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.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent is guilty of discrimination in employment on the basis of race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is David L. Lucas. He was employed by Respondent, Marc Downs, Inc., a clothing store chain, from August of 1989 until January 28, 1990. Approximately two months before the conclusion of his employment with Respondent, Petitioner and other employees employed in the Marc Downs Store located in the Wal-Mart Shopping Center on East Apalachee Parkway in Tallahassee, Florida, began working under the supervision of a new store manager. The new store manager was Desiree DeVelder, a white female. In addition to DeVelder, there was one other white female employee on the store's sales staff. The remainder of the ten person sales force in the clothing store was black. Petitioner was the only black male member of that sales force. Petitioner and other employees became increasing aware of DeVelder's discomfort at working with a predominantly black sales force. She kept to herself when at all possible. She confided to Petitioner that she did not like the way that the black people acted and on one occasion she stated that there were too many blacks working in the store. On January 28, 1991, DeVelder called a meeting of the store employees after the store had closed for the day. She presented each of the black employees, but not the solitary white employee, with a form entitled "Employee Disciplinary Notice". The form had been filled out for each black employee recipient and documented that the employee was the subject of disciplinary action for "poor attitude and not following Marc Down's Employee Policy Manual". The form further documented that the corrective action was to be a 30 day probationary period for the employee and that unemployment compensation would not be paid if the employee quit or was dismissed from employment during the probationary period. Each form for each employee was signed by DeVelder. DeVelder asked each of the black employees to sign their individual forms. Petitioner asked for an explanation of the form. DeVelder refused to provide an answer and Petitioner said he would think about it and provide DeVelder with a decision the next day. As he turned to leave, DeVelder struck him in the back and began screaming at him that he was fired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the Petition for Relief and directing the payment to Petitioner by Respondent of back pay at the rate of $400 per month from January 28, 1990. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1992.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent, Lehigh Portland Cement Company/Furniture Division ("Lehigh"), discriminated against the Petitioner on account of her race (white) by discharging her from employment following a verbal altercation with a black co- employee in which the Petitioner allegedly uttered racial slurs directed at or concerning that black co-employee and whether the Petitioner was discriminated against on account of her sex (female) and because of a perceived interracial, personal relationship with another co-employee, who is black.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a former employee of Lehigh. She was discharged by that concern on August 4, 1989 as a disciplinary measure in response to her utterance of racial slurs concerning a black co-worker in the vicinity of the factory floor on Lehigh's premises immediately before the workday began on the date in question. She ultimately filed a charge of discrimination raising the issues and commencing the proceedings referenced in the above Statement of Issues and Preliminary Statement. Lehigh is a furniture manufacturer located in Marianna, Florida. Its plant consists of several large buildings where employees assemble and finish furniture. Lehigh employs somewhat over 400 persons at that factory. On the morning of August 2, 1989, Dorothy Hall and Major Hallmon, both black co-workers of the Petitioner, were having a discussion concerning union business just before the workday commenced on or in the vicinity of the shop floor of Lehigh's factory. Ms. Hall was a shop steward for the union in the paint shop, where the Petitioner was employed. Mr. Hallmon was the chief union steward for Lehigh as a whole. Ms. Hall was expressing concern to Mr. Hallmon about employees in her department or "shop", including the Petitioner, avoiding her, in her capacity as shop steward, and presenting problems directly to Mr. Hallmon when issues or incidents arose which they felt involved the responsibility of their union representatives. Ms. Hall mentioned the Petitioner as one of the employees who had complained about her to Mr. Hallmon. While Ms. Hall was making these comments to Mr. Hallmon, the Petitioner approached them and interrupted their conversation, getting into a verbal altercation with Ms. Hall. Mr. Hallmon attempted to get the Petitioner to cease arguing and yelling. Lehigh's personnel management procedures require that if employees engage in a physical or verbal altercation in their work area, they must cease arguing or fighting and move the disagreement to their supervisor's office for their supervisor to handle with them in an adult manner. Ms. Hall retreated from the confrontation with the Petitioner and walked into the office of George Williams, the supervisor of both of them. The Petitioner then made loud comments which were overheard by a number of co-workers. During their argument, or about the time Ms. Hall walked away in the direction of the supervisor's office, she referred to the Petitioner as a "stupid, white fool" or a "white fool". When the Petitioner walked away from the site of their verbal altercation, a white co-worker, Annette White, told the Petitioner that "Dorothy said she is going to whip your tail" or words to that effect. At this point, the Petitioner responded "I am not afraid of no black ass nigger." The Petitioner's comments were made in a very loud voice and were overheard by a number of co-workers nearby although Ms. Hall, herself, did not hear them nor did Mr. Hallmon. Anne Hamlin, a white woman, who worked in the Petitioner's department, heard the Petitioner say the above-quoted comment. Ms. Hamlin admonished the Petitioner that she should not be calling people by that name. Wilford Pittman, a black man, observed Mr. Hallmon trying to calm the Petitioner during or shortly after her verbal altercation with Ms. Hall. He heard the Petitioner use the word "nigger" and state words to the effect that "I am not scared of that nigger". Odell Harrison, a white man, also heard the Petitioner state "I am not scared of that nigger". Ron Baker, a black man, heard the Petitioner reference Ms. Hall as "a black son of a bitch". The Petitioner, herself, admitted that she stated "I am not afraid of no black ass nigger". The Petitioner immediately joined Ms. Hall in the office of the supervisor after the above incident. Mr. Jack Toole, a crew leader, was also present in the office on that occasion. The argument was renewed once the Petitioner and Ms. Hall were together in the supervisor's office. During the course of their renewed argument, in one of the Petitioner's comments, she used the words "I am white" to which Ms. Hall retorted "No you ain't, your shorts is white". Mr. Toole, who was present during the argument in the supervisor's office, recalls Ms. Hall telling the Petitioner that she was "a white fool for fooling around with Major Hallmon and ruining his life". He also recalls Ms. Hall first coming into the office when he was already present and stating words to the effect that "if we didn't do something about that white woman out there, she would do something with her". Mr. Williams remembers Ms. Hall stating "you make an old fool out of Major". The Petitioner then made a comment to the effect that Ms. Hall should stay home and tend to her "thieving husband" and stay out of other people's business, whereupon Ms. Hall picked up an ashtray as though to strike the Petitioner. Mr. Toole grabbed her arm and took the ashtray from her hand, replacing the ashtray on the desk. The signal to begin work then sounded and Mr. Williams instructed both antagonists to leave his office and begin work. Lehigh has a very specific policy prohibiting racial slurs. That policy provides: Further, it is a stated policy of Lehigh to prevent and prohibit discriminatory conduct in the work environment including statements or actions which could be interpreted as, racially, sexually, religiously or ethnically based, sexual harassment or any other discriminatory harassment or conduct with respect to co-employees, subordinate employees, or supervisors. Any employee who is found to have violated this policy will be subject to discipline, up to and including discharge. This equal employment opportunity policy was posted on all of the company's bulletin boards in the work place in early 1987 and was so maintained and posted forward of that time. Lehigh's management had experienced two disciplinary incidents in the past where two employees, Mr. Cecil Sims and Mr. Coy Jackson, both white, had used the word "nigger", in a conversational context with two black co-employees or in a circumstance where those employees overheard the comment, although it was not uttered in the course of an argument or verbal altercation. Those employees were disciplined by Lehigh for uttering that word, which is found to constitute a "racial slur". Shortly thereafter, during contract negotiations with the union in November of 1988, union representatives informed Lehigh's management that they felt that Lehigh was not enforcing its anti-discrimination policy as vigorously as it should, with the Sims and Jackson incidents used as examples of the union's perception that management's disciplinary practices with regard to the use of this racial slur by employees was too lax. Although Lehigh's management took the view, and still does, that it had taken appropriate disciplinary action in those two prior incidents, Lehigh also agreed with union representatives that such racial slurs constituted a serious offense and agreed that the company would thenceforth enforce its discrimination policy more vigorously. Lehigh's policy, with regard to racial slurs, includes its view that the word "nigger" is one of the most severe or offensive words used to disparage or embarrass a person on account of that person's race. This interpretation of its anti-discrimination policy is a reasonable one because it was established in the record that that word, dating from the time of slavery in America forward to the present time, has been used essentially as a term of disparagement. It is one of the few words in the American vocabulary most likely to demean the person to whom it is directed, to arouse ill will between the person employing the word and the person or persons to whom it is directed, or about whom it is referenced, and even to incite violence between them. It is rational for Lehigh to consider that the use of that racial slur is one of the most severe offenses to which its anti-discrimination policy is directed and designed to prohibit and prevent. In carrying out its disciplinary policy and procedures, Lehigh investigates alleged violations of company rules or policies to find out what occurred and to determine if a rule or policy was, indeed, violated. That customary procedure was performed in the instant case situation. If the management of Lehigh determines that an employee has violated a rule or policy of the company, it evaluates the nature of the offense and views it against the past employment and disciplinary record of the employee to determine what discipline, if any, is appropriate. The management of the company considers the severity of the offense; whether the violation was a willful one; whether it was done with malice; whether the employee under investigation was the aggressor in the incident; the degree of provocation for that employee's behavior; whether the employee expresses or demonstrates any remorse for the occurrence; and the employee's past general work history and disciplinary record. All of these factors are weighed by the company's management in determining what discipline is appropriate. The company customarily has viewed the disciplinary history of an employee as a very significant factor in determining the appropriate discipline to be imposed for a violation of company rules or policies under review as to that employee. In imposing discipline for infractions of company rules or policies, Lehigh employs progressive discipline whenever possible in order to attempt to persuade the employee to change his or her behavior which has resulted in the violation. If an employee exhibits a pattern of rule infractions, especially infractions of the same rule or type of rules, the company imposes a progressively harsher discipline. When considering an employee's past disciplinary record, the company considers only disciplinary violations which have occurred within the past nine months, however. This is because the company's union contract, by which it is bound in terms of its personnel policies and procedures with regard to its union-member employees, contains a provision which requires this restriction. This provision has been applied to all hourly employees of Lehigh for the life of that contract or approximately the past 18 years. It is thus a regular and customary past practice of the company for purposes of the terms of its union contract. The disciplinary measures, which the company imposes for infractions of its rules and policies, range from an oral reprimand (the imposition of which is recorded in the employee's personnel record even if delivered verbally); a written reprimand; suspension from employment for a discreet time period; and permanent discharge from employment. Mr. Albert Berger is the Vice President of Operations for Lehigh. He is responsible for personnel management, among other duties. His personnel management duties include the investigation of alleged infractions of the company's personnel policies and rules, interpreting the company's disciplinary policies and procedures and arriving at decisions about how to discipline employees. Mr. Berger investigated the subject incident involving the Petitioner and Ms. Hall, ultimately determined how to discipline each employee and imposed that discipline. He followed the company's disciplinary policies and procedures in deciding how to discipline the Petitioner and Ms. Hall concerning the incident of August 2, 1989. Upon learning of the incident between those two employees on August 2, 1989, Mr. Berger commenced an investigation of the matter that same day. After making a preliminary inquiry into the matter, he elected to suspend the Petitioner from work sometime on the morning of August 2, 1989, such that she left the company premises under suspension shortly before Noon. He continued his investigation that afternoon, conducting taped interviews with employees and supervisors who had witnessed the altercation. Those witnesses later signed summaries of their statements to Mr. Berger. The Petitioner returned to the factory between 1:00 and 2:00 on the afternoon of August 2, 1989, while Mr. Berger was still concluding his interviews of other employees and supervisors. He gave the Petitioner an opportunity to relate her version of the incident to him. During her taped interview, the Petitioner was very loud and hostile in her demeanor and statements and responses to his questions. She repeatedly employed the term "nigger" with reference to Ms. Hall and her version of the occurrence in question. During the course of the hearing, the Petitioner attempted to explain her behavior during the taped interview with Mr. Berger by insinuating that she was under the influence of alcohol when she exhibited loud and hostile demeanor and comments during the interview, including the use of the term "nigger". She attempted to substantiate this claim by stating that she had consumed several six-packs of beer between the time she left the company premises under suspension shortly before Noon on August 2, 1989 and the time of her interview with Mr. Berger at approximately 2:00 that afternoon. She did not, however, appear drunk or under the influence of alcohol to Mr. Berger when he interviewed her nor did her verbal statements and responses depicted on the tape of that interview justify a finding that she was drunk or under the influence of alcohol at the time of the interview. Moreover, this explanation of her conduct during the interview is self-serving and is thus deemed not credible. Upon concluding his investigation and in the process of determining what, if any, discipline to impose on the two protagonists, Mr. Berger reviewed and considered the employment histories of both the Petitioner and Ms. Hall. Ms. Hall's disciplinary record was a good one. Her most recent disciplinary offense had occurred 13 years before the August 2, 1989 incident. She had been disciplined only one other time, approximately 16 years before the August 2, 1989 incident. Under its union contract, Lehigh was prohibited from considering those two disciplinary incidents in deciding whether and how to impose discipline for the current August 2, 1989 occurrence because those disciplinary infractions occurred more than nine months prior to the August 2, 1989 incident. In addition to the fact that her disciplinary record was a good one with no disciplinary infractions for more than a decade, Ms. Hall readily expressed remorse for her involvement in the incident, apologizing to Mr. Berger and promising to let no such occurrence happen in the future. Because of this and because Lehigh's management, through Mr. Berger, viewed the racial slur "nigger", loudly uttered by the Petitioner, as more egregious than the remark "white fool", "old fool", or "you're not white, your shorts are white", made by Ms. Hall, a lesser discipline was imposed upon Ms. Hall. Mr. Berger imposed a written warning upon Ms. Hall for picking up the ashtray as a threatening gesture directed to the Petitioner and a verbal warning upon her for the above- quoted name calling. This is not a minimal sanction. Written memoranda of both types of discipline are made a part of such an cmployee's personnel record. Concerning the discipline imposed upon the Petitioner, the record establishes that on June 23, 1989, less than two months prior to the incident concerning Ms. Hall, the Petitioner received a three-day suspension for interference with company operations through the use of abusive language directed at another employee. This incident involved the Petitioner painting the words "High Ass" on the door front of a piece of furniture and sending it down the assembly line so that it could be viewed by the co-worker to whom the words were directed. The Petitioner admitted that the words were directed at a black co-worker who was farther down the assembly line. In conjunction with her suspension, Mr. Berger warned her that if she continued to engage in name calling or racial slurs, the consequences for the next such incident would be more severe, including the potential loss of her employment. Mr. Berger concluded and the record establishes that the Petitioner's conduct on August 2, 1989 clearly violated the company's explicit policy against racially-discriminatory conduct in the work place, as that policy is quoted in the above Findings of Fact. The Petitioner's conduct on August 2, 1989, along with the incident leading to her earlier suspension for similar conduct, establishes a pattern of abusive, racially-discriminatory behavior towards her co-workers. Further, the Petitioner was shown to be the aggressor in the incident, interrupting the private conversation between Ms. Hall and Mr. Hallmon, and making statements or comments which incited the ensuing argument and name-calling episode. The Petitioner showed no remorse for her behavior. She was still hostile and inflammatory in her description and reaction to the occurrence concerning Ms. Hall in her interview with Mr. Berger hours later, when she had every reason to believe that her job was at stake with a strong resulting incentive to be conciliatory and remorseful in her reaction and relation of her version of the occurrence to Mr. Berger. Because of these differences in her conduct, her past record, and the severity of her infraction of company policy, as opposed to that of Ms. Hall, and because of Ms. Hall's relative demeanor and reaction to the occurrence and the subsequent summons by Mr. Berger to account for it, Mr. Berger decided, after considering all of the above factors, to convert the Petitioner's suspension to a termination. Discharging the Petitioner for the August 2, 1989 violation in consideration of the above factors related to her conduct, demeanor and past record, as opposed to that of Ms. Hall, was shown to be reasonable, pursuant to Lehigh's customarily-followed "progressive discipline" policy. The differences in severity between the actions of the Petitioner and Ms. Hall, the differences in their personnel histories, the differences in the circumstances of their actions and their demeanor and conduct after the occurrence with regard to it support the differences in the discipline imposed upon them. In attempting to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment and discrimination related to her termination, the Petitioner employed in her case the examples of Coy Jackson, a white employee and crew leader, being disciplined, but not terminated for using the term "nigger" directed at a black co-employee, Rudolph Townsend, and the similar example of Cecil Sims, a department supervisor, who is also a white man, using the term "nigger" in the presence of a black co-employee. Mr. Sims was also not terminated, but was given a lesser level of discipline. Concerning the Jackson and Sims incidents, the record establishes that in 1988, Coy Jackson spoke of Mr. Townsend, the black employee, who had complained of being cold, as follows: "Get that nigger a coat before he freezes to death." Mr. Sims, a supervisor in that same department, investigated that incident. During Mr. Sims' investigation, he questioned the employees involved about the name calling and the use of the words "black" and "nigger". Mr. Sims stated to Mr. Townsend that there were two names "you all" (meaning black people) could be called-"black" or "nigger"-and he then asked Mr. Townsend which he preferred to be called. Mr. Townsend responded that he simply wished to be called by his own name. Mr. Townsend complained about Mr. Sims' comment to him; and Mr. Berger investigated that incident, as well. He ultimately decided to give Mr. Sims a verbal warning concerning it and admonished him that he was never to use the word "nigger" again in any context and that the next incident, when it occurred, would result in his discharge. The discipline imposed on Mr. Sims was based upon the fact that Mr. Sims readily expressed remorse for the incident, that he had a long, unblemished career with Lehigh, and was then near retirement. He had had no prior history of uttering abusive language, name calling, or the use of racial slurs in the work place. Moreover, the incident occurred in Mr. Sims' office in a normal conversational tone; it was not shouted or uttered loudly on the factory floor in the presence of a number of other employees. Mr. Jackson, the crew leader who made the remark concerning the coat, was also given a verbal warning for use of the word "nigger". The imposition of a verbal warning as discipline for Mr. Jackson was directly related to the fact that Mr. Jackson had personally apologized to Mr. Townsend for making the remark even before the occurrence had been related to Mr. Berger and any investigation of the matter instituted. Moreover, he had made the comment quietly to one other employee and did not shout it in the work place before a number of other employees. Further, these two incidents occurred in February of 1988 before Lehigh elected, at the urging of the employees' union, to more vigorously enforce its policy against racial slurs, which vigorous enforcement policy it has uniformly pursued since that time. These incidents were thus not proven to be similar to the incidents involving the Petitioner and her employment and disciplinary record. Neither involved the disciplining of a black employee differently than a white employee. The Petitioner, Mr. Sims and Mr. Jackson are white. The less severe discipline imposed on Mr. Sims and Mr. Jackson was rationally related to the mitigating circumstances described above, rather than to their status as men or white men. It is also noteworthy that several years before the Petitioner's discharge, a white man employed in Lehigh's loading department, in the course of a conversation with a black employee, held up a piece of rope, apparently tied as a hangman's noose, and told the black employee that he would show him what use was made of rope in the white employee's home town. The black employee, at this juncture, hit the white employee with his fist. Mr. Berger investigated that incident, as well. Although it was alleged to him that the white employee had used the term "nigger", Mr. Berger was not able to identify a disinterested witness who would actually establish that the term had been used. In any event, however, Lehigh's management, through Mr. Berger, determined that this was a serious, malicious violation of the company's anti-discrimination policy. He promptly discharged the white employee for this conduct. The black employee, in turn, was also discharged for engaging in violence, which the company has uniformly considered to be one of the most severe violations of its disciplinary rules. Each of those employees was individually disciplined for their respective violations of company policy, based upon the circumstances peculiar to each. Neither of those incidents is similar to the incident for which Lehigh discharged the Petitioner. The discipline imposed on each of them was shown to be consistent with the company's customary anti-discrimination policy. None of the exemplary incidents described above serve to establish that white employees, male or female,(or, for that matter, black employees) have been subjected to a pattern of discriminatory disciplinary measures, including termination. They, likewise, do not show that any of those employee groups were accorded favored treatment. Rather, the facts regarding these incidents show that the company has pursued a pattern of non-discriminatory employee discipline. The employees who were disciplined in these three incidents were not shown to be similarly situated to the Petitioner, in terms of the infraction she committed, her past record, the circumstances surrounding her infraction and the investigation afterward, versus the underlying reasons for the various disciplinary measures imposed on these other employees, related above. During the hearing, the Petitioner first raised the issue of alleged discriminatory treatment because of a perceived close interracial relationship between her and Mr. Hallmon. Accordingly, she amended the Petition, ore tenus, without objection. Mr. Hallmon and the Petitioner had apparently become close friends at the point when he asked her to be his assistant in his position as chief union steward. She accepted the position. Mr. Hallmon indicated that this was because of his concerns about tensions between black and white employees. He wished a white employee to be his assistant to, as he termed it, "balance things out". That association began approximately three years ago. Mr. Hallmon and the Petitioner customarily would spend their lunch period together on frequent occasions to discuss union business. They sometimes met after work, in the parking lot next to the factory, to discuss union business because, as Mr. Hallmon put it, he maintained his union business office in the trunk of his car. The two also met many mornings prior to work for donuts and coffee. Their apparent friendship is corroborated by the fact that Mr. Hallmon elected to urge one of the witnesses to the Petitioner's behavior on August 2, 1989 to conceal her knowledge of it. He stopped Anne Hamlin in the parking lot on the day of the incident and told her that she should say nothing about it. The Petitioner has been engaged in contesting her discharge through the union grievance procedure or the administrative process before the Commission on Human Relations and the Division of Administrative Hearings for more than a year and one-half as of the time of hearing. However, she never had complained prior to the day of hearing that her friendship with Mr. Hallmon or any perceived close, personal interracial relationship between her and Mr. Hallmon had been involved in the reasons for her discharge or any discriminatory treatment she believed had been imposed upon her. Mr. Hallmon contended at the hearing that 80% of the approximately 400 workers at Lehigh had made comments about their relationship but, upon questioning about this testimony, was only able to relate two specific comments which had been made to him concerning his and the Petitioner's relationship. Neither of these comments were made by management-level personnel of Lehigh. Moreover, both the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon, as union representatives, were acquainted with procedures for bringing a grievance to the attention of management, concerning discriminatory treatment, or any other basis for a grievance and yet neither had complained concerning any perceived discriminatory treatment to management. The only instance in which management might have gained any knowledge of their alleged relationship, other than personal observation, was from a conversation between Mr. Hallmon and Mr. Berger on one occasion when Mr. Hallmon asked Mr. Berger whether there was any violation of company policy if two people, black and white, or male or female, have lunch together. Mr. Berger responded by stating, in effect, that it was not any of management's business or anyone else's business concerning which employees had lunch together. Mr. Berger, however, upon learning that Mr. Hallmon had an apparent concern about the perception which management or co-employees might have concerning his and the Petitioner's relationship, did advise him to remember that "...this is the deep south...and I wouldn't want any of these rednecks catching up with you". When asked if he could recall any discussions between management personnel concerning the amount of time Mr. Hallmon and the Petitioner spent together, Mr. Berger answered "no, it's none of our business". Although Mr. Berger had observed the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon together on several occasions, he felt that was none of his business as a manager of the company. Neither body of testimony, appearing at pages 49, 50 and 90 of the transcript nor any other testimony or evidence in this record, establishes that management had any knowledge of any pervasive discriminatory pattern of behavior in the work place by co-workers toward the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon, if such indeed existed, which was not proven. It was also not established that management had any concern with any real or perceived relationship between the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon and it was not demonstrated that it had any effect on the decision to discipline the Petitioner nor on the severity of the discipline imposed. After her termination, the Petitioner attempted to secure employment through the services of Job Services of Florida by application of August 28, 1989. Job Services referred her to Russell Corporation on September 8, 1989 and to Wal-Mart on September 21, 1989. She applied for employment unsuccessfully at both places. These were the only attempts the Petitioner made to obtain employment from the time of her August 2, 1989 termination until the hearing. Her listing, as available for employment, with Job Services of Florida became inactive on November 30, 1989. It was not established that she sought to reactivate that listing until just prior to the hearing. During the period of her unemployment, there were opportunities to seek employment which she did not avail herself of. On the date of the hearing, there were 22 jobs with private employers and 15 jobs with public employers listed with Job Services of Florida for which the Petitioner could have qualified to apply. She contended that she had looked in the help-wanted advertisements in a weekly newspaper for jobs, but there were none for which she was qualified. Local papers published in Jackson, Calhoun and Liberty counties, in the immediate vicinity of the Petitioner's residence in Altha, reveal that there were a number of advertisements for jobs during her unemployment period which she could have qualified to apply for and possibly to secure. The Petitioner's payroll records for 1988 reveal seven pay periods out of 52 when her total hours equaled or exceeded 50 hours. There were seven pay periods when she worked fewer than 40 hours per week. The average hours worked weekly during 1988 were 42.2. The highest gross pay received in 1988 was $375.76 per week, and the lowest weekly gross pay was $98.56. Her weekly gross pay on an average basis for 1988 was, thus, $273.24. The Petitioner worked 36 pay periods in 1989. She worked more than 40 hours in only eight of those weekly pay periods. The time in excess of 40 hours in these eight pay periods varied, with 5.5 hours being the largest number of hours in excess of 40 hours worked for a weekly pay period; and .3 hours was the lowest number of hours in excess of 40 hours worked for a weekly pay period. In 15 of these 36 pay periods, the Petitioner worked fewer than 40 hours. The average hours per pay period for 1989 were, thus, 33.98. She received overtime pay in eight pay periods. Her highest gross salary for any pay period in 1989 was $309.28. Her lowest gross salary for a pay period in 1989 was $51.28. Her average gross pay for 1989 was, thus, $220.72 per week. The average weekly gross pay for the entire period of her employment was $246.12. She earned $6.41 per hour at the time of her discharge. Had she remained employed, this would have increased to $6.63 per hour on December 16, 1989 and to $6.83 on December 16, 1990. She was eligible for two weeks of paid vacation per year since she had been employed for three years, and eight paid holidays per year. Federal income tax, social security, and union dues were withheld from her gross weekly pay. In 1988, income tax withholding totaled $1,022.80; social security totaled $1,066.98; and union dues totaled $110.00. In 1989, federal income tax totaled $513.97; social security totaled $596.76; and union dues totaled $96.00 for the 36 pay periods she worked in 1989. Lehigh was self- insured for health insurance and any amounts exceeding the employee contributions were to be paid by Lehigh. The employees, including the Petitioner, contributed $7.50 per week towards health insurance. Her payroll records reveal, however, that she ceased participating in the employer-provided group health insurance after the seventh pay period of 1989. In arriving at the above Findings of Fact, it has been necessary, to some extent, to reject the testimony of the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon. This is because the Hearing Officer finds the testimony of other witnesses to the argument between the Petitioner and Ms. Hall and the surrounding circumstances and events to be more credible. The testimony of the other witnesses to these events was accepted because of their basic agreement on the significant circumstances concerning the occurrences in question and the fact that these other witnesses were demonstrated to have no reason to shade the truth concerning the occurrences and the underlying circumstances, including the fact that these witnesses, whose testimony has been accepted as more credible, are of both races involved. The Petitioner, however, is interested in the litigation and admits using the words "black ass nigger" and her tape-recorded statements made the same day of the argument in question are corroborative of the statements, behavior and demeanor on the part of the Petitioner reported by the other witnesses who have been found to be more credible and who are named in the above Findings of Fact. It is found that Mr. Hallmon's close relationship with the Petitioner might have influenced his recollection of the events in question. More significantly, his effort to actually prevent Ms. Hamlin from relating her knowledge about the incident is evidence of a bias in favor of the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner's testimony about alleged recent job-search efforts was impeached because in her deposition taken approximately a week prior to hearing, she repeatedly asserted that the potential jobs at Russell and Wal-Mart were the only ones she had sought, although she maintained at hearing that she had also applied for work at Oglesby Nursery and McDonald's two or three weeks prior to hearing. She offered no explanation of why she did not mention job applications allegedly made less than a month prior to her deposition testimony. It is simply not credible that she would have forgotten those applications if, indeed, they had been made, especially since she was repeatedly asked about that subject matter at her deposition. Thus, her testimony about applying for employment with the two additional employers is deemed not credible.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations finding that the Petitioner, Donna J. Brown, was not discharged in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1989), and was not the victim of a discriminatory employment practice and, therefore, that her Petition be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-6596 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-3. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter after determination of the relative credibility of the witnesses. Accepted. 6-9. Accepted. 10-11. Accepted. Accepted, but not material based upon the issues actually pled even by ore tenus amendment at hearing in this proceeding. It has not been established that the employer had knowledge, constructive or otherwise, of any pattern of usage of racial slurs by multiple employees on such a frequent basis, or with any frequency. Thus, it could not have condoned such a pattern of utterance of racial slurs if it was not shown to have known about them, nor was it established that the use of the word "nigger" by fellow employees approximately once or twice a month, as apparently heard by Mr. Hallmon, was made only by white employees. Accepted. Accepted, but not to the extent that this finding establishes a pattern of discrimination against white employees by Mr. Berger or the management of Lehigh. 15-17. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. As delineated in the Hearing Officer's findings of fact, a number of factors were considered in the decision to terminate as opposed to imposing another type or degree of discipline; not consideration of the word "nigger" alone. 20-21. Accepted. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. This finding of fact is not, in itself, materially dispositive of the issues to be adjudicated. Accepted, but not material to resolution of the relevant issues presented for adjudication. Accepted, but not material in this de novo proceeding. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's more detailed findings of fact concerning this subject matter and issue. 26-30. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter, including finding that the Petitioner did not participate in the group health insurance program any longer than the period of time delineated in the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. It has not been established that employment available for purposes of mitigation of damages for lost wages and benefits has to be precisely comparable in circumstances, condition, quality, wages or benefits or any other element in order to be a relevantly considered available job. Rejected, as contrary to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. It has not been established that the Petitioner would work 50 hours, with 10 hours of overtime, for each week which she would have worked since August 2, 1989 had she not been discharged. Such a figure is therefore speculative, rendering the figures contained in this proposed finding, other than the actual wage figures for a 40-hour work week, speculative. The Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter are adhered to and those in this paragraph are rejected as not supported by the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Rejected, as not supported by the preponderant evidence of record in light of the Hearing Officer's findings of fact concerning the liability issue. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Accepted. 3. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by the record. 4-6. Accepted. 7. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by the evidence of record. 8-10. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, except as modified by the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 15-17. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. 20-25. Accepted. 26. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 27-98. Accepted, except as modified by the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and by the Hearing Officer's acceptance of the proposed findings of fact by the Petitioner concerning the hourly wage rates Petitioner would have received with her next scheduled pay raises had she remained employed. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Ben R. Patterson, Esq. PATTERSON & TRAYNHAM 1215 Thomasville Road P.O. Box 4289 Tallahassee, FL 32315-4289 George J. Little, Esq. 134A Constitution Lane P.O. Box 1612 Marianna, FL 32446 John D.C. Newton, III, Esq. AURELL, RADEY, ET AL. Suite 1000, Monroe-Park Tower 101 North Monroe Street P.O. Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, FL 32302
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 for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner was discriminated against in employment by Respondent because of his race or gender.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Brian Poole, started work for the Respondent, Manatee Association for Retarded Citizens (MARC) on September 7, 1993. He was employed as a habilitation assistant and earned $5.48 per hour. As a rehabilitation assistant, his job was to help with clients who were retarded workers employed by MARC. These workers needed supervision at all times. A part of his job was to write case notes about the workers, and these notes were reviewed by Laurie Mayberry, the Department of Heath and Rehabilitative Services liaison. Petitioner’s immediate supervisor at the time was James Disbro, with whom he did not get along very well. He claims that in October 1994, after he had been employed at MARC for over a year, and had already received one raise to $6.01 an hour and was expecting another to $6.73 an hour, he was interviewed by Disbro who went over his performance with him to determine if he would get the raise or not. During the interview, Petitioner claims, Disbro said he felt Petitioner did not deserve a raise, but Petitioner took the matter to John Schwartz, the MARC Chief Executive Officer, who reversed Disbro’s decision to deny Petitioner the raise. As they left Schwartz’ office, however, Dosbro reportedly told Petitioner that so long as he, Disbro, was there, Petitioner would not get a promotion. In November 1994, Petitioner received another evaluation to decide how large his raise would be. It ultimately was determined he should be raised by $45.00 per month. In December 1994, just before Christmas, a job opening was announced, for which Petitioner applied. A co-worker, Ms. Bradford, also applied for the job and she was interviewed first. Petitioner was then interviewed as well, but Ms. Bradford was given the position because, Petitioner was told, she was more qualified than he was. What bothers Petitioner about the situation is that while he was being interviewed, Disbro kept interrupting to get Petitioner to do other things. When Petitioner later complained to the CEO about this, he was told Disbro would be counseled about it and that he should overlook Disbro’s conduct. At this particular time, the only black employees at MARC were Petitioner and Mr. Lee. Others were hired later. Petitioner contends that a black female employee quit because of similar working conditions, but there is no identification of the employee or independent evidence of when or why she quit. It also appears other black employees were employed on a routine basis. When Petitioner came to work on January 31, 1995, he was told he did not get the job he had been interviewed for before Christmas. It seemed to Petitioner that everyone but him knew the job had gone to the female employee. He relates that another female employee told him that she could have had the job because of her close relationship with management. Again, however, there is no independent evidence to support this claim. Petitioner contends that the environment within his section was uncomfortable for him. That is why he applied for other jobs within the organization. It was to get out of the situation in which he found himself more than to seek promotion. As an indication of what he considers to be the antipathy toward blacks in evidence at MARC, Petitioner notes that when one black employee was absent from work on January 31, 1995, a white assistant commented that Petitioner and Lee would know where he was because they lived on that side of town. To Petitioner, this was a case of the white employee inferring that because Petitioner and Lee were black, they would automatically know where other black employees lived. The employee who allegedly made this comment was not identified. Later that day, however, another "anti-black" comment was made regarding a white residence manager to the effect that he was not a "preppie" because he went with a black girl. According to Petitioner, comments such as this were not uncommon at Respondent’s facility at the time, but there is no independent evidence to support the claim. At an in-service luncheon one day, Petitioner recounts, a white lady implied that the two black attendees were rude and inconsiderate and did not know how to act in public. She allegedly stated they should be grateful they had been taken out for lunch. There is no evidence to indicate if Petitioner present at the time, or who the speaker was. On February 9, 1995, Petitioner was absent from work. While he was gone, Ms. Carrol, a lab worker, approached Mr. Lee, a black employee, and asked him if he believed Petitioner was sick or out looking for another job. Mr. Lee called Petitioner at home and reported this. While Petitioner considers this a racially motivated comment, absent any independent information surrounding it, it is not found to be so. On February 10, 1995, Disbro told Petitioner and Mr. Lee to move all the furniture out of the work shop and clean the shop. While the two black employees were pulled off their jobs to do this, all the white employees, both male and female, continued to do their regular jobs. Being away from his duties to do the clean-up put Petitioner behind in his regular duties. When Petitioner tried to talk to Disbro about why other employees couldn’t help with the move, Disbro allegedly said he and Lee were to do it and a complaint to Mr. Schwartz would be non- productive. No evidence was presented to support Petitioner’s claim this was racially motivated. The mere fact that two black males were directed to do manual labor does not prove racial discrimination absent a showing there were others capable of doing the work who were not occupied with other, more demanding duties. On February 15, 1995, Petitioner was supervising a female client who needed help to go to the bathroom. Consistent with the rules for that situation, Petitioner called for help but was put off with what he considered to be a lie. When he reported this to Disbro, Disbro said to forget it. Petitioner is sure that if it had been him who was complained about, Disbro would have taken corrective action, but there is no evidence to show this. In late February 1995, a special training program in Orlando was announced. Management asked who wanted to go. It was reported that those who received the training would be certified and would receive more money. Though Petitioner applied, he was not selected to go. When he asked if his failure to get the training would be held against him if he applied for a better job, he was told it would not. However, subsequent to the training, whenever he applied for any jobs in that area, he was rejected because he was not trained. Mr. Schwartz, the CEO, contends that all employees were offered the opportunity for in- house training. Training away from the facility, however, was offered to those who would best benefit from the training due to their responsibilities. Schwartz insists that in making the selection of those to attend the away-training, the employee’s performance and disciplinary records were not considered - just the need for the training. One of those selected was Ms. Sparks, who had a background in special education and a demonstrated ability to deal with retarded clients. The agency’s position seems reasonable, and no evidence was offered to indicate its assertion is not true. In March 1995, a social worker from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Ms. Peterson, accidentally threw away an assessment of a client Petitioner had done and asked Petitioner to re-do it. Petitioner refused and she complained to Disbro who, in what Petitioner considered to be a harsh manner, directed him to do so. Petitioner felt this was unfair and wrong, aside from Disbro’s use of abusive language. It is a fact, however, that case notes are the responsibility of the habilitation assistant. If no record is made, there is no way to recover information relating to the clients. Though Petitioner claimed he was being treated unequally in that other assistants did not have to do what he was directed to do, this allegation was unexplained. On March 16, 1995, Petitioner complained to Disbro about the way he felt he was being treated. Disbro said that they would work it out - the past was past. However, later that day a statement was made that Petitioner was improperly eating in the workshop. When Petitioner told Disbro he was not eating, Disbro replied that there were chicken bones all over; a comment which Petitioner took as racially-oriented. Petitioner claims to have been humiliated by the comment, and when he got upset at that comment, he claims Disbro wrote him up for his response. Disbro claims the write-up was for eating on duty. He claims he saw chicken bones in the trash in Petitioner’s area, and eating at a work station is not permitted under MARC rules. After that incident, Petitioner requested to see Mr. Schwartz, but his request went unanswered. This led Petitioner to believe that not only was his rapport with his supervisor, Mr. Disbro, poor, but so it was with Mr. Schwartz. Petitioner concluded this also based on his perception that Mr. Schwartz never acted on any of his complaints against Disbro. In early May 1995, Ms. Carrol came into Petitioner’s workshop at least three to five times a day. Petitioner felt she was spying on him, but when he complained about this to Disbro, Disbro contended she was just lonesome for her old work group. He indicated he would follow up on it, but to Petitioner’s knowledge, nothing further was said about that situation. However, at the end of the day, Disbro called Petitioner aside and spoke to him about a reported safety violation. He was told another worker had reported that she thought Petitioner was improperly running a machine which could have resulted in injury to a client. When Petitioner indicated he was not satisfied with Disbro’s attitude toward other employees "spying" on Petitioner, and asked to speak with Mr. Schwartz, Disbro reportedly stated "I really hate you guys." Disbro would not explain what he meant by that comment, but Petitioner considered it a racial slur. Disbro denies having made the comment. Assuming it was made, however, absent other evidence to support Petitioner position, it cannot be concluded that the comment was racially motivated. It could well have been a reference to a myriad of other things. On May 19, 1995, Petitioner noticed a posting for a job which he felt he could do and which would get him out of the environment in which he was having so much trouble. Petitioner applied for the job but heard nothing about it in response. He was the only applicant from within the agency, and the job was not a promotion. He reports that all the associates laughed at him when he applied, and he didn’t know why. A month later, when Petitioner still had not heard about the job, he was told by a co-worker that the job had been filled. When he checked on it and found that report was true, he asked the personnel staffer why he hadn’t been interviewed and, reportedly, she just laughed. This made it clear to Petitioner that he was not going to get any other job at MARC. Mr. Schwartz claims it is normally MARC policy to promote from within if they have personnel in house who possess the needed qualifications. He recalls the incident about which Petitioner complains. This job required an enormous amount of non-supervised performance, and due to Petitioner’s record of absenteeism, tardiness, and other documented problems, it was felt he did not meet the qualifications of the job. Management believed Petitioner needed much more structure and direct supervision than this particular job would provide. On June 21, 1995, he told the personnel people he felt he had been discriminated against in his initial hiring, his salary, in promotions, and in working conditions. He was told to speak with Mr. Schwartz about it, but when he tried to do so, Schwartz suggested he speak with someone else in the agency, Mr. Paul Welsh. Petitioner was not able to reach Mr. Welsh for several days, however, both Mr. Schwartz and the personnel staffer indicated it was MARC policy to hire first from within the agency. In Petitioner’s case, Mr. Schwartz said he didn’t think it was a question of discrimination, but he would look into it. A few days after this conversation, Mr. Schwartz’ secretary told Petitioner that Mr. Schwartz wanted to see him. When the two met, Schwartz asked Petitioner if he felt he was being discriminated against. Petitioner explained how he felt. Schwartz then thanked Petitioner and said he would get back to him. On June 27, 1995, Schwartz told Petitioner he had been too busy to talk to Mr. Welch about Petitioner’s situation but would do so and get back to him. The next day Schwartz called Petitioner to tell him he had met with Welch and would speak with Petitioner the next day. Petitioner did meet with Schwartz the next day and Schwartz told him that HRS had changed the requirements of the job he had applied for and that was the reason he wasn’t selected. Petitioner asked to see the changes but was not shown anything to support Schwartz’ claim. Petitioner claims he asked if the training he had applied for but not received would have helped, but Schwartz was unable to give him a firm answer. When Petitioner asked if there were some form he could fill out to complain about the treatment he had received, he was told to ask the secretary. The secretary advised him she didn’t have the forms. Several days later Petitioner saw an EEOC poster with an 800 number which he called. When he explained his situation, he was told what to do and furnished with the forms he needed. He filled them out and submitted them, which initiated this action. Petitioner resigned from MARC in August 1995, after about a year and a half on the job because he was fed up with what was going on as it related to him. Documentation introduced at the hearing reflects that on most appraisals he received he was rated down because of his attitude, yet he continued to received periodic pay raises. However, though Petitioner and Ms. Sparks, a white employee, were doing the same work, he discovered, when he accidentally received her paycheck instead of his own, that she was making more than he was. Mr. Schwartz indicates, however, that Ms. Sparks dealt with more difficult clients than did Petitioner, which required her to assume a greater responsibility than his, and according to Mr. Schwartz, she had far greater experience in the program than he did. According to a co-worker, Ms. Ball, Ms. Sparks has a background in special education. She had the proper attitude for working with retarded clients and was very conscientious and dedicated. She had an extra ability to work with autistic individuals and those with behavioral disorders. If true, and no evidence was presented to show it was not, this would justify her receiving a higher pay than Petitioner who was only employed at the facility for a total of a year and a half. According to Mr. Schwartz, MARC had several other individuals doing the same work as Petitioner was doing. Three were black males, and the remainder were white females. MARC had an equal employment policy which was enforced. At the time Petitioner was employed there approximately 30 percent of the employees were male and 70 percent were female. There were two Hispanics of whom one was male and one was female. The reason for the predominately female employee census was that most applicants for jobs were female. The racial mix at the facility, 25 percent black and 75 percent white, was approximately equivalent to that in the community. Schwartz categorically denies there was any policy calling for a difference in pay due to race or gender, nor were minority males singled out for the dirty jobs, as Petitioner contends. He admits, however, that because Petitioner and Lee were the only two males on the floor in that shop, they were assigned jobs from time to time which females could not do readily, because of their size or strength. The immediate supervisors, such as Disbro in Petitioner’s case, were responsible for day-to-day supervision and were usually left alone to manage their work load and their employees. If, however, a situation arose which needed next- level intercession, Schwartz would step in. He was the appeal authority in disciplinary matters, and remembers serving as such several times for Petitioner. He cannot recall the details of the incidents, however. Mr. Schwartz also recalls an incident where Petitioner was requested to bring in a doctor’s slip to justify his being absent for several days. The documents Petitioner presented were inconsistent with his story. On follow-up, it was determined that neither was a legitimate report relating to Petitioner’s condition. One was from a gynecologist and one from a pediatrician. Mr. Schwartz also acknowledges that Petitioner came to him to express concern over Disbro’s alleged comments which Petitioner felt were racially motivated. In that same vein, though Petitioner contends that MARC management did not want minority job coaches to represent it in the community, Mr. Schwartz denies that race or gender played any part in promotions or assignments. The sole issue was who could best do the job. Petitioner also objects to being the only employee written up as the result of an incident when a client eloped, even though at least one other employee was present at the time. Habilitation assistants are responsible for the well-being of their clients and cannot afford to lose track of clients whose safety is at risk. Petitioner was the individual responsible for the client who eloped. Disbro, as Petitioner’s immediate supervisor, oversaw the employment of eight employees. Of these, four, including Petitioner, were black and four were white. Most were female. All did the same type of work, except for specific personal care issues where gender was a consideration. Work requiring heavy lifting was done by whoever was there to do it and was capable of doing so. Pay was based on performance without regard to minority status or gender. While Petitioner was supervised by Disbro there were times when Disbro felt it necessary to discipline him. In one case Disbro observed Petitioner sleeping at work. This was also observed by a vocational trainee, and others have seen similar instances. Petitioner claims he was not sleeping and that the observers were mistaken because of his small eyes. Disbro has no doubt that Petitioner was sleeping, and from personal observation of Petitioner at hearing, his eyes did not appear significantly smaller than those of any other person. Petitioner was written up for tardiness numerous times during the course of his employment, as well as for a general lack of attentiveness. As a result, he was placed on probation for a period of time, and at least one pay raise was deferred. On one occasion, he was suspended without pay for three days. Though Petitioner claimed he was discriminated against when not selected to attend away training, he was scheduled for an in- service training which he failed to attend and failed to call in to advise he would not be there. When subsequently asked why he had not been present, Petitioner claimed he didn’t need the training being offered. On August 23, 1995, he was issued a letter of reprimand for this. According to Disbro, at no time did he ever address Petitioner or any minority employee in a racially derogatory manner. He denies ever having used the term, "you guys," to Petitioner. He adamantly rejects any contention that he treated Petitioner any differently than any other employee, and denies he was ever instructed to do so. Disbro contends Petitioner could not take constructive criticism and when corrected, would become very defensive. Petitioner’s progress notes kept on the clients he served were not up to par, according to Ms. Mayberry, the individual responsible for developing client program systems and overseeing documents prepared by Petitioner and other habilitation assistants. Case notes have to be a direct reflection of the program plans, and must show goals, accomplishment, plans, and the like. The goals indicated what information needed to be reported, and case notes were the support documents for funding from HRS, Medicaid, and other fund sources. In the opinion of Ms. Mayberry, Petitioner had an ongoing struggle with the documentation system. He was not the only habilitation assistant who had problem with case notes, and whenever she found a problem, she would send a memo about it to the assistant and to Disbro. Though the other assistants cooperated, Petitioner’s general attitude toward case notes was that he was willing to sit down with her and review them, but he often became frustrated and felt he was being picked on. As a result, she developed fill-in forms to help him provide the proper information. Nonetheless, Petitioner seemed to have both an attitude problem and an ability problem with the case notes. As other assistants improved in the note preparation, Petitioner continued to struggle without much improvement. Ms. Bouse, also an habilitation assistant, as were Petitioner and Mr. Lee, could not recall either ever having been singled out for dirty jobs. She observed Petitioner on the job and noted that he slept a lot during the workday and talked on the phone a lot. In her opinion, he did not do his job very well. He was absent a lot and often tardy, and when he was not there, the other assistants had to do his work as well as their own. Ms. Lawrence worked with Petitioner one day shortly after she was hired during which he showed her the ins and outs of the cable contract on which he and his crew were working. After that day, she took that contract over from him. On one occasion, Ms. Lawrence and Petitioner attended a convention in Sarasota, and during the course of a lecture, she had to wake him twice. Other than that incident, she denies having seen him sleep on the job. Janet Ball has worked at MARC for 19 years as the adult basic education teacher. As a part of her duties, though she did not supervise Petitioner, she could observe him for approximately an hour and a half per day while she was working in the same module as he was. On at least two occasions she observed him asleep. On one of those it appeared his son had been sick all night. She considers this significant because the safety of the clients is an issue. Petitioner supervised ten individuals, all of whom were severe and profoundly retarded, and he had to remain alert at all times with them. Since his resignation from MARC, Petitioner has worked for a construction company at $9.50 per hour for 40 to 50 hours per week. However, on July 28, 1996, he was involved in an automobile accident which kept him out of work for a while, and, in any event, made it impossible for him to do construction work ever again. After his recovery, Petitioner worked at several jobs including temporary services. At one job, with Wellcraft, he earned $7.77 per hour for a 40 hour week, plus overtime, and worked there for about two months until he was fired for leaving the job early. He then went to work for a cleaning service and eventually obtained his own franchise from which he earns approximately $2,000 per month. Except for his period of recuperation after the accident, he has worked full-time since leaving MARC, at a rate higher than he earned there.
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 Brian C. Poole’s Petition For Relief alleging employment discrimination based on race and gender. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian C. Poole 817 18th Street East Bradenton, Florida 34208 Omer Causey, Esquire Nelson Hesse 2070 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34237 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Did Respondent, Lone Wolf Security Services (Lone Wolf), discriminate against Petitioner on account of her race, sex, or religion, or retaliate against Petitioner in violation of chapter 760, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses and other evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a self-described “African American, Christian female”. Petitioner worked as a security officer for Lone Wolf, a company that provides security services for privately-owned condominium and apartment properties. Petitioner was employed by Lone Wolf from April 8, 2011, through July 29, 2012, assigned primarily to the Edgewater Beach Resort in Panama City Beach, Florida. On July 27, 2012, Petitioner was involved in a verbal altercation with her site supervisor, Eugene McDaniels, a white male. During the altercation, Mr. McDaniels “threatened to hit me in my mouth if I did not shut my mouth.” William Lasko, Lone Wolf’s District Manager, investigated the circumstances surrounding the altercation, which apparently arose from Mr. McDaniels’ belief that Petitioner had falsified her timesheet. While Mr. Lasko did not place blame for the incident on Petitioner, he nevertheless decided that Petitioner should be reassigned to duties at a different property. However, Petitioner was allowed to finish out her scheduled work week at Edgewater (July 27, 28 and 29, 2012). On July 30, 2012, Mr. Lasko met with Petitioner and advised her that she was being assigned to work pool security at the Majestic Beach Towers, an assignment that would have required her to walk up 24 flights of stairs. Since Petitioner is afraid of heights, she requested a different assignment, and suggested a parking garage position. Mr. Lasko responded that he wasn’t sure a parking garage assignment was available, but advised Petitioner that she would be contacted soon with another assignment offer. On August 7, 2012, Petitioner was contacted by Lone Wolf and offered a position at a property located in Lake Merial. However, Petitioner refused the assignment because it was too far away, and offered a lower rate of pay and undesirable hours. On August 12, 2012, Petitioner was arrested and charged with public assistance fraud. Consistent with company policy, Petitioner’s employment with Lone Wolf was suspended pending disposition of the criminal charge. While the record contains scant evidence of the circumstances surrounding prosecution of the public assistance fraud charge, it was undisputed that Petitioner was convicted of the charge in a jury trial, but adjudication of guilt was withheld. Petitioner contends that part of the evidence that was used to convict her were fraudulent paychecks provided by Lone Wolf to the prosecutor at some point in time after her arrest. Petitioner contends that Lone Wolf provided false evidence against her in an effort to smear her reputation and to deter her from filing charges of discrimination against Mr. McDaniels. Mr. Lasko testified that Lone Wolf only provided the payroll information that was specifically requested by the State Attorney’s Office. Mr. Lasko denied that the payroll information was fraudulent. Rather, as credibly explained by Mr. Lasko, the four “dummy” paychecks provided to the State’s Attorney by Lone Wolf represented the aggregation of several paychecks that had been issued to Petitioner.1/ The evidence in this record does not establish that the payroll information provided by Lone Wolf was fraudulent. On October 12, 2012, Petitioner informed the Lone Wolf Operations Manager that she was quitting her employment with Lone Wolf. Of the 106 employees of Lone Wolf, 13 are black males, 20 are white females, and 6 are black females. Petitioner called a former co-worker, Shequita Holt, to testify on her behalf. Although Ms. Holt testified that Mr. McDaniels “made her (Petitioner) cry sometimes,” she also testified that she did not observe Mr. McDaniels treating Petitioner any differently than he did white employees. Ms. Holt also testified that she was not aware of any other African American employees of Lone Wolf who felt that they were being discriminated against.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 29th day of January, 2015.
The Issue Did Respondent engage in unlawful employment practices against Petitioner on the basis of race, and if so, what remedies are available to redress the wrong? Sections 760.10 and 760.11, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner meets the definition of "person" in Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes, entitled to assert claims for relief under the Florida Civil Rights Act. It was not disputed that Respondent is an "employer" within the meaning Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Based upon the record it is inferred that Respondent is an employer subject to the Florida Civil Rights Act in the conduct of its employment practices. Respondent is a corporation with three shareholders who each have a one-third interest in the business. In the corporation the shareholders are Vehad Ghagvini and his brothers. Vehad Ghagvini is the president of the corporation and responsible for the day-to-day operation. Vicki Goodman serves as the Human Resources Administrator for the company and is responsible for matters associated with claims of discrimination by company employees. At times relevant Larry Smith was a supervisor for Respondent. On two separate occasions Petitioner worked for Respondent. The first occasion was from November 8, 1999, through June 7, 2000. His position with the company was that of a laborer. When he separated from employment on June 7, 2000, it was based upon his own decision. At that time it was indicated in his personnel record that Petitioner would be subject to being rehired and it was commented that Petitioner was considered to be a hard worker and reliable. The personnel records show the signature of Larry Smith as supervisor when Petitioner terminated his employment with Respondent on June 7, 2000. Petitioner returned to employment with Respondent in October 2000, and was involuntarily terminated on December 5, 2000, from his position of a laborer. According to the papers describing his separation from employment on December 5, 2000, he was terminated for "failure to attend job responsibilities; excessive absences on Saturdays." The form indicated that his work evaluation was poor. It was indicated that Respondent did not intend to rehire Petitioner beyond that date. Other comments in the discharge indicated that Petitioner "was a reliable and diligent worker during previous employment with the company but failed to work to same standards this time around." Petitioner was required to work on Saturday. He did not work on October 7, 2000, a Saturday, the Saturday of the week of October 9, 2000, the Saturday of the week of October 23, 2000, the Saturday of the week of October 30, 2000, the Saturday of the week of November 13, 2000, and Saturday, December 2, 2000. During this time frame Petitioner worked as a service truck operator with duties that included fueling Respondent's equipment on road construction jobs that were ongoing on the Saturday dates that Petitioner missed. Before his termination Petitioner had been counseled on October 17, 2000, and in November 2000 concerning his absences on Saturdays. Petitioner's testimony that he was only required to work on Saturday on a voluntary basis and that meant that he only needed to work one Saturday in his more recent employment is not accepted. Attached to Respondent's Exhibit numbered 5 is an EEO summary from Respondent pointing out that employees of various races had been subject to termination in a pattern that does not discriminate based upon race. Petitioner's termination on December 5, 2000, is in keeping with that practice. Petitioner has portrayed his dismissal from employment with Respondent as originating with his mistreatment by his supervisor, Larry Smith, not his absence from the job. As Petitioner describes it, about a week or two before he was terminated in December 2000, Larry Smith approached Petitioner and told Petitioner that he did not want Petitioner having conversations with females on the job. Petitioner is an African-American. At that time there were two Caucasian females working at the same location Petitioner worked. In particular, one of the females on the job asked Petitioner to take her position directing traffic on the roadway while she went to the restroom. Before she returned Mr. Smith pulled up and saw Petitioner holding the flag for directing traffic. Mr. Smith asked Petitioner why he was holding the flag. Petitioner explained that he was helping the female employee while she went to the restroom by directing traffic until she returned. Later Mr. Smith came back and told Petitioner that he did not want Petitioner having conversations with that female employee. Petitioner surmised that the reason that Mr. Smith had for Petitioner not speaking to the female employee was in relation to the difference in their races, Petitioner's race and that of the female employee. This opinion was reinforced in Petitioner's mind because a similar conversation about not speaking to the female employee occurred three times. Mr. Smith stated his position in such a manner as to have his comments pertain to both female employees on the job. Mr. Smith's remarks were not stated in a manner where he literally said that he did not wish Petitioner to speak to the female employees because Petitioner was an African- American or Black and that the other persons were Caucasian or White. Another incident described by Petitioner was one in which an African-American employee of Don Olsen Tire Company came to repair a tire on a piece of equipment belonging to Respondent. One of the female employees asked for a ride with that individual in his truck back to another location where her van was located. Petitioner, the Don Olsen truck driver, and the female employee rode in the tire repair truck. This was observed by Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith approached the female employee and told her that he did not appreciate that she was disrespecting him and his wife by being in the truck with two black guys. Later that day, a Friday, Mr. Smith approached Petitioner and stated that he did not want Petitioner having a conversation or anything to do with females on the job. The following Monday Petitioner was terminated. Petitioner believes that he was terminated because of the circumstances with the female employees of another race that have been described. Mr. Smith also told the Don Olsen employee that he did not want that individual back on the job site fixing anything because the white female employee had been in that individual's truck. There was no showing that Petitioner made Respondent's upper level managers aware of Mr. Smith's comments concerning conversations which Petitioner had with Caucasian females on the job. According to company records, at one time Petitioner had been informed by Respondent concerning the procedures for making complaints about employment practices related to issues of alleged discrimination. At the time that Petitioner was terminated, Mr. Smith pulled up beside him on the job site and commented to the effect "I don't need you no more." That was the only reason given at a subsequent time when Petitioner spoke to Mr. Ghagvini concerning Petitioner's termination. Mr. Ghagvini said that he had heard from Superintendent Smith and that he was going to leave it at that. Petitioner presented no evidence concerning his claim that Whites were allowed to stand around and talk and that black employees were not allowed to do so, or that black employees were in any manner worked harder than white employees. Notwithstanding the prospect that Mr. Smith's motives when telling Petitioner not to speak to female employees on the job was racially motivated, the reason for Petitioner's dismissal was in relation to his failure to attend his duties on Saturday at various times. That explanation was not created as a pretext to divert attention from racial discrimination. After his termination from Respondent, Petitioner filed for unemployment and received those unemployment payments until his eligibility ran out. In that time period he looked for jobs. Eventually Petitioner obtained a position as a pipe layer with Sayaler Utility. He began employment with that company in October 2002, and the employment was continuing at the time of the hearing. Petitioner receives $8.00 an hour for his work and works on an average 35 hours a week. When he was dismissed from his employment with Respondent, Petitioner was receiving $8.50 an hour and was working an average of 35 hours a week.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by FCHR dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief in all respects. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 February, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Lonnie Jennings Post Office Box 782 Greenville, Florida 32331 Vehad Ghagvini, President Vicki Goodman, Personnel Representative Sandco, Inc. 2811 Industrial Plaza Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32310 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are whether the Respondents committed unlawful employment practices against Petitioner, and if so, to what relief is she entitled.
Findings Of Fact In the spring of 1994, Respondent CSD began operating a residential detention program for juvenile offenders pursuant to a contract with the Department of Juvenile Justice. The purpose of the program, commonly known as Hamilton House, was to provide redirection to the lives of its youthful residents/clients. Hamilton House had 48 beds divided between two dormitories. Respondent CSD assigned each resident to the appropriate dormitory, level six or level eight, depending on the type of security and rehabilitative services required. The program included an educational program as well as facilities for vocational and recreational activities. Respondent CSD employed Petitioner, a 51 year-old white female, as a resident advisor at Hamilton House from March 24, 1994 through June 30, 1996. Petitioner initially worked the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift in the level six dormitory. At times she served as the acting shift supervisor though she was not paid a supervisor's wages. When Petitioner began working for Respondent CSD, she lived with her elderly mother, Lotus Musgrove, whose colon cancer was in remission. At that time, Mrs. Musgrove was able to live independently and did not need a caretaker. On April 24, 1994, some of the clients managed to gain access to a bottle containing an alcoholic beverage. Petitioner and other employees received a verbal warning for failing to adequately monitor the behavior and movement of the clients. A training letter was placed in each employee's personnel file. In May of 1995, Respondent CSD hired Bobby Williams, Sr., as a resident advisor in the level eight dormitory. Mr. Williams is a black male. He eventually assumed the position of shift supervisor for the entire facility. There is no evidence that Petitioner sought this full-time position or a similar supervisory position at any time during her employment with Respondent CSD. In October of 1995, some of the clients accused Petitioner and another staff member of inappropriate conduct including, but not limited to, furnishing them with prohibited magazines and movies. As a result of the allegations, Respondent CSD suspended Petitioner and her co-worker without pay on October 18, 1995. By letter dated October 20, 1995, Respondent CSD advised Petitioner in writing that there was insufficient evidence of misconduct to warrant termination of her employment. However, the letter stated that Petitioner had violated company policy and procedure by allowing a youth to leave his room for extended periods after curfew. Respondent CSD paid Petitioner and her co- worker for the time they were suspended during the internal investigation. Respondent CSD subsequently reassigned Petitioner and her co-worker to work in a different dormitory and on a different shift. The change in time and location of their work shift was necessary to ensure there was no contact between them and the clients who had accused them of improper conduct. Petitioner was assigned to work the 3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. shift in the level eight dormitory. In a written statement dated October 23, 1995, Petitioner objected to the change in her shift. She preferred to continue working the 11:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. shift. She asserted that, during the day, she took care of her 78 year-old mother who had cancer. Respondent CSD did not immediately honor Petitioner's request. On or about November 24, 1995, Petitioner voluntarily purchased some supplies in the amount of $20.98 from a retail store. The supplies included the following: hand sprayers, cotton swabs, hydrogen peroxide, rubbing alcohol, highlighters, marker, Sharpies, and other miscellaneous items. Petitioner requested reimbursement from Respondent CSD because she intended to use the supplies at work. Respondent CSD declined to reimburse Petitioner for the supplies. There is no evidence that Respondent CSD ever authorized the purchase of the supplies. On December 11, 1995, a resident in the level eight dormitory attempted to discard a container of contraband tobacco. Petitioner detected his effort and responded appropriately. She received a letter of commendation for exemplary action which was placed in her personnel file. On January 23, 1996, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Juvenile Justice made a formal and final determination that "[i]t is inconclusive that staff members Julie Toughton and Alice Musgrove engaged in improper conduct with clients." On or about February 1, 1996, Petitioner took a box of pens and pencils from a client's desk. The client became upset and exhibited inappropriate behavior toward Petitioner. As a result of the client's tantrum, Petitioner took token-economy points from the client. Petitioner filed a written complaint dated February 4, 1996, with Respondent CSD after learning that one of her supervisors, Mike Myers, changed the client's point sheet. Petitioner's February 4, 1996, statement also asserted that Supervisor Myers was mishandling clients' mail. She complained that he was logging clients' mail and making the clients read their personnel mail to him. According to Petitioner, handling client mail was the responsibility of "line staff." On one occasion in February 1996, Petitioner was 30 minutes late reporting to her assigned duty station in the dormitory. She spent that time in the administration building because she refused to work with one of her co-workers. Supervisor Myers was responsible for changing Petitioner's time sheet to reflect a 30-minute deduction in regular time. On another occasion in February 1996, Petitioner and other employees worked two hours of overtime due to a crisis situation with one of the clients. Petitioner elected to "bank" the overtime rather than receive time-and-one-half of overtime pay. The other employees chose to receive overtime pay. Petitioner was off from work on February 22-23, 1996. When Petitioner arrived at work on February 24, 1996, her time sheet was not with the time sheets of other employees. Petitioner's time sheet was locked in a supervisor's office until February 26, 1996, because the supervisor was not at work. There is no indication in the record whether Petitioner's time sheet was locked up inadvertently or due to a dispute over Petitioner's wages. On March 1, 1996, Petitioner filed a written grievance with Respondent CSD regarding her pay. She claimed that Supervisor Myers was harassing her and discriminating against her by changing her time sheet without her knowledge. Specifically, Petitioner complained that Mr. Myers cheated her out of 30 minutes of regular time on one occasion and two hours of overtime on another occasion. She complained that her time sheet was locked in a supervisor's office for four days. On March 4, 1996, the Program Director, Dale Edwards, agreed that Petitioner should not be penalized for one-half hour of regular pay because she was in the administration building during the disputed time. Additionally, Mr. Edwards directed Supervisor Myers not to change an employee's time sheet without prior approval. He also requested that Petitioner furnish documentation that the company owed her for the two hours of overtime. Mr. Edwards was under the mistaken impression that the dispute over Petitioner's time sheet had been resolved. In March of 1996, Petitioner was working the midnight shift in dormitory eight consistent with her written request dated October 23, 1995. On March 18, 1996 and March 27, 1996, Petitioner made written requests for a change to the 7:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. shift. Petitioner specifically wanted to replace a Ms. Aikens on the morning shift. Respondent CSD did not honor Petitioner's request. However, there is no evidence showing that Ms. Aiken's position was ever filled, and if so, whether Respondent CSD selected a person of a different race or a younger to file the position. Petitioner was absent from work between April 8, 1996, and April 16, 1996, on April 22, 1996, and on April 29, 1996, due to illness and/or medical appointments. While she was absent, her inner-office mail box became so full that the mail had to be removed. The administrative manager gave Petitioner's mail to her supervisor. On April 23, 1996, Supervisor Myers completed Petitioner's annual performance appraisal for the period March 14, 1995 through March 14, 1996. Petitioner disagreed with the determination that she had difficulty communicating with others. Petitioner's mental health counselor, Christine Clark, sent Mr. Edwards an unsolicited letter dated April 23, 1996. According to the letter, Ms. Clark was treating Petitioner for family/employment related stress reduction. The letter states as follows in pertinent part: Due to the demands of her home environment, caretaking of her elderly mother who is dying from colon cancer, I am recommending that Ms. Musgrove be reassigned new working hours, namely a day schedule of approximately 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM in order to effectively and efficiently facilitate the evening and night care of her mother. In addition, Ms. Musgrove appears to have unresolved issues regarding her personnel file and salary still due to her for 30 minutes or .5 hour pay as well as two hours uncompensated work from several weeks ago. I personally read your approval for this compensation but apparently this has still not yet been indicated on her pay check. There also remain the allegations of her misconduct charges that appears not to be fully resolved. As an employee she does have the legal right to have these fully addressed and challenged. From my understanding that although the misconduct charges have been dropped, there are still areas that compromise Ms. Musgrove's reputation as a resident advisor. Mr. Edwards did not disclose the contents of Ms. Clark's letter to any employee of Respondent CSD other than his superiors, who advised him to get a release from Petitioner before responding to the letter. After receiving Ms. Clark's letter, Mr. Edwards had a telephone conversation with Petitioner's mother because Petitioner was not at work or at home. During the conversation, Mr. Edwards inquired about the mother's health. Mr. Edwards learned that Mrs. Musgrove's cancer had been in remission since 1993 and that she no longer required assistance with daily living activities. Mr. Edwards did not disclose any information regarding Petitioner's employment status, medical condition, or personal business to Mrs. Musgrove. Petitioner's sister placed an unsolicited telephone call to Mr. Edwards several days after he talked to Mrs. Musgrove. The purpose of the call was to thank Mr. Edwards for his concern over Mrs. Musgrove's health. During the telephone call, Mr. Edwards and Petitioner's sister did not exchange any information relating to Petitioner's employment, medical condition, or personal business. On April 29, 1996, all staff at Hamilton House received a memorandum advising them as follows, in pertinent part: As a result of the recent competitive bid conducted by District 3, Department of Juvenile Justice, Gator Human Services has been awarded the contract to operate the Hamilton County Youth Treatment Complex starting July 1, 1996. The memorandum also included information regarding the transfer of operations to the new service provider. Respondent CSD advised employees that, if requested, it would supply Gator Human Services the name, position title, hire date, and current salary of each employee of record. Respondent CSD stated that no other information would be given to the new organization without the consent of the employee. On May 1, 1996, Mr. Edwards wrote two memoranda regarding Petitioner's pay. First, Mr. Edwards directed the administrative manager to pay Petitioner for .5 hours of regular wages out of the company's petty cash fund and to get a receipt for the payment. Second, he directed the resident life manager to allow Petitioner to leave work two hours early (with pay) at a time of her choosing within the next work week. Petitioner could not "bank" the time indefinitely because Respondent CSD's contract was scheduled to expire on June 30, 1996. Mr. Edwards phoned Petitioner at home on May 2, 1996, to request a written release so that he could respond to Ms. Clark's letter. Petitioner wrote that release on May 3, 1996. The release gave Mr. Edwards permission to disclose confidential information to Ms. Clark. On May 3, 1996, Petitioner signed a written acknowledgment that receipt of $4.06 in payment for .5 regular hours would end the issue of the .5 regular hours owed to her. On May 10, 1996, Respondent Gator informed the staff at Hamilton House of the procedure for handling applications for employment with Respondent Gator's new program, Tiger Success Center. Applications were due on or before May 28, 1996. Interviews were to be scheduled between May 28, 1996, and June 7, 1996. Applicants would be advised of the final selections and employment offers by June 14, 1996. Respondent Gator requested that each applicant take a copy of their most recent performance appraisal to their employment interview. By letter dated May 13, 1996, Mr. Edwards responded to Ms. Clark's inquiry. First, he explained that questions regarding Petitioner's compensation had been resolved. Second, he stated that letters from the Department of Juvenile Justice and from the Office of the Inspector General had been added to Petitioner's personnel file, clearing her of all misconduct allegations. Third, he explained that the day shift would be the least desirable shift in terms of stress reduction because the activity level of the residents is highest during the day. Mr. Edwards also revealed that Petitioner's mother was treated successfully for cancer in 1993 and that her current health failed to support the need for a change in Petitioner's shift. Finally, Mr. Edwards noted that he had to consider the needs of the residents and other staff. A copy of Ms. Clark's inquiry and Mr. Edwards' response were placed in Petitioner's personnel file. Neither of the documents were disclosed to unauthorized persons. On May 22, 1996, the employees at Hamilton House received another memorandum advising them that after June 30, 1996, Respondent CSD would no longer operate the facility. The employees were encouraged to apply for employment with the new organization. Petitioner was scheduled for an employment interview on May 30, 1996. However, the interview was rescheduled because she was unable to keep the appointment. Petitioner's application for employment with Respondent Gator is dated May 31, 1996. She also furnished Respondent Gator with copies of three performance appraisals. Petitioner's signature on the application authorized Respondent Gator to make inquiries of references and former employers regarding her general character and past performance. There is no evidence that Respondent Gator ever made any such inquiries about Petitioner. A panel of three people representing Respondent Gator interviewed Petitioner. The panel asked her the same questions that they asked other applicants. Petitioner was very negative and critical of the existing program and Respondent CSD during her interview. After the interview, each member of the interview panel tallied their score sheets independently. All three agreed that Petitioner should not be given further consideration for employment with Respondent Gator because of her negative attitude and low interview scores. On June 13, 1996, Petitioner received a memorandum from Respondent Gator stating that the company was unable to offer her a position of employment. That same day, Respondent Gator offered employment to every other Hamilton House staff applicant except one black male, Mr. Humphrey. Respondent Gator hired a black female, Latasha Bristol, who worked in the level eight dormitory with Petitioner. Ms. Bristol is younger than Petitioner. However, she was not hired to replace Petitioner. Respondent Gator hired Ms. Bristol to work in the level six dormitory. Respondent Gator offered an employment position to a white female, Lucy Oxendine. Ms. Oxendine was over 60 years old at the time. She declined to accept a job with Respondent Gator for personal reasons. Mr. Edwards was hired by Respondent Gator to continue as program director after July 1, 1996. However, neither he nor any other employee of Respondent CSD shared any information about Petitioner with Respondent Gator or had any input into Respondent Gator's decision not to hire Petitioner. Respondent Gator based its decision not to employ Petitioner solely on the results of her interview which was very negative. On June 14, 1996, the staff at Hamilton House received a memorandum stating that anyone interested in accepting employment with Respondent Gator must sign up on June 19, 1996. On June 14, 1996, Petitioner's doctor faxed a medical excuse to Respondent CSD stating that Petitioner could not return to work for an undetermined period of time. The document indicates that Petitioner's diagnosis involved anxiety, depression, and work-related stress. The doctor commented that Petitioner was the primary caretaker of her mother who was terminally ill with cancer. The doctor's June 14, 1996, fax was received by Respondent CSD in the administrative manager's office. It was on her desk for a brief period of time before it was delivered to Mr. Edwards. There is no credible evidence that any employee of Respondent CSD disclosed the contents of the fax to unauthorized persons. Petitioner's doctor did not give her permission to return to work until after July 1, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that FCHR enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's Charges of Discrimination against both Respondent CSD and Respondent Gator. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: H. B. Stivers, Esquire Levine and Stivers 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Faye Musgrove Post Office Box 657 Live Oak, Florida 32064 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
