removed from the Forrestville contract. The report narrative stated: While conducting an inspection of the post during an afternoon to mid shift change I recogni[z]ed the on coming [sic] midnight shift officer as being previ[o]usly removed from the contract by me while he was employed by Delad security. Prior to being removed again S/O Dangervil refused to stay at post because of the previous incidents. Dangervil was not removed from the contract because he was Haitian or Black.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 20th day of July, 2009.
The Issue Did the Respondent engage in a discriminatory employment practice by suspending the Petitioner from work?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Joeann F. Nelson, is a Black female. In 1997, she was employed as an aide working with developmentally disabled persons at Sunrise Community, Inc. The Respondent, Sunrise Community, Inc. (hereafter “Sunrise”) is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. On or about April 24, 1997, the Petitioner was suspended from her employment for a number of days by Sunrise. The Petitioner filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (hereafter “the Commission”) on May 8, 1997, alleging that her suspension was racially motivated, and a violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. The staff of the Commission investigated the complaint, and issued its Determination of No Cause on May 16, 2000. At the same time, the Commission gave the Petitioner notice of her right to an administrative hearing on the Commission’s findings. The Petitioner, while employed by the Respondent, was asked by her immediate supervisor to participate in taking residents of the facility to their group home. The Petitioner refused to take the residents complaining that another co-worker was scheduled to take the residents on the day in question. The supervisor told the Petitioner that the person who was scheduled to take the residents was too old to handle that job, and the Petitioner got into an argument about this matter. As a result of this refusal to take the residents and the argument, the Petitioner was suspended for a number of days. The refusal to follow the directions of her supervisor regarding her work and the confrontational argument with the supervisor over being asked to do a specific task that was within her job duties generally were sufficient cause for discipline. The Petitioner did not show that she was singled out or treated differently because of her race, either in being asked to perform the task or in being suspended for refusing to do the task. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a second complaint with the Commission on June 30, 1997, and raised additional issues regarding her discharge when she asked for her formal hearing on the Commission’s determination of no cause on the original complaint. However, the only matter properly before the undersigned in these proceedings is her suspension.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the complaint upon a finding that there was no cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 30th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: JoeAnne Nelson Post Office Box 76 Crawfordville, Florida 32326 Steven M. Weinger, Esquire Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, Tetzeli, P.A. 2650 Southwest 27th Avenue Second Floor Miami, Florida 33133 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice as alleged by petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Patsy Smith, who is black, is employed as a court security officer (CSO) for the United States District Court, Northern District of Florida. Court security officers and baliffs are provided to that court under a contract between a security firm and the United States Marshal's Office. When the events herein occurred, respondent, Central Security Systems, Inc. (CSSI), held the contract to supply security services to the court, and petitioner was an employee of that firm. Petitioner asserts without contradiction that CSSI had more than twenty-five employees. Accordingly, respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission on Human Relations (Commission). Petitioner began work as a CSO in 1983. At that time, the contract was held by Wackenhut Corporation. She is now and has been the only female and black employed in that capacity. All other employees, including her supervisors, are white males, and many are retired members of the Florida Highway Patrol. Although the firm providing security services to the court changes from time to time, there is virtually no turnover in CSOs and bailiffs. CSSI was awarded the contract in 1990 or 1991, and it held the contract until it was terminated in late 1992. The exact dates are not of record. A new firm, MBM Security Company, now has the contract, and petitioner is still employed in the same position. There is no evidence that MBM Security Company and CSSI are related parties or that when MBM Security Company was awarded the contract, it assumed all liabilities of CSSI. Beginning in 1988 or 1989, or before CSSI held the contract, petitioner says she worked in a racially hostile work environment. After CSSI was awarded the contract, and until the contract was terminated in late 1992, petitioner was subjected to a number of racially and sexually hostile events. They included being denied leave time when white male co-workers were given preferential treatment as to taking annual and sick leave, being present when the word "nigger" was used by a co-worker (who was not punished for using that word), being accused of theft of a Coca-Cola and of insubordination when other males doing the same thing as petitioner were not treated in the same way, receiving a written reprimand for having a personal telephone conversation while white male co-workers did not receive reprimands for their personal telephone calls, being denied the opportunity to run personal errands during the day while white male co-workers were given the opportunity to do so, and having personal logs of her work hours kept by other workers and supervisors while no such log was kept for her white male co-workers. In March 1992 petitioner became aware of a new position to be established in her office. This was followed by a memorandum issued in April 1992 advertising an opening for a new position as assistant lead court security officer. Petitioner signed the memorandum indicating her interest in the position and submitted it to her supervisor, Don Curtis, a white male. She applied for the job since she had been told by Curtis that "I want you to be assistant CSO," and she believed she was the most qualified person. Only one other employee, Roy Beard, who is a white male, applied for the position. Although Beard had less than two years experience on the job, compared to almost nine years for petitioner, Beard was selected for the new position. Petitioner was not given an interview nor a reason why she was not chosen. On May 27, 1992, petitioner wrote Peter Gavigan, CSSI's regional supervisor, and asked why she was not selected for the position, given her qualifications. Gavigan replied by memorandum dated June 2, 1992, stating in pertinent part that: After an extensive review of all personnel records, an evaluation was undertaken and a decision was made. I am satisfied with both the procedure and results and would have no reason to alter it at this time. On July 17, 1992, petitioner sent Gavigan another letter asking that someone other than Gavigan review the matter. In her letter, Smith stated that she believed her request for a promotion had been "denied because of factors other than (her) performance." This letter was never answered. At about the same time, she requested to see her own personnel records and those of Beard so that she could compare qualifications of the two and see if the files reflected any reason for CSSI's employment decision. Gavigan denied her request, and the records were immediately put "under lock and key." In August 1992, petitioner filed with the Commission her charge of discrimination against respondent. Although respondent was a viable corporation when the charge of discrimination was filed, it did not appear at hearing and therefore did not offer any proof to counter petitioner's charge of discrimination or to justify its employment decision. According to a letter from its former counsel, which has been received in evidence as hearing officer exhibit 1: CSSI ceased doing business in December of 1992 and I have been unable to contact anyone who can speak for CSSI. I have no authority to speak for CSSI and I cannot authorize anyone to appear on CSSI's behalf in this matter. Petitioner submitted an affidavit reflecting that she incurred $5,250.00 in attorney's fees in pursuing this action. This amount is deemed to be reasonable and is hereby approved. At the time petitioner was denied a promotion to assistant lead CSO, her salary was $9.75 per hour. The salary of the assistant lead court security officer is not of record. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties hereto pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides as follows: It is an unlawful employment practice for an employer: To discharge or to fail or refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status. The petition for relief alleges that CSSI violated the above statute by refusing to promote petitioner because of her gender and race. To establish a prima facie case of race or gender discrimination in a case where a promotion has been denied, petitioner must show (a) she belongs to a protected group, (b) she was qualified for and applied for the promotion, (c) she was considered for and denied the promotion, and (d) other employees of similar qualifications who were not members of the protected group were indeed promoted at the time petitioner's request for promotion was denied. Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934, 951 (4th Cir. 1981). Once petitioner establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, respondent has the responsibility of articulating a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions. If respondent meets this burden, petitioner may still prevail by proving that respondent's justification was pretextual. The evidence shows that petitioner is black and female, she was qualified for the position of assistant lead court security officer and applied for that position, she was denied the position by her employer, and another employee of similar or lesser qualifications who was not a member of the protected group was promoted into that position. Therefore, a prima facie case of discrimination has been established. Since respondent did not articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, petitioner must prevail in this dispute. Subsection 760.10(13), Florida Statutes, specifies the relief that may be given a prevailing claimant in a discrimination action. It reads in pertinent part as follows: In the event the commission, in the case of a complaint under subsection (10), . . . finds that an unlawful employment practice has occurred, it shall issue an order prohibiting the practice and providing affirmative relief from the effects of the practice, including reasonable attorney's fees. . . . No liability for back pay shall accrue from a date more than 2 years prior to the filing of a complaint with the commission. In view of the conclusions in paragraph 12, petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees, but not costs. These fees have been established to be $5,250.00. She is also entitled to the entry of an order citing CSSI for an unlawful employment practice and requiring it to cease and desist such illicit practices. Finally, she is entitled to "affirmative relief from the effects of the (discriminatory) practice," including back pay accruing no more than "2 years prior to the filing of (her) complaint." Besides asking for attorney's fees and costs, petitioner has also requested the entry of an order (a) "(requiring) the Respondent to pay Petitioner the difference in salary and benefits between her current position and the Assistant Lead Court Security Officer position, beginning June 1, 1992, and continuing;" and (b) "requir(ing) the Respondent to promote Petitioner into the next available Assistant Lead Court Security Officer vacancy." Whether this relief can be granted is questionable. This is because CSSI ceased doing business in late 1992 and a new security firm, MBM Security Company, now has the contract with the court. Although petitioner has continued in her position as a CSO, and is now an employee of the new contractor, MBM Security Company is not a party to this controversy, and thus the Commission has no jurisdiction over that entity. See e. g., Arthritis Medical Center v. Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 543 So.2d 1304, 1305 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)(a defendant is entitled to personal service of original process before an administrative board acquires personal jurisdiction). Therefore, the Commission has no authority to require the new contractor-employer to promote petitioner to a new position. In a similar vein, petitioner is only entitled to the difference in pay between a CSO and an assistant lead court security officer for the period beginning when the position was filled (June 1, 1992) until CSSI lost the contract in late 1992. This is because, absent any evidence that MBM Security Company assumed all liabilities of the predecessor firm, the new contractor would not be responsible for any discriminatory employment decisions made by a different, unrelated entity. Therefore, as to these latter claims for relief, they should be denied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding respondent guilty of an unlawful employment practice and ordering that it cease and desist such practice. Respondent should also be required to pay petitioner reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of $5,250.00. Finally, petitioner should be reimbursed for the difference between her pay as a CSO ($9.75 per hour) and an assistant lead CSO from June 1, 1992, until CSSI's contract was terminated in late 1992. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 2nd day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2525 Petitioner: 1. Covered in the conclusions of law. 2-3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 5-9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 10-13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 14-15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 16. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 17-22. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 23-24. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 25-26. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 30-31. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 32-33. Rejected as being irrelevant. Note - Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary to a resolution of the issues, irrelevant, not supported by the evidence, cumulative, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Marie A. Mattox, Esquire 3045 Tower Court Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Hispanic male. Respondent is an 860-unit apartment complex in Ocala. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a full-time maintenance technician from 2001 through September 28, 2007. His job responsibilities included performing repairs and general maintenance work on the insides of the apartments. Petitioner’s starting wage in 2001 was $9.00 per hour. He received annual raises from 2001 to 2004, at which point his wage was $11.75 per hour. Petitioner did not receive any raises from 2004 through 2007. He was still earning $11.75 per hour when he was fired on September 28, 2007. Starting in 2004, Respondent did not give raises to any maintenance technicians who were not HVAC-certified. This policy applied equally to all maintenance technicians, including non-Hispanics, and was intended to encourage them to get HVAC- certified. HVAC certification was important to Respondent because the air conditioning systems at the apartment complex were getting older and were requiring more frequent repairs. Respondent provided the necessary study materials for the HVAC certification exam and paid for the exam. Petitioner is not HVAC-certified. He took the certification exam once, but he did not pass. He did not take the exam again, even though Respondent would have paid for him to do so as it did for other maintenance technicians. HVAC certification is not required to perform all types of work on air conditioners, and Petitioner continued to do some work on the air conditioners at the apartment complex after 2004 even though he was not HVAC-certified. Petitioner was characterized as a “fair” employee who did “okay” work. His supervisor, a Hispanic male, testified that there were some jobs that he did not assign to Petitioner, that Petitioner frequently got help from other employees, and that he received a couple of complaints from other maintenance technicians about Petitioner’s work. Respondent does not have an employee handbook, and the only written policy that Respondent has is a policy prohibiting sexual and other harassment. Respondent’s executive director, Laura Smith, testified that she expected employees to use “common sense” regarding what they can and cannot do at work. Respondent utilizes a system of progressive discipline, which starts with warnings (oral, then written) and culminates in dismissal. However, the nature of the misconduct determines the severity of the discipline imposed, and a serious first offense may result in dismissal. On October 5, 2006, Petitioner was given an oral warning for “improper conduct” for visiting with a housekeeper multiple times a day for as long as 20 minutes at a time. The housekeeper also received an oral warning for this conduct. On May 15, 2007, Petitioner was given a written warning for the same “improper conduct,” i.e., wasting time by going into an apartment to visit with a housekeeper. Petitioner acknowledged receiving these warnings, but he denied engaging in the conduct upon which they were based. His denials were contradicted by the more credible testimony of his supervisor and Ms. Smith. Petitioner was fired on September 28, 2007, after a third incident of “improper conduct.” On that day, Petitioner left the apartment complex around 10 a.m. to get gas in his truck. He did not “clock out” or get permission from his supervisor before leaving the apartment complex. Petitioner was away from the apartment complex for at least 15 minutes, but likely no more than 30 minutes. Even though Respondent does not have written policies and procedures, Petitioner understood, and common sense dictates that he was supposed to get his supervisor’s approval and “clock out” before he left the complex on a personal errand. Petitioner also understood the procedure to be followed to get the 14 gallons of gas per week that Respondent provided for maintenance technicians. The procedure required the employee to get the company credit card from the bookkeeper, get the gas from a specific gas station, and then return the credit card and a signed receipt for the gas to the bookkeeper. Petitioner did not follow any aspect of this procedure on the day that he was fired. He had already gotten the 14 gallons of gas paid for by Respondent earlier in the week. Petitioner’s supervisor, a Hispanic male, compared Petitioner’s actions to “stealing from the company” because he was getting paid for time that he was not at the apartment complex working. He also expressed concern that Respondent could have been held liable if Petitioner had gotten in an accident on his way to or from getting gas because he was still “on the clock” at the time. Petitioner testified that he and other maintenance technicians routinely left the apartment complex to fill up their cars with gas without “clocking out” or getting permission from their supervisor. This testimony was corroborated only as to the 14 gallons of gas paid for each week by Respondent. There is no credible evidence that other employees routinely left the apartment complex to do personal errands without “clocking out,” and if they did, there is no credible evidence that Respondent’s managers were aware of it. There is no credible evidence whatsoever that Petitioner’s firing was motivated by his national origin. His supervisor is Hispanic, and he and Ms. Smith credibly testified that the fact that Petitioner was Hispanic played no role in her decision to fire Petitioner. Petitioner claimed that he was “harassed” by Ms. Smith and that she accused him of having sex with a housekeeper in the vacant apartments. No persuasive evidence was presented to support Petitioner’s “harassment” claim, which was credibly denied by Ms. Smith. Petitioner also claimed that he was disciplined differently than similar non-Hispanic employees, namely James Stroupe, Jason Head, and Willie Hutchinson. Mr. Stroupe is a white male. He worked on the grounds crew, not as a maintenance technician. In May 2007, Mr. Stroupe was given a written warning based upon allegations that he was making explosive devices at work, and in September 2007, he was given an oral warning for “wasting time” by hanging out in the woods with Mr. Head. Mr. Head is a white male. He worked on the grounds crew, not as a maintenance technician. In September 2007, he received a written warning for “wasting time” by hanging out in the woods with Mr. Stroupe. Mr. Hutchinson is a white male, and like Petitioner, he worked as a maintenance technician. In September 2007, he was arrested for DUI. Mr. Hutchinson was not disciplined by Respondent for this incident because it did not happen during working hours and it did not affect his ability to perform his job duties as maintenance technician. The grounds department (in which Mr. Stroupe and Mr. Head worked) was responsible for maintaining the landscaping around the apartment complex, whereas the maintenance department (in which Petitioner and Mr. Hutchinson worked) was responsible for maintaining the insides of the apartments. The departments had different supervisors. Petitioner was initially denied unemployment compensation by Respondent after he was fired, but he successfully appealed the denial to an Appeals Referee. Petitioner received unemployment compensation through April 2008. On April 11, 2008, Petitioner started working for Holiday Inn as a maintenance technician. He is employed full time and his wage is $11.50 per hour. Respondent placed an advertisement in the local newspaper after Petitioner was fired in order to fill his position in the maintenance department. The advertisement stated that Respondent was looking for an applicant who was HVAC-certified. Respondent hired Javier Herrera to fill the position. Mr. Herrera, like Petitioner, is a Hispanic male.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 16th day of September, 2008.
