The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent violated Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, as alleged, by its refusal to allow Petitioner to rescind a resignation.
Findings Of Fact Ardie Collins, a Black female, lives in Rockledge, Florida, and is currently self-employed as a beauty salon owner. She began working for the State of Florida in 1973, as a salon inspector with the Cosmetology Board. She maintained her title of investigator and continued employment after reorganization with the Department of Occupational and Professional Regulation and the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR), as the agency is now known. During the relevant period Ms. Collins worked out of the DPR Regional Office in Orlando. In August 1982, Ms. Collins was terminated by DPR. The case went to arbitration, and by order of the arbitrator dated December 17, 1982, she was reinstated with full back pay. She reported back to work on February 10, 1983. In January 1983, before she reported back to work Ms. Collins went to see the AFSME union representative, Eric Tait, in Cocoa. The union had represented her in the 1982 proceeding and Tait had assisted the union. In that January meeting, two letters were drafted, later typed by a clerk and signed by Ms. Collins. These letters were characterized by both Ms. Collins and Eric Tait as "intent to resign" and a letter of resignation. The "intent to resign" is dated, in error, January 12, 1982, and is addressed to Howard Kirkland, Personnel Officer. It provides, This is to inform you that it is my intention to submit my resignation from State Employment, effective June 6, 1983. This resignation is now held by Eric D. Tait, AFSME President, Local 3040. (Petitioner's Exhibit #2) The second letter is dated June 6, 1983, is also addressed to Howard Kirkland, and provides: Kindly accept this as my resignation as Investigator with the Department of Professional Regulation effective June 6, 1983. The Department of Professional Regulation has informed me that as of June 6, 1983 I will have completed 10 years creditable service in the Florida Retirement System. (Petitioner's Exhibit #11) The first letter was mailed to DPR in Tallahassee and the second was held by Eric Tait. The January 12th letter was stamped received in the DPR Personnel office on January 24, 1983. Howard Kirkland took this letter to be a resignation. He discussed it with the Division Director and with the Assistant Secretary and was authorized to accept the resignation. He then sent a letter to Ardie Collins, dated January 25, 1983, stating: Please be advised that we have accepted your resignation from employment with this agency effective June 6, 1983. (Petitioner's Exhibit # 3) Later, on January 31, 1983, in response to a contact from Eric Tait, James Kirkland sent a letter to Ms. Collins explaining that, if necessary, her date of resignation would be extended to insure that she had the necessary ten years of creditable service. DPR commenced advertisement and recruitment to fill the anticipated vacancy. Sometime in early May 1983, Eric Tait mailed the second letter dated June 6, 1983. The letter was stamped received in the DPR Office of Personnel on May 5, 1983. On May 6, 1983, Ms. Collins wrote to Howard Kirkland informing him: Notice is hereby given that proposed or intended resignation is cancelled until further notice. (Petitioner's Exhibit #7) Between January and May, DPR received no word from Ms. Collins or her representative about her resignation. Kirkland again discussed the matter with his supervisor and responded by letter to Ms. Collins dated May 25, 1983, that her voluntary resignation had already been accepted in good faith. (Petitioner's Exhibit #8) There is no written policy or rule at DPR regarding the rescinding of resignations. The agency follows the general personnel management principle that until the resignation is accepted, withdrawal is negotiable; after acceptance, withdrawal is solely within management prerogative. Generally it is considered bad personnel management to permit an employee to rescind a resignation once it is accepted, and in particular, once the position is advertised. Ms. Collins claims that DPR has allowed other employees, white males and females, and black males, to rescind resignations. In his personal knowledge, and after reviewing DPR personnel files, James Kirkland found one individual who was allowed to rescind a resignation - a clerk, who had given probably only an oral notice and shortly later asked to withdraw it. In that case, nothing had been done to act on the resignation. The individuals named by Ms. Collins: Robert Fleming, Edward Bludworth, and Will Merrill, were not allowed to rescind resignations. Rather, they each reapplied after leaving DPR. Each was hired again on probationary status. Ms. Collins claims that she reapplied by mail to DPR sometime in late June 1983. However, neither the Tallahassee office nor the Orlando regional office have a record of her application. If she had reapplied for a vacant position, she would have been considered with the rest of the applicants. DPR has received resignations from employees in a variety of forms and in various ways. Sometimes resignations are submitted directly to an immediate supervisor; other times they are directed to the personnel officer. It is not uncommon to have a resignation expressed as an "intent to resign". DPR acted in good faith and consistent with established personnel practices when it accepted Ms. Collins' letter dated January 12th as a resignation and when it refused to allow her to rescind that resignation when requested some four months later. DPR determined that Ms. Collins had obtained her ten years of service as of June 6, 1983. This was the only condition regarding her date of resignation of which it was on notice. The agency received both the "intent to resign" and the "resignation" letter prior to receiving Ms. Collins' "cancellation". The agency simply ratified its acceptance in its response to Ms. Collins.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner received notice of the August 19, 2005, administrative hearing, and if not, whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on his race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. In the fall of 2004, Petitioner's cousin, Barry Walker, worked for Respondent as a cook. Mr. Walker recommended that Respondent hire Petitioner as a dishwasher. James Pigneri, Respondent's owner, interviewed Petitioner and decided to hire him as a dishwasher on a trial basis. Petitioner began washing dishes for Respondent in September 2004. In October 2004, Petitioner began a 90-day probationary period as Respondent's dishwasher. At that time, PMI Employee Leasing (PMI) became Petitioner's co-employer. PMI has a contractual relationship with Respondent. Through this contract, PMI assumes responsibility for Respondent's human resource issues, payroll needs, employee benefits, and workers’ compensation coverage. On October 10, 2004, Petitioner signed an acknowledgement that he had received a copy of PMI's employee handbook, which included PMI's policies on discrimination, harassment, or other civil rights violations. The handbook states that employees must immediately notify PMI for certain workplace claims, including but not limited to, claims involving release from work, labor relation problems, and discrimination. The handbook requires employees to inform PMI within 48 hours if employment ceases for any reason. PMI's discrimination and harassment policies provide employees with a toll-free telephone number. When an employee makes a complaint or files a grievance, PMI performs an investigation and takes any corrective action that is required. The cook-line in Respondent's kitchen consist of work stations for all sauté and grill cooks. The cook-line runs parallel to a row of glass windows between the kitchen and the dining room and around the corner between the kitchen and the outside deck. Customers in the dining room and on the deck can see all of the cooks preparing food at the work stations along the cook-line. On the evening of December 18, 2004, Respondent's business was crowded with customers in the dining room and on the deck. On December 18, 2004, Petitioner was working in Respondent's kitchen. Sometime during the dinner shift, Petitioner was standing on the cook-line near the windows, talking to a cook named Bob. Petitioner was discussing a scar on his body. During the discussion, Petitioner raised his shirt, exposing his chest, arm, and armpit. The cook named Bob told Petitioner to put his shirt down. Erin Pigneri, a white male, is the son of Respondent's owner, James Pignari. As one of Respondent's certified food managers, Erin Pigneri must be vigilant about compliance with health code regulations when he works as Respondent's shift manager. Erin Pigneri has authority to recommend that employees be fired, but his father, James Pigneri, makes the final employment decision. On December 18, 2004, Erin Pigneri, was working as Respondent's manager and was in charge of the restaurant because his father was not working that night. When Erin Pigneri saw Petitioner with his shirt raised up, he yelled out for Petitioner put his shirt back on and to get off the cook-line. Erin Pigneri was alarmed to see Petitioner with his shirt off on the cook-line because customers could see Petitioner and because Petitioner's action violated the health code. Petitioner's reaction was immediately insubordinate. Petitioner told Erin Pigneri that he could not speak to Petitioner in that tone of voice. Erin Pigneri had to tell Petitioner several times to put his shirt on, explaining that Petitioner was committing a major health-code violation. When Petitioner walked up to Erin Pigneri, the two men began to confront each other using profanity but no racial slurs. Erin Pigneri finally told Petitioner that, "I'm a 35- year-old man and no 19-year-old punk is going to talk to me in that manner and if you don't like it, you can leave." Erin Pigneri did not use a racial slur or tell Petitioner to "paint yourself white." After the confrontation, Erin Pigneri left the kitchen. Petitioner went back to work, completing his shift without further incident. Petitioner did not have further conversation with Erin Pigneri on the evening of December 18, 2004. Erin Pigneri did not discuss Petitioner or the shirt incident with any of the waiters or any other staff members that night. On Monday evening, December 20, 2004, Erin Pigneri was in the restaurant when Petitioner and his cousin, Mr. Walker, came to work. Petitioner was dressed in nicer clothes than he usually wore to work. Mr. Walker approached Erin and James Pigneri, telling them that they needed to have a meeting. Erin and James Pigneri followed Petitioner and Mr. Walker into the kitchen. The conversation began with Mr. Walker complaining that he understood some racist things were going on at the restaurant. Mr. Walker wanted talk about Erin Pigneri's alleged use of the "N" word. Erin Pigneri did not understand Mr. Walker's concern because Mr. Walker had been at work on the cook-line during the December 18, 2004, shirt incident. According to Petitioner's testimony at the hearing, Mr. Walker had talked to a waiter over the weekend. The waiter was Mr. Walker's girlfriend. Petitioner testified that the waiter/girlfriend told Mr. Walker that she heard Erin Pigneri use the "N" word in reference to Petitioner after Erin Pigneri left the kitchen after the shirt incident on December 18, 2004. Petitioner testified that neither he nor Mr. Walker had first- hand knowledge of Erin Pigneri's alleged use the "N" word in the dining room. Neither Mr. Walker nor the waiter provided testimony at the hearing. Accordingly, this hearsay evidence is not competent evidence that Erin Pigneri used a racial slur in the dining room after the "shirt incident." During the meeting on December 20, 2004, Erin Pigneri explained to Petitioner and Mr. Walker that the incident on December 18, 2004, involved Petitioner's insubordination and not racism. Mr. Walker wanted to know why Erin Pigneri had not fired Petitioner on Saturday night if he had been insubordinate. Erin Pigneri told Mr. Walker that he would have fired Petitioner but he did not want Respondent to lose Mr. Walker as an employee. Apparently, it is relatively easy to replace a dishwasher but not easy to replace a cook like Mr. Walker. Erin Pigneri asked Mr. Walker and another African- American who worked in the kitchen whether they had ever heard him make derogatory racial slurs. There is no persuasive evidence that Erin Pigneri ever made such comments even though Petitioner occasionally, and in a joking manner, called Erin Pigneri slang names like Cracker, Dago, and Guinea. Petitioner was present when Mr. Walker and Erin Pigneri discussed the alleged racial slurs. Petitioner's only contribution to the conversation was to repeatedly ask whether he was fired. Erin Pigneri never told Petitioner he was fired. After hearing Mr. Walker's concern and Erin Pigneri's explanation, James Pigneri specifically told Petitioner that he was not fired. James Pigneri told Petitioner that he needed to talk to Erin Pigneri and that they needed to work things out, man-to-man. After the meeting, Mr. Walker began his work for the evening shift on December 20, 2004. Petitioner walked around talking on his cell phone, telling his mother that he had been fired and she needed to pick him up. James Pigneri told Petitioner again that he was not fired, that Petitioner should go talk to Erin Pigneri, and that Erin Pigneri was waiting to talk to Petitioner. Erin Pigneri waited in his office for Petitioner to come in to see him. Petitioner never took advantage of that opportunity. During the hearing, Petitioner testified that James Pigneri made an alleged racial slur in reference to Petitioner at some unidentified point in time. According to Petitioner, he learned about the alleged racial slur second-hand from a cook named Bob. Bob did not testify at the hearing; therefore, there is no competent evidence that James Pigneri ever made a racial slur in reference to Petitioner or any other employee. Contrary to PMI's reporting procedures, Petitioner never called or informed PMI that he had been harassed, discriminated against, fired, terminated, or ceased working for Respondent for any reason. On December 22, 2004, PMI correctly concluded that Petitioner had voluntarily terminated or abandoned his employment. When Petitioner filed his Employment Complaint of Discrimination on January 11, 2005, Petitioner listed his address as 6526 Lance Street, Panama City, Florida, which is his mother's residence. On April 18, 2005, FCHR sent the Determination: No Cause to Petitioner at 6501 Pridgen Street, Panama City, Florida, which is the address of one of Petitioner's friends. When Petitioner filed his Petition for Relief on May 25, 2005, Petitioner listed his address the same as his mother's home. FCHR transmitted the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings, indicating that Petitioner's address of record was the same as his friend's home. Therefore, the June 9, 2005, Notice of Hearing, and the July 12, 2005, Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing were sent to Petitioner at his friend's address. During the hearing, Petitioner admitted that between January 2005 and August 2005, he lived back and forth between his mother's and his friend's residences. When he lived with his friend, Petitioner did not check his mail at his mother's home every day. However, Petitioner admitted that he received the June 9, 2005, Notice of Hearing, scheduling the hearing for July 18, 2005, and the July 12, 2005, Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing for August 19, 2005. Petitioner testified that he knew the first hearing was rescheduled to take place on August 19, 2005. According to Petitioner, he misplaced the "papers" identifying the location of the hearing at the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims in Panama City, Florida. Petitioner asserts that he went to the county courthouse on August 19, 2005, based on his erroneous belief that the hearing was to take place at that location. After determining that there was no administrative hearing scheduled at the county courthouse on August 19, 2005, Petitioner did not attempt to call FCHR or the Division of Administrative Hearings. On December 1, 2005, the undersigned sent Petitioner a Notice of Hearing, scheduling the hearing after remand for January 25, 2005. The December 1, 2005, Notice of Hearing was sent to Petitioner at his mother's and his friend's addresses. The copy of the notice sent to his friend's home was returned as undeliverable. During the hearing on January 25, 2005, Petitioner testified that he used one of the earlier notices (dated June 9, 2005, and/or July 12, 2005) to locate the hearing site for that day. This was necessary because Petitioner had misplaced the December 1, 2005, Notice of Hearing. All three notices have listed the hearing site as the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims, 2401 State Avenue, Panama City, Florida.
Recommendation Based on 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 23rd day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Wheeler, Esquire McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod Pope & Weaver, P.A. Post Office Box 550770 Jacksonville, Florida 32255-0770 Marlow Williams 6526 Lance Street Panama City, Florida 32404
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice with regard to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Sorey is an African-American woman who at the time of the hearing was a resident of Panama City, Florida. Mastercorp was Ms. Sorey's employer at all relevant times and is engaged in the business of providing housekeeping and cleaning services to timeshare resorts in the State of Florida and elsewhere. Mastercorp has its headquarters in Crossville, Tennessee. Ms. Sorey was employed by Mastercorp at a resort in Panama City called the Landmark, from August 2005 until Mastercorp's contract with Landmark ended in September 2006. Ms. Sorey began her employment with Mastercorp at Landmark as a housekeeping supervisor. She was eventually assigned to the laundry. It was while working in the laundry at Landmark that she alleged discriminatory treatment. Ms. Sorey was supervised by an executive housekeeper (EH) and an assistant EH. The EH and assistant EH are management level employees who are supervised by area, district, or regional managers, and ultimately by corporate managers working out of the Crossville office. An EH is responsible for all operations at a client property, including budgeting and supervising all Mastercorp employees located there. Miguel Palacios began his career with Mastercorp in 2004 as an assistant EH and worked his way up to EH at a client property in the Orlando area. Later, he was used as a roving manager by Mastercorp. As a roving manager, he was assigned to "problem properties." It was his job to ameliorate whatever was causing a property to be a "problem property." Mr. Palacios was assigned to Landmark because operations there were unsatisfactory and, as a result, Mastercorp was in danger of losing its contract. Mr. Palacios was instructed to support the existing EH at Landmark. Later, he took charge of the operation and ran it until a new EH, Wilmer Gonzalez, was hired. Ms. Sorey was working at Landmark when Mr. Palacios assumed his duties there. Debbie Green was one of Mastercorp's housekeeping supervisors at Landmark. Ms. Green is an African-American. Because of her excellent performance, Ms. Green became Mr. Palacio's acting assistant while he was in charge of the Landmark property. Mastercorp's Vice President of Operations, David Maier, visited the Landmark property in March 2006 and told Ms. Sorey that he was impressed with her work in the laundry. He complimented her on the good job she was doing there. Mr. Maier made a remark to Ms. Sorey to the effect that she should be her "own boss." Ms. Sorey interpreted this to mean she could run the laundry as she wished, and without supervision. This was the first of several incorrect assumptions made by Ms. Sorey. When a district manager questioned her placement in the laundry, she attempted to contact Mr. Maier for clarification, but was not able to do so. Payment for working overtime at Landmark was permitted only when approved by the EH. This was a policy dictated by the requirement for Mastercorp to remain within its budget. Ms. Sorey approached Mr. Gonzalez and Mr. Palacios and informed them that she did not have enough time to complete her laundry during normal working hours and expressed a desire to work and be paid overtime. When rebuffed, Ms. Sorey became frustrated by the demands on her, which, it is found, were substantial. Eventually, Ms. Sorey brought a friend in to help her and the friend was put on the Mastercorp payroll. This alleviated some of the stress felt by Ms. Sorey. Subsequently, a corporate quality inspector named Nell Wilson came to Landmark in June 2006 and gave her department a 100 percent grade on its evaluation and provided a certificate of dedication. Neither Mr. Palacios nor Mr. Gonzalez found time to present the certificate to her. Mr. Palacios, a Puerto Rican, traveled to his native land on vacation in June of 2006 and returned with souvenirs for some of the employees at Landmark. These souvenirs included coffee mugs, liquor, and key chains. He presented Ms. Sorey with a coffee mug. She asserted that she was offended by the coffee mug. She referred to it as an "old devil cup" and considered it to be an inappropriate reflection on her race. Ms. Sorey related at the hearing, "I don't know nothing about Puerto Rico. Coming back here giving me no cup, calling me no black devil." It is clear how a person lacking sophistication in an international sense, or at least a Caribbean sense, could misinterpret the nature of the mug. The mug was black with a Puerto Rican flag superimposed upon it. On one side of the flag were the words "Puerto" and on the other, "Rico." Overlaid on the flag was a figure that vaguely resembled a man that was variously colored green, yellow, and red, and which appeared to be wearing a blue suit. The figure wore a cape with a yellow lining. The mug had the word "Vejigantes" written on it. In certain parts of Puerto Rico, Vejigantes are masks worn by dancers in carnivals. They represent various things such as strength and harmony. The masks are part of Puerto Rican culture and have nothing to do with race except that the festival itself may have had roots in Africa. Although Ms. Sorey appeared to be grateful at the time she was given the mug, two or three days later she called Gloria Turner, the general manager of the Landmark, telling her that she was offended by it. This was relayed to Mr. Palacios who went to Ms. Sorey and told her that he meant no offense and offered to provide her with another gift in return for the mug. She refused this offer. Several days later Mr. Palacios counseled Ms. Sorey because she had worked overtime without approval and was not following the direction of Mr. Gonzalez. This was memorialized in a written memorandum dated June 25, 2006. Subsequently, Ms. Sorey submitted a handwritten complaint, dated July 3, 2006, to Mastercorp's employee leasing company, Oasis. This was forwarded to Mastercorp because Ms. Sorey was an employee of Mastercorp. The aforementioned document was four and one-half pages long and complained about work issues relating to time and amount of work. The sole issue that could be interpreted as addressing race was this sentence: "Miguel Palacio went to Puerto Rico and when he came back he came to the laundry and gave me a black cup and on the cup was a body and a face like a devil like he is call me a black devil. This face had red horn on it and at the top of the cup have these letter 'Vejigantes.'" The July 3, 2006, memorandum was the only complaint that Mastercorp received from Ms. Sorey, and, as noted above, it was received indirectly. Nevertheless, Whitney Stoker, an employee in the human resources department in the Crossville, Tennessee headquarters was tasked to conduct an investigation into the matter. In effecting her investigation, Ms. Stoker interviewed Mr. Palacios. She attempted to contact Ms. Sorey by telephone on five occasions. She left messages imploring Ms. Sorey to provide her with details surrounding her complaint. Ms. Sorey had an ample opportunity to amplify the information contained in the complaint, but chose not to provide additional information. Ms. Stoker also conducted an Internet search into the matter of the "Vejigantes" mask that was featured on the mug, using the Yahoo search engine. She discovered that it was indeed a character signifying various aspects of Puerto Rican culture and related to festivals held in some Puerto Rican towns. She discovered that it had nothing to do with race or insulting someone. Mastercorp's contract with Landmark was by its terms set to expire in September 2006. In July or August 2006 it became clear that Mastercorp would not obtain another contract with Landmark and, therefore, there would be no more work there for Mastercorp's employees. However, a new opportunity for work arose in Mastercorp's contract at Club Destin, in Destin, Florida. Mr. Palacios took nine of the Panama City employees to the Destin job. There were not enough positions in Destin available for everyone who had been employed at the Landmark job. He did not consider race in deciding who would be offered employment in Destin. He was not concerned about the complaint Ms. Sorey had made. Ms. Sorey did not ask to be employed at Destin, and Mr. Palacios did not ask her to work there. Ms. Sorey did not complain at the time that she was not offered one of the positions in Destin. One of the employees employed at the Destin property was Donna Ponds, an African-American. She was trained at Landmark, but was hired in anticipation that she would work at Club Destin. She was hired as the EH at Club Destin. No evidence was adduced that indicated that anyone of another race was treated differently or more favorably than Ms. Sorey. Mr. Palacios did not need any help in the laundry at Club Destin because the property manager there was successfully using foreign exchange students. Ms. Sorey expressed no desire to move to the Destin facility at the time staffing decisions were being made. During the hearing she was asked, "Did you want to go to Destin." She answered, "Not really." Ms. Sorey's allegations of harassment, disparate treatment, and retaliation were precipitated by her anger at management due to having to work hard and not being allowed to incur overtime; the pressure she felt at not having enough time to complete her duties; and her opinion that she was not sufficiently recognized for her work in the laundry. No evidence whatsoever was adduced that adverse working conditions were precipitated by racial prejudice.
Recommendation it is Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 September, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Timothy Nathan Tack, Esquire Kunkel Miller & Hament 15438 North Florida Avenue, Suite 202 Tampa, Florida 33613 Judy Sorey 1025 North Everitt Avenue, Apt. A-3 Panama City, Florida 32401 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black male who, on July 3, 1978, applied for employment at Respondent's West Palm Beach, Florida terminal. On that date, Petitioner completed a "Job Seeker Form" and an Application for Employment. In these documents, Petitioner requested employment by Respondent as a "city driver" or as a dock worker. Petitioner did not indicate that he sought employment as a "road driver". The "Job Seeker Form" utilized by Respondent is a form which Respondent is required to use in its hiring process by the terms of a consent decree entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. This form is used to provide basic information about a job applicant. By use of this device, job applicants having a current Job Seeker Form on file with one of Respondent's local terminal offices can be contacted when a position for which employment is sought becomes available. By the terms of the aforementioned consent decree, and by the terms of the form itself, the Job Seeker Form is valid for either 15 or 42 days, depending upon the position sought, and may be renewed indefinitely either in person or by mail. In Petitioner's case, the Job Seeker Form was valid for a period of 15 days by virtue of his application for employment as either a "city driver" or "dock worker". Petitioner's Job Seeker Form was renewed on at least five occasions, the last occasion occurring on September 8, 1978. Thus, by its terms, Petitioner's Job Seeker Form expired 15 days after the last renewal date on September 8, 1978. In accordance with Respondent's company policy, Petitioner was required to obtain a physical examination, back X-ray and polygraph test at his own expense prior to being considered for employment. Respondent requested that Petitioner report for work to its West Palm Beach facility as a "casual" dock worker on August 12, 1978. Petitioner worked on that date, and received a total of $39.88 in wages. After August 12, 1978, Petitioner never again worked for Respondent, and when he inquired about additional work, was informed that work was "slow", and that he would be contacted when additional work was available. It appears from the record in this proceeding that Respondent utilizes job applicants whose "Job Seeker Forms" are on file as "casual" workers until such time as a full-time position becomes available. As indicated above, Petitioner was used as such a "casual" worker on August 12, 1978. Respondent admits that it employs no black full-time employees and only one black part-time employee at its West Palm Beach facility. However, this record reveals that there were no full-time job openings available as either a "city driver" or "dock worker" at Respondent's West Palm Beach terminal during the period in which Petitioner's "Job Seeker Form" was properly on file with Respondent. In fact, no full-time employees were hired at Respondent's West Palm Beach terminal as either a "city driver" or dock worker prior to the expiration of Petitioner's "Job Seeker Form". During the period from July 3, 1978, when Petitioner initially applied for employment with Respondent, through September 23, 1978, when his "Job Seeker Form" expired, the Respondent conducted an investigation into Petitioner's prior employment record as a truck driver, as required by applicable federal regulations. This investigation disclosed numerous discrepancies between the facts represented by Petitioner on his Application for Employment with Respondent, and records maintained by his prior employers. In his Application for Employment with Respondent, Petitioner listed Watkins Motor Lines among his prior employers. When Respondent obtained copies of the records of Watkins Motor Lines, it discovered that Petitioner had listed the names of employers and periods of employment with Watkins that were different from those contained in the application filed with Respondent. In addition, Respondent discovered that Petitioner had been discharged from Watkins' employ for abandoning a load of freight, and that Watkins would not reemploy Petitioner or recommend that Petitioner be employed for a position as a truck driver. Among Respondent's adopted minimum hiring standards are the requirements that a job applicant possess a "(s)atisfactory record of prior employment . . .", and that, if the applicant is a veteran, that he possess a ". . . satisfactory military record and [be] discharged under honorable conditions." In his Watkins application, Petitioner indicated that he had never served in the military, and on his application filed with Respondent, Petitioner failed to respond to an inquiry regarding military status. In fact, in his testimony at the hearing, Petitioner revealed that he had served in the United States Marine Corps, and that he had received a dishonorable discharge on the basis of an inability to "adjust to military life". The Application for Employment form which Petitioner submitted to Respondent contained a request that Petitioner list all motor vehicle accidents in which he had been involved during the three-year period immediately preceding the date of application. Petitioner listed no such accidents in his application. However, when Respondent checked his prior employment record with Watkins Motor Lines, Respondent discovered that Petitioner had been involved in an accident approximately six months previously, while driving a truck for Watkins Motor Lines. Petitioner testified that he did not list this accident on his application with Respondent because he considered it "minor". At the time he submitted his application to Respondent, Petitioner did not hold a then current Florida driver's license which would have enabled him to drive a truck for Respondent in the State of Florida. Employment statistics maintained by Respondent show that as of March 7, 1980, Respondent employed 203 full-time drivers in the State of Florida in the category in which Petitioner had applied for employment. Of these drivers, 41 were black; one, Oriental; and l7, Hispanic. As a result, approximately 20.2 percent of Respondent's work force in this category were black, which is above the job market availability for black driver employees. In addition, Respondent employs, on a statewide basis, nine full-time dock workers, three of whom are black. These statistics tend to show that Respondent does not engage in a pattern or practice of discrimination against blacks.
The Issue Whether the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of race or handicap in discharging him from employment on February 25, 1992; and whether the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against the Petitioner and other black employees in pay for similar jobs.
Findings Of Fact During the summer of 1988, Larry Jelks, a black male, approached Jerry Sikes, the Director of Public Works of Suwannee Country, seeking employment. Petitioner, Jelks, explained and Sikes was aware that Petitioner had significant experience as a welder. Several weeks later, Sikes contacted Jelks and offered him a job as a laborer. The Petitioner began work of August 16, 1988 with a starting pay of $5.00/hour in the position of laborer, an entry level, unskilled job classification. The Petitioner received a copy of the employer's regulations. On August 24, 1988, the Petitioner was promoted to Serviceman, and his pay increased to $6.00/hour. On October 12, 1988, Sikes hired Mr. Praley, a white male, as a welder, although his expertise was as a mechanic and Praley was subsequently assigned duties as a mechanic by Sikes. Praley was paid a starting salary of $6.50/hour. The welder/mechanic position was open when Jelks was hired. On November 24, 1988, Petitioner completed his 100 day probation and given his annual 5 percent raise, increasing his pay to $6.30/hour. Other black employees also had their pay raises delayed until after their probation was completed. White employees, including Praley, received their annual raises in the year of their initial employment, notwithstanding their probationary status. This discrepancy in treatment of employees was not explained by the County. On September 30, 1989, the Petitioner laterally transferred to the position of truck driver for the refuse collection service because he did not enjoy the work of a serviceman. One October 1, 1989, Petitioner received an annual raise of 4 percent, to $6.56/hour. Subsequently, the axle in Petitioner's truck broke, and when he was questioned about it, he asked for a transfer. On March 3, 1990, the Petitioner was transferred to a shop position in which he repaired rusted or damaged garbage bins (dumpsters), by welding new sides and bottoms on them. The sheets of steel which Petitioner welded on the bins were 6 feet by 12 feet in size and 1/16" thick, and weighed approximately 180 pounds. These sheets were generally cut into smaller pieces prior to being moved from the stack in which they were stored. These pieces of material had to be moved into position to be cut and welded. The bins were moved using backhoes and forklifts. The Petitioner was responsible for moving the pieces of sheet steel and using the equipment to move the bins. On March 17, 1990, the Petitioner received a 5 percent pay increase to $6.89/hour. On April 28, 1990, the Petitioner received a 5 percent raise to $7.24/hour. On October 1, 1990, the Petitioner was given a 5 percent raise to $7.61/hour. In early 1991, the Petitioner's child became critically ill, and the Petitioner obtained leave to be with the child. In addition, Jerry Sikes approved flexibility in the Petitioner's scheduling to permit him be with the child conditioned upon Petitioner letting his supervisors know what he was doing and when he was going to be away from his job. Problems were encountered with Petitioner's attendance, and he was counseled about this and given a copy of the Country's leave policy. Generally, however, the Petitioner's performance was satisfactory, and he was considered a good and valued employee. On September 23, 1991, the Petitioner suffered a job- related injury, and was placed upon workers' compensation leave. The Petitioner received workers' compensation and disability benefits during his leave. During his absence the other employees performed his welding duties. While on leave, the Petitioner received a 3 percent pay increase to $7.84/hour. On November 25, 1991, Sikes wrote Petitioner a letter advising that he was required to submit doctor's notes concerning his absences while on workers compensation leave. On December 20, 1991, John B. Roberts, the County's workers' compensation (rehabilitation) consultant contacted Sikes and asked Sikes to identify an alternative position the duties of which the Petitioner could perform. Sikes advised Roberts that the County had no light duty jobs, but that driving a truck was one of the least physically demanding jobs in the County's maintenance department. He advised Roberts that he would assign the Petitioner to drive one of the light dump trucks if he returned to work. These trucks have an especially rough ride when operated off road, as these were. Roberts looked at the duties of the job, and determined that the Petitioner ought to be able to perform these duties. Roberts discussed returning to work and performing the duties of a truck driver with the Petitioner; however, the Petitioner advised Roberts that he wanted to talk with his attorney prior to returning to work. The Petitioner did not return and assume the duties of driving a truck in December as Roberts had arranged. On January 2, 1992, the Petitioner was sent a copy of a letter which was to Mr. Larry Sikes from Dr. Cason who had been treating Petitioner. The letter stated that the Petitioner was released from treatment to return to regular work activities as of January 2, 1992. On January 3, 1992, the Petitioner returned to work. He had a 4 percent permanent impairment, but his employer was not advised of this. His doctor advised the rehabilitation counselor that the Petitioner be placed on light duty because he would have to toughen up after returning to work. Sikes did not afford the Petitioner the opportunity to work back into the job. The Petitioner's work area was outside, behind the regular shop, exposed to the elements. It was very cold at the time the Petitioner returned to work. The Petitioner's production was low because he could not physically manhandle the large sheets of steel as he could prior to his injury. He asked that an inmate be assigned to work with him all the time, but assistance was denied to the Petitioner. The Petitioner asked for a backhoe, which he had previously modified, to move the bins and sheets around; however, this piece of equipment had been sent to the landfill. He was told to use a front end loader to do this work; however, he went to the landfill and retrieved the backhoe because he had difficulties climbing into the cab of the front end loader. His demands and getting the backhoe without permission created additional conflicts between the Petitioner and his supervisors. On January 8, 1992, Sikes issued the Petitioner a memo concerning his poor productivity and failure to follow the instructions of his supervisor. Prior to his injury, the Petitioner repaired approximately one bin per day. During the period after his return to work, he did approximately one bin every two to three days. When presented with the memorandum, the Petitioner advised that he was unable to do that which he had formerly done. The Petitioner was told that he was expected to do all his regular work. This motivated the Petitioner to return to the doctor and seek a clarification of what he could and could not do. In addition, Petitioner was also seeing a chiropractor regularly for treatment. Petitioner left work almost daily to see the doctor, and frequently did not return. He did not provide his employer with documentation of these visits. The Petitioner asked that an overhead chain hoist, similar to the one which was inside the shop area, be installed in his work area to move the sheets of steel to assist him. His direct supervisor, Mr. Horton, denied the request because it was expensive and required additional construction to support the mechanism. On January 13, 1992, the Petitioner received a second warning for being absent from work without notifying his supervisor. Sikes advised the Petitioner that he would have to comply with the County's personnel regulations which required prior notification and a note from the doctor. Although the Petitioner testified he was absent attending doctor's visits, he presented no other substantiation of these visits at the hearing. On January 22, 1992, the Petitioner submitted, as requested earlier, a report from Dr. James B. Slatery of Gainesville Orthopedic Group, advising that the Petitioner could return to work, but should avoid climbing and limit his lifting over 50 pounds to an occasional basis. A similar report was submitted by Dr. A. C. Bass. The metal sheets the Petitioner was lifting weighed over fifty pounds. The County failed to make accommodations for the Petitioner's physical problems upon his return to work in a manner it had for white employees. The county had placed recovering white employees in positions where they were flagmen, directed traffic, and in similar positions. The county placed the Petitioner back at his regular duties, stated it had no "light duty" positions, and demanded Petitioner perform all his duties to pre-injury standards of productivity. When the Petitioner asked for assistance in lifting the sheets of steel which were in excess of the weight allowance set by his doctor, the County told him to seek assistance from his coworkers, who were instructed to assist him. He had to wait until they finished with their immediate task, and they were less than happy about these interruptions, and going outside where the Petitioner worked. This slowed his production for which he received criticism from his supervisors. The conditions imposed by the employer were not so bad as to constitute a constructive discharge. However, had Petitioner filed an action at that time, he would have proven that he was treated differently than white employees who were accommodated for their physical problems when returning from workman's compensation leave. There was a verbal exchange between the Petitioner and one of his coworkers, Earnest Johns, arising out of their interactions in the shop. The Petitioner told Johns that he "would pass up a bus load of white girls, to make him (Johns) his bitch." Johns complained to Sikes about the Petitioner, and told Sikes, "he needed to do something about that Nigger." Sikes told Johns that he would take care of it and to calm down. Johns, who was very upset, subsequently apologized to Sikes for his confrontational manner in raising the matter with him. On January 25, 1992, Sikes sent the Petitioner another memo confirming a verbal warning about his poor work habits, wasting time, and absenteeism. On January 30, 1992, Sikes sent the Petitioner another memo regarding his poor work habits. In February, the Petitioner's wife, from whom he was separated, died, and he was granted three days bereavement leave for February 11-13, 1992. On February 18, 1992, the Petitioner called the shop and left word with a secretary that he would not be at work for the rest of that week. He did not submit a leave request for this period of time. Subsequently, the Petitioner was absent without permission from February 14 until February 24, 1992. The Petitioner did not obtain permission from his supervisors prior to taking this leave, did not request leave without pay, and did to explain his absence. Neither did his doctor, the rehabilitation counselor, his chiropractor, his attorney, or a member of his family or a friend report his absence and give any explanation. During this period, he appeared once at work to pick up his pay check on February 21, 1992. On this occasion the Petitioner did not address the matter of his absence with Sikes or Horton, although Horton advised he Petitioner that Sikes wanted to speak with him. The Petitioner had exhausted all of his sick and vacation leave prior to February 14, 1992. Under the County's rules, an employee had to request leave without pay after exhausting sick and annual leave, and the request had to be approved by the County Commission. The Petitioner did not make a request for leave without pay. Although the Petitioner asserts that he had not exhausted his sick leave because he was visiting the doctor during his absences which was covered by workers' compensation leave, he did not provide medical substantiation for the alleged treatments and doctors' visits as required by the employer's rules in order to obtain workers' compensation leave. On February 25, 1992, the Petitioner returned to work at starting time wearing work clothes. Horton stopped him on his way to his work area, and advised him that Sikes wanted to talk with him. Horton accompanied the Petitioner to Sikes office. Sikes asked the Petitioner were he had been, and the Petitioner answered that he had been attending to personal business. Sikes asked him for a more detailed explanation of his absence, and the Petitioner again told him that he had been tending to business and that Sikes should either fire him or get off his back. Sikes warned the Petitioner that unless he provided some explanation for his unauthorized absence, he would have to terminate him. The Petitioner refused to provide any additional explanation, but asked that his firing be put in writing. The Petitioner left the work place after the meeting, and did not return to work or attempt to explain his absences. Sikes viewed the Petitioner's absences and refusal to obey the personnel regulations as undermining his credibility as a supervisor. Several days after the confrontation on February 25, 1992, Sikes wrote a letter terminating the Petitioner for (1) continued or gross neglect of duty; (2) absence without leave; incompetence or unwillingness to render satisfactory service; insubordination; and (5) habitual absences, as provided in Parts X and XI of the County personnel regulations. Sikes extended special consideration to all employees of the department, who were permitted to take leave or be absent without applying for leave. The Petitioner was permitted to take leave without applying for it, and that considerable latitude was extended to the Petitioner regarding his absences prior to his being discharged. A white male, who was not handicapped, was hired on May 28, 1992 to file the position from which the Petitioner was discharged. The Petitioner appealed his discharge under the County's rules, and after an evidentiary hearing in which the Petitioner was represented by counsel, the county's hearing officer found that the dismissal was for cause in a Final Order dated September 24, 1992. Discrimination in Promotion and Pay among Blacks. The population and labor market statistics offered by the Petitioner in support of his contention that Blacks were discriminated against in promotion fail to support the proposition for which they were offered. For example, the Petitioner limits the labor pool to those persons who are over 16 and worked in 1989. However, there are those persons who are over 16 and would like to work, but who have not been hired. If the Petitioner's contention is correct, one would expect that for every white employee hired, there was a black applicant who was not hired. Therefore, comparisons based upon persons actually hired understate the percentage of Blacks in the labor pool. The relevant labor market for this dispute is Suwannee County, Florida, and the relevant labor pool are those people over 16 years of age who are now seeking, or who have in the past sought employment. According to the 1990 census, 14.7 percent of the population of the County is black. Blacks constitute 13.8 percent of the County's employees. The work environment was not overtly racist, and while, as stated above, racially charged verbal barbs were occasionally exchanged, there is no evidence that this was common or tolerated by the employer. The best evidence of discrimination by the employer were the actual practices engaged in by the County. During the 12 years prior to the termination of the Petitioner, the County had never had a Black supervisor. From 1989 to September 23, 1992, the County hired one black employee of 30 employees who it hired. Its top 10 highest paid employees were all white. The highest paid black was the forty-first highest paid employee of the County. Kevin Praley was placed in a welder's position despite the fact he was a mechanic at $6.50/hour; and Petitioner, who was a professional welder, was hired as a laborer at $5.00/hour in 1988. At the time Praley was hired, the Petitioner was making $6.00/hour, so that the differential between their pay was $.50/hour in 1988. After four years, Praley, who was hired after the Petitioner, was paid $2.01/hour more than the Petitioner for work which Sikes and others said was similar. This reflects continuing discrimination in hiring and paying Blacks. Blacks were hired in the lowest paying, menial jobs within the county, and this was not on the basis of education. All of the county's custodial employees are black. Only one of the county's secretaries is black. Until very recently, there were no black supervisors in the county's maintenance department. Most of the County's increases in Black employment and promotions occurred after institution of this case. The Clerk of the Circuit Court/Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners has not published a salary discrimination review required by Section 28.34, Florida Statutes. Further, the County's Equal Opportunity Program of 1992 provided for annual assessment of its progress in equal opportunity. As of May 9,1994, the County and not compile an annual report pursuant to its plan. The County did not train Black employees to assume greater responsibility, and did not utilize them as heavy equipment operators until after the institution of this action. The county did not pay Jelks and other Black employees annual pay raises while they were on probation; however, it did pay white employees Praley, Hardin, Simmons, Mobley, Luanne Mixon, Tervola, and Brother annual pay raises while they were on probation. These white employees were all hired prior to or during the year the Petitioner was hired. Jelks received the raise at the end of his probation period on November 24, 1988. Helen Stoudermire, Mattie L. Weatherspoon, Tyrone Tillman, and Marvette Gwinn, all black employees of the Respondent, did not receive annual raises while in probationary status, contrary to the treatment afforded white employees. The amounts of their collective salary losses were not presented as a finding of fact. The county did discriminate against the Petitioner and other black employees in pay and promotion during the period 1989 until February 25, 1992.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission of Human Relations enter a Final Order directing that: The Petitioner's Petition for Relief relating to his discharge be dismissed; Black employees of the County be certified as a class for the period beginning August 1988 until the present; The County be ordered to cease and desist its discriminatory practices in pay and promotion against the class of black employees; The County's Clerk be ordered to file reports on salary differentials are required by statute; and Reasonable attorney's fees and costs be awarded to Petitioner's counsel. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 8th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX CASE NO. 93-5330 Both of the parties submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 2 Rejected as contrary to more credible facts. See Paragraph 41. Paragraph 3 True, but part of statement of case. Paragraph 4 Paragraph 11. Paragraph 5 Paragraph 1. Paragraph 6 Subsumed in Paragraph 11. Paragraph 7 Subsumed in Paragraphs 11 and 17. Paragraphs 8,9,10 Paragraph 44. Paragraph 11 Conclusion of Law Paragraph 12 Paragraph 57. Paragraph 13 Contrary to facts. The Petitioner returned to duty. Paragraph 14 Irrelevant. Paragraph 15 Paragraph 48 Paragraphs 16,17,18 Paragraph 51 Paragraph 19,20 Contrary to more credible evidence. Paragraph 21 Subsumed in paragraph 54. Paragraph 22 Paragraph 56. Paragraphs 23,24,25 Paragraphs 2,3,4,58,60 Paragraph 26 Paragraph 26. Paragraphs 27,28 Paragraph 42. Paragraphs 29,30 Subsumed in 2,3,52,53. Paragraph 31 Rejected because Jelks received the raise at the end of his probation period on November 24, 1988. His reduction in pay was $.30/hour for October and November, or 8 weeks X 40 hours X .30 = $96.00. Paragraph 32 County's claims were rejected on this point. Paragraph 33 Paragraph 18 Paragraph 34 The statistical record is rejected for lack of credibility because it considers averages of both groups compared when there are findings which show whites held higher paying jobs. Paragraph 35 Subsumed in paragraph 32. Paragraph 36 Subsumed in paragraph 54. Paragraph 37 Rejected as contrary to better evidence. Paragraph 38 Subsumed in Paragraphs 26,27. Paragraph 39 Paragraphs 29,30. Paragraph 40 Is not addressed specifically because it violated the HO's directions that findings be kept short, and address specific factual matters, and is mostly argument. Paragraph 41 Subsumed in Paragraph 17. Paragraph 42 Paragraph 20. Paragraph 43 The County did accommodate some whites. Paragraph 44 Rejected as contrary to best evidence. Paragraph 45 Paragraph 50. Paragraph 46 Subsumed in Paragraph 55. Paragraph 47 Rejected. Welder and mechanic were the same job description. Paragraph 48 Irrelevant. Paragraph 49 Rejected because "handicap" relates to permanent conditions, and his permanent handicap was only 4 percent. It was his temporary condition which impacted his ability to perform the work. Paragraph 50 Irrelevant. Paragraph 51,52 The name calling by employees, to include Johns, occurred in the context of an angry exchange with Sikes, who cautioned Johns to calm down. Johns subsequently apologized to Sikes, and neither were aware that his comments had been overheard by Jelks. Paragraph 53 Paragraph 51. Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Paragraphs 1-5 Paragraphs 1-6 Paragraph 6 Subsumed in part in 1-6, and rejected in part as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraphs 7,8 Paragraph 6 & rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 9 Rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 10,11 Paragraph 8 Paragraph 12,13,14 Paragraph 9,10 Paragraph 15 Paragraph 29 Paragraph 16 Paragraph 49 Paragraphs 17-23 Paragraphs 11-17 Paragraph 24 Paragraph 21 Paragraph 25 Paragraph 19. Paragraphs 26,27 Irrelevant. Paragraph 28 Paragraph 25 Paragraph 29 Paragraph 17 Paragraph 30 Rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 31 Paragraph 28. Paragraph 32 Irrelevant. Paragraph 33 Rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 34 Paragraph 20. Paragraphs 35,36 Paragraph 19 & rejected as contrary to best evidence. Paragraph 37 Paragraph 23. Paragraph 38 Paragraph 24. Paragraph 39 Paragraph 25. Paragraph 40 Paragraph 31. Paragraph 41 Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 42 Paragraph 33. Paragraphs 43,44 Paragraph 32. Paragraph 45 Paragraph 35. Paragraph 46 Paragraph 36. Paragraph 47 Irrelevant. Paragraph 48 Subsumed in paragraphs above. Paragraph 49 Subsumed in Paragraph 33. Paragraph 50 Paragraph 35, best evidence. Paragraph 51 Paragraph 32. Paragraph 52 True, but part of law. Paragraph 53 Paragraph 34. Paragraphs 54-58 Paragraphs 37,38,40,41 Paragraph 59 Irrelevant. Paragraph 60 Duplicative. Paragraphs 61,62 Irrelevant. Paragraph 63 Rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 64 Paragraph 48. Paragraph 65 Subsumed in Paragraph 41. Paragraph 66 Subsumed in Paragraph 48. Paragraph 67 Irrelevant. Paragraph 68 The wage disparity was the result of hiring Blacks in the lowest paying jobs. Paragraph 69 Subsumed in Paragraph 54. Paragraph 70 Paragraph 50. Paragraph 71 See comments to Paragraph 68. Paragraphs 72-83 Subsumed in Paragraphs 54, 55. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Mattimore, Esquire Kimberly L. King, Esquire Suite 305 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Toby Buel, Esquire Three Rivers Legal Services 817 West Duval Street Lake City, FL 32055 C. Dean Lewis, Esquire Post Office Box 8 Live Oak, FL 32060 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4113
The Issue Whether Petitioner was discriminated against in employment by reason of his race (black) and handicap.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by TECO beginning on or about June 21, 1976, last worked for TECO July 18, 1980, and was discharged July 23, 1980, for failing to keep the employer notified on a daily basis of his absence and the reasons for it. (Exhibit 1) Petitioner reapplied for employment on February 19, 1990, and was not rehired. At the time Petitioner was discharged by Respondent, the latter had a firm policy that no former employer of TECO would be rehired. This no-rehire policy was amended in 1989 (Administrative policy L-75, R 6/86)(Exhibit 4, effective 2/1/89), by changing Section IV thereof regarding former employees to allow former employees who voluntarily leave the company subsequent to the effective date of this policy to be considered for regular full time employment. Petitioner was involuntarily separated from employment with Respondent well before the policy change regarding rehiring former employees took effect. Accordingly, he would not be eligible for reemployment under the policy extent at the time he was dismissed from employment or under the new policy respecting those voluntarily leaving employment. Petitioner opined that he was not rehired because of his race (black) and his knee injury, but submitted no facts to support this opinion.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petition For Relief from employment practices filed by Lynwood B. Graddy against Tampa Electric Company be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 15th day of July, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynwood B. Graddy 1221 13th Avenue Tampa, FL 33605 Stacy Frank, Esquire 702 N. Franklin Street Tampa, FL 33601 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240, Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Margaret Jones, Agency Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240, Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black female. At all times material, Petitioner was employed by Respondent corporation in one of its general retail merchandise stores in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner was hired by Respondent's white male store manager, Mr. John Sasse, on October 20, 1992, as a stock clerk in the shoe department. Petitioner was terminated on January 10, 1993, within the ninety day probationary period published in Respondent's employee handbook. In making the foregoing finding of fact, it is recognized that Petitioner attempted to show that the probationary period for new employees was only sixty days. However, she only showed that the sixty day period was applicable in a different time frame than is material here. On October 31, 1992, while working in a stock room, Petitioner's back and neck were injured when a box fell on her. Supervisors called an ambulance, and Petitioner was transported to the emergency room of a local hospital. She was treated but not hospitalized. Respondent duly filed the "Notice of Injury" as mandated by Chapter 440 F.S., "The Florida Workers' Compensation Act," and began to pay Petitioner's medical expenses. Prior to her injury, Mr. Sasse considered Petitioner to be only a marginal employee. Petitioner was released by hospital doctors for return to work as of November 6, 1992. At that time, she had no work restrictions imposed by a doctor, so Mr. Sasse reassigned Petitioner to her usual duties. Petitioner worked at the tasks she felt she could do until November 11, 1992, when she returned to the hospital. She was examined and medicated. Later that same day, as is standard procedure with workers' compensation injuries wherein the employer pays for an injured worker's medical care and as a result has the legal right to specify which doctors attend the employee, Mr. Sasse ordered Petitioner to go to "Care One," a "walk-in" medical facility specializing in occupational medicine. Petitioner went to Care One, where she was again examined and medicated. Petitioner was released for work the same day with written work restrictions from the Care One doctor. Petitioner's resentment against Respondent that she had been injured in the first place apparently was a motivating force in her actions after she returned to work the second time. Petitioner's candor and demeanor while testifying, as well as her persistence in returning her testimony to the circumstances surrounding the box falling upon her in the storeroom, made it very clear that she considered it discriminatory, or at least unfair, that Respondent had "forced" her or anyone to work under the cluttered stock room conditions that had resulted in her initial accident or injury. In Petitioner's mind, at least, the fact that an accident or injury had occurred in the first place was sufficient to establish "dangerous working conditions" and "an unlawful employment practice." After November 11, 1992, she persisted with these complaints to the employer. However, no competent evidence established a nexus between Petitioner's race and her pre-injury job assignments, and no evidence demonstrated that after her accident, the Respondent-employer handled her workers' compensation medical care any differently because she was black. On November 11, 1992, Care One's written restrictions provided: Restricted Employee should avoid movements of the upper body and neck that would place undue stress on the neck, such as strenuous pushing and pulling, heavy lifting, and working above the shoulders. Employee should avoid lifting > 20 pounds, avoid frequent bending and twisting of the back, and avoid strenuous pushing and pulling. Mr. Sasse and his subordinate supervisors assigned Petitioner tasks consistent with Mr. Sasse's interpretation of Petitioner's written restrictions, as modified over time by subsequent information. On November 11, 1992, a position was created for Petitioner in the soft goods department. At this time, Petitioner became the only black clerk in the soft goods department. Initially, Mr. Sasse told her she was not to reach above her shoulders or bend to pick up anything below her knees. Petitioner complained that these tasks constituted too much physical exertion for her due to her physical condition. Petitioner continued to complain about the accident and her pain. The employer and insurance carrier continued to refer her back to Care One. There was a short delay with regard to some medical services requested by Petitioner or by referring and consulting doctors under the workers' compensation medical care delivery system, but the employer/insurance carrier in due course authorized physical therapy, a consultation with an orthopedic specialist, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for further diagnosis. Derrick Proctor, a black male employee and Petitioner's friend, presented as a credible witness, even though he claimed to have been fired by Mr. Sasse under what Mr. Proctor termed "suspicious circumstances" and at the time of formal hearing had some type of action pending against this employer. Mr. Proctor described Petitioner as "embittered" against the employer because of the employer's refusal or delay in dealing with Petitioner's medical concerns and stress. However, it appears that Petitioner's problems, if any, were common disputes and communication delays inherent in the workers' compensation medical care delivery system. For instance, when asked, the doctors reported directly to the employer, insurance carrier, and store manager concerning the Petitioner- employee's medical condition, consultant treatment, and recovery progress. On December 10, 1992, Mr. Sasse told Petitioner that he had received an oral report on her December 9, 1992 MRI results and that they were negative. This conversation occurred before any of the doctors had reported the MRI results to the Petitioner, and Petitioner inferred therefrom that information was being withheld from her. Later, on December 22, 1992, Petitioner learned, during a reprimand and counselling session for insubordination and failure to work up to her capacities, that the employer had been informed much earlier that she could return to work with no restrictions. (See Findings of Fact 32-36) Although Mr. Sassy and others had told her this before December 22, 1992, the events of December 22, 1992 triggered a belief in Petitioner that the employer was "out to get" her. Notwithstanding the extreme light duty assigned her, Petitioner complained about the work assigned and was uncooperative about helping supervisors find a job description she felt she could perform. Although Petitioner may not have known about it until November 25, 1992, on November 20, 1992 Care One deleted the prior restrictions on lifting items over 20 pounds, bending, and strenuous pushing and pulling, and narrowed her restrictions to the following: Restricted. Employee should avoid movements of the upper body and neck that would place undue stress on the neck, such as strenuous pushing and pulling, heavy lifting, and work above the shoulders. In December 1992, Mr. Proctor was required to close his department, hardware, every night, and Petitioner closed the soft goods department some nights. Petitioner considered being required to close some nights to be discrimination against her since she was the only black employee in the soft goods department at that time and the white female employee in soft goods had been switched to the day shift in Petitioner's place. The greater weight of the evidence shows that the whole store's evening hours increased from midnight to 1:00 a.m. due to the Christmas season, and on December 6, 1992, Petitioner was assigned to work nights so that she could go to daytime medical and physical therapy appointments. The employer's accommodation of Petitioner's situation in this respect was comparable to the accommodation given a white female employee in soft goods. Beginning November 23, 1992, that white female employee, Ms. Audrey, had been assigned to a daylight shift so that her husband, who had bad night vision, could drive her to and from work. Race was not a factor in the accommodation rendered Ms. Audrey or Petitioner. Who closed the store during December 1992 depended upon who worked the evening shift, not race. It is not entirely clear on the record whether, on December 3, 1992, Petitioner withdrew from physical therapy because she could not do the weight training assigned her or was rejected by the physical therapist as a client because she would not cooperate in weight training. Petitioner testified that she returned to physical therapy thereafter for ultrasound treatment. It is clear that Petitioner believed she was rejected by the therapist because she could not lift the heavy weights assigned her by the therapist as part of Petitioner's planned recovery. It is also clear that the decision to end the weight phase of Petitioner's treatment did not have employer input. By December 5, 1992, Petitioner's personally professed physical limitations and complaints about Mr. Sasse's treatment of her had resulted in Mr. Sasse accommodating her by creating a "make-work" job description. Under it, she was asked to push a cart that other employees had hung clothes on; she was not required to load the car with clothes. She was required only to pick up single articles of clothing that were left in the women's dressing rooms and return them to the racks. She was told only to bend if an occasional article of clothing was found on the floor. She was also told to open dressing room doors for customers and, if requested, fetch more clothes for them to try on while they remained in the dressing room. Petitioner was permitted to wear her softly padded neckbrace at all times, even though she presented no written doctor's instructions to do so. Petitioner described it as an "agony" imposed on her by the employer when, on December 5, 1992, Mr. Sasse ordered her not to sit continuously on the sales floor in a chair she had removed from the women's dressing room. Petitioner had previously complained because she had been required to sit for long hours on a very hard chair Mr. Sasse had provided for her, and this time she had gotten a different chair herself. On December 5, 1992, Mr. Sasse told her she must leave the dressing room chair in the dressing room for the customers, that she was not permitted to sit all the time on the sales floor where customers could see her, and she must not just sit without doing any work, until all her work was done. He told her to do a variety of the tasks of which she was capable, including but not limited to sitting while pricing goods. Petitioner considered these orders to be contrary to her doctor's limitations and to constitute "physical abuse." Petitioner repeatedly requested time off with pay so that she could recover completely through bed rest. Mr. Sasse would not allow her time off for medical reasons without a doctor's written approval. Petitioner considered this condition imposed by management to be "abusive." Petitioner described Mr. Sasse as being rude to her on December 6, 1992, when he refused to discuss her accusations of "physical abuse" and her request for time off in the presence of other employees and customers in the public buffet area of the store, and walked off, leaving her there. Petitioner referred to this incident as at least part of her "opposition to unlawful employment practices" which she believed resulted in her termination. Petitioner presented no evidence that a doctor had ever recommended that she stay at home and do nothing so that she could heal. From all the evidence, it is inferred that as a probationary employee, Petitioner had no accrued sick leave to expend for this purpose. Ms. Gardner was a long-time white female employee who had her doctor's approval for knee surgery and who required a month of bed rest at home afterwards. The employer allowed Ms. Gardner to use earned compensatory time as sick leave for that purpose during the month of December 1992. By mid-December, 1992, Mr. Sasse was frustrated because Petitioner refused to do every job he devised, even the "make work" ones, and he believed that she only pretended to be busy when he was watching her. Mr. Sasse had told Petitioner that she could do normal work again and she would not accept this from him without hearing it also from her doctor. Mr. Sasse decided to discipline Petitioner for not working up to her limitations as he understood them and for insubordination. He directed the soft goods manager trainee, Ms. Lynn Tyler, a white female, to "write up" Petitioner. Ms. Tyler and the assistant store manager, Ray Harding, a white male, met with Petitioner on December 22, 1992 to discuss the contents of the prepared memo. One of the supervisors' concerns at the time Petitioner was "written up" was that they could not get Petitioner to do anything at all without an argument, even after pointing out various light work job duties on a walk around the whole store. They were also concerned that without Petitioner doing some tasks, the employer had to pay other employees overtime to accomplish what Petitioner was not accomplishing in her regular shift hours. It was stipulated that Petitioner was never asked to work overtime. Petitioner refused to sign the December 22, 1992 memorandum of reprimand because she did not agree with it and because Tyler and Harding were, in her opinion, "grudgeful." Petitioner was informed later on December 22, 1992 by her Care One doctor that he had, indeed, released her for normal work activities effective December 16, 1992. His December 16, 1992 report which had been previously received by the employer read: Please note employee's current duty status is as follows: Regular May return to normal work activities full time. After her accident, Petitioner was observed by Derrick Proctor doing some of the same types of physical exertion the employer had required that she do before the accident, including reaching above her head to put clothes on and take them off clothes racks and picking clothes up from the floor, but he never knew her medical restrictions other than what she told him. He also observed her in agitated conversations with Ms. Tyler and Mr. Sasse while she was wearing a neck brace. On January 7, 1993, he saw Ms. Tyler "very out of sorts" when talking to the Petitioner. At first, he stated that he did not consider Petitioner to be rude or insubordinate on these occasions because the topic was working conditions, but later he admitted that he could not overhear what was actually said on all these occasions. Mr. Proctor also observed that, "Mr. Sasse rode everybody pretty hard," including white workers. It was "his way of getting things done." Mr. Proctor once observed Petitioner hiding in another department, behind racks, to avoid management. Petitioner acknowledged and described her "hiding out" at that time to Mr. Proctor as due to her "feeling mistreated" and "avoiding management." In her formal hearing testimony, Petitioner described it as "opposing unlawful work practices and abusive treatment." After learning on December 22, 1992 of her release from all medical restrictions, Petitioner continued to be uncooperative with management. Petitioner's testimony conceded that she had understood that all doctors had released her with no restrictions as of December 28, 1992 and that she had still refused to reach and bend in the stock room when ordered to do so by Mr. Sasse and Ms. Tyler on January 7, 1993. After evaluating Petitioner's continued failure or refusal to perform even the lightest of duties, Mr. Sasse decided to terminate Petitioner before her ninety days' probationary period ended. Mr. Sasse, who was terminated by Respondent-employer sometime later in 1993 and who, at the time of formal hearing, was litigating an unemployment compensation claim against Respondent, had no reason to fabricate information or testify favorably for the Respondent-employer. He was credible to the effect that the decision to terminate Petitioner in January 1993 was his unilateral decision and that he made his decision without reference to, or motivation by, Petitioner's race. Specifically, it was Mr. Sasse's foundational assessment that Petitioner could physically do the light work he assigned her after reasonable accommodation for a temporary disability but that she would not do the work assigned by him that caused him to terminate her. Petitioner testified that she was replaced by a white female. In fact, a white female was hired approximately one or two weeks prior to Petitioner's January 10, 1993 termination, with a due date to report to work on January 11, 1993, which subsequently turned out to be the day immediately following Petitioner's termination. The employer did not hire this white female with the intent of replacing Petitioner, but she was ultimately placed into the soft goods department. Mr. Proctor testified that other blacks worked in soft goods after Petitioner's termination. Within four weeks of Petitioner's termination, three new employees were hired. None of these were assigned to the soft goods department. Mr. Standley Gillings, a black male, was originally employed in another of Respondent's Ocala stores. In October 1993, Mr. Gillings was demoted with a loss of pay and transferred to the store from which Petitioner had been fired ten months earlier. His new immediate supervisor in that store was also black. Respondent continued to employ Mr. Gillings under the black supervisor until Mr. Gillings found another job and quit.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of August, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 1994.
The Issue Whether Respondent Gulf Coast Community College (Respondent or the College) violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes, by subjecting Petitioner Derek A. Robinson (Petitioner) to discrimination in employment or by subjecting Petitioner to adverse employment actions in retaliation of Petitioner’s opposition to the College’s alleged discriminatory employment practices.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. The College is a public institution of higher education located in Panama City, Florida. In 1998, Petitioner was hired by the College to work in its custodial department as a custodian. Petitioner held that position until his termination on February 11, 2009. The College's custodial department is part of the College's maintenance and operations division (collectively, ?Maintenance Division?) managed by the campus superintendent. The two other departments within the Maintenance Division are the maintenance and grounds departments. During the relevant time period, there were approximately 40 to 50 employees in the Maintenance Division. Of those, there were approximately 21 to 28 custodians in the custodial department. Most of the custodians were African-Americans and there were only three Caucasian custodians. The Caucasian custodians were Tom Krampota, Josephine Riley, and Tommy Gillespie. Custodial staff typically work shifts beginning at 2:00 p.m. and ending at 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. They are generally assigned housekeeping duties for a specific building. In addition to Monday through Friday, the College is also open on most weekends. Prior to 2001, the College began designating one employee to work a non-rotating weekend shift. Unlike other custodians, the designated weekend custodian worked from 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Fridays and 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. The weekend custodian was not assigned to a particular building, but rather worked in various buildings as needed and was to be available to open doors to campus buildings during weekend hours. Petitioner was the designated weekend custodian from 2001 until his duties were changed in September 2008. Dr. John Holdnak, who worked for the College for 26 years in various capacities, including four years as Director of Human Resources, was the one who established the position of designated weekend custodian. Dr. Holdnak served as the College's Vice-President for Administration Services for his last eight years of employment with the College until leaving in July, 2008. As vice-president, Dr. Holdnak reported directly to the president of the College, Dr. James Kerley. Sometime prior to 2008, Dr. Holdnak observed that the departments in the Maintenance Division were underperforming, not adequately supervised, and failing to meet expectations. Dr. Holdnak observed that the Maintenance Division employees took excessive breaks and showed lack of effort in their work. For example, mold was found in some of the classrooms, an open window with a bird's nest was found in another, maintenance orders were backlogged, and Dr. Holdnak received a number of complaints from faculty and College employees regarding the Maintenance Division's level of service. As a result of Dr. Holdnak's observations, the College removed the campus superintendent from his position because of the superintendent's inability to manage line supervisors, provide leadership, or supervise personnel. After that, Dr. Holdnak personally supervised the Maintenance Division for a time in order to assess and develop a solution to the problem. Based upon Dr. Holdnak's assessment, the College sought applications for a new campus superintendent who could change and clean-up the culture of the Maintenance Division. At the time, the three department supervisors within the Maintenance Division were: Carlos "Butch" Whitehead for maintenance, Dan Doherty for custodial, and Ronny Watson for grounds. All three supervisors were Caucasian. The vacancy for the campus superintendent position was advertised. Dr. Holdnak encouraged John Westcott to apply for the campus superintendent position because he had previously worked with Mr. Westcott on a College construction project and was impressed with his vigor and work ethic. Mr. Westcott, a Caucasian, applied. So did custodial department supervisor, Dan Doherty, and three other candidates. Mr. Westcott disclosed on his application that he had been convicted of a felony twenty years prior to his application. Dr. Holdnak determined that Mr. Westcott's prior conviction would not impact his candidacy for the position. The applicants were screened by a selection committee composed of a number of College employees from various divisions, including Petitioner. Of the five applicants who applied, the selection committee's first choice was John Westcott, who was qualified for the position. Petitioner did not agree with the selection committee's first choice and was not impressed with Mr. Westcott during the screening process because Mr. Westcott referred to himself as the "terminator." Based upon the selection committee's first choice and the conclusion that Mr. Westcott satisfied the necessary criteria to change the Maintenance Division's culture, Dr. Holdnak recommended that the College hire John Westcott as the new campus superintendent. John Westcott was hired as campus superintendent in January 2008. Once Mr. Westcott was hired, Dr. Holdnak specifically directed him to take control of his departments, ?clean up the mess? and hold his mid-level supervisors responsible for their subordinates' results. Dr. Holdnak instructed Mr. Westcott to take a hands-on approach, physically inspect and visit the buildings to ensure cleanliness, increase effectiveness, stop laziness, and decrease work order backlogs. During his tenure, Mr. Westcott increased productivity and reduced backlogs. Mr. Westcott took more initiative than previous superintendents with cleaning and maintenance, and he conducted weekly walkthroughs. While Mr. Westcott was campus superintendent, the backlog of 400 work orders he had inherited was reduced to zero. During Mr. Westcott's first month as campus superintendent, he had an encounter with a Caucasian employee named Jamie Long. On January 31, 2008, Mr. Westcott issued a written memorandum to Mr. Long as a follow-up from a verbal reprimand that occurred on January 28, 2008. The reprimand was Mr. Westcott's first employee disciplinary action as campus superintendent. According to the memorandum, the reprimand was based upon Mr. Long's confrontation and argument with Mr. Westcott regarding the fact that Mr. Westcott had been ?checking-up? on him. According to the memorandum, Mr. Westcott considered "the manner in which [Mr. Long] addressed [him as] totally inappropriate and could be considered insubordination." Mr. Long disputed Mr. Westcott's version of the incident and later sent a letter to College President Dr. Kerley dated June 23, 2008, complaining about "the alleged incident of insubordination" and the "almost non-stop harassment by John Westcott." There was no mention or allegation in the letter that John Westcott was racist or had discriminated against anyone because of their race. After Dr. Holdnak left the College in July 2008, John Mercer assumed his responsibilities. Mr. Mercer, like Dr. Holdnak, had the perception that custodial work was below par based on complaints and personal observations. He therefore continued to direct Mr. Westcott to address these deficiencies to improve the custodians' performance. Petitioner was the designated weekend custodian when Mr. Westcott was hired. In February 2008, Dr. Holdnak discovered a problem with the amount of paid-time-off Petitioner received as a result of his weekend schedule. The problem was that if a holiday fell on a weekend, Petitioner would take the entire weekend off, resulting in a windfall of 37.5 hours in additional paid-time- off for Petitioner over other employees because his work hours on the weekends were longer. In order to correct the problem, in approximately March 2008, Petitioner was placed on a similar holiday pay schedule as all other employees. At the time, the then-director of the College's Department of Human Resources, Mosell Washington, who is an African American, explained the change to Petitioner. According to Mr. Washington, Petitioner was not happy about the change in his holiday pay schedule. Petitioner, however, does not blame Mr. Westcott for initiating the change. Because of the change in his holiday pay schedule, Petitioner was required to work or use leave time for the additional working hours during the Fourth of July weekend in 2008. Petitioner called and asked to speak with Mr. Westcott regarding the issue. During the phone call, Petitioner used profanity. After being cursed, Mr. Westcott hung up the phone and then advised Mr. Washington, who told Mr. Westcott to document the incident. The resulting written reprimand from Mr. Westcott to Petitioner was dated July 11, 2011, and was approved by Mr. Washington. When Mr. Washington presented Petitioner with the written reprimand, Petitioner refused to sign an acknowledgement of its receipt and abruptly left the meeting without any comment. Petitioner did not tell Mr. Washington that he believed he was being targeted or discriminated against because of his race. In addition to setting forth Mr. Westcott's version of what occurred, the written reprimand advised Petitioner that the College had a grievance procedure, and also stated: I have an open door policy and will gladly address any concerns you may have whether personal or job related. If you have a grievance, tell me, but in the proper manner and in the proper place. Petitioner did not take advantage of either the College's grievance procedure or Mr. Westcott's stated open door policy. The College maintains an anti-discrimination policy and grievance policy disseminated to employees. The College's procedure for employee grievances provides several levels of review, starting with an immediate supervisor, then to a grievance committee, and then up to the College's president. Under the College's anti-discrimination policy, discrimination and harassment based on race or other protected classes is prohibited. Employees who believe they are being discriminated against may report it to the Director of Human Resources. Likewise, harassment is prohibited and may be reported up the chain of command at any level. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the College handbook and policies on August 17, 2007. In addition, both the College President, Dr. Kerley, and Vice President, John Mercer, maintain an ?open door? policy. After receiving the July 11, 2008, written reprimand, Petitioner spoke to both Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer, at least once, on July 15, 2008. Petitioner, however, did not tell them that he had been discriminated against because of his race. In fact, there is no credible evidence that a report of race discrimination was ever made regarding the July 11, 2008, written reprimand prior to Petitioner's termination. Petitioner, however, did not agree with the July 11, 2008 written reprimand. After speaking to Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer, Petitioner met with Jamie Long, the Caucasian who had earlier received a write-up from Mr. Westcott, for assistance in preparing a written response. The written response, dated August 4, 2008, and addressed to Mr. Washington, Mr. Westcott, and Mr. Mercer, stated: On July 25, 2008, I was called into Mosell Washington's office and was given a written letter of reprimand from John Westcott, the Campus Superintendent, which states that on July 3, 2008, I had used profanity in a phone conversation with him regarding my 4th of July work schedule. From the schedule that I received in February, from Mosell Washington, I believed I was off that weekend. I am writing this letter to dispute Mr. Westcott's version of our conversation and to protest the letter of written reprimand. Mr. Westcott says in the reprimand that I was insubordinate to him and had used profanity. I did not use profanity, and I do not believe that I was insubordinate in any manner to him during our brief conversation. I feel that my work record and my integrity speaks for itself. I have never been insubordinate, or been a problem to anyone until John Westcott, and had I known that I was supposed to be on the job that weekend, I would have been there. Mr. Washington, Mr. Westcott, and John Mercer all deny receiving the written response. In addition, contrary to the written response, at the final hearing, Petitioner admitted that he used profanity during the call and said ?ass? to Mr. Westcott. Moreover, the written response does not complain of race discrimination, and Dr. Kerley, Mr. Mercer, Dr. Holdnak, Mr. Washington, and Mr. Westcott all deny that they ever received a complaint of race discrimination regarding the incident. Evidence presented at the final hearing did not show that the written reprimand given to Petitioner dated July 11, 2008, was racially motivated, given in retaliation for Petitioner’s statutorily-protected expression or conduct, or that a similarly-situated non-African-American who used profanity to a supervisor would not be subject to such a reprimand. Mr. Westcott generally worked a more traditional Monday through Friday schedule and, because of Petitioner's weekend work schedule, had minimal contact with Petitioner. In fact, Mr. Westcott would not usually be on campus with Petitioner, except Fridays, and the two men rarely spoke until Petitioner's work schedule was changed in September 2008. During the weekends that he worked at the College, Petitioner was on-call and expected to return communications to his pager or mobile phone, even during his lunch breaks, regardless of his location. On Friday, August 22, 2008, after receiving a request from faculty member Rusty Garner, Petitioner’s supervisor Dan Doherty asked Petitioner to clean the music room floor. On Sunday afternoon, August 24, 2008, Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott were working when they received word from Mr. Garner that the music room floor had not been cleaned. After unsuccessful attempts to reach Petitioner by cell phone and pager, both Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott drove around the College campus to find him. They were unsuccessful. The reason Petitioner could not be reached was because he had left campus and had left his telephone and pager behind. According to Petitioner, he was on lunch break. Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott found another employee, Harold Brown, to help prepare the music room for Monday. Mr. Mercer was upset because he had to take time out from his own work to find someone to complete the job assigned to Petitioner. That same afternoon, Mr. Mercer reported the incident by e-mail to Mr. Washington and requested that appropriate action be taken. On August 27, 2008, Petitioner’s supervisor, Dan Doherty, issued a written reprimand to Petitioner for the August 24th incident. No evidence was presented indicating that the written reprimand was racially motivated, or that a similarly situated non-African-American who could not be located during his or her shift would not be subject to such a reprimand. In September 2008, Dr. Kerley unilaterally determined that no single employee should work his or her entire workweek in three days. He believed this schedule was unsafe, and not in the best interests of the college. He therefore directed Mr. Westcott and Mr. Mercer to implement a rotating schedule for the weekends. Mr. Westcott was not in favor of the change because it meant additional scheduling work for him to accommodate new rotating shifts. No credible evidence was presented that the schedule change was because of Petitioner’s race, or made in retaliation for Petitioner’s statutorily-protected expressions or actions. From August 27, 2008, through January 2009, there were no other disciplines issued to Petitioner or reported incidents between Petitioner and Mr. Westcott. In December, 2008, a group composed of most of the custodial employees, including Petitioner, conducted a meeting with the College's president, Dr. Kerley, and vice-president, Mr. Mercer. The group of custodians elected their new supervisor James Garcia, an Asian-Pacific Islander, as their spokesperson for the meeting. The custodians' primary purpose for the meeting was to address complaints regarding Mr. Westcott’s management style, his prior criminal conviction, and approach with employees. They felt that Mr. Westcott could not be pleased. Various concerns about Mr. Westcott expressed by the employees were condensed into three typed pages (collectively, ?Typed Document?) consisting of two pages compiled by Jamie Long and his wife Susan Long which contained 12 numbered paragraphs, and a third page with six unnumbered paragraphs. Mr. Garcia did not transmit the Typed Document to the president or vice- president prior to the meeting. Neither Jamie Long nor his wife attended the meeting. During the meeting, Mr. Garcia read several of the comments from the Typed Document and Dr. Kerley responded to each comment that was read. Mr. Garcia did not read through more than the first five of the 12 items listed on the Typed Document. The Typed Document was not reviewed by the president or vice-president and they did not retain a copy. Petitioner asserts the comment listed in paragraph 9 on the second page of the Typed Document constitutes a complaint or evidence of racial animus. Although not discussed at the meeting or reviewed by Dr. Kerley or Mr. Mercer, paragraph 9 states: During a recent candidate forum, Westcott used the term ?black ass? in regard to School Superintendent James McCallister. This was heard by at least two witnesses. Q. Are such racial slurs and inappropriate, unprofessional behavior condoned and acceptable? Mr. Westcott denies making the alleged statement referenced in paragraph 9 of the Typed Document. No evidence of other racial remarks allegedly made by Mr. Westcott was presented. There is no evidence that the College or its administration condoned the alleged statement. President Kerley, Vice President Mercer, and Mr. Washington all gave credible testimony that they were not made aware of the statement and that, if the statement in paragraph 9 of the Typed Document or any alleged racial discrimination by Mr. Westcott had been brought to their attention, immediate action would have been taken. As a result of custodial employees’ complaints about Mr. Westcott’s management style, Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer required Mr. Westcott to attend several sessions of management training. In addition, Dr. Kerley counseled Mr. Westcott against using harsh tactics and rough language that may be acceptable on a construction site, but were not appropriate on a College campus. On February 9, 2009, Mr. Westcott observed both Petitioner and a co-worker leaving their assigned buildings. He asked their supervisor, Mr. Garcia, to monitor their whereabouts because he thought that they appeared to not be doing their jobs. Mr. Westcott also told Mr. Garcia that, although the two workers may have had a legitimate reason for walking from their assigned buildings, he had not heard anything on the radio to indicate as much. The next day, on February 10, 2009, Mr. Garcia told Petitioner that Mr. Westcott had wanted to know where they had been headed when they left the building the day before. Petitioner responded by saying that if Mr. Westcott wanted to know where he was, Mr. Westcott could ask him (Petitioner). Later that day, Petitioner spoke to Mr. Washington on campus. Petitioner was very upset and said to Mr. Washington, ?What’s wrong with Westcott? He better leave me alone. He don’t know who he’s messing with.? Later that same afternoon, Petitioner had a confrontation with Mr. Westcott. According to a memorandum authored that same day by Mr. Westcott: I [John Westcott] had stopped outside the mailroom to talk with Beth Bennett. While talking with her I observed Derek [Petitioner] leave Student Union West. After seeing me, he returned to Student Union West and waited outside the door. Beth walked toward the Administration building and I headed through the breezeway. Derek approached me and said that he had heard that I wanted to ask him something. I asked him what he was talking about. He said that I wanted to ask him where he was going the evening before. I said ok, where were you going? Derek said that it was ?none of my f_ _ _ ing business.? I told him that since I was his supervisor, that it ?was? my business. At this time, he stepped closer to me in a threatening manner and said ?if you don’t stop f_ _ _ ing with me, I’m going to f_ _ _ you up.? I told him that if he would do his job, that he wouldn’t have to worry about me. He replied ?you heard what I said--- I’ll f_ _ _ you up?, as he walked back into SUW. I left the breezeway and went to John Mercer’s office to report the incident. Mr. Westcott’s testimony at the final hearing regarding the incident was consistent with his memorandum. While Petitioner’s version of the confrontation is different than Mr. Westcott’s, at the final hearing Petitioner admitted that Mr. Westcott had a legitimate question regarding his whereabouts and that he failed to answer the question. And, while he denied using the specific curse words that Mr. Westcott attributed to him, Petitioner testified that he told Mr. Westcott to leave him the ?hell? alone because he was doing his job. While there is no finding as to the exact words utilized by Petitioner to Mr. Westcott, it is found, based upon the testimonial and documentary evidence, that on the afternoon of February 9, 2009, Petitioner was confrontational towards Mr. Westcott, that Petitioner refused to answer a legitimate question from Mr. Westcott, that Petitioner demanded that Mr. Westcott leave him alone even though Mr. Westcott had a legitimate right to talk to Petitioner about his job, and that Petitioner used words that threatened physical violence if Mr. Westcott did not heed his warning. After Mr. Westcott reported the incident to Mr. Mercer, both Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott went to Dr. Kerley and advised him of the incident. Dr. Kerley believed the report of the incident and that Petitioner had threatened Mr. Westcott. Mr. Washington was then informed of the incident. After reviewing Petitioner’s employment history, including Petitioner’s recent attitude problems, as well as Mr. Washington’s own interaction the same day of the latest incident, Mr. Washington concluded that Petitioner should be terminated. Mr. Washington gave his recommendation that Petitioner be terminated to Dr. Kerley, who adopted the recommendation. The following day, February 11, 2009, Mr. Washington called Petitioner into his office and gave him a memorandum memorializing Petitioner’s termination from his employment with the College. The memorandum provided: This memorandum is written notification that because of a number of incidents which the administration of the college deems unprofessional, adversarial, and insubordinate, you are hereby terminated from employment at Gulf Coast Community College, effective immediately. At the time that he presented Petitioner with the memorandum, Mr. Washington provided Petitioner with the opportunity to respond. Petitioner told Mr. Washington, ?It is not over.? Petitioner did not state at the time, however, that he believed that his termination, change of schedule, or any disciplinary action taken against him were because of racial discrimination or in retaliation for his protected expression or conduct. Further, at the final hearing, Petitioner did not present evidence indicating that similarly-situated non-African- American employees would have been treated more favorably than was Petitioner for threatening a supervisor. Further, the evidence presented by Petitioner did not show that the decision to terminate him was based on race or in retaliation for protected expression or behavior, or that the facts behind the reason that Petitioner was fired were fabricated. Following his termination, Petitioner met with both Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer and apologized for acting wrongly. The empirical record evidence of discipline against College employees in the Maintenance Division during Mr. Westcott’s tenure does not demonstrate a tendency by Mr. Westcott or the College to discriminate against African- American employees. The majority of disciplines and the first discipline taken against Mr. Long by Mr. Westcott were administered to Caucasians. In total, Mr. Westcott only reprimanded five employees. Of these, three were Caucasian -- Mr. Long, Mr. Whitehead, and Mr. Doherty. Despite the fact that the majority of the custodians were African-American, only two African-Americans were disciplined -- Petitioner and Harold Brown. During Mr. Westcott’s employment, the only two employees who were terminated were Petitioner and a white employee, Mark Ruggieri. Excluding Petitioner, all African-American witnesses testified that Mr. Westcott treated them equally and not one, except for Petitioner, testified that they were treated differently because of their race. The testimony of Petitioner’s African-American co-workers is credited over Petitioner’s testimony of alleged discrimination. Harold Brown’s discipline was based upon the fact that he gave the College’s master keys to an outside third-party contractor. Although Mr. Brown disagreed with the level of punishment he received, in his testimony, he agreed that he had made a mistake. Mr. Brown further testified that he did not believe African-Americans were targeted. According to Mr. Brown, Mr. Westcott did not discriminate against him because of his race, and ?Westcott was an equal opportunist as far as his behavior? and ?seemed agitated towards everybody when he was in his moods.? Mr. Garcia was the lead custodian when Petitioner was terminated and is currently the College’s custodial department supervisor. While several employees told Mr. Garcia that they did not like Mr. Westcott’s management style, Mr. Garcia never heard a racist comment and testified that Mr. Westcott was strict and threatened the entire custodial and maintenance staff. Butch Whitehead believes that Mr. Westcott attempted to get him and his maintenance crew ?in trouble.? He had no personal knowledge of the manner in which Mr. Westcott treated Petitioner. Mr. Whitehead's testimony does not otherwise support a finding that Mr. Westcott was a racist or that the College discriminated against Petitioner because of his race. Tom Krampota, a Caucasian and longtime employee and former supervisor, agreed that Mr. Westcott was firm with all custodians and complained about everybody, but was not a racist. Lee Givens, an African-American, testified that his custodial work was monitored because Mr. Westcott took issue with dust and cleanliness, but that if he did his job Mr. Westcott did not bother him. Mr. Givens did not testify that he felt discriminated against because of his race, but rather stated that Mr. Westcott made the job hard for ?all the custodians.? Horace McClinton, an African-American custodian for the College, provided a credible assessment of Mr. Westcott in his testimony which summarized how Mr. Westcott treated all of his subordinates: There were certain things that he wanted us to do that we should have been doing already, and he was just there to enforce it . . . he did not think anybody was doing their job . . . . He was put there to make sure we were doing our job . . . . I don't think he was a racist. Mr. McClinton further testified that all Maintenance Division employees, including Caucasian supervisors, were afraid of Westcott because it was ?his way or the highway.? Latoya ?Red? McNair testified that he was being monitored like the other custodians but did not believe it was because of race. Just as Petitioner’s co-workers’ testimony does not support a finding that Mr. Westcott was a racist, Dan Doherty’s deposition testimony does not support a finding that Mr. Westcott’s actions against Petitioner were because of race. A review of Mr. Doherty’s deposition reflects that Mr. Doherty has no first-hand knowledge of actual discrimination. Mr. Doherty stated, ?I don't know? when asked how he knew Westcott was motivated by race. Nevertheless, according to Mr. Doherty, five African-Americans were singled out, including Petitioner, Mr. McClinton, Mr. Givens, Mr. McNair, and Mr. Brown. Two of these alleged ?victims? outright denied that Mr. Westcott treated them unfairly because of race. The others did not testify that they believed Mr. Westcott treated them differently because of race. Mr. Doherty testified that besides the five identified, the remaining African-Americans were not criticized or targeted. Mr. Doherty also conceded that it was possible that Mr. Westcott just did not like the five custodians. Further, despite the fact that Mr. Doherty was written up by Mr. Westcott more than any other employee, including Petitioner, Mr. Doherty never reported Mr. Westcott for discrimination and did not state in his exit interview from the College that Mr. Westcott was a racist or complain that race was an issue. Rather than supporting a finding that Mr. Westcott was motivated by race, Mr. Doherty’s testimony demonstrated that the problems he had with Mr. Westcott were similar with those pointed out by others—-namely, that Mr. Westcott had a prior criminal conviction, had a harsh management style, and closely scrutinized all workers. While Petitioner and Mr. Long contend that they raised the issue of discrimination with the College's management, the College's president, vice-president, director of human resources, former vice-president, and superintendent all deny receiving a report of discrimination or that any employment action was based on race or in retaliation. Mr. Long’s testimony that he complained of race is not substantiated because he did not witness any discrimination first hand. He also never documented his alleged concerns about racial discrimination prior to Petitioner's termination. In addition, in his testimony, Mr. Long admitted that he never heard Mr. Westcott use a racially discriminatory term. Likewise, Petitioner never documented alleged discrimination until after being terminated. Considering the evidence presented in this case, and the failure of Petitioner and Mr. Long to document alleged complaints when an opportunity was presented, it is found that the allegations of reported complaints of discrimination by Mr. Long and Petitioner are not credible. Further, the testimony from Petitioner’s co-workers and supervisors, which indicates that Mr. Westcott was harsh with all employees but not racially discriminatory, is credited. It is found that Petitioner did not show that any employment action by the College or Mr. Westcott against him was based on race. Rather, the evidence presented in this case demonstrates that Petitioner was not targeted or treated differently from any other employees based upon race. The evidence also failed to show that Petitioner was retaliated against because of his protected expression or conduct. In sum, the evidence did not show that Petitioner was subject to racial discrimination or wrongful retaliation, and Respondent proved that Petitioner was terminated for engaging in a pattern of unprofessional, adversarial, and insubordinate behavior, including a threat to his supervisor’s supervisor, John Westcott.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner’s Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent Employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice, as defined by Chapter 760, Part I, Florida Statutes, against Petitioner on the basis of his race (African- American).
Findings Of Fact White Oak Plantation is an "employer" as defined by Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. At all times material, Respondent was in the business of breeding, raising, selling, and showing thoroughbred horses. Petitioner is an adult African-American male. Petitioner was employed by Respondent from January 17, 1996 until March 19, 1999. Petitioner's employee evaluations showed that at all times material he met expectations or exceeded expectations. Petitioner was terminated by Billy Davis, his immediate superior, on March 19, 1999. Davis is a Caucasian male and at all times material was a Stable Manager. It is undisputed that Petitioner alleged in both his Charge of Discrimination and his Petition for Relief instances of racial harassment and the use of racially derogatory names against himself in the work place by Frank Gowen, a co-employee, and by Mike Brown, who at one point was a co-employee and who later was not an employee of Respondent. With regard to his termination, Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination alleged: 3. On March 19, 1999, Mr. Martin, Billy Farmer and myself were heading to clean the stalls. Mr. Martin called me "buckwheat" [sic]. He then grabbed a nearby hose and hosed me down, soaking my clothes with water. I stood there in shock as Mr. Martin ran out of the stable. He came back and began threatening to turn me White [sic] with lime. He threw the lime, and it landed on my shoes. I threw a bucket of water on him in self-defense, hoping he would leave me alone to do my job. Instead, he began punching and kicking me, and I protected myself. Mr. Davis then entered the stable and asked if there was horse-play [sic] going on. He then stated that everyone would be punished. When questioned later, I told Mr. Davis what happened, and he accused me of letting Mr. Martin take the fall. On March 24, 1999, I was unjustly terminated. On June 4, 2002, the Commission entered its Determination: No Cause. Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Relief, pursuant to Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and the Rules of the Commission. His Petition alleged, with regard to his termination, as follows: 5. During my employment with respondent another incident that involved racial names being made to an African American [sic] employee by a white [sic] employee occurred. The African American [sic] employee complained to management. Both employees were terminated after the African American [sic] employee stated that he was defending himself after being called racial [sic] derogatory names by the white [sic] employee. The African American employee was rehired after EEOC intervined [sic]. I was defending myself and received serious injury to the right ankel [sic]. The ligament was torn out of place when another employee threw a 50# bag of shavings that hit me on the ankel [sic]. I suffer with a limp and serious pain from my ankel [sic] being reaggravated [sic] from the incident that occured [sic] on 03/20/99. I also suffer with anxity [sic] and depression from having been allowed to go through the comments alone when no one tried to stop it. I am seeking relief in the amount of 68000.00 [sic] for injuries sustained and for mental distress and anxity [sic]. After the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, a Notice of Hearing was issued, indicating that the disputed issues of material fact would be "as stated in the Petition for Relief." While Petitioner's testimony was vague as to dates, chronology, and relationship of some discriminatory events to other identifiable events, he testified concerning several incidents of racial harassment. Petitioner testified that sometime in 1996, a Caucasian male employee named Frank Gowen spotted another Caucasian male and an African-American male wrestling in one of Respondent's parking lots. Gowen asked aloud, in Petitioner's presence, "What does that Nigger think he's doing?" No other witness corroborated that this comment was made. Petitioner admitted that he never reported the comment to anyone in management until after he was terminated in 1999. Respondent's management employees, Billy Davis and Ronnie Rogers, Human Resources Officer, were credible in their testimony that they never knew of this incident until after Petitioner's termination. Petitioner testified that on another unspecified date, Gowen asked a Caucasian female employee, also in Petitioner's presence, what "Pontiac" meant, and then answered his own question as, "Pontiac means 'Poor Old Nigger Thinks It's A Cadillac.'" At hearing, the female employee denied this event happened. No other witness corroborated Petitioner's account of this incident. No other witness even seemed to understand the so-called joke or anagram for Pontiac. Petitioner admitted that he never reported this comment to any superior until after he was terminated in 1999. Respondent's management employees were credible that they never knew of this specific incident until after Petitioner's termination. There is sufficient evidence to corroborate Petitioner's account that in approximately January 1998, he had a knife in his hand, opening a feed sack, with the knife's point aimed at a Caucasian male employee, without any intended threat, and at that point, Gowen said to the other employee, something like, "You got to watch them Niggers. They'll cut you." Petitioner admitted that he never reported this incident to any superior until after he was terminated in 1999. Petitioner also testified credibly that on the same day as the "cutting" comment, Frank Gowen prevented him from sitting in the front of a flatbed dump truck with Gowen and another Caucasian male, Donovan Rewis, while saying something to the effect of "That's right. Let the Nigger ride in the back of the truck." Mr. Rewis corroborated that this discriminatory comment and event, in fact, occurred. On the same day as the "cutting" and "back of the truck" comments/events occurred, another male African-American employee named Clarence McClendon approached Billy Davis. McClendon told Davis that a bad situation was developing between Petitioner and Gowen. Exactly what McClendon told Davis is unclear, but it appears that Davis was at least made aware that the term "Nigger" had been repeatedly used by Gowen to Petitioner and was further made aware that the "cutting" and "back of the truck" incidents had occurred on the same day. Upon learning of the "cutting" and "back of the truck" incidents from McClendon, Davis immediately asked Petitioner to come to his office. Davis asked Petitioner to explain what had happened involving Gowen. Petitioner did not specifically describe the "wrestling" comment or the "Pontiac" comment, and it is unclear whether Petitioner described either the "cutting" or "back of the truck" incidents in the detail provided by the foregoing Findings of Fact, but Petitioner did explain to Davis that Gowen had repeatedly used the word "Nigger" in his presence and about himself. Davis then told Petitioner that Gowen's behavior was unacceptable behavior for a White Oak Plantation employee and that Gowen's comments and behavior would subject Gowen to discipline, which discipline could go as far as Gowen's termination. Petitioner then told Davis that he did not want Gowen to be punished or to get in any trouble for making the comments. Petitioner requested that Gowen simply be asked to make a sincere apology to him and to promise that he would never again make such comments. Davis specifically told Petitioner that he could inform Respondent's Human Resources Office of the incidents. Petitioner, however, requested that Human Resources not be involved and that, instead, the matter be handled by Davis. Petitioner testified that he simultaneously met with Davis and Rose Harley, an owner-manager, about the Gowen matter. It is important to Petitioner that all concerned know that Harley stated to him that the Gowen situation should have been brought to her attention sooner and that he would receive a record of the comments and management's response. Davis recalls only meeting with Petitioner alone and then meeting alone with Rose Harley to further discuss the situation. Petitioner is credible that at some point Harley made the statement to him which he related, but Davis is just as credible that Petitioner asked him not to involve the Human Resources Office. After meeting with Petitioner, Davis and Harley met with Gowen to discuss the matter with him. Davis told Gowen that he and White Oak Plantation were disappointed in his behavior. He instructed Gowen to apologize to Petitioner. Gowen, in fact, apologized to Petitioner. After the apology, Davis met with Petitioner again, and Petitioner told Davis that he was satisfied with the apology that he had received from Gowen. At this meeting, Davis instructed Petitioner to inform him if any further incidents occurred. He further told Petitioner that if Petitioner did not feel comfortable talking to him, Billy Davis, Petitioner could notify any other supervisor, which presumably would include Ms. Harley, or the Human Resources Officer, Ronnie Rogers. Although Petitioner claimed at hearing that he had told Davis by phone about Gowen's earlier comments, Davis denied that any such phone call took place, and no witness corroborated Petitioner's timeline. What is undisputed is that in 1998, no more than one day elapsed from the time McClendon notified Davis of Gowen's comments until the time the incident was resolved to Petitioner's apparent satisfaction. Davis continued to check with Petitioner, informally, in passing, on a regular basis, to ensure that Petitioner was not having any more problems with Gowen. Petitioner never indicated to Davis that any further discrimination problems existed. Mike Brown was a Caucasian male employee of Respondent who left Respondent's employ in 1999. How long he was a co- employee with Petitioner is not in evidence. While they were both employees of Respondent, Brown and Petitioner fell into a habit of addressing each other by nicknames. Brown referred to Petitioner as "Buckwheat." Petitioner referred to Brown as "Cracker," "Vidalia," "Onion Head,"1 and "Grand Wizard." Various Caucasian employees considered Petitioner and Brown to be only "cutting the fool" or "joking around" when they addressed each other this way. Other employees, including Brown's girlfriend, Missy Springer, also referred to Brown as "Vidalia." Apparently, Petitioner was always aware that the term, "Grand Wizard," inferred that Brown held that rank in the Ku Klux Klan, and Petitioner saw nothing wrong in addressing Brown that way, because Brown had asked Petitioner to call him "Grand Wizard." However, Petitioner initially did not think "Buckwheat" had any racial connotation or derogatory intent. Petitioner testified that he initially took the term "Buckwheat" to refer to the African-American character of the same name in "The Little Rascals" series of films; to be a joking nickname; and to be a harmless "stereotype."2 At some point, Petitioner contacted the National Organization for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and was informed by that organization that references to the character "Buckwheat" in "The Little Rascals" series constituted disparagement of the Negro race, based on a stereotypical, uneducated, ragamuffin, Negro child who ate watermelon and behaved like a wild animal. The record does not reveal when Petitioner consulted the NAACP or whether the insult was explained to him in this way before or after Brown's leaving Respondent's employ. However, it is clear that Petitioner did not go to Davis or Rogers about the situation with Brown at any time. Once again, Petitioner's situation was reported to Davis by Clarence McClendon, after Brown left Respondent's employ. After Brown ceased to be one of Respondent's employees, Brown continued to come on Respondent's premises to provide transportation for his girlfriend, Missy Springer. During this period of time, the trading of offensive nicknames between Petitioner and Brown continued without any complaint from Petitioner to management. Over one year after the disciplining of Gowen, and after Brown was no longer Respondent's employee, McClendon reported to Davis that he had observed Brown call Petitioner "Buckwheat" and that Petitioner had called Brown "Vidalia" and "Cracker." At hearing, Petitioner claimed, without any corroborating testimony, that Davis was aware of Brown's racial disparagement of him at some time while Brown was still employed by Respondent, because Davis had been present in the break room once when Brown had telephoned, and when Petitioner answered the break room phone, Brown had addressed Petitioner, over the phone, as "Buckwheat." Petitioner testified that other employees in the break room laughed and Missy Springer told Davis that the caller had to be "Vidalia," a/k/a Mike Brown, because Brown was the only one who called Petitioner "Buckwheat." Davis categorically denied being present when any such event occurred, if it occurred. Based on the evidence as a whole, Davis is the more credible witness on this aspect of the case. Petitioner did not ever affirmatively approach Davis for redress of the nasty nickname situation with Brown. However, immediately after being informed by McClendon, Davis approached Petitioner about McClendon's allegations involving Brown. He asked if Petitioner wanted him to ban Brown from Respondent's premises. Petitioner agreed that was what he wanted done. In this discussion with Petitioner, Davis suggested that Ronnie Rogers, Human Resources Officer, be contacted regarding Brown's behavior, because Brown now was a member of the public. Petitioner agreed that Human Resources should be consulted. A meeting was held by Davis and Rogers with Petitioner. During this meeting, Rogers reviewed White Oak Plantation's Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) statement with Petitioner. During Petitioner's employment, Respondent's EEO anti- discrimination and anti-sexual harassment statement had consistently been displayed at the time clocks of the East Stable, where Petitioner was assigned, and in the employee cafeteria, where employees daily received a free lunch. This statement prohibited racial disparagement or harassment. It set out to whom reports of such activities should be made, which included any supervisor. It stated that Respondent would not retaliate against anyone who made a good faith report of discrimination, even if that person turned out to be wrong. It did not promise confidentiality. In their meeting concerning banning Brown from the premises, Petitioner told Rogers that he was familiar with the EEO statement. Rogers agreed with Davis and Petitioner that Brown should be banned from the premises. Davis told Petitioner sometime during this period that if he experienced any repercussions as a result of Brown being barred from the property, Petitioner was to inform Davis immediately. Petitioner's testimony suggested that he now considers this statement to have been a threat by Davis or to demonstrate Davis's reluctance to ban Brown from Respondent's property, but Davis is more convincing that if he said anything close to this, it related to what Missy Springer might do or say. Rogers told Petitioner that if Petitioner experienced any future problems, whether those problems were related to Brown or not, Petitioner should immediately contact either his supervisor, Davis; another supervisor; or Rogers, himself, depending upon with whom Petitioner felt more comfortable. After meeting with Petitioner, Davis and Rogers immediately sought out Missy Springer, Brown's girlfriend whom he was transporting to and from work. They met alone with Springer and told her that Brown would no longer be allowed on Respondent's premises. They directed Springer to telephone Brown to tell him that. In the presence of Rogers and Davis, Springer telephoned Brown and instructed Brown that he was banned from coming onto White Oak Plantation property. Rogers then contacted Respondent's Head of Security and instructed him to post notices at both gates stating that Brown would no longer be allowed on White Oak Plantation property. White Oak Plantation maintains security guards on a twenty-four hour basis, seven days per week, and they were instructed not to allow Brown onto the property again. Since the date that the notices were posted and Brown was notified that he was barred from White Oak Plantation property, Brown has not returned. After the situation with Brown had been investigated and apparently resolved in late February 1999, Davis continued to check with Petitioner informally to inquire whether Petitioner was having any further problems. Petitioner was credible that he did, in fact, receive some unpleasant comments from other employees as a result of Rogers's and Davis's banning of Brown from the White Oak Plantation property. However, Petitioner did not report any such problems to Davis. Instead, he took a vacation for two weeks. After Petitioner returned to work, on March 19, 1999, Davis was shoeing a horse at the Forge, a small stabling facility about 100 yards from Respondent's East Stable. From the Forge, Davis had a direct line of sight to the East Stable. From the Forge, Davis witnessed two individuals running around and throwing water at each other. Because they were in the dark hallway of the stable, because of the distance, and because Davis was looking from lightness into darkness, Davis could not make out exactly who they were, but he could clearly see the conduct in which they were engaged. Respondent White Oak Plantation had gone out of business by the date of hearing. However, at all times material, White Oak Plantation was world renowned for its thoroughbred horse breeding program. It housed many mares valued in excess of $1,000,000.00 and foals with insurance values up to, and in excess of, $1,000,000.00. What Davis witnessed on March 19, 1999, was inconsistent with the training and instructions provided to employees working around such valuable blood stock. After contacting another employee to secure the horse in the Forge, Davis walked to the East Stable to investigate the commotion. Upon arriving at the East Stable, Davis discovered water in the hallway, disinfecting powder (lime) covering the black asphalt hallway, and a broken director's chair, normally reserved for guests, in the vicinity of a stall housing a young thoroughbred mare and her three-day-old foal. Davis approached the employees who were working at the East Stable at that time. They were Petitioner; Jason Martin, a minor Caucasian male; Clarence McClendon; and Billy Farmer, an adult Caucasian male. Davis noticed that Petitioner and Martin were both soaked with water, while McClendon and Farmer were dry. Davis asked Petitioner and Martin separately, but within earshot of each other, what had been going on, and both said they had been working. Davis then asked Farmer and McClendon, individually, what had occurred involving the water, lime, and broken chair. Both Farmer and McClendon avoided the question and responded that they did not want to get involved in the situation. Davis again asked Farmer and McClendon what had happened. Farmer and McClendon replied that they were working and that Davis should ask Martin and Petitioner what had happened. Davis asked Farmer and McClendon a third time what had occurred at the East Stable. Each of them replied that while they were working, Martin and Petitioner were horsing around. Davis then asked both Petitioner and Martin two or three times what had occurred, and each time Petitioner and Martin claimed that they had been working. Ultimately, Martin confessed that he had been involved in horse play and the commotion had been his fault. Davis immediately terminated Martin. Petitioner began to walk away from the situation, but Davis called after him something to the effect of "No, you can't let him take the fall for you. You are out of here, too." Petitioner protested that since Martin had confessed the incident was his fault, he, Petitioner, should not be terminated as well. The mare and three-day-old foal that were in the East Stable when Petitioner and Martin were horseplaying had a combined insurance value of between $750,000.00 and $800,000.00. The foal was only the mare's second or third birthing, and as a youngish mother she could be presumed to be nervous. Due to the age of the foal and the highly temperamental nature of young thoroughbred mares, the conduct in which Petitioner and Martin were engaged was very dangerous to the well-being of this mare and her three-day-old foal. It was conceivable that the mare could have been spooked and stepped on the foal, injuring it. Fortunately, that did not happen. Davis had trained all of his stable employees, including Martin and Petitioner, in the correct way to act around thoroughbred horses. Even though their horseplay was not actually in the stall with the new mother and foal, Davis considered Petitioner's and Martin's conduct with the water, lime, and broken chair to be inconsistent with the training provided. He accordingly terminated both Martin, the Caucasian boy, and Petitioner, the African-American man, because both had been involved in the event. Either orally or in paperwork, both Petitioner and Martin were terminated for engaging in horse play, for creating an unsafe work environment for themselves and their co-workers, and/or for reckless misconduct around the blood stock or thoroughbred horses. Petitioner pointed out that some or all of these reasons were not specifically listed as major offenses, subjecting an employee to termination, in Respondent's personnel manual at the time of his termination. That fact might be relevant in a case of unlawful termination pursuant to a contract of employment or collective bargaining agreement, but it is not material to the resolution of this case under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. The manual does not purport to be exhaustive of the reasons an employee could be terminated. What is material here is that Petitioner agrees that he and Martin were terminated for the same reason or reasons, however phrased. Petitioner feels that his termination was unfair because Martin essentially took the blame for them both, but Davis's reason for terminating both employees may be summed up by the old adage, "It takes two to make a fight." On the day of his termination, Petitioner told Davis that he and Martin were fighting, and that he was defending himself, but he did not say anything to Davis about Martin making any racial comments towards him. During Mr. Davis's contemporaneous investigation of the incident in the East Stable, neither McClendon nor Farmer told him that Martin had used any racial terms while engaged in horse play with Petitioner. After Petitioner was terminated, he appealed to Respondent's Human Resources Officer, Ronnie Rogers, so Rogers conducted his own investigation of the facts surrounding Davis's terminations of Petitioner and Martin. In connection with that investigation, Rogers interviewed Farmer, McClendon, and Petitioner. McClendon told Rogers that on the day of Petitioner's and Martin's terminations, he witnessed Petitioner and Martin running, playing, and throwing water on each other. McClendon further stated that he saw either Martin or Petitioner push the other individual into the director's chair, breaking it. Farmer told Rogers that on the day of Petitioner's and Martin's terminations, he had witnessed Petitioner and Martin running around and playing for 10 to 15 minutes. Rogers concluded that Davis had made a proper decision in terminating both Martin and Petitioner. The Monday following Petitioner's termination, Petitioner telephoned Rogers to inquire whether he was still terminated. During the course of this conversation, Petitioner admitted to Rogers that he and Martin were horse playing in the stables where the thoroughbred horses were housed. During this conversation, Petitioner did not say anything to Rogers about Martin or any other individual using any racial or inappropriate language on the date of Petitioner's termination. Rogers and Davis met with Petitioner on March 24, 1999, five days after Petitioner was terminated. During this meeting, Petitioner reiterated what he had told Rogers, that he and Martin were playing around in the East Stable on the day of their terminations, but he also brought up the previous racial incidents involving Gowen and Brown and inquired whether Rogers was aware of them. Rogers had not been aware of the incidents involving Gowen and asked Petitioner if he were satisfied with the way that all the previous incidents involving both Gowen and Brown had been handled. Petitioner indicated that he was satisfied with the manner in which the incidents involving Gowen and Brown had been handled. Petitioner claimed at hearing that in the March 24, 1999, meeting, he related to Davis and Rogers that the March 19, 1999, altercation with Martin had been self-defense because he had been attacked by Martin and/or provoked by Martin's racist comments. Both Davis and Rogers credibly deny that Petitioner told them anything about racial comments by Martin. They also credibly deny that Farmer or McClendon reported any racial comments. They are less clear that Petitioner said nothing about self-defense or about Petitioner having to fight Martin, and I accept Petitioner's testimony only to the extent that he did claim both horseplay and self-defense as of March 24, 1999. Neither Davis nor Rogers independently observed or was aware of any racially inappropriate conduct or comments. At hearing, Petitioner testified that on March 19, 1999, the date of termination, Martin had called Petitioner "Buckwheat." Petitioner related that Martin had then stated that if Mike Brown were permitted to call Petitioner "Buckwheat," then he, Martin, should be allowed to call Petitioner "Buckwheat," too, and that Petitioner told Martin that he could not because Petitioner now knew it to be racist language. Petitioner related that Martin then hosed Petitioner down, soaking Petitioner's clothes with water. Petitioner said he let this event pass, because it was hot. He then filled a pail of water and spilled some. He poured the remainder of the water in his pail into a wash stall. Martin ran away from Petitioner, thinking Petitioner was going to throw water on him, and said something to the effect of "Since you think you White and you want to be White, I'm going to take this lime and throw it on you and turn you White." Petitioner related that Martin was referring to the lime used to disinfect the stalls. However, Petitioner did not testify that Martin picked up any lime. Rather, Petitioner testified that Petitioner picked up a bucket of water and threw it on Martin. Petitioner related that Martin reacted to being doused by Petitioner by getting Petitioner in a headlock and punching and kicking him. A fight ensued, in close vicinity to the young mare and her three-day- old foal, but not within their stall. Petitioner testified that the director's chair was broken when Petitioner threw Martin into it. The area was also flooded with water.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (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 11th day of December, 2002.
The Issue Did the Respondent engage in a discriminatory employment practice by suspending the Petitioner from work?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Joeann F. Nelson, is a Black female. In 1997, she was employed as an aide working with developmentally disabled persons at Sunrise Community, Inc. The Respondent, Sunrise Community, Inc. (hereafter “Sunrise”) is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. On or about April 24, 1997, the Petitioner was suspended from her employment for a number of days by Sunrise. The Petitioner filed a complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (hereafter “the Commission”) on May 8, 1997, alleging that her suspension was racially motivated, and a violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. The staff of the Commission investigated the complaint, and issued its Determination of No Cause on May 16, 2000. At the same time, the Commission gave the Petitioner notice of her right to an administrative hearing on the Commission’s findings. The Petitioner, while employed by the Respondent, was asked by her immediate supervisor to participate in taking residents of the facility to their group home. The Petitioner refused to take the residents complaining that another co-worker was scheduled to take the residents on the day in question. The supervisor told the Petitioner that the person who was scheduled to take the residents was too old to handle that job, and the Petitioner got into an argument about this matter. As a result of this refusal to take the residents and the argument, the Petitioner was suspended for a number of days. The refusal to follow the directions of her supervisor regarding her work and the confrontational argument with the supervisor over being asked to do a specific task that was within her job duties generally were sufficient cause for discipline. The Petitioner did not show that she was singled out or treated differently because of her race, either in being asked to perform the task or in being suspended for refusing to do the task. Subsequently, the Petitioner filed a second complaint with the Commission on June 30, 1997, and raised additional issues regarding her discharge when she asked for her formal hearing on the Commission’s determination of no cause on the original complaint. However, the only matter properly before the undersigned in these proceedings is her suspension.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the complaint upon a finding that there was no cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: JoeAnne Nelson Post Office Box 76 Crawfordville, Florida 32326 Steven M. Weinger, Esquire Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, Tetzeli, P.A. 2650 Southwest 27th Avenue Second Floor Miami, Florida 33133 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
