The Issue The issue presented for determination is whether Respondent, Dillard’s, discriminated against Petitioner, Tanya Chun, based on her age, in violation of section 760.101, Florida Statutes (2012),1/ when it did not hire her for a sales associate position.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Chun was born April 4, 1957. Ms. Chun applied for a position as a sales associate at Dillard’s Department Store No. 209 in Lakeland, Florida, on June 7, 2012. At the time, she was 55 years old. Ms. Chun completed the employment application at a kiosk in the store linked to Dillard’s personnel system. Ms. Chun’s application disclosed only two periods of employment. The most recent was with Golf Plus, Inc., as a bookkeeper handling accounts receivable and accounts payable from January 1998 to May 2012. The other was employment at Macy’s in New York City from April 1993 to October 1994 in clothing sales and customer services as a retail sales associate. At the time, the Lakeland Dillard’s store had five openings--two in cosmetics, two in ladies’ shoes, and one in men’s shoes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Walter Soto was operation sales manager at the store with authority to hire people to fill the openings. Mr. Soto interviewed Ms. Chun and seven other applicants for the five positions. During the interview and hiring process, Mr. Soto relied upon the information the applicants provided in their applications and the interviews. Mr. Soto hired five of the applicants. He did not hire Ms. Chun. During Ms. Chun’s interview, Mr. Soto asked her a number of questions about Macy’s sales procedures and common sales procedures and practices. Ms. Chun was not familiar with common concepts, such as sales per hour and items per transaction. These are concepts with which someone with retail experience and knowledge should be familiar. The five people Mr. Soto hired are Emil Pancorbo, Angelique Schoenmakers, Taylor Swallow, Ashley Thirion, and David Tilton. All were younger than Ms. Chun, although Ms. Schoenmakers was only three years younger. The information available to Mr. Soto about Emil Pancorbo, which he relied upon, indicated that Mr. Pancorbo had recent retail experience at large retailers, JCPenney from October 2008 to April 2011, and Guitar Center from April 2011 to September 2011. Mr. Soto considered this experience in deciding to hire Mr. Pancorbo, instead of Ms. Chun. The information available to Mr. Soto about Angelique Schoenmakers, which he relied upon, indicated that she had recent retail experience as a counter manager for Elizabeth Arden and that she worked for Macy’s from October 2010 to April 2012. Ms. Schoenmakers was recruited to work for Dillard’s. Mr. Soto considered Ms. Schoenmakers’ employment history in deciding to hire Ms. Schoenmakers, instead of Ms. Chun. Ms. Schoenmakers was born January 15, 1960, making her only three years younger than Ms. Chun. The information available to Mr. Soto about Taylor Swallow, which he relied upon, indicated she had recent retail experience, working for Kohl’s from August 2011 to June 2012. Ms. Swallow also had cosmetic experience. She had applied makeup on clients. Mr. Soto considered Ms. Swallow’s employment history in deciding to hire Ms. Swallow, instead of Ms. Chun. The information available to Mr. Soto about Ashley Thirion, which he relied upon, indicated she had recent retail experience working at a Clinique cosmetics counter at Macy’s from June 2011 to November 2011. Clinique is a cosmetics line that Dillard’s also carries. Mr. Soto considered Ms. Thirion’s employment history in deciding to hire Ms. Thirion, instead of Ms. Chun. The information available to Mr. Soto about David Tilton, which he relied upon, indicated that Mr. Tilton had recent retail experience at a large retailer, Bealls from May 2010 to May 2012. Mr. Tilton worked in the shoe department for Bealls. Mr. Soto considered Mr. Tilton’s employment history in deciding to hire Mr. Tilton, instead of Ms. Chun. Based on the information from the applications and interviews available to him, Mr. Soto made a fair and rational decision to hire applicants other than Ms. Chun. In particular, the fact that the retail experience of each of the applicants was more recent than that of Ms. Chun supports Mr. Soto’s decision. All of the applicants, except Ms. Swallow and Ms. Thirion, also had more retail experience than Ms. Chun. Ms. Swallow and Ms. Thirion both had cosmetics experience, and two of the positions that Mr. Soto was filling were for the cosmetics department. The Dillard’s employment procedure includes preparing an applicant summary for each individual interviewed. For the hiring cycle involved here, eight of the applicant summaries, including Ms. Chun’s, indicate the person was hired. In order for the Dillard’s system to permit obtaining a background check, Mr. Soto had to change an applicant’s status on the applicant summaries to “hired.” At the time, Mr. Soto was not following the Dillard’s procedure of only conducting a background check for an employee after the employee was hired. He did not think the procedure was fair to the applicants, who may be hired and then “un-hired” after the background check. Mr. Soto chose to conduct background checks before extending job offers. The status on Ms. Chun’s applicant summary states “hired.” But she was not hired, just as Ricky Davis and William Guadalupe, whose summaries state “hired,” were not hired. The status for all the applicants said “hired,” only because Mr. Soto changed the status in order to run a background check. If Dillard’s hires an employee, a Basic Employee Information sheet is prepared. There is no Basic Employee Sheet for Tanya Chun because she was not hired. There are Basic Employee Information sheets for Emil Pancorbo, Angelique Schoenmakers, Taylor Swallow, Ashley Thirion, and David Tilton. If an employee is hired, Mr. Soto conducts reference checks. He did not conduct a reference check for Ms. Chun because she was not hired. Ms. Chun maintains that Mr. Soto told her at the interview’s conclusion that she was hired and that they agreed to a start date and compensation of $10.00 per hour with full medical and dental insurance. She also maintains that Mr. Soto told her she would undergo a routine background check and requested that she sign a consent form and provide her identification card for the background check. Ms. Chun says that Mr. Soto stated that she did not “look that old” after he looked at her identification. She also claims he then said he had to talk to someone else and left the room for about five minutes. Mr. Soto denies Ms. Chun’s descriptions of the conversation. Ms. Chun, according to her own testimony, called for Mr. Soto a few times in the days following the interview to check on her employment status. She was correctly told that he had been transferred. On June 18, 2012, Ms. Chun sent a letter with the following text to Mr. Soto: I am writing to inquire the status of my employment application and I would like to receive your written response. Early last week, I applied for employment at Human Resources. The next day I was called in for an interview by you and when we met, before you offered a position you stated that I seemed to be a good candidate, and requested my identification and social security card, made photocopies, then stated that you will do a background check. As you reviewed my identification papers, your tenor changed and you stated that you will get back to me. I am writing to ask the status. I would like to request a copy of the documents I completed, as I do not have them for myself--both the application and the background disclosure form. And I would like to know why my identification with date of birth was requested before I was offered a position, and why my identification became the basis of your change of discussion. Thank you for your prompt attention. She did not receive a response. On February 28, 2013, Ms. Chun sent another letter, this one to the Dillard’s Human Resource Department. It states: I wrote the attached letter [June 18, 2012, letter] to your company more than six months ago, and I have received no response. My discussion with Walter at the interview, before being requested to provide my ID showing my age, was that I was going to be hired. Then, when my ID revealed my age I was told “we will get back to you” and I have requested an explanation and copies of the documents pertaining to my application, but you have totally disregarded my letter. I am writing to reiterate my request, and I request that you respond within five business days. Neither letter, both of which are specific and articulate, includes the claim Ms. Chun now makes that Mr. Soto said she did not “look that old” after seeing her identification. Dillard’s did not respond until March 11, 2013. A woman named “Arlie” called that day and told Ms. Chun it was Dillard’s policy to obtain identification and again advised that Mr. Soto had been transferred to another location. The weight of the credible, persuasive evidence does not establish Ms. Chun’s version of the events. The factors resulting in this determination include the fact that she testified that Mr. Soto told her she was hired and that they agreed upon a start date. Yet, she also testified that she called several times to check on the status of her application. Calling to check on the application’s status is inconsistent with having accepted a job and having agreed to a start date. If Ms. Chun had been offered and accepted a job, she would have reported for work, not called to check on the status of her application. In addition, Mr. Soto’s testimony about the process and the events is consistent with the documents for the applicants he interviewed. Finally, Ms. Chun did not make her very specific claim about what Mr. Soto said, “you don’t look that old,” in either of her letters or her initial Complaint of Discrimination filed with the Commission. From April to November of 2013, Mr. Soto hired at least ten individuals born in 1957, like Ms. Chun, or born earlier. This is persuasive evidence corroborating Mr. Soto’s testimony that he does not weigh an applicant’s age against the applicant when making his hiring decisions. Mr. Soto hired five applicants other than Ms. Chun because he found their qualifications superior for the open positions. Ms. Chun’s age was not a factor in Mr. Soto’s decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations deny Ms. Chun’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 19th day of June, 2014.
The Issue The issues in this case are: Did the Respondent, Alix Aldonis (Mr. Aldonis), commit fraud; misrepresentation; concealment; false promises; false pretense; dishonest dealings by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence; or breach of trust in a business transaction by: (a) misrepresenting the sales price of real estate in a sale and purchase contract, (b) misrepresenting a commission amount in a sales and purchase contract, and (c) misrepresenting receipt by an escrow agent of a $5,000 deposit? Did Mr. Aldonis fail to obtain and retain written confirmation from the escrow agent of delivery of the Buyer's funds for purchase of the property?
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the real estate industry in the State of Florida, under the authority of section 20.165, Florida Statutes (2010), and chapters 455 and 475, Florida Statutes (2010). At all times material to this proceeding, the Department licensed Mr. Aldonis as a State of Florida real estate sales associate. He holds License Number SL-3117116, which is in effect until March 31, 2011. At all times material to this proceeding, Total Stop, Inc., d/b/a Total Stop Real Estate (Total Stop Real Estate), contracted with Mr. Aldonis to affiliate with it as a sales associate. At all times material to this proceeding, Lawrence Ligonde, of Total Stop Real Estate, was the licensed real estate broker with whom Mr. Aldonis was affiliated. Mr. Ligonde did not employ Mr. Aldonis. Currently, Mr. Aldonis is affiliated with Tropical Springs Realty, Inc. The agreement between Mr. Aldonis and Total Stop Real Estate did not provide for Total Stop Real Estate or Mr. Ligonde's receiving a percentage commission based on the price of sales that Mr. Aldonis made. Mr. Aldonis paid a flat fee of $495 to be affiliated with Mr. Ligonde. In 2006, Joseph Phen and Cheryl Phen listed a home that they owned, located at 3500 S.W. Viceroy Street, Port St. Lucie, Florida, for sale. They listed the property for $330,000. Ms. Phen was a real estate sales broker. She was the listing agent for the property. Mr. Aldonis represented a buyer in the sale of the Viceroy Street property. The buyer, Manuela Celestin, signed a Residential Sale and Purchase Contract for the property on August 2, 2006. Mr. and Ms. Phen signed the contract on August 3, 2006. They also initialed each page. The contract set forth a purchase price of $272,000. The contract also indicated that the buyer was providing a $5,000 deposit. Mr. Aldonis sent Ms. Phen a copy of the contract and a copy of a deposit check by facsimile transmission. The record does not reveal the sequence of contract signing, contract transmission, check transmission, the date of the check transmission, or whether the contract was transmitted more than once to Ms. Phen. Due to conversations with Ms. Augustine at Premier Choice Title & Escrow, the escrow agent identified in the contract, Ms. Phen grew concerned about whether the deposit had been placed in escrow. She spoke to Ms. Augustine about her concerns. Ms. Phen also told Mr. Aldonis she was concerned that the deposit check may not have been deposited in an escrow account. After the conversation, Mr. Aldonis sent Ms. Phen a copy of a check payable to Total Stop Real Estate from Charassard & Associates, P.A., for $5,000. "Phen/Celestin" is written in the "Memo" section of the check. The check bears the date August 6, 2006. Persuasive evidence does not establish if this was a copy of a second check or another copy of the check Mr. Aldonis transmitted earlier. Ms. Phen requested and received a copy of the Residential Sale and Purchase contract from the title company. The first page of this copy listed the sale price as $330,000. Although Ms. Phen testified about two HUD closing statements, the Department did not offer a copy of a HUD closing statement into evidence. The sale of the property occurred. The closing sale price was $272,000. The Department entered a second copy of the contract signed by the Phens and Ms. Celestin into evidence. The first page of the second contract reflected a sales price of $330,000. The initials at the bottom of the first page are not the initials of the Phens. The rest of the contract is identical to the contract signed by the Phens on August 3, 2006. Nothing in either contract provides for a four percent commission to be paid to any person or entity. There is no persuasive evidence indicating who created the second contract or how the title company obtained it. Mr. Ligonde testified that the contract with the higher purchase price "looks like" the one Mr. Aldonis provided him. The contracts "look" the same. Only a very close examination would identify the differences in the initials on the first page. The difference in amounts is more obvious, but it still requires a reading of the contract, not just looking at it, to note the different amount. Mr. Ligonde did not testify that the second contract entered into evidence came from his files. He also did not provide any information about how files are maintained at his business or who has access to them. He did not know when the contract arrived at his office or how. In addition, Mr. Ligonde's statement that a document "looks like" one provided him by Mr. Aldonis does not equate to testimony that the document is in fact the document Mr. Aldonis provided. At some point in the transaction, the employees of Mr. Ligonde's office, the employees of a title insurance company, and the employees of a mortgage broker had possession and control of the sales contract or a copy of it. The Department did not present credible, persuasive evidence that ruled out any of those individuals having created the new page one with the $330,000 sales price.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Real Estate Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S John D. C. Newton, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of February, 2011.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner has been subjected to employment discrimination by termination, allegedly based upon race, and by retaliation, for filing a charge of discrimination.
Findings Of Fact On or about November 29, 2005, the Petitioner applied for a job as a part-time sales clerk with the Respondent. The Petitioner indicated that she was available to work on Sundays, Mondays, and Wednesdays from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This was because she was already employed in another job. During the course of the hiring and orientation process, the Petitioner learned of the policies of the Respondent against harassment and discrimination of all types. She was instructed in those policies and acknowledged receipt of them. The Petitioner began her employment with the Respondent on December 27, 2005, as a part-time sales clerk at a convenience store (No. 31) in Milton, Florida. When she began her employment, the Store Manager was Bob Kukuk. The Assistant Managers for that store were Michael Morris and "Cynthia." There were also two other sales clerks, Cherie Dorey and Lugenia Word. Both Ms. Dorey and Ms. Word are white. Soon after the Petitioner was hired, Mr. Kukuk announced his resignation as store manager. On January 31, 2006, the Petitioner attended the new employee training session in Milton, Florida, which included training in the equal employment and non-harassment policies of the Respondent. During the question and answer session, concerning the harassment and discrimination portion of the training, the Petitioner told Training Manager, Robert Birks that she had a problem at her store involving a conflict with another employee. She felt that she was being required to do things that other employees were not required to do. Mr. Birks advised Ms. Myles that she should provide a written statement concerning her complaints to her supervisor and he provided her with pen, paper, and envelope to do so on the spot. The Petitioner wrote out a note and returned it to Mr. Birks in a sealed envelope and he gave the envelope to the District Advisor, Jamie Galloway on that same date. After reading the Petitioner's note, Ms. Galloway met with Petitioner on that same day to discuss her complaints. The Petitioner informed Ms. Galloway that Michael Morris, an Assistant Manager at her store, was telling employees that he was going to be the new store manager. The Petitioner told Ms. Galloway that she felt Morris did not like her because of her race. Ms. Galloway informed the Petitioner that, in fact, Morris would not be selected as store manager for store No. 31 and that Mr. Kukuk would be replaced with someone else other than Morris. She also informed the Petitioner that the Respondent had a zero tolerance for harassment and discrimination and that if the Petitioner had any problems with Mr. Morris that she should personally contact Ms. Galloway. In her capacity as District Advisor, Ms. Galloway supervised the day-to-day operations of a number of stores. In fact, during the above-referenced time period, Ms. Galloway was supervising her own normal district area, as well as that of another district manager who had resigned. The three sales clerks at store No. 31, Ms. Dorey, Ms. Word, and Ms. Myles were all reprimanded ("written-up") in February 2006, because of their cash registers being "short," or containing insufficient funds at the close of the business day or shift. The Petitioner was also counseled for insubordination on this occasion because she told Ms. Word, in front of customers, that she was not going to take out the trash because Mr. Morris and Ms. Dorey would be into work soon and "they never did anything anyway." Ms. Word confirmed that Ms. Myles had made that statement to the store management. Sometime in February 2006 the Petitioner expressed the desire to transfer to a store on the West side of Pensacola because she was no longer employed in her other job in the Milton area. She therefore wanted to work for Tom Thumb at a location closer to her residence. The Manager, Mr. Kukuk at that time, informed Ms. Galloway of this wish on the part of the Petitioner. Ms. Galloway contacted the District Advisor for the West side of Pensacola, Bill Jordan, to inquire whether any positions were available that would fit the Petitioner's schedule. Ms. Galloway followed up on the question with Mr. Jordan several days later, but Mr. Jordan said that he had no employment positions available at that time. The Petitioner then filed her Charge of Discrimination on February 16, 2006, (her first charge). In her Discrimination Charge the Petitioner maintains that she was constantly "getting written-up" for unnecessary matters by Mr. Morris, the Manager. In fact, however, she was written-up only once while Mr. Morris was the Assistant Manager of the store, as were Ms. Word and Ms. Dorey, the other clerks. Both Ms. Word and Ms. Dorey are white. Patricia Merritt was installed as the new store manager at store No. 31 on February 24, 2006. Ms. Merritt has worked for the Respondent for 17 years as a clerk, assistant manager, and manager. Ms. Merritt had the responsibility of managing the store, ascertaining that all duties involved in store operation were accomplished and supervising and monitoring the performance of other store employees. She imposed discipline, including termination if necessary, and also hired employees. Mr. Morris failed to appear for work, beginning the first week of March 2006. He was terminated from his employment with the Respondent on March 9, 2006. In February or early March, Ms. Merritt informed Ms. Galloway that she had overheard another employee referring to the Petitioner having filed a claim against the Respondent because of Mr. Morris. Prior to that time Ms. Merritt was unaware of any problem between Mr. Morris and the Petitioner. Between the time that Ms. Galloway met with the Petitioner on January 31, 2006, and the time she heard from store manager Merritt that the Petitioner was still having a problem with Morris in late February or early March, the Petitioner had not contacted Ms. Galloway to report any problem. After being advised of the matter by Ms. Merritt, Ms. Galloway advised Ms. Merritt to contact the Petitioner to find out her version of the events which occurred and to offer her a transfer to any one of five stores that Ms. Galloway was responsible for on the East side of Pensacola. Ms. Merritt met with the Petitioner and offered her the transfer opportunity, which the Petitioner refused at that time because she had a mediation pending. When Ms. Merritt began duties as store manager a misunderstanding occurred about the Petitioner's schedule. Ms. Merritt understood, mistakenly, that the Petitioner was available for fewer hours of work than she actually was. This resulted in the Petitioner being scheduled to work fewer hours for two or three weeks. Ms. Merritt was then informed of the Petitioner's actual scheduling availability by someone from the management office. On March 20, 2006, the Human Resource Manager, Sheila Kates, met with the Petitioner. The Petitioner complained about her reduced hours which Ms. Kates discussed with Ms. Merritt. As soon as Ms. Merritt realized that she had misunderstood the Petitioner's hours of availability she increased the Petitioner's hours on the work schedule. The Petitioner agreed that Ms. Merritt had been unaware about any problem between the Petitioner and Mr. Morris, when she reduced the Petitioner's work hours schedule because of her misunderstanding of the Petitioner's availability. Ms. Kates again offered to allow Ms. Myles to transfer to another store if she wished (apparently to help her avoid her apparent conflict with Mr. Morris), but the Petitioner again declined. Ms. Galloway, as part of her duties as District Advisor, conducted store inventory audits. She conducted a store inventory audit for Store No. 31 on May 30, 2006. During that audit she discovered that the store had a significant inventory shortage. Ms. Galloway therefore scheduled a "red flag" meeting the next day with each employee at the store, as well as meeting with them as a group to discuss inventory control. All of the employees at the store were counseled regarding the inventory shortage, including Ms. Myles and Ms. Word. Ms. Word, who is white, was issued a written reprimand on March 24th and April 24th, 2006, because of cash shortages. Ms. Word was subsequently terminated on June 16, 2006, for causing inventory shortages by allowing her friends to come in and take merchandise out of the store without paying for it, as well as for excessive gas "drive offs," or instances where people pumped gas into their vehicles and failed to pay for it. The Petitioner was given a $1.00 per hour raise by Ms. Merritt on or about April 2006. Ms. Merritt also changed the Petitioner from a part-time to a full-time employee in May 2006. This change enabled the Petitioner to become eligible for employee benefits. Ms. Merritt also, however, reprimanded the Petitioner for a cash shortage on July 14, 2006. The Petitioner admitted that her cash register was $48.00 dollars short on that day. The Petitioner complained to Ms. Galloway sometime in July of 2006 that Mr. Morris, the former store manager, and no longer an employee, had been vandalizing her car when he came to the store as a customer. Although these allegations were uncorroborated at that time, Ms. Galloway advised the Petitioner to call the police about the matter and to contact Ms. Kates directly, in the Human Resources office, if there were any more such incidents. The Petitioner filed a retaliation claim against the Respondent on August 7, 2006. Ms. Merritt had been considering the Petitioner for promotion to assistant store manager. The Petitioner completed a background check authorization for that position on September 19, 2006. Mark Slater is a Regional Manager for the Respondent. His duties include supporting the District Advisor's position, which includes recruitment, hiring and training of managers, reviewing sales trends, and reviewing any other financial trends, such as cash shortages, "drive offs" and inventory losses. In mid-October 2006, in the course of a routine review of reports from Store No. 31, Mr. Slater became aware of a possible problem regarding excessive gasoline drive offs, and an unusual purchase-to-sales ratio. Shortly after his review of those reports, Mr. Slater went to Store No. 31 to review the store's electronic journal. The electronic journal contained a record of all the store transactions. In his review of that journal, he focused on "voids," "no sales," and "drive offs," which could explain the irregularities that he had observed in his initial review. In his review of the "voids" at store No. 31 during the period in question, Mr. Slater noted quite a few voids for cigarette cartons, for large amounts, in a very short period of time. Specifically, in the course of seven minutes, he observed voids in the total amount of $406.23. He found this to be highly irregular and suspicious. Mr. Slater also looked at the drive-offs, because he had noticed some trends on that report as well. In reviewing drive-offs, he noticed that the same employee number was involved in both the voids and the drive-off transactions. Mr. Slater noted in his review that one drive-off was held on a void and then brought down as a drive-off, which appeared suspicious to him. Mr. Slater than matched up the electronic journal transactions with the security video tape that corresponded with that journal entry. In observing the video tape, Mr. Slater identified the transaction entered as a drive-off, but saw from the video tape that a customer had in fact come in and paid for the gas in question with cash. When he began his review Mr. Slater did not know which employee had the employee number that was used in association with the voids and the gasoline drive-offs. However, after he had concluded his investigation, he researched that number and found out that it was the number assigned to the Petitioner. Mr. Slater thus knew that the Petitioner had voided the drive- off transaction, as shown in the electronic journal, while the video tape showed that the Petitioner had actually served the customer who, in fact, did not drive-off without paying, but had paid $20.00 in cash for the gasoline in question. When she was asked about the security video showing the Petitioner accepting the $20.00 for the transaction which she had entered as a gas drive-off, the Petitioner responded that she did not recall it. Mr. Slater concluded that the Petitioner had not properly handled the transaction and took his findings to the Human Resources Manager, Sheila Kates. After consulting with Ms. Kates, the decision was made to terminate the Petitioner's employment. Prior to making his investigation and prior to making his conclusions, Mr. Slater was unaware of any issues between the Petitioner and Michael Morris. None of his findings and decisions regarding the situation with the Petitioner's voids and drive-offs had anything to do, in a retaliatory sense, with any issues or complaints the Petitioner might have had against Michael Morris or to the Respondent concerning Michael Morris. After being discharged for related types of conduct, neither Ms. Lugenia Word, who is white, nor the Petitioner, Ms. Myles, are eligible for re-hire by the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the charges of discrimination and retaliation at issue in their entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 29th day of October, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Latarsha Myles 2103 Haynes Street, Apt. C Pensacola, Florida 30326 Cathy M. Stutin, Esquire Fisher & Philips LLP 450 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent owes an additional surcharge tax liability on the sale of alcoholic beverages and, if so, how much and what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by Petitioner as an alcoholic beverage vendor. Since January 1982, Respondent has held a 4COP license, which permits him to operate a package store, in which beer, wine, and liquor are sold for consumption off premises, and a bar, in which these alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the premises. Respondent sells beer, wine, and liquor for consumption on and off premises at a place of business known as Big Still Liquors, which is located at 1042 N. Tamiami Trail, North Ft. Myers. The Legislature introduced the surcharge in 1990. By Form DBR 44-005E, which is called "Election of Surcharge Payment Method and Certified Inventory Report," Respondent elected an accounting method by which to track and report sales of alcoholic beverages subject to the surcharge. On July 9, 1990, Respondent checked the box on the form that states: "I hereby permanently elect to pay future surcharges based upon purchases." The other alternative on the form is the sales method, in which the surcharge is calculated directly from retail sales. The sales method requires that the vendor record at retail the gallonage, as well as sales price. Also, the vendor must distinguish among beer, wine, and liquor sold at retail. Like most vendors, however, Respondent records sales by sales price, not volume. The issues in this case arise out of two factors. First, the surcharge applies to volume of alcoholic beverages, not the sales price or purchase cost. As noted above, Respondent's sales records are expressed in dollars. Second, the surcharge applies to alcoholic beverages sold for consumption on premises, not to package sales. Although purchases from wholesalers can easily be determined in terms of volumes, Respondent purchases all alcoholic beverages through the package store and does not purchase alcoholic beverages separately for the bar. Thus, factual issues arise in determining the volume of beer, wine, and liquor sold through the bar. Even though a vendor elects the purchase method, rather than the sales method, Petitioner must calculate the volume of alcoholic beverages sold at retail. Petitioner has devised a formula for this purpose. The audit in the present case took place at the start of 1993 and covered July 1990 through December 1992. The auditor obtained the invoices of the wholesale distributors that sold beer, wine, and liquor to Respondent during December 1992, January 1993, and February 1993. From these invoices, the auditor determined Respondent's cost of goods sold for these three months. The auditor then estimated the markup on the alcoholic beverages. For liquor, the auditor asked Respondent's counterperson the amount of markup for larger bottles and smaller bottles. The percentage markups were 25 percent and 35 percent, respectively. Recording the sales prices of two smaller items and two larger items, the auditor then calculated the actual markup and found that these estimates were quite accurate. The auditor next averaged the markup to 30 percent. It is unclear whether he attempted to estimate the relative proportion of larger items to smaller items. It is clear that this markup applies to liquor and possibly to wine, but not to beer, where the markup is much less. The auditor then found the breakdown between package store sales and bar sales for December 1992 through February 1993. Expressed as a percentage of total sales, package sales accounted for 51.1 percent, 61.3 percent, and 49.3 percent for the three months, respectively. The auditor averaged these figures and determined that 53.9 percent of all Big Still sales were through the package store. Next, the auditor applied the 53.9 percent factor to the total purchases from wholesale distributors during the 30-month audit period. After a reduction to reflect the 30 percent markup, the auditor calculated the package- store factor, which is deducted from total volume to yield the residual volume of beer, wine, and liquor, which is presumed to have been sold through the bar. The lower the markup, the higher the package-sale factor, which is to the vendor's advantage as the package-sale factor is a deduction because it is not subject to the surcharge. Numerous questions arise in the application of Petitioner's formula in this case. Questions include the reasonableness of the methods of estimating markup and differentiating between package and bar sales. In the absence of records from Respondent, however, Petitioner's approach would prevail. However, Respondent has separately accounted for bar and package store sales for years. Motivated by a desire to reduce employee pilferage, Respondent has required employees to record all transfers of beer, wine, and liquor from the package store to the bar. To ensure compliance, Respondent has also required that all empties be returned to the package store in order to monitor bar sales. Respondent reported and paid the surcharge in accordance with the volumes of alcoholic beverages reflected on its internal records. There is no surcharge deficiency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Action against Respondent. ENTERED on November 29, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on November 29, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-3: adopted or adopted in substance. 4-12: rejected as subordinate. 13-14 (first sentence): rejected as recitation of evidence. 14 (remainder)-15: adopted or adopted in substance. 16-18: rejected as recitation of evidence. 19-25: adopted or adopted in substance; provided, however, Petitioner failed to prove that the result was more accurate than the result produced by Respondent. 26: rejected as recitation of evidence. 27-30: adopted or adopted in substance. 31-34: rejected as recitation of evidence and subordinate. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3: rejected as irrelevant. 4: rejected as repetitious. 5-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8: rejected as irrelevant. 9: adopted or adopted in substance. 10-end: rejected as subordinate, repetitious, recitation of evidence, irrelevant, not findings of fact, and not in compliance with order of hearing officer requiring numbered paragraphs with no more than four sentences per paragraph. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr. Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-1007 Harold M. Stevens Harold M. Stevens, P.A. P.O. Drawer 1440 Ft. Myers, FL 33902
The Issue Whether Petitioner was discriminated against by reason of national origin.
Findings Of Fact From October 5, 1997, through October 4, 1998, Santiago was employed by Eckerd's as a Front End Associate and a Drug Clerk. During that time, Santiago worked in two of Eckerd's Miami stores under the supervision of store managers Paul Harris (Harris) and Susanna Peralta (Peralta). Santiago was a difficult employee to schedule in that she limited the hours during which she was available to work. For that reason it was necessary for her to work in two different stores; still Eckerd had trouble finding enough work hours for her at times when she was available. In a final effort to secure adequate hours for Santiago, in July 1998 Eckerd placed her in its store managed by Peralta. At that time, 17 of 29 store employees (approximately 59 percent) were Hispanic, including store manager Peralta. During the time Petitioner worked at the Eckerd from which she transferred, 18 of 44 associates (approximately 41 percent) were Hispanic. Santiago claims that Harris was hostile towards her because she is Hispanic. Harris and Peralta unequivocally denied any discriminatory actions or intent with respect to Santiago. Their demeanor under oath was serious and straightforward, and the undersigned credits their testimony. Santiago expressed her strong view that she was the victim of a vendetta by Harris rooted in discrimination, but there was no evidence or exhibits which would provide the type of corroborating detail one would expect to find if a retail manager in fact ran his store in a manner prohibited by law. Unrebutted testimony presented by Eckerd establishes that Santiago was terminated in good faith because she failed to report to work for three consecutive days. Her testimony suggests that Santiago may have been genuinely confused regarding whether she was in fact scheduled to work on those days. Assuming Santiago had made an honest error in not reporting for work, such a misunderstanding would not furnish a basis to conclude that she was terminated on account of her national origin.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order dismissing this case with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Danielle R. May, Esquire Eckerd Corporation, d/b/a Eckerd Drugs 8333 Bryan Dairy Road Largo, Florida 33777 Adda Santiago Carlton Bay Condo 2821 Northeast 163rd Street Apartment 2T, Sunny Isle Boulevard Miami Beach, Florida 33160 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be determined in this proceeding is whether Respondents Wilson and Son Sales, Inc. (Wilson), and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, as surety, are indebted to Petitioner for certain Florida-grown agricultural products.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a producer of several vegetable crops in Hardee County. Wilson is a dealer in agricultural products. More specifically, Wilson operates an agricultural broker business in Plant City. Wilson’s surety is Ohio Casualty Insurance Company. Although Wilson has written contracts with some producers, Wilson does not have written contracts with all producers. In the absence of a contract, the terms of Wilson’s broker services are almost always the same; that is, Wilson gets a commission of 10 percent on the sale of the produce and $.35 per box for palletizing and pre-cooling the produce, in return for which Wilson makes a reasonable and good faith effort to sell Petitioner’s produce for the best price. Petitioner contacted Wilson in January 2007, about bringing flat beans to Wilson to sell. Wilson expressed interest and informed Petitioner about Wilson’s standards terms as described above. These terms were agreeable to Petitioner and he brought the beans to Wilson later that month. Although Petitioner and Wilson had no written contract, the parties’ mutual understanding of the terms of their agreement created an enforceable oral contract. Wilson sold Petitioner’s beans and no dispute arose from this first transaction. The parties’ subsequent transactions for other produce were undertaken pursuant to the same oral contract terms. Because Wilson works on a commission basis, it is generally in Wilson’s self-interest to sell growers’ produce for the best price. Petitioner contacted Robert Wilson, Wilson’s owner, by telephone in February 2007, and informed Wilson of his plans to grow wax beans and “hard squash.” It was not stated in the record whether all three varieties of hard squash later grown by Petitioner, butternut squash, acorn squash, and spaghetti squash, were discussed by Petitioner and Robert Wilson during their February 2007 telephone conversation. A major dispute in the case was whether the parties’ February discussion about hard squash created some obligation on the part of Wilson beyond the oral contract terms described above. Petitioner claims that Wilson encouraged him to plant the squash and that Petitioner would not have planted the squash otherwise. Petitioner never made clear, however, what additional obligation was created by Robert Wilson’s encouragement beyond the obligation to accept delivery of and make good faith efforts to sell Petitioner’s squash at the best price. Petitioner did not use the word “guarantee,” but his claim seems to be that Wilson became obligated to guarantee that the squash would be sold for a price close to the price published in the Columbia (South Carolina) Market Report, a periodic publication of produce prices. Such an obligation on the part of a broker is contrary to the general practice in the trade. Petitioner’s evidence was insufficient to prove more than that Robert Wilson thought he could sell Petitioner’s squash and had a genuine interest in acting as broker for Petitioner’s squash. The evidence was insufficient to prove the existence of a contractual guarantee that Wilson would obtain a certain price for Petitioner’s hard squash or do more than was promised with regard to the beans that Wilson had sold for Petitioner; that is, to try to sell the produce for the best price. When Petitioner’s wax beans were picked in late April, he brought them to Wilson to sell. No dispute arose regarding the sale of the wax beans. Petitioner brought squash to Wilson in five deliveries between May 12 and May 29, 2007. Petitioner said that on one of these deliveries, he had to leave the boxed squash in the parking lot of Wilson’s facility because there was so much cantaloupe that had been delivered ahead of him. Petitioner says he was told by a Wilson employee that the squash would not be put in the cooler. Petitioner thinks Wilson was more interested in moving the cantaloupe than the hard squash. Petitioner thinks his squash was not put in the cooler or was put in too late. Wilson denies that Petitioner’s squash was not put into the cooler or was put in late. Robert Wilson claims that he made many calls in an effort to sell Petitioner’s squash, but he could not find interested buyers for all of the squash because (1) the demand for hard squash dried up, (2) some of Petitioner’s squash was of low quality, and (3) the squash began to spoil. Petitioner denied these allegations. Petitioner received invoices and other paperwork from Wilson showing that Wilson sold Petitioner’s first delivery of 490 boxes of acorn squash for $10.18 per box. It sold Petitioner’s second delivery of 519 boxes of acorn squash for $2.08 per box. For Petitioner’s third delivery of 110 boxes of acorn squash and 240 boxes of spaghetti squash, Wilson “dumped” the acorn squash by giving it to away for free to the Society of St. Andrews food bank, and sold the spaghetti squash for $5.15 per box. Wilson sold petitioner’s fourth delivery of 279 boxes of butternut squash for $.55 per box.1 Competent substantial evidence in the record established that it is a regular occurrence for agricultural products awaiting sale to decay and become unsellable, and for the broker to dump the products in a landfill or give the products to a charitable organization and then provide the grower a receipt for tax deduction purposes. It was undisputed that Wilson did not notify Petitioner before disposing of his squash. Petitioner claims he should have been notified by Wilson if the squash was beginning to spoil. However, Petitioner did not prove that prior notification was a term of their oral contract. Petitioner claims further that the federal Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act required Wilson to notify Petitioner before dumping the squash and to have the squash inspected to determine whether, in fact, it was spoiled. As discussed in the Conclusions of Law below, this federal law is not applicable. Competent substantial evidence in the record established that the market for agricultural products fluctuates and, at times, can fluctuate rapidly. For hard squash, which is normally prepared in an oven, the market demand can drop dramatically due to the onset of warm weather simply because people tend not to cook hard squash dishes in warm weather. Petitioner’s squash was being marketed in May, which means the beginning of warm weather for most areas of the United States. This fact supports Wilson’s claim that the demand for hard squash had been good, but fell rapidly just at the time Wilson was trying to sell Petitioner’s squash. The problem with the claims made by Petitioner in this case is simply one of insufficient proof. It is not enough for Petitioner to offer theories about what he thinks happened or to raise questions which are not fully answered. Petitioner had no proof that his squash was not put in Wilson’s cooler, that his squash did not begin to decay, that the demand for hard squash did not fall rapidly, that Wilson did not make reasonable efforts to sell the squash, that Wilson had willing buyers for Petitioner’s squash at a better price, or that Wilson sold squash from other growers at a better price. Petitioner’s evidence for his claims consisted primarily of market price reports that he contends show the approximate price Wilson should have gotten for the hard squash. Market price reports have some relevance to the issues in this case, but competent evidence was presented that the prices quoted in the publications are not always reliable to indicate the price a grower can expect to get on any given day, because there are factors that cause the published market price to be an inflated price (and applicable to the highest grade of produce) and because the market price can change rapidly with a change in demand for the product. The oral contract between Petitioner and Wilson required Wilson to try to get the best price for Petitioner’s squash, not some particular price appearing in a particular market price report. Petitioner did not show that Wilson got a better price for hard squash of equal quality, or that other brokers in the area got a better price for hard squash of equal quality at the times relevant to this case. Petitioner’s evidence was insufficient to prove that Wilson did not make a reasonable and good faith effort to sell Petitioner’s squash at the best price.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s amended claim. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BRAM D. E. CANTER 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 7th day of March, 2008.
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of his disability, and whether the Respondent’s discharge of the Petitioner from employment was unlawfully based upon his disability, in contravention of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2003), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 1201 et seq.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner worked for the Respondent from September 17, 1999 through July 9, 2002. At the time of his termination from employment on July 9, 2002, the Petitioner worked in the Respondent’s Pensacola, Florida, Store No. 1605 under the supervision of Front End Assistant Manager Jackie Lewis and Store Co-Manager Rodney Snyder. The Petitioner’s last position with Wal-Mart was as a “People Greeter,” working eight-hour shifts. The Petitioner suffers from diabetes. On his employment application, the Petitioner indicated that he was able to work any scheduled hours and was seeking full-time employment. The Petitioner’s diabetes did not interfere with his ability to secure full-time employment. The Petitioner began his employment with the Respondent in Pensacola, Florida, Store No. 1222 as a maintenance associate, handling janitorial tasks. During the time he worked as a maintenance associate the Petitioner had his diabetes “under control.” The Petitioner completed an ADA “Job Matrix” form provided by the Respondent, on which he represented that he was able to perform all essential functions of his position without the need for any accommodation. No mention was made by the Petitioner at that time of his diabetic condition or resulting need for an accommodation. The Petitioner had “run-ins” with store management during his tenure as an employee of the Respondent. The Petitioner had a “run-in” with a Meat Department Manager over an assignment to mop-up a sugar spill, which the Petitioner refused to do. The Petitioner complained about supplies, or the lack thereof, at the store. The Petitioner admitted that there were tasks he simply refused to perform. The Petitioner had several problems with his co- workers and managers. On August 28, 2001, the Petitioner’s poor work attitude was cited on his annual performance appraisal, which was termed “below expectations.” During the course of his employment with the Respondent, the Petitioner was disciplined on several occasions through Wal-Mart’s “coaching” process. On February 17, 2001, the Petitioner received a “written coaching” for his failure to perform assigned job tasks, and he was informed that he needed to improve his job performance. Neither the annual performance rating nor the “coaching” session was caused by the Petitioner’s medical condition. On July 31, 2001, the Petitioner received a more severe form of coaching, a “Decision-Making-Day.” The coaching indicated that the Petitioner failed to complete jobs in a timely manner, questioned the authority of his managers, and had trouble following the directions of supervisors. The Petitioner was informed that if his performance did not improve he would be terminated. The Petitioner was given a day off to consider whether he wanted to continue to work for the Respondent and to prepare a performance action plan. In his performance action plan, the Petitioner indicated he would be more productive and approach his work with a more positive attitude. Following his performance action plan, the Petitioner requested and was granted a transfer to the position of "People Greeter," who works at the front of the store and welcomes customers as they enter the store. A "People Greeter" also performs certain tasks related to security. The Petitioner claimed to have given the Respondent’s personnel office a doctor’s note on June 27, 2002, indicating that the Petitioner needed a break every two hours in order to properly regulate his medication. The note made no mention of the Petitioner’s diabetic condition. The Respondent disavows any knowledge of receipt of a note concerning the Petitioner’s medical condition and need for frequent breaks. The Petitioner claimed that he was not always given the breaks he needed to regulate his medication. Given the nature of retail operations, in terms of the ebb and flow of shoppers entering the store, regular breaks are not always possible. Prior to the alleged submission of the doctor’s note on June 27, 2002, the Petitioner received coaching from his supervisors. On June 22, 2002, the Petitioner received verbal coaching from Ms. Jacqueline Lewis concerning his lack of respect for Customer Service Managers and other store management. Ms. Lewis received a statement from the Petitioner’s trainer indicating he refused to follow Wal-Mart policies for the "People Greeter" position. Ms. Lewis received written complaints from other co- workers of the Petitioner concerning his performance as a "People Greeter." All of these statements were factors in Ms. Lewis’ evaluation of the Petitioner’s performance as a "People Greeter." On the day of his termination, the Petitioner shouted 75-feet across the front of the store to the Customer Service Manager, requesting that she contact Ms. Lewis about issues taking place in the front of the store. He called a second time when his first request went unheeded. This behavior took place in front of store customers. Based upon the shouting incident, the Petitioner’s violation of policies, and the written complaints from co- workers, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner’s employment on July 9, 2002. The specific reasons given for the Petitioner’s termination were his inability to perform his job and for his not being respectful of other associates. The Petitioner believes that his co-workers and supervisors were aware of his diabetes. No co-workers or supervisors of the Petitioner testified at hearing that they were aware of the Petitioner’s diabetes. Ms. Lewis, the Front End Assistant Manager in the store, was not aware of the Petitioner’s diabetes. Ms. Carolyn Miller, the head Customer Service Manager for the store, was not aware of the Petitioner’s diabetes. Mr. Snyder, the store co-manager, was not aware of the Petitioner’s diabetes. Upon termination from employment with Wal-Mart, the Petitioner secured a Florida security guard license on his first try and obtained work as a security guard. The Petitioner was able to work a full eight-hour shift while employed by the Respondent. The Petitioner was able to perform the duties of his maintenance position when he held that job. At the time of his termination, the Petitioner was actively seeking a new position with Wal-Mart in the heating and ventilation area. When the Petitioner was unable to perform tasks associated with his employment, he attributed this to “old age,” and not his diabetes. The Petitioner planned to open his own steam cleaning and air conditioning repair business while he worked at Wal-Mart and felt physically able to do so. Since his termination from Wal-Mart, the Petitioner has secured gainful employment as a security guard at various factories, involving activities such as walking and driving trucks. The Petitioner has plans to rewire his house by himself. The Petitioner’s diabetes is kept in control by medication, and he does not require insulin.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding that the Respondent did not discriminate against the Petitioner and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John M. Dickson 7870 Castlegate Drive Pensacola, Florida 32534-4555 Richard L. Ruth, Esquire Ford & Harrison LLP 225 Water Street, Suite 710 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was terminated from his position with the Respondent in retaliation for reporting an unlawful employment practice that occurred in June 1995.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an "employer" within the definition found in Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. Petitioner was an "employee" of the Respondent as defined in Section 760.02, Florida Statutes, and was employed by Respondent for approximately two years. Aaron Rents, Inc., is a national furniture rental and sales company which does business in some locations, including locations in Florida, as Aaron's Rental Purchase. Petitioner, Jerome Carter, was employed by the company at an Aaron's Rental Purchase store in Kissimmee, Florida, from approximately August 2, 1993, until August 19, 1995. Petitioner was initially hired as a delivery driver and progressed to Assistant Credit Manager, Credit Manager, and finally Sales Manager of the Kissimmee store. In August 1995, Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Store Manager Steven Liberti. Liberti reported to District Manager Leonard Alonzo, who was supervised by Florida Regional Manager Joseph Fedorchak. As the Sales Manager, one of Petitioner's most important job duties was greeting and interacting with customers. He typically had the first contact with each customer as they walked into the store, and his demeanor, as he greeted them, influenced whether they felt comfortable and were likely to make a purchase. Petitioner, however, was not appropriately welcoming and friendly. Petitioner's attitude was withdrawn and not very cordial. Petitioner himself admitted that he "never look[s] happy." Petitioner's sullen demeanor was the topic of numerous discussions with his supervisors. In an effort to address the Petitioner's concerns and improve his work performance, the District Manager initiated a conversation to elicit any complaints the Petitioner might have. Petitioner expressed dissatisfaction with his position as a Credit Manager and the length of time since his last raise. As a result, Alonzo transferred the Petitioner to the Sales Manager position and gave him a pay increase. After the transfer, however, Petitioner's demeanor did not brighten. Concerned, the District Manager again inquired about the cause of the Petitioner's apparent unhappiness. Petitioner merely acknowledged that his attitude needed improvement and promised that he would "straighten up" and "be more outgoing." Each time they had that discussion, however, Petitioner's behavior would improve for only a short time, then return to his previous melancholy. The Store Manager also talked to Petitioner at least twice about his attitude toward his job, telling him that he needed to smile more often. Although the Petitioner's behavior would temporarily change after these discussions, Liberti observed that the improvement lasted only about 24 hours. In August 1995, sales at the Kissimmee store were at an all-time low. Petitioner's supervisors attributed the location's failure to meet its sales goals at least in part to the Petitioner's inability to interact with customers and make sales. After their repeated discussions with him did not result in lasting improvement, the Managers felt they had no choice but to terminate Petitioners employment. Fedorchak concurred that, because the Petitioner could not seem to display an appropriate attitude and demeanor for a Sales Manager, his services were no longer needed. Petitioner admits that when he was discharged, the reason that he was given was that he "did not look happy." Approximately two months before Petitioner left the Kissimmee store, one incident with racial overtones was brought to the Store Manager's attention. In June 1995, store employees Mark Mars and/or Jesus Rivera reported to Liberti that another store employee, Michael Flowers (who is white), had used the term "nigger" during a discussion with store employee Kenny Tatum (who is black). Liberti informed Alonzo about the complaint and an investigation was conducted. When the Managers spoke with Tatum, he explained that Flowers had used the expression "nigger, please," which was slang for "you've got to be kidding," during a conversation between the two men. He assured them that he had not been offended. Nevertheless, because Alonzo and Liberti felt it was highly inappropriate for Flowers to use such language in the store, they gave him a reprimand and warning. In his deposition testimony, Petitioner recalled learning about the occurrence from several other employees. Petitioner did not personally witness it or hear Flowers use the offensive term, but merely claimed to have reported to Liberti what he had been told. According to Petitioner, Liberti responded to this information by affirming that such behavior would not be tolerated. Petitioner admits that he was never told, and had no reason to believe, that Aaron's authorized, encouraged, or instructed Flowers to use racially derogatory language in the store or that he had done so on Aaron's behalf. When Petitioner allegedly reported the occurrence to Liberti, he only believed that a co-employee had made an inappropriate comment at work. The incident involving Flowers and Tatum was unrelated to Petitioner's discharge. None of the three individuals involved in the decision to discharge Petitioner associated him with the incident or any opposition to it. Liberti does not recall discussing the incident with Petitioner, and neither Alonzo nor Fedorchak knew that Petitioner even claimed to have had some involvement in reporting it until after he was discharged. Moreover, none of the conversations among the three about their decision to terminate Petitioner included any reference to Flowers' comment or the subsequent events. No one who opposed the incident suffered any adverse consequences. Rivera and/or Mars reported the comment, and neither of them experienced any unfavorable employment actions as a result.
Recommendation Based upon the testimony and evidence submitted on the record in the formal hearings on this matter and by application of the relevant or governing principles of law to the findings of facts established on such record, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order which dismisses the Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerome L. Carter, Sr. 2188 McClaren Circle Kissimmee, Florida 34744 Daniel F. Piar, Esquire Kilpatrick Stockton LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4530 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 249 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 249 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents owe Petitioner approximately $591 for a quantity of watermelons provided by Petitioner; secondarily, resolution of this issue 1 Correction of obvious error has been made to the style of this case, adding the name of Co-Respondent U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., and eliminating the Department of Agriculture and Consumer requires a determination of whether Respondents acted as an agent for Petitioner as opposed to a direct purchase of Petitioner's melons by Respondents.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a farmer who produces agricultural products, including watermelons. Petitioner also has trucks in which he hauls agricultural products, including watermelons. When all his trucks are in use, he frequently calls a friend, Freddy Bell, to provide some of Bell’s trucks to haul his products. Petitioner, in turn, helps Bell when Bell’s trucks are all in use. Respondent Wilson is a dealer of such products in the course of normal business activity. Respondent Wilson acts as a broker in these arrangements, receives the gross sales receipts from buyers and from that sum deducts costs of labor, freight, inspections, any other associated costs and his commission. The net balance of the gross sales receipts are paid to the melon producers. Respondent U. S. Fidelity and Guaranty Company is the bonding agent for Respondent pursuant to Section 604.20, Florida Statutes. Petitioner had not discussed any arrangement for the sale of his melons with Respondent Wilson. Instead, Petitioner discussed the sales price of his melons with Freddy Bell. Petitioner testified that Bell represented to Petitioner that he could get a price of $4.00 per hundred weight for Petitioner’s melons. Petitioner relied on Bell to provide transport his melons and obtain the promised price. While Bell did not testify at the final hearing, the parties are in agreement that Bell arranged for sale and shipment of Petitioner’s melons through Wilson. Wilson’s President, Robert M. Wilson, testified at hearing that Bell was not empowered by him to represent a guaranteed price for melons to anyone and that he could not affirm that Bell operated as his agent. He added that Melons were plentiful this past season and no melons were brokered on a guaranteed price basis. Testimony of Robert M. Wilson at the final hearing establishes that the arrangement between Respondent Wilson and Freddy Bell on Petitioner’s behalf was a brokerage arrangement and that the sale of the melons was subject to conditions and demands of the market place, i.e., that the melons would sell for the best possible price which Wilson could obtain for them. Testimony of Petitioner is uncorroborated and fails to establish that the agreement between the parties contemplated a direct sale of the melons to Respondent Wilson or a guaranteed price by Wilson.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Petitioner's complaint.DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Bo Bass 2829 Southwest SR 45 Newberry, FL 32669 John M. Martirano, Esquire US Fidelity and Guaranty Co Post Office Box 1138 Baltimore, MD 21203-1138 Robert M. Wilson, President Wilson and Son Sales, Inc. 2811 Airport Road Plant City, FL 33567 Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol - Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building, Room 508 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800
