The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to a hostile work environment and subsequent termination of employment due to Petitioner's race in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent employed Petitioner in 1988. Petitioner received regular pay raises and promotions during the course of her employment with Respondent. On May 14, 1997, Petitioner was called to the manager's office from her work as a department manager and "back-up" customer service manager in Respondent's store located at 1212 Capital Circle, Southwest, in Tallahassee, Florida. Upon arrival in the manager's office, Petitioner was questioned regarding her involvement in an incident where another associate employed by Respondent in the store had been observed and apprehended placing store merchandise in the associate's automobile which had not been paid for in the store. Upon confrontation, the associate allegedly implicated Petitioner and several other black employees in similar activities. When confronted with these allegations, Petitioner denied any involvement in any scheme where merchandise was being removed from Respondent's store without payment for the merchandise. Petitioner was sent back to her work station following this meeting. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner and other accused black employees were suspended from employment. Petitioner was admonished to cooperate with local police in the course of their investigation. Petitioner promised her cooperation. On May 22, 1997, Respondent's representatives contacted the Tallahassee Police Department to report employee theft and an investigation ensued. Petitioner was never arrested and never questioned by law enforcement officials prior to being contacted again by Respondent's representative in June of 1997 and asked to come into the store. Upon arrival at the store, Petitioner's employment was terminated by Respondent's representative on the basis that police investigators had been unable to contact Petitioner and, therefore, she had not been cooperative with law enforcement authorities. During or close to the time of Petitioner's job termination, Respondent's management at the Tallahassee store was concerned that the ratio of black employees to white employees was disproportionate in that too many blacks were employed compared to white employees. When the personnel manager in Respondent's personnel office presented the names of candidates to store managers for employment, she would be questioned as to the race of the potential employees and told that the number of black employees needed to be reduced. The personnel manager had no knowledge personal to Petitioner's situation. The personnel manager later transferred to another store and, subsequently, resigned from employment with Respondent. Petitioner, a black female and member of a protected class, presented no evidence at the final hearing that she was replaced by a non-black employee or other member of an unprotected class. Additionally, no evidence was presented that white employees were treated differently in similar situations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty J. Davis-Gavin 12573 Forest Run Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32311 Azizi M. Dixon, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 J. Todd Lewis, Esquire Wal-Mart Legal Team 702 Southwest Eighth Street Bentonville, Arizona 72716 John A. Unzicker, Jr., Esquire Vernis & Bowling of Northwest Florida, P.A. 635 West Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The 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
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was hired by Respondent in January, 1986, as a dishwasher at $4.00 per hour. Because of his good work and dependability, Petitioner received periodic increases in his rate of pay, and in May, 1987, he became head dishwasher at $6.00 per hour. Respondent's owners also own certain apartments located next to their restaurant, and since Petitioner had been a dependable employee, he was given the additional responsibility of showing these apartments when anyone wanted to rent one that was vacant. He also performed repair and maintenance work on the apartments Petitioner was allowed to take time off from his job as head dishwasher to show vacant apartments, and was periodically assigned work to do on the apartments when he was not working at the restaurant. Petitioner agreed to, and was readily willing to perform these additional duties for which he was allowed to live in one of these apartments for $15.00 per week, rather than the normal rate of $65.00 per week. Beginning in October, 1987, Petitioner began to call in sick to his job at Respondent on a regular basis. Between the week of October 18, 1987, and his termination on January 12, 1988, he did not work a full forty hour week. This was during Respondent's busy time when business was especially heavy, and was a great inconvenience to other staff and the owners of Respondent. Frequently, Petitioner gave virtually no notice of his absence. Due to his repeated absences, and his lack of dependability, Respondent terminated Petitioner on January 12, 1988. Thereafter, Petitioner timely filed a complaint of discrimination with the City of Clearwater, Office of Community Relations. Petitioner introduced no evidence in support of his allegation of discrimination based upon race. He alleges that a white woman was hired to replace him, but he did not identify her, or in any way corroborate his charge. Respondent disputed this allegation, and denied that Petitioner's discharge was due to anything but his repeated absences and increasing lack of responsibility. There is absolutely no evidence that Petitioner was terminated based upon racial considerations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the City of Clearwater, Office of Community Relations, enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's charge of discrimination against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of September, 1988. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Amyer Jones 1343 San Remo Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Richard R. Logsdon, Esquire 1423 South Ft. Harrison Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Miles Lance, Esquire Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618 Ronald McElrath, Director Office Of Community Relations Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 34618
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on Petitioner’s race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Che Johnson, worked as a helper to full-time installers of hurricane shutters with Respondent. He was training to become a full-fledged installer. Respondent, AABC, d/b/a Roll-A-Guard (“Roll-A-Guard” or “Respondent”), is a company that installs hurricane shutters from its offices and warehouse in Largo, Florida. Petitioner filed an Employment Complaint of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations against Respondent, stating, under penalty of perjury, that Respondent had 15+ employees. When asked by Respondent’s president why he believed 15 people were employed by Respondent, he was unable to give an answer. Petitioner admitted he never saw 15 people at the warehouse when he was working there. Roll-A-Guard, between October 21, 2016, and January 20, 2017, which covers the entire time Petitioner was employed with the company, never had more than seven employees on the payroll. This was substantiated by a payroll report from Respondent’s Professional Employer Organization and by testimony of Respondent’s president. This number of employees is substantially below the statutorily required number of employees (15) for Roll-A-Guard to be deemed an “employer” for purposes of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Petitioner, an African-American male, claimed that he was discriminated against on the job by his boss and president of Roll-A-Guard, Andrew J. Ayers, referring to him in a racially discriminatory way when calling on customers on several occasions. Petitioner claims that Mr. Ayers asked customers on three to four occasions whether they thought Mr. Johnson “was as cute as a puppy dog.” This offended Mr. Johnson, and he believed the statement to be discriminatory against him on the basis of his race. Mr. Johnson offered no additional testimony, nor any additional evidence, other than his own testimony that these remarks were made by Mr. Ayers. Mr. Ayers denied, under oath, that he had ever referred to Mr. Johnson as a “puppy dog,” and was especially offended not only that Mr. Johnson never raised the issue with him, but that Mr. Johnson went to the company’s Facebook page after his employment was terminated, and posted comments about Roll-A-Guard being a racist company that discriminated against African- Americans. The other employees of Roll-A-Guard, who testified at hearing, also never heard the “puppy dog” remarks allegedly made, nor did they believe Mr. Ayers was prejudiced in any way against Mr. Johnson. Although the lack of 15 employees by Respondent fails to invoke the jurisdiction of the Civil Rights Act of 1992, the evidence at hearing demonstrates Mr. Johnson’s termination from employment was unrelated to his claim of having been called a “puppy dog” by Mr. Ayers. On the day Mr. Johnson was terminated from employment, January 20, 2017, Mr. Ayers informed the workers that no one should leave the warehouse for lunch due to a rush job on a substantial order of hurricane shutters. Despite Mr. Ayers’ warning, Mr. Johnson left for lunch in the afternoon and was unreachable by Mr. Ayers, who attempted to text him to order him to return to work. Mr. Johnson did not immediately respond to the texts. Although Mr. Johnson eventually responded to the texts from Mr. Ayers after 45 minutes to an hour, Mr. Ayers was perturbed by that point, and actually hired a new worker to replace Mr. Johnson, and told Mr. Johnson not to return to work since he was fired. Mr. Ayers fired Mr. Johnson, in part, because he believed Mr. Johnson was not only leaving for lunch, but for the weekend. Other witnesses working that day confirmed this by testifying they heard words to the effect of “See you Monday.” Mr. Johnson admitted he left for lunch, but testified that he intended to return that afternoon after he had eaten.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Respondent, Roll-A-Guard, is not an “employer” and, therefore, not subject to section 760.10, Florida Statutes, or any of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1992, and dismissing Petitioner’s charge of discrimination against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 3rd day of January, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Che Johnson 2428 Fairbanks Drive Clearwater, Florida 33764 (eServed) Andrew J. Ayers Roll-A-Guard Suite 206 12722 62nd Street Largo, Florida 33773 (eServed) Cheyanne Michelle Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent resigned his position of employment with Petitioner and, if not, whether Respondent's position of employment with Petitioner should be terminated for cause, specifically, the Respondent's alleged absence without leave, his alleged abuse of sick leave, and his alleged theft of school property.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was employed by Petitioner as a painter pursuant to an annual contract from January 17, 1983, until January 29, 1993. Respondent was not a member of the instructional staff, a principal, or a supervisor. Respondent did not submit to the Petitioner a formal resignation of his employment, nor did he ever intend to do so. A School Board employee with an annual contract may be dismissed during the term of his contract for cause. Respondent had frequently taken leave during his term of employment with the Petitioner and he was aware of the School Board's policies pertaining to leave. Respondent is a member of a collective bargaining unit represented by the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local 1277, AFL-CIO (IBFO). The collective bargaining agreement between the IBFO and the School Board contains terms and conditions of employment pertinent to this proceeding. Article IV, Section F pertains to "Return from Leave" and provides as follows: Failure to return to work at the expiration of approved leave shall be considered as absence without leave and grounds for dismissal. This section should be subject to extenuating circumstances preventing timely return, as determined by the Superintendent. Article IV, Section A of the collective bargaining agreement pertains to sick leave and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 3. Sick Leave Charged -- Sick leave shall be charged in no less than half-day segments. Each school or Department shall record absences on an hourly basis. When the appropriate half-day increment is reached, based upon the assigned employee workday, the employee shall have 1/2 day of accumulated sick leave deducted. . . . * * * 10. False Claim -- False claim for sick leave shall be grounds for dismissal by the School Board. Petitioner's Administrative Directive D-3.47(3) is a rule of the School Board and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (3) District employees shall not convert School Board property, including any equipment and supplies, for personal business or activity. CONVERSION OF SCHOOL BOARD PROPERTY In November 1992, Warren Haan, the paint supervisor for the Petitioner's Department of Maintenance and Operations, was told by Jacques Brisson, Respondent's foreman, that it appeared to him that Respondent was taking school property for his own use. Mr. Haan investigated the allegations and went to the area in the maintenance department where the employees parked their vehicles. Mr. Haan looked into Respondent's personal vehicle and discovered that Respondent had placed inside of his vehicle property of the School Board. The evidence established that Respondent intended to convert this property to his own use. The property, which was taken from the Respondent before he could remove it from school grounds, consisted of an empty paint bucket, painter's rags, a small quantity of caulk, and a caulking gun. Mr. Haan referred this matter to the school security department on January 4, 1993. Respondent had not been disciplined at the time of his alleged resignation because the matter was still under investigation at that time. Respondent testified that other painters regularly took items such as empty paint buckets and paint rags. This self-serving testimony does not establish that Petitioner routinely permitted painters to violate the clear school policies pertaining to unauthorized use of school property. To the contrary, the testimony of Mr. Brisson established that theft had been a problem that he had tried to stop. ABUSE OF SICK LEAVE The Respondent occasionally was employed as a painter by individuals and entities other than the Petitioner. Such employment was permissible, but an employee was not permitted to perform services for private individuals while out on sick leave. The Respondent reported to work on December 3, 1992, and left his employment in the late morning using sick leave for the remainder of the day. That same day, Mr. Haan received information that led him to believe that Respondent had taken sick leave, but that he was working as a painter at a house under construction in an area referred to as Boca Grove in Boca Raton, Florida. Mr. Haan went with Dave Traill, another school board employee, to this private residence at approximately 2:30 p.m. on December 3, 1992, where he observed Respondent's automobile. He went to the residence under construction and asked to see the Respondent. The Respondent thereafter came out of the house and talked with Mr. Haan and Mr. Traill. Mr. Haan and Mr. Traill did not see what Respondent had been doing inside the residence. Respondent testified that he had seen his doctor for a brief appointment earlier that day and had gone from his doctor's office to the residence at Boca Grove. Respondent admitted at the formal hearing that he had agreed to paint the house for the owner, but asserted that he had gone to the house to tell the owner that he would not be working that day. Respondent testified that he had taken vacation leave when he actually worked on the private residence. Respondent admitted that he had spent approximately two hours on December 3, 1992, while on sick leave going over with the owner items of work that he was to perform. This meeting was a necessary part of the painting job he was to do for the owner. From the evidence presented, it is found that on December 3, 1992, the Respondent performed services unrelated to his duties as a school board employee for his personal gain at this house in Boca Grove while absent from his employment with the Petitioner pursuant to sick leave. Respondent abused Petitioner's sick leave policy. ABSENCES WITHOUT LEAVE In January 1993, Petitioner took time off from his work to attend to his wife, who continued to experience physical problems resulting from a heel fracture on August 28, 1992. Respondent contacted his foreman, Jacques Brisson, at approximately 7:30 a.m. on Monday, January 25, 1993, to request that he be allowed to take that week off as vacation time. Mr. Brisson approved that leave, but he informed Respondent that he would have to contact Warren Haan, the painting supervisor, if he wanted to take any additional time off. Respondent was absent from his employment without approved leave on Monday, February 1, 1993; Tuesday, February 2, 1993; Wednesday, February 3, 1993; and Thursday, February 4, 1993. Friday, February 5, 1993, was not a scheduled work day since the paint department was on a four day work week. Respondent testified that he contacted Mr. Haan during the last week of January 1993 and told him he may need to be off work for a week or longer. Respondent also testified that Mr. Haan authorized his leave during the last week of January 1993. Mr. Haan testified at the formal hearing, but he was not questioned about this conversation or whether he authorized leave for the Respondent during any part of February 1993. Mr. Haan testifed that Respondent's employment was terminated because he was absent without authorization for the days in February and that Respondent would have contacted Mr. Brisson to obtain authorization for leave. Respondent later testified that he did not know why he had not contacted anyone prior to being absent on February 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1993. The apparent conflicts in Respondent's testimony are resolved by finding that while Respondent may have told Mr. Haan at some time during January 1993 that he needed to take some time off, he did not seek and he was not given authorization to be absent from his employment on February 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1993. On February 5, 1993, Warren Page, Coordinator of Petitioner's Department of Maintenance and Plant Operations, sent to Respondent by certified mailing a letter which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: This is to confirm that you have not reported to work since January 29, 1993. You have not contacted this office as required to report your intended absences. You have not requested or received approval for a short term leave of absence. Therefore, you are currently absent without approved leave. In the absence of any correspondence from you, I can only assume that you have decided not to continue working as a Painter for the Palm Beach County School Board. Please be advised that your name will be submitted to the Palm Beach County School Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting for acceptance of your resignation from employment. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact this office. Respondent received the certified mailing on Saturday, February 6, 1993. On Monday, February 8, 1993, Respondent contacted Lawrence G. Zabik, the Petitioner's Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, and asked him what he should do about the certified mailing that he had received. Mr. Zabik told Respondent that he should meet with Mr. Page to see if he could work things out. Respondent did not contact Mr. Page, and he did not report to work. During a regularly scheduled meeting in February, 1993, the School Board voted to accept his resignation with an effective date of January 29, 1993. January 29, 1993, was the effective date of the acceptance of Respondent's "resignation" and the date his employment with the School Board was terminated because it was the last day Respondent was out on authorized leave. This action was taken pursuant to Petitioner's Administrative Directive D- 3.27(2)(c), which provides as follows: (c) When employees do not report for duty for three (3) consecutive days without notifying their supervisor, the principal/department head will initiate a certified letter to the employees stating that their resignations will be recommended to the School Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting. By notice dated March 2, 1993, Respondent was notified that the School Board had accepted his resignation as a painter with an effective date of January 29, 1993. The notice dated March 2, 1993, contained an old address for the Respondent. Consequently, he did not receive a copy of the notice until May 24, 1993, when he was officially informed that his employment had been terminated effective January 29, 1993, the last day on which Respondent had been on approved leave. Respondent thereafter requested a formal hearing to contest his termination, and this proceeding followed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order which terminates the employment of the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-4233 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 11 are rejected as being unsubstantiated by the evidence. The greater weight of the evidence established that the incident involving conversion of school board property occurred in November 1992, but that it was reported to Mr. Sapyta on January 4, 1993. The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted by Respondent. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, and 15 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 2, 3, and 10 are rejected as being unnecessary as findings of fact, but the proposed findings are adopted either as preliminary matters or as conclusions of law. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 8 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order, but are rejected to the extent they are contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 9 are adopted by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in the first sentence of paragraph 11 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached since there is no contention that Respondent had exhausted his sick leave. The proposed findings in the second sentence of paragraph 11 are rejected. Specifically, Mr. Haan's credibility was not eroded as asserted by Respondent. The other findings of fact in paragraph 11 are adopted by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 12 and 14 are rejected as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached since this is a de novo proceeding. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 16 are subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 17 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order and are rejected in part as being contrary to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 18 are subordinate to the findings made or to the conclusions reached. COPIES FURNISHED: Hazel Lucas, Esquire Palm Beach County School Board Office of the General Counsel 381 Forest Hill Boulevard, Suite C302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5813 Glen J. Torcivia, Esquire One Clearlake Centre 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1504 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Isidro M. Garcia, Esquire 3501 South Congress Avenue Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Dr. C. Monica Uhlhorn, Superintendent Palm Beach County School Board 3340 Forest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33406-5869
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.
Findings Of Fact Born in Rio de Janeiro, petitioner Paul Sergio Inacio emigrated to the United States from Brazil in 1961, when he was still a teenager. He first worked for respondent for a brief time in 1976. On June 6, 1980, he returned to respondent's employ as a journeyman welder mechanic at Crist Electric Generating Plant, a position he still held at the time of hearing. A "mile square with seven generating units" (T.187), the plant is in Florida, as are respondent's headquarters. Several hundred people work for respondent at Crist Electric Generating Plant alone. In "late June, 1980" (T.235) somebody began calling Mr. Inacio "Julio," nicknaming him after a Hispanic character in a television series (Sanford & Son). The actor portraying Julio "used to drag a goat through the living room . . . and acted . . . stupid." T.236; T.64. Despite (or perhaps because of) petitioner's telling people he did not like being called "Julio," the sobriquet caught on. Even during his initial eight-month probationary period, he made his objections known. T.115, 180. He felt freer to press the point, once the probationary period ended, although at least one friend advised him to do so might be counterproductive T.235-6. Mr. Inacio never referred to himself as Julio. T.28, 99-100, 115, 146-7, 180, 194, 198. Once "he almost got in a fight with [a co-worker] because the guy called him my little Puerto Rican buddy Julio." T.28. Before he retired from his employment as a supervisor with respondent, on July 30, 1987, Murdock P. Walley repeatedly addressed, or referred to petitioner in his presence, as "Julio," "wop," "spic," and "greaser." Mr. Walley's last day at work was "in April or along about then." T.472. Behind petitioner's back, Mr. Carnley heard Mr. Walley refer to petitioner as "wetback," "wop" or "the greaser." T. 27. Co-workers have called him "spic," "wetback," and "greaser" to his face, (T.30) as well as behind his back. Mr. Peakman, another maintenance supervisor, testified that he was guilty of a single lapse: I didn't see him and I asked, "Where's Julio?" And then I caught myself, I said, "Excuse me, where's Mr. Inacio?" I corrected myself right then. T.455. In or about January of 1989, (T.271), Jimmy Lavon Sherouse, maintenance superintendent since May of 1987, referred to petitioner as "Julio" at least once, in the break room. Willard A. Douglas, a supervisor of maintenance at the plant since December of 1981, referred to petitioner as "Julio" frequently. Described as abrasive, Mr. Douglas, also known as "Bubba," has "single[d] Paul out." T.46. But it appeared at hearing at least as likely that Mr. Douglas singled petitioner out because of a run-in which had nothing to do with Mr. Inacio's background, as that he discriminated against him on account of national origin. Prior to June of 1989, continuously since 1981 (T.29), Howard Keels, Calvin Harris, Mike Taylor, Ronnie Yates, and Bill Sabata, Control Center supervisors, C. B. Hartley, supervisor over the coal docks, John Spence and David Hansford, both maintenance supervisors at the time, Mike Snuggs, Joe Patterson, Ed Lepley, Tommy Stanley and Dennis Cowan, supervisors of the laboratory department, Dennis Berg and Joe Kight, schedulers, Tom Talty, the assistant plant manager, Joe Lalas and Larry Swindell, both operations supervisors, all called petitioner "Julio" "[t]o his face in [the] presence" (T.27) of Ricky Carnley, a fellow welder mechanic who testified at hearing. T.21-26. Others also heard supervisors call petitioner "Julio." T.79-80, 110, 144-6, 178-9, 195-6, 237-9, 537-8. Not without reason, petitioner came to feel that "(a)nything associated with Hispanic heritage that could come up, I was called at some point or other by practically anybody." T.267. Angelo Grellia, a fellow mechanic who testified "I'm a wop, you know" (T.79) (emphasis added) remembered co-workers calling petitioner a "wop." A newspaper cartoon posted on a bulletin board in the employee break room (not the bulletin board reserved exclusively for management's use) depicted a man using a two-by-four. Petitioner "is known for using two-by-fours a lot to move stuff, pry stuff for leverage." T.34. The cartoon was labelled "Julio." Another time somebody posted a newspaper clipping, a report of a parricide, complete with picture; the killer's name had been lined through and Mr. Inacio's had been substituted. T.112, 158, 179. After two days, a fellow employee took it down (T.158), apparently without Mr. Inacio's ever seeing it. Still another time somebody posted "a National Geographic picture" (T.181) that resembled petitioner "and the caption said, can you guess who this is." T.181. Somebody had guessed and written in "Julio." T.243. According to uncontroverted testimony, white Anglo-Saxon men "were not selected to be the butt of these sorts of jokes." T.159. Over the plant's public address system, in Mr. Talty's presence, Charles Brown referred to petitioner as "Paul Inasshole," a play on his surname. T.25. No other employee was ridiculed in such a fashion, as far as the evidence showed, (T.49) but broadcasts in a similarly offensive vein ("An asshole" "A nasty hole") took place repeatedly over respondent's public address system. T. 24-25, 48-49, 71, 144-146, 163, 240. At all pertinent times, respondent had widely disseminated written equal opportunity and affirmative action policies with the stated "intent . . . to provide all employees with a wholesome work environment." Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. "Company policy prohibits intimidation or harassment of its employees by any employee or supervisor." Id. But, as Barbara Louise Mallory, an "Equal Employment Opportunity representative" (T.477) in respondent's employ, conceded, the "conduct that went on was against [Gulf Power's] policies and against the law." T.484. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 stated that employees "subjected to conduct which violates this policy should report such incidences to their immediate supervisor, a higher level of supervision, or the Company's Equal Employment Opportunity Representative in the Corporate Office." Id. In the present case, both respondent's immediate supervisors and "a higher level of supervision," were well aware of the harassment to which petitioner was subjected, before he officially reported it. Supervisors were themselves guilty of harassment. On February 8, 1988, Mr. Sherouse, the maintenance superintendent, addressed "a routine shift meeting with employees [and] discussed with them the need to refrain from destruction of employees' or company property." Respondent's Exhibit No. 8. Mr. Sherouse "essentially said . . . some employees . . . were being singled out . . . . " T.295. He told employees at the meeting that "such an incident . . . could result in an action up to termination." Id. At the same meeting he "also discussed cartoons and calendars that could be considered . . . racial or sexual harassment . . . [directing that] they must be removed now." Respondent's Exhibit No. 8. These matters were also discussed at an employee information meeting in January of 1989. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. But harassment of petitioner continued. "[Q]uite frequently . . . thick heavy grease would get smeared on his toolbox, underneath the drawers of his toolbox." T.34. The lock on his locker was glued or "zip-gripped" shut several times, and had to be cut to open the locker. Respondent's Exhibit No. He is the only employee (T.39) who had to change clothes because some sort of itching powder was put in his clothes. Somebody put "Persian Blue," a particularly persistent dye, in his glove. At respondent's counsel's behest a list was prepared of "employees who have experienced problems with someone tampering with their tools or person[a]l lockers," Respondent's Exhibit No. 10, during the two years next preceding the list's preparation on August 4, 1989. Of the nine employees listed, seven were white Caucasians whose tools or books had been lost or stolen. 1/ Unlike the native-born men on the list, petitioner and Debbie Mitchell, the only other person listed, were subjected to repeated instances of vandalism and other harassment, including unflattering references in cartoons posted on the bulletin board in the break room. Although petitioner did not request it, management assigned him a new locker, something they did for no other employee. According to a co-worker, petitioner, who once taught welding at Pensacola Junior College, "likes to do a good, clean, responsible job" (T.185) of welding. But, on October 22 and 23, 1988, when petitioner and Millard Hilburn worked on "the #7 bottom ash discharge piping," Respondent's Exhibit No. 21, at Willard Douglas' behest, they failed to stop seepage from the pressurized pipe (which was in use while they worked) by welding, and resorted to epoxy which, in Mr. Douglas' "opinion[,] . . . [was] bad judgement and very poor workmanship." Id. Of 30 or 40 welders respondent employed at Crist, only one or two "still have a clean record. Eventually somebody is going to get a leak." T.202. Petitioner's work record is basically a very good one, although not perfect. Nevertheless Mr. Sherouse, after putting petitioner's name on a list of three "employees who for different reasons are not performing their jobs," Respondent's Exhibit No. 7, summoned petitioner to a conference about his job performance, on January 20, 1989. The other two employees were Scott Allen, whose problem was "attitude . . . distrust, dislike . . . just unbelievable" (T.443; 420) and Ed Lathan who "hadn't been there since June of '87" (T.420) except sporadically "working light duty." T.420. Mr. Sherouse also prepared various memoranda concerning petitioner; and caused other managers to prepare still other memoranda. Only after the January conference was petitioner involved in the repair of a boiler tube that failed. (He welded one end of a replacement piece that may have been improperly sized and had already been welded in place by others.) In contrast to petitioner's involvement in two incidents (only one of which occurred before the filing of the complaint), at least one other welder mechanic working for respondent had made five welds that failed in short order. On April 11, 1989, petitioner was assigned the job of cleaning plugged nozzles on intake screens for units four and five (although ordinarily operators themselves did such routine maintenance.) He first went to the control room for units four and five and asked directions to the intake screens, which are part of the cooling system. Misunderstanding directions, he went to the wrong cooling system intakes, those for units six and seven, instead of those for four and five, and started work without finding a red tag (used to indicate that somebody from operations had "isolated" the equipment) and without placing his own tag on an electrical switch that equipment operators use. He did, however, place tags on valves that had to be opened in order for the system to operate. When Mr. Sherouse heard what had happened he sent Mr. Inacio home from work. Although Mr. Sherouse did not at that time "announce termination or non- termination, pay or no pay" (T.436), petitioner was eventually paid for the time off, which lasted two days during the purported pendency of an investigation, which consisted of "going back and looking at his files." T.437. Without credible contradiction, several people testified that mistaking one piece of equipment for another occurred not infrequently (T.85) at the Crist plant. The evidence showed that much more serious safety lapses had, in general, elicited much milder responses from management. Petitioner was criticized more harshly than non-minority employees for the same or comparable performance. T.31-33, 73-74, 112-120, 130-131, 148-9, 150-4, 186-7, 197, 257- 263. Petitioner's safety record was "better than most." T.424. An Indian who works at the Crist steam plant, Ron Taylor is known as "Indian" or "Chief." T.52. Supervisors referred to Nicholas Peterson as "a damned Greek" (T.111) when he worked at respondent's Crist plant. "From January 1982 until March 1990," just about every supervisor at Crist "refer[red] to some . . . blacks as being niggers." T.135. Objection was sustained to admission of colored Beetle Bailey comic strips crudely altered to depict cartoon characters engaged in oral sex. But Ms. Mitchell testified without objection to other "extremely vulgar cartoons" (T.157) she saw posted on the bulletin boards including one with her name on it. T.159. (When she complained to Mr. Sherouse, he eventually reported back to her that the reference was to a different Debbie.) At Crist Electric "they use the good ole boy theory . . . [i]f you fit into their select group, you're taken in, you're trained . . . you get better selection of jobs. If you're not, you're an outcast." T.136. Petitioner "definitely" got more than his share of "dirty jobs," specifically precipitator work and condenser work. T.183; 85-86, 147-8. Petitioner's "pride was hurt." T.265. He felt humiliated. Unfair criticism affected his morale. T.36. At least one co-worker "could sense . . . that he felt like he was not wanted there." T.37. He considered leaving his employment and even told at least one Gulf Power official that he was doing so. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Discriminatory treatment affected his ability to concentrate, and so his job performance. T.36, 37.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the FCHR order respondent to refrain from harassing or otherwise discriminating against petitioner on account of his national origin. That the FCHR award petitioner reasonable attorney's fees and costs. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 14th day of May, 1991.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent or its employees engaged in sexual harassment of Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jeanette Stallworth, was assigned to a temporary general service/cleaning position with the Santa Rosa Island Authority ("SRIA"), and her first day of work was July 21, 2006. Respondent, AccuStaff, provides recruiting and payroll services to clerical and light industrial business and governmental entities. At the time of her employment, like any other new employee, Petitioner was informed verbally that she should contact AccuStaff if she encountered any problems on the job. Petitioner was given a new hire brochure that instructs all employees to report harassment of any kind to the AccuStaff office. Petitioner signed an Employment Application Certification which stated, in part: "I further understand that if hired by the Company, I must abide by all of the Company's rules and regulations as set forth in the Orientation Packet. . . . [i]t is my responsibility to promptly inform the Company of any problems that I encounter while on assignment. If at any time you believe that you have been subjected to illegal discrimination or harassment, or if you know such conduct is occurring, you have an obligation to report it." Petitioner agreed to the above conditions and signed to certify that she read and understood these conditions of employment. On August 21, 2006, Respondent received a call from SRIA stating that Petitioner was not to return to their site for work. The reasons given for its decision to request that Petitioner not return was that she had demonstrated inappropriate conduct on the job. The stated inappropriate conduct consisted of Petitioner harassing her co-workers with insults, sexually explicit comments, and gestures. Prior to the August 21 call, Petitioner had been moved to different work groups as a result of her co-workers' complaints concerning her behavior. Petitioner testified that Mr. Zedie Johnson had made lewd and sexually explicit comments about her, and had offered her beer while on the job. Petitioner did not complain to anyone about the comments at the time they were allegedly made. Petitioner testified that a co-worker named Keith had twisted her arm on another occasion in the truck when she tried to change the radio station. Petitioner later complained to a supervisor named Max about Mr. Johnson and Keith. She was assigned to other work groups away from Mr. Johnson and Keith. Petitioner believed that Kathy Atchley was given preferential treatment on the job because she was friendly with Mr. Buck Lee, one of the SRIA Commissioners, even though she had a poor attendance record. On August 20, 2006, a Sunday, Petitioner delivered a letter to Mr. Lee, by slipping it under his door and by putting it on the desks of two of her supervisors. The letter set forth her complaints of favoritism toward some of the employees, especially the drivers of the trucks. She alleged that an employee drank alcohol on the job, that another stole a blue beach umbrella, that she was sexually harassed, and that although she gets along with everybody, no one wants to work with her. Petitioner wants to work in a peaceful environment and to be left alone by her co-workers whom she alleged harassed her. Ms. Darlene Brown testified that, although Petitioner was a good worker, she could not get along with anyone on the various work crews. The SRIA had no where else to place Petitioner for work purposes. Petitioner was told by Respondent on August 22, 2006, that she could not return to work with the SRIA, and that Respondent would consider her for future work assignments. Respondent typed up Petitioner's verbal statement concerning the alleged harassment and asked Petitioner to sign it. Petitioner refused. Respondent agreed to investigate Petitioner's complaint and to call her when they found suitable jobs for her. Respondent contacted Mr. Johnson to question him about his involvement with Petitioner. He denied any inappropriate behavior or comments on his part. He stated that it was Petitioner who blurted out inappropriate comments and made rude gestures. Respondent asked Petitioner's female co-workers if they had ever witnessed any inappropriate behavior by the male co-workers. They all replied that they had not, but that they had witnessed Petitioner's rude offensive remarks and gestures. Respondent believed that SRIA took appropriate measures when told of possible harassment by separating Petitioner from those she claimed harassed her. Respondent believed that SRIA took appropriate action, especially in light of the fact that it was a case of one employee's word against another concerning the alleged harassment. Based upon the information provided to it by SRIA, Respondent believed that SRIA had a legitimate business reason for not allowing Petitioner to return to the work site. Subsequent to Petitioner's assignment with SRIA, Respondent never denied her job placement out of retaliation or for any other reason. Respondent offered Petitioner temporary seasonal work with a plant nursery on August 31, 2006, and on September 26, 2006. Petitioner turned down both of these opportunities due to a lack of reliable transportation and distance from her home. On September 29, 2006, Respondent offered Petitioner another three-day work assignment which she accepted. Petitioner failed to show up for the assignment, however, and did not call to report her absence. Petitioner only worked at the job with SRIA for one month, from July 21 through August 21, 2006.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of July, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 July, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jeanette Stallworth 24 North L Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Julie Wells AccuStaff 5710 North Davis Highway, Suite 5 Pensacola, Florida 32503 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. Council 79 is a labor organization whose business is to represent employees in matters involving public employers concerning contractural negotiations and the administration of bargaining agreements. Council 79 employed 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks during 1987 and 1988. Council 79 has elected officers. Blondie P. Jordan, a black female, is the elected president and chief executive officer of Council 79. Jordan has the authority to employ persons to assist her in carrying out the duties of Council 79. Until the fall of 1988, Cox, a white male, was one of those employed by Council 79, under Jordan. Cox was employed as the Regional Director of Region III (also referred to as Tampa Region) of Council 79, and reported to Jordan. Council 79, under Jordan, also employed several other white males in positions of authority. Those included: Charles Brannon, employed in March, 1988, as the Assistant to the President, who in the absence of Jordan ran the day to day operations of Council 79 Headquarters; Ted Buri, Regional Director in Tallahassee; John Crosby, Business Manager; Mark Neimeisser, lobbyist; and Ben Patterson, Chief Attorney. Council 79 has an Executive Board over which Jordan presides, but through which the Council is governed and operated. During 1987 and 1988, Nancy Serrano, Jimmy Newell, Wesley Leon and Craig Lehning were members of the Executive Board from Region III. Serrano, Leon and Lehning belonged to a group referred to as the "Solidarity Group" that opposed Jordan. During 1987 and 1988, Serrano, Newell, Leon and Lehning at Executive Board meetings complained to Jordan about the operation of Cox's office in Tampa, particularly about the office staff and Cox not being responsive to the membership of the local unions. However, during this same period of time there were presidents of local unions who complained to Jordan about how these same Executive Board Members were not being responsive to the local union, specifically in regard to how these Executive Board members were attempting to close the Regional Director's Office in Tampa, and advised Jordan that Cox and his staff were working well with the local unions. Also, one member of Cox's staff complained to Jordan about having to drive Cox to meetings and run the office while Cox absence attending to personal business. There was no written documentation that Jordan ever discussed these complaints with Cox or any of his staff, and even though Cox admitted to having heard these complaints, although not from Jordan, he dismissed them as being political because there were coming from the Solidarity Group that opposed Jordan. Notwithstanding Jordan's testimony to the contrary, there is insufficient evidence to show that Jordan discussed any of these complaints with Cox or that Jordan counseled or advised about correcting the problems before November 3, 1988. Apparently, Jordan left the day to day operation of Region II, including the Regional Office, to the discretion of Cox, and expected Cox to correct problems in the Region without being counseled or advised by Jordan unless Cox determined that Jordan's intervention was necessary or appropriate. Likewise, there was no documentation that Cox had ever been reprimanded or counseled about his performance. In fact, the only written documentation concerning Cox's performance (other than an incomplete report by Linoria Anthony which was not received as evidence) of any problems with Cox's performance was the report written by David McGhee to Jordan on November 1, 1988, after McGhee replaced Cox, having been appointed Acting Regional Director of Region III on September 14, 1988 by Jordan. On September 12, 1988, Cox was scheduled to attend a meeting with employees from the City of Fort Myers which McGhee, Neimesser and Escudero were also to attend. Cox was to meet privately with McGhee, Neimesser and Escudero before meeting with the employees from Ft. Myers. Before the meeting, Cox was observed around the pool area by Neimesser. Cox did not attend the private meeting with McGhee, Neimesser and Escudero but did attend the meeting with the Ft. Myers employees. On September 13, 1988, Neimesser reported to Jordan that Cox had failed to attend the private meeting. On September 14, 1988, as instructed by Jordan, Brannon informed Cox that he was relieved of his duties as Regional Director. Cox was not given an opportunity to explain his failure to attend the private meeting in Ft. Myers, Florida before relieving him of his duties as Regional Director. Although Cox was relieved of his duties as Regional Director, he continued in the employment of Council 79 assisting McGhee in negotiating contracts and other matters. By letter dated September 14, 1988, Jordan appointed David McGhee Acting Regional Director of Region III. McGhee, a black male, employed by the International which Council 79 was affiliated. McGhee was the Assistant Area Director for International and its staff person with responsibility for Region III. McGhee assumed the responsibilities of Acting Regional Director for Region III on September 14, 1988.. McGhee is not now nor has he ever been on the payroll of Council 79. McGhee is continues to be the Acting Regional Director for Region III, and in addition to reporting to Jordan, reports to Gilbert Escudero, a Hispanic male, Area Director for the International and to Gerald McEntee, a white male, president of the International. On September 19, 1988, Cox voluntarily entered Horizon Hospital for treatment. Upon entering Horizon, Cox described his condition as being depressed and unable to function. Cox also described a previous history of excessive alcohol intake to the point of intoxication every weekend since his early twenties. However, there was insufficient evidence to show that Cox was suffering from alcoholism. Cox did not advise Jordan or McGhee or anyone else in authority with Council 79 that he was entering Horizon for treatment, or more specifically that he was being treated for alcoholism. Although Jordan and other employees of Council 79 may have known that Cox consumed alcohol, even to the point of intoxication on occasions, there is insufficient evidence to show that either Jordan or any other employee of Council 79 were aware that Cox had a problem with alcohol, or more specifically that Cox was suffering for alcoholism. As requested by Jordan, McGhee, by letter dated November 1, 1988, reported the problems he had encountered in the Regional Office since assuming the duties of Acting Regional Director. The report basically advised Jordan of the the problems that had been reported earlier by Serrano, Newell, Leon and Lehning. Additionally, McGhee reported on Cox's failure to negotiate contracts with the city of North Port and Local 167, Hillsborough County before they expired on September 30, 1988. As requested by Jordan, Linoria Anthony prepared a report concerning Cox's failure to negotiate contracts for several local unions in Region III with their employers. However, this report, initially offered as evidence, was withdrawn because Council 79 was unable to furnish a complete copy. On November 3, 1988, Charles Brannon was instructed by Jordan to secure Cox's resignation or to terminate his employment with Council 79. Cox resigned after being given the choices by Brannon. Upon resigning, Cox was to be given certain concessions, including one month's severance pay. Council 79 failed to honor this agreement with Cox, and he obtain a judgment in the County Court of Hillsborough County which was eventually satisfied. While Jordan's decision to effectively terminate Cox's employment (discharge) without first counseling or advising Cox on the problems in Region III as reported to her, and giving him an opportunity to correct those problems may not have been the correct or morally right decision, there is sufficient competent, substantial evidence to establish facts to show that Jordan did not terminate Cox's employment because of his race (white) or alleged handicap (alcoholism).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner, Robert Cox, was not discharged due to his race or alleged handicap in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, and that the Petition For Relief be Dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 9th day of July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statute, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Respondent in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner The Petitioner did not file any Proposed Findings of Fact. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order, The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3(3); 4(4); 5(4); 6(5); 7(6&7), 9(6); 10(9); 11(10); 12(11); 13(12); 14(13); 16(16&17); 17- 18(18); 19-20(14) and 21(19). Proposed finding of fact 8 is rejected as not being supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record, except for thesecond phrase, that complaints did not stop, which is adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 6. Proposed finding of fact 15 is neither material nor relevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 125 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Robert Cox, Pro se 8514-#3, Daffodil Drive Hudson, FL 34667 Ben R. Patterson, Esquire Patterson and Traynham 315 Beard Street Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, FL 32315
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent due to Petitioner's race in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent hired Petitioner on October 13, 1997, as a maintenance operator. Six months later he was promoted to the position of Maintenance Technician I. During his employment, Petitioner was one of six technicians. He was the only black technician. Petitioner was initially paid at a rate of $6.00 per hour. He received no pay increase with his first promotion. His yearly evaluation was delayed, but finally received by him on December 7, 1998. His evaluation for 1999 was received by December 23, 1999. His wages had climbed by this time to $8.40 per hour. His evaluations were satisfactory or above. Although Petitioner had been told he would be provided training on the job, he was relegated to the night shift, working by himself. As a consequence, he educated himself on maintenance of Respondent’s facility. In 1999, all technicians were to receive formal training. Another technician, who was white and lower in seniority than Petitioner, was selected for training before Petitioner. When Petitioner brought this to the attention of a supervisor, Petitioner was sent to other training provided by Siemen’s Corporation in Atlanta, Georgia. Petitioner stated he was treated unfairly because he was required to absorb the cost of lodging for the first night in Atlanta, prior to commencement of training. The five other technicians employed by Respondent were being paid a minimum of $11.00 per hour when Petitioner, on or about May 5, 2000, requested an increase from his current $8.40 per hour rate to $10.00 per hour. His supervisor responded that he could not grant the increase. An argument ensued and Petitioner left the office and returned to work. Later that day, Respondent’s human resource officer contacted Petitioner. He informed Petitioner that Petitioner’s employment was terminated due to “insubordination.” On Respondent’s termination form, the reason listed for Petitioner’s termination was insubordination and using “slanders to his senior manager.” The form also listed Petitioner’s absence from work on Saturday, April 29, 2000, as a reason for employment termination. In rebuttal, Petitioner produced a copy of an annual leave slip at final hearing requesting approval of his absence on the date in question. Petitioner had accumulated ample leave to cover the requested time. Respondent’s approving authority failed to approve Petitioner’s absence, but no notification was given to Petitioner. Respondent’s claim of unauthorized absence is effectively rebutted. According to a copy of a letter dated June 19, 2003, and received by DOAH on June 24, 2003, bearing the purported signature of David Anderson, registered agent for Respondent on June 20, 2002, Respondent was reputed to have ceased operation. According to statements contained in the letter, the Bank of America sold Respondent on March 10, 2002, in the “form of rights in collateral.” The letter additionally stated “unliquidated assets” in the bankruptcy were “sold in a Section 363 auction” on May 23, 2002. No direct evidence was presented on behalf of Respondent corroborating the contents of the letter and consequently the letter is not credited. Petitioner produced documentation at the final hearing, specifically a corporation reinstatement form issued by the Florida Department of State, documenting Respondent’s continued existence as of April 22, 2002.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered directing that Respondent to cease the discriminatory employment practice evidenced in this case and awarding Petitioner back pay at the rate of $10.00 per hour for each normal 40-hour work week between May 5, 2000, and the present. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael F. Coppins, Esquire Coppins & Monroe Post Office Box 14447 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4447 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dwight E. Mazion 1713 Calgary Drive Desoto, Texas 75115 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
