The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practices alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), and if so, what relief should be granted.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Grasso was employed by the Agency as a fire protection specialist. Mr. Grasso was born on December 27, 1953. When he was 46 years old, he was hired by the Agency as a health facility evaluator, above base salary. When he was 48 years old, Mr. Grasso was promoted to the fire protection specialist position, above base salary. When he was 54 years old, he received a special pay increase. Fire protection specialists survey health care facilities for fire safety. These surveys can be pursuant to federal guidelines and state guidelines; they include off-site preparation, entrance conferences, a tour of the facility, records review, and staff and resident interviews. Fire protection specialists also must adhere to the Agency's protocol, which provides guidelines as to the amount of time that should be devoted to a facility, given its type and size. By all accounts, Mr. Grasso is passionate about his work, but is difficult to manage because he challenges management directives at every turn. In the summer of 2010, after Mr. Grasso was transferred from the Bureau of Plans and Construction to the Bureau of Field Operations, the management team noticed some deficiencies in Mr. Grasso's job performance. In this new assignment, his direct supervisor was Lorna Howell, who reported to Arlene Mayo-Davis, who in turn reported to Bureau Chief Polly Weaver. On one occasion, Ms. Davis asked Mr. Grasso to assist with a survey in Tampa, although Mr. Grasso was stationed in the Delray Beach office. Mr. Grasso indicated that he was unavailable for the dates requested and that, if he did do the work, he wanted additional compensation. In September 2010, problems arose regarding Mr. Grasso's upcoming October schedule; he was requesting overtime pay for the work he was scheduled to complete. The Agency responded that no overtime was necessary because his schedule could be adjusted to limit his work to regular work hours. Mr. Grasso threatened to file a grievance. The three management witnesses credibly testified to a pattern that existed: Mr. Grasso failed to properly manage his time. He frequently took longer to conduct surveys that his colleagues could complete in shorter timeframes, he often had logged in 40 hours of work by the fourth day of a five-day work week, he requested changes to his survey schedules and deviated from the schedule without seeking permission, and he often failed to adhere to the scheduling and staffing protocols. He requested overtime almost weekly, and his colleagues rarely did so. His requests were often found in emails sent to management that were written in such a way as to reflect disdain for management and an inability to accept a management decision. In August of 2013, Mr. Grasso requested a pay raise based on the fact that he had received a competitive job offer. Ms. Weaver, who processes these types of requests, decided not to recommend Mr. Grasso for a pay raise because he did not exhibit team player attributes, he often challenged management decisions, and he had yet to resolve his time management issues. Ms. Weaver found Mr. Grasso to be unwilling to perform his job as requested by the Agency; therefore, he was denied the pay raise. Ms. Weaver had, in 2012, recommended a pay raise for a different fire protection specialist, Mr. Pescatrice. Mr. Pescatrice worked in a different field office than Mr. Grasso, had perfect evaluations, worked well with others, had garnered positive feedback from everyone he worked with, and had received a competitive job offer. His supervisor had expressed a need to keep Mr. Pescatrice in the Agency's employ. Ms. Weaver, when deciding whether to recommend both Mr. Grasso and Mr. Pescatrice for a competitive pay raise, was unaware of their respective ages. At the time they requested the raises, Mr. Grasso was 59, and Mr. Pescatrice was 51. In October 2013, Mr. Grasso exchanged emails with management questioning the decision to not send staff to a seminar. Management viewed Mr. Grasso's emails as disrespectful, and asked Mr. Grasso to cease communication regarding the subject. Later that month, pursuant to the Agency's leave policy, Mr. Grasso was asked to provide a doctor's note to document the need for sick leave, as he had been absent four days in a 30-day period. He was unable to provide a medical note; management asked him to consider the request a reminder of the Agency's leave policy; and no discipline was imposed. In November 2013, Ms. Davis convened an informal counseling session with Mr. Grasso. She was unaware that Mr. Grasso had filed a Complaint with FCHR. At the session, Mr. Grasso was notified of the Agency's concerns regarding time management and disrespectful communications with management. He was given counseling and a plan to correct the behavior in those areas. Two days after the counseling session, Mr. Grasso notified his supervisor that he would be adjusting his work hours, despite the fact that he had not followed Agency policy seeking prior approval. The record is replete with emails from Mr. Grasso to management that are argumentative and reflect a disdain for management decisions. Mr. Grasso's rendition of the alleged age discrimination presented through his testimony at hearing is not found credible and is belied by the credible testimony provided by the Agency's witnesses. He was denied a pay raise for legitimate reasons and not due to his age. His documentary evidence, a "statistical" report purporting to reflect age discrimination, was created by Mr. Grasso himself and was not supported by testimony to provide some statistical context; the undersigned finds it wholly unreliable. Similarly, absent from the record is any credible evidence that Mr. Grasso was subjected to retaliation after filing the Complaint.
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 adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the final order dismiss the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JESSICA E. VARN 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 27th day of October, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: William H. Roberts, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Cheyanne Michelle Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Dominic A. Grasso 22500 Middleton Drive Boca Raton, Florida 33428 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Shirley Gibson, is a permanent status employee of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) in Clearwater, Florida. She has been employed by HRS for over five years. On June 19, 1982, Petitioner took a voluntary demotion from the position of clerk typist III (pay grade 07) to secretary II (pay grade 06). The demotion appointment was properly made with permanent status, and she retained her full salary of $403.82 biweekly. On August 27, 1982, Gibson was promoted to the position of personnel aide (bay grade 10). In conjunction with her promotion she received a ten percent promotional increase which raised her salary to $442.52 biweekly. The minimum pay grade for the personnel aide class at that time was $396.80. Therefore, at the time of promotion, Gibson's salary exceeded the minimum salary for the class to which she was promoted. On September 1, 1982, Petitioner received the seven percent pay increase granted all state employees. This pay adjustment raised her compensation to $473.50 biweekly. In February, 1983 Respondent, Department of Administration (DOA), completed a comprehensive personnel program review whose purpose was to ensure that the overall administration of HRS's personnel program in Clearwater was in compliance with the Respondent's personnel rules. During the course of that review Gibson's personnel file was randomly selected for inspection, and the promotional increase given on August 27, 1982, was found to be in violation of Rule 22A-2.07(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code. The Department concluded that based upon the provisions of the rule, Petitioner's salary should have remained at $403.82 since she was ineligible for a promotional increase on August 27. Thereafter, it directed that her biweekly salary be reduced to $432.09 1/ effective April 8, 1983, and that she refund the difference ($561.91) between that amount and the $473.40 biweekly pay she received for the period August 27, 1982, through April 7, 1983. This refund is to be accomplished by payroll deductions from Gibson's salary over eight pay periods. On May 11, 1983, Petitioner filed a petition to have Rule 22A- 2.07(1)(c) declared invalid, and the entry of an order requiring the comptroller to refund all funds paid on the alleged overpayment of $561.91. Rule 22A-2.07, Florida Administrative Code, generally relates to the pay plan for career service employees. Subpara-graph (1)(c) thereof provides generally that once an employee is demoted without a reduction in salary, and is subsequently promoted within six months, he or she is not eligible for a promotional increase unless the salary is below the minimum for the class to which the employee is promoted. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that demotions and promotions are not artificially created to give salary increases not authorized in other parts of the personnel rules. Petitioner contends the rule is unfair and discriminatory because it does not distinguish between multi-step and single step promotions in its application. She also contended that HRS had given promotional increases to several other individuals in the past under similar circumstances. This was confirmed by a representative of HRS who noted that such increases had indeed been given until DOA had advised it was incorrect.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether former Hillsborough County Administrator Patricia G. Bean (Respondent) violated section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Beginning in 2003, and at all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed as the county administrator for Hillsborough County, Florida. In Spring 2006, various departments of the Hillsborough County government were engaged in reviewing their responsibilities and developing proposals to increase efficiencies and reduce costs for upcoming budget years. An "executive team" of county employees met periodically to determine which of the proposals met or exceeded efficiency goals that were targeted towards reducing costs while maintaining services. In the Summer or Fall of 2006, the Respondent, Deputy County Administrator Walter Hill, and County Budget Director Eric Johnson began to discuss ways to encourage and reward department directors who met efficiency goals. At that time, the county government had three existing "award" options that could be used to reward employees for exceptional service. One award consisted of a paper certificate called the "Extra Mile Award." There was no monetary gain associated with receiving an "Extra Mile Award." The second award (the "Productivity Award") included a monetary bonus and was available to most employees (with some exceptions) for exceptional performance. The third award was the "Discretionary 1% Merit Increase" available to senior management employees. This award consisted of a one percent "merit" salary increase over and above any regular pay raise that the employee would have received. The Respondent, along with Deputy County Administrator Hill and County Budget Director Johnson, decided to use the "Extra Mile Award" and the merit salary increase to reward department directors who met efficiency goals. The Respondent was responsible for the final determination as to which employees would receive awards. The "Extra Mile Certificate" awards were announced at a budget "kick-off" meeting on the morning of February 1, 2007. After the meeting, the Respondent issued a written congratulatory memo to each employee who received a certificate. She also used the memo to notify those employees who had been awarded the salary increase. The Respondent's department met the efficiency goals. At the time of the budget kick-off meeting, the Respondent believed that her employment contract with Hillsborough County precluded her from accepting it, and she excluded herself from the salary increase. The Charter of Hillsborough County provided that the "compensation" for the county administrator "shall be fixed by the Board of County Commissioners by ordinance" and that such compensation "may be set by contract if allowed by and pursuant to ordinance." The Respondent's employment contract with Hillsborough County established her initial salary as $179,000. According to Section 6 of the contract, the Respondent was entitled to receive the same "annual market equity increase" provided to "all other unclassified managerial employees of the County." The section also stated that additional salary or benefit increases could be granted by action of the BCC within 60 days of her annual performance evaluation. Hillsborough County Attorney Renee Lee and Director of the Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission Richard Garrity also met the efficiency goals, but their employment contracts with the county contained provisions similar to those of the Respondent, and, so, the Respondent excluded Ms. Lee and Mr. Garrity from receiving the salary increase. Both received the "Extra Mile Award" at the budget kick-off meeting. After the meeting had concluded, Ms. Lee sent an email addressed to the Respondent and Deputy County Administrator Hill wherein she asserted that the terms of her contract allowed her to receive "the award." In the email, Ms. Lee cited a provision in her contract that referenced entitlement to "such other benefits" as were made available to other county employees. Although there appears to have been some confusion regarding the names of the awards available to recognize county employees for their performance, it was clear that the reference to the "Extra Mile Award" in Ms. Lee's email referred to the salary increase. The Respondent's employment contract contained language similar to that cited in Ms. Lee's email, whereby the Respondent was entitled to the "benefits" available to other managerial employees in the county. As the county attorney, Ms. Lee reported directly to the BCC and, pursuant to the county charter, was the chief legal advisor for the BCC on all matters of county business, including personnel matters. The Respondent had no managerial authority over the county attorney at any time relevant to this proceeding. There is no evidence that the Respondent discussed the matter with Ms. Lee. After receiving Ms. Lee's email, the Respondent directed Deputy County Administrator Hill to contact Christina Swanson (director of the Employee Benefits Division in the county's Human Resources Department) and ask her to evaluate Ms. Lee's email. Deputy County Administrator Hill apparently did so, and Ms. Swanson thereafter asked Ms. Lee to provide a written legal opinion addressing whether the salary increase could be awarded under the terms of the contracts. On February 2, 2007, Ms. Lee issued a written legal opinion addressed to Ms. Swanson, stating that both Ms. Lee and the Respondent could receive the salary increases under the terms of their respective contracts. Although she had received a law degree, Ms. Swanson had not worked as a practicing attorney. The issues of the whether the salary increases underlying this case constituted a "benefit" of employment with Hillsborough County, and whether Ms. Lee's written legal opinion was correct, are not at issue in this proceeding. After Ms. Swanson received Ms. Lee's written legal opinion, the Human Resources Department processed the forms required to implement the salary increases for the Respondent and for Ms. Lee. The Respondent testified that she discussed the matter with Ms. Swanson after Ms. Lee issued the legal opinion. Ms. Swanson did not recall the conversation. In any event, the evidence fails to establish that the Respondent directed Ms. Swanson, or any other employee in the Human Resources Department, to process the paperwork required to implement the salary increases. On February 7, 2007, George Williams, the director of the county's Human Resources Department, signed the form ("Report of Change of Status"), approving the one percent salary increase awarded to the Respondent. The Respondent's hourly salary rate was increased from $101.82 to $102.84, effective January 7, 2007. The Respondent did not receive a copy of the form. Deb Dahma, a staff member in the Human Resources Department, signed the form approving the one percent salary increase awarded to Ms. Lee. The signature on that form was undated. There is no evidence that the Respondent directed either Mr. Williams or Ms. Dahma to sign the forms. The executed forms were sent to the county's payroll department, and their salary increases were implemented. On February 8, 2007, Ms. Lee authored another email to Ms. Swanson wherein she opined that, upon review of Mr. Garrity's contract, he was also eligible for the salary increase. There is no evidence that the Respondent participated in any effort to award the salary increase to Mr. Garrity, or that he accepted or received the salary increase. Both the Respondent and Ms. Lee accepted the salary increases. The county administrator's staff was responsible for preparation of agendas for BCC meetings. The Respondent participated in the preparation process and could direct placement of items on the agenda. The Respondent did not provide the BCC with an opportunity to consider the salary increases referenced herein and did not seek the explicit approval of the salary increases from the BCC either prior to or after they were implemented. The Respondent believed that the Human Resources Department, which handled personnel matters, would seek any approval of the salary increases required from the BCC, but the Human Resources Department did not bring the matter to the BCC for review. Although the BCC approved the Respondent's salary, including the increase underlying this case, during the Respondent's subsequent performance review, the evidence fails to establish that the BCC was advised that the salary included an increase that had not been approved by the BCC. At some later point, the Respondent's salary increase apparently became a matter of conflict with the BCC, and her salary was reduced to negate the one percent increase. The Respondent reimbursed Hillsborough County for the funds she received through the salary increase. The Respondent's employment as the Hillsborough County administrator was eventually terminated. An investigation of the circumstances of the raise that was conducted by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement resulted in no criminal charges being filed against the Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Ethics enter a final order and public report finding that Patricia G. Bean did not violate section 112.313(6) and dismissing the complaint filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 31st day of May, 2012.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawfully discriminatory employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of race and religion, and retaliated against him, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA").
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Lawrence N. Brown, III, is an African- American male and is of the Christian faith. Petitioner has been employed with Respondent since April 14, 2014, at its store located at 3800 Oakwood Boulevard, Hollywood, Florida (hereafter, the "Store"). As of the final hearing, Petitioner continued to be employed by Respondent at the Store. Respondent is a corporation doing business in Florida. Respondent owns and operates the Store at which Respondent was employed at the time of the alleged discriminatory and retaliatory actions. Employment Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief Petitioner filed an Employment Charge of Discrimination ("Discrimination Charge") with FCHR on or about March 10, 2016.4/ The pages attached to the Discrimination Charge form (which apparently was filled out in typewritten form by FCHR staff) were prepared by Petitioner. On or about July 18, 2016, Respondent issued a Determination: No Reasonable Cause, determining that Petitioner had not shown reasonable cause to believe that Respondent had committed unlawful employment practices against him. On or about August 16, 2016, Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Relief requesting a hearing to determine whether Respondent committed unlawful employment practices against him. The Petition for Relief alleges that Respondent engaged in unlawful discrimination against him on the basis of both his race and religion, and also alleges that Respondent engaged in unlawful retaliation. These charges, as specifically set forth in the Petition for Relief, are the subject of this de novo proceeding.5/ In the Petition for Relief, Petitioner claims that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race by failing to promote him into supervisory or managerial positions for which he claims he was qualified; by giving him lower scores on his employment evaluations than were given to a white employee working in the same position (part-time hardlines merchandiser); by not paying him as much as they paid that same white employee; and by retaining that same white employee as a part-time hardlines merchandiser in the Toy Department, while moving Petitioner to another position as cashier. Petitioner also claims that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion by scheduling him to work on Christmas Day 2015, while giving other employees that day off. Additionally, Petitioner claims that Respondent retaliated against him for complaining to Respondent's corporate legal department about having to work on Christmas Day 2015, by removing him as a hardline merchandiser in the Toy Department and reassigning him to a cashier position, then subsequently effectively "terminating" (in his words) his employment. Petitioner seeks an award of $5,000,000 in damages in this proceeding. Background Events As noted above, Petitioner was hired by Respondent on or about April 14, 2014. Petitioner initially was hired in a part-time position as a part-time overnight hardlines replenishment associate. In this position, Petitioner's work scheduling availability was between 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. When Petitioner was hired, Alberto Rodriquez was the Store manager. In his position as a part-time employee with Respondent, Petitioner was not guaranteed any specific number of weeks or hours of employment in any given calendar year, nor was he guaranteed that he would attain full-time employee status. The number of work hours Petitioner was assigned was dependent on the company's business needs and on Petitioner's ability to meet the applicable job performance standards. Petitioner acknowledged these and the other conditions of his employment as evidenced by his signature on the Pre-training Acknowledgment Summary dated April 14, 2014. As a result of the elimination of the overnight replenishment associate position, on or about October 26, 2014, Petitioner was transferred to another position as a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser. In this position, his work scheduling availability was between 6:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. As a hardlines merchandiser, Petitioner was responsible for stocking store shelves with merchandise, straightening merchandise on store shelves, putting returned merchandise on shelves, and generally keeping the hardlines departments neat and the shelves fully stocked. The Toy Department at the Store was one of several departments that were categorized as "hardlines" departments. In his duties as a hardlines merchandiser, Petitioner was not assigned to any specific hardlines department, and his responsibilities entailed working in any hardlines department as needed. However, as a practical matter, due to the work demand, Petitioner worked mostly, if not exclusively, in the Toy Department until he was reassigned to the cashier position after Christmas 2015. David Leach became the Store manager in April 2015. At some point before Christmas Day 2015, the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was posted. Petitioner was scheduled to work on Christmas Day, December 25, 2015. Petitioner did not volunteer, and had not otherwise requested, to work on Christmas Day 2015. The Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, which was a paid holiday for Respondent's employees. On or about December 23, 2015, Petitioner contacted Respondent's corporate legal department, requesting to be removed from the work schedule for Christmas Day 2015. Pursuant to a directive from Respondent's corporate office, Petitioner was removed from the work schedule for that day. Petitioner was not required to work on Christmas Day 2015, and he did not work that day. Petitioner was paid for the Christmas Day holiday. Although the Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, some Store employees were scheduled to work, and did work, that day on a volunteer basis, for which they were paid. On December 28, 2015, Leach presented Petitioner with a Request for Religious Accommodation form to sign. Petitioner signed the form. The form was marked as showing that Respondent "granted" the religious accommodation. Also on December 28, 2015, Leach informed Petitioner that he had eliminated the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position. He offered Petitioner other part-time positions, either as a cashier or in making pizza at the Little Caesar's pizza station in the Store. Leach did not offer any other positions to Petitioner at that time. Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, but informed Leach that he was unable to stand in a single place for long periods of time due to injuries he previously had sustained while working on the overnight shift. Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, effective January 3, 2016.6/ Petitioner's hourly wage did not change when his position changed to cashier. He continued to make the same hourly wage that he had made as a daytime hardlines merchandiser. At some point on or after December 28, 2015, Petitioner signed a Personnel Interview Record form that reflected his revised work hours associated with his position change to cashier. The form stated his availability to work between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The evidence is unclear as to whether Petitioner did (or did not) call in to inform the appropriate Store personnel that he would not be working on Tuesday, December 29, or on Thursday, December 31, 2015. Regardless, the persuasive evidence shows that Petitioner worked on Monday, December 28, 2015; did not work on Tuesday, December 29, or Thursday, December 31, 2015; and worked on Saturday, January 2, 2016. The work schedule for the week of January 3 through 10, 2016, was computer-generated some time during the week of December 27, 2015, through January 3, 2016. If an employee does not report to work when scheduled and does not call in to be excused from work on those days, this situation is termed a "no call-no show," and the employee will not be scheduled to work the following week. This is to ensure that there are cashiers available as needed to work on upcoming dates. Regardless of whether Petitioner did or did not call in to inform Respondent he would not be working on Tuesday, December 29, or Thursday, December 31, 2015, the posted work schedule for the week of January 3 through 10, 2016, showed Petitioner as not being scheduled to work that week. However, the evidence shows that Petitioner did, in fact, work a total of 15.90 hours the week of January 3 through 10, 2016. The work schedule posted as of Saturday, January 9, 2016, also showed Petitioner as not being scheduled to work the week of January 10 through 16, 2016. However, the evidence shows that Petitioner worked a total of 15.41 hours the week of January 10 through 16, 2016. At some point between January 13 and January 26, 2016, Petitioner was moved from the cashier position to the Store's date code specialist position. The date code specialist position also is a part-time position, for which Petitioner is paid the same hourly wage as he was paid as a daytime hardlines merchandiser. As of the final hearing, Petitioner continued to be employed by Respondent, working as the Store's date code specialist. Race Discrimination Claims As previously noted, Petitioner began working for Respondent at the Store on April 14, 2014. His initial employment position was as a part-time overnight replenishment associate. In October 2014, he moved to a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position. In both positions, he was responsible for stocking and restocking merchandise in all hardlines departments, so was not assigned exclusively to the Store's Toy Department. However, as noted above, due to work demand in the Toy Department, Petitioner did most, if not all, of his work in that department until he was moved to the cashier position in late December 2015.7/ Petitioner contends that starting in mid-2014,8/ he periodically requested to be promoted to "Toy Lead" or to another supervisory or managerial position. He testified that he had undertaken many activities and implemented various systems to improve the efficiency and productivity of the Toy Department and other departments at the store, and had documented these activities and transmitted that information to the Respondent for inclusion in his personnel file. He testified that rather than promoting him to a supervisory position in the Toy Department, Respondent instead hired a non-African-American person to fill that position.9/ Petitioner additionally testified that he periodically would request to be transferred or promoted to other supervisory positions, but that Respondent did not grant these requests. He contends that since he was qualified for these positions, the only basis for Respondent's decision to fill those positions with other employees was discrimination against him on the basis of his race. In response, Leach testified that there was no formal "Toy Lead" position at the Store; rather, the person supervising the Toy Department is an assistant store manager, a position that entails supervising other hardlines departments besides the Toy Department. Further, Leach testified that in his view, Petitioner was not qualified to occupy certain supervisory positions because of his lack of experience in those areas and his relatively short period of employment with Respondent. Leach also testified that Petitioner had not ever formally applied for a promotion through Respondent's online application process. Petitioner further asserts that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race because he was not paid the same amount as Corey Harper, a white male hardlines merchandiser who also often worked part-time in the Toy Department on the afternoon or evening shift, even though he worked harder and received higher evaluation scores than did Harper.10/ However, Leach credibly testified that Respondent does not currently base its pay rate for part-time employees on job performance evaluation scores, but instead pays them a set hourly pay rate. According to Leach, Respondent has not given an hourly pay rate raise to part-time employees since 2009, so that any pay differential depended on whether employees were hired before or after 2009. Leach credibly testified that Harper has been employed by Respondent since 2004, so had received hourly pay rate raises between 2004 to November 2008; this would result in his hourly pay rate being higher than Petitioner's, even though both are part-time employees. Petitioner testified that when he was moved from the daytime hardlines merchandiser position to the cashier position after Christmas 2015, he made it clear that he wanted to remain in the Toy Department; however, Respondent transferred him out of that department while allowing Harper to remain in a hardlines merchandiser position, which entailed work in the Toy Department. Petitioner also made clear that he wished to return to the hardlines merchandiser position in the Toy Department when such a position became available; however, at some point, Leach reassigned Carol Yaw, who was white, from her previous office manager job to a hardlines merchandiser position. Petitioner asserts that Respondent's actions in allowing Harper to remain as a part-time hardline merchandiser and reassigning Yaw to a hardlines merchandiser position constituted discrimination against him on the basis of his race. However, Leach credibly testified that the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position that Petitioner had occupied was eliminated because of the lack of work in that position, primarily due to declining Toy Department sales after the holiday season. Additionally, immediately after Christmas 2015, Leach consolidated the overnight merchandise unloading and daytime shelf stocking positions and moved the overnight unloading employees to the day shift, where their duties consist of unloading merchandise from trucks and stocking shelves.11/ Leach credibly testified that Harper was not moved from his position because Leach had specifically decided not to move others unaffected by this reorganization out of their existing positions, and that Harper was an afternoon/evening hardlines merchandiser. Leach also credibly testified that he had moved Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser position after her office manager position was eliminated because she was a 25-year employee of Respondent, and he felt that she deserved that position out of loyalty for being a long-term employee of Respondent. Petitioner also contends that Respondent's evaluation of his job performance was unfair because it was conducted by an assistant store manager, Marjorie McCue, who was not his direct supervisor. Specifically, he contends that McCue was unfamiliar with his job performance, so did not appropriately consider, in his evaluation, improved Toy Department sales performance and efficiency that were due to measures that he had implemented. Petitioner also contends that McCue initially deliberately gave him an inaccurately low job performance evaluation in an effort to create a record to support terminating his employment, but that when he complained, those lower scores were changed to higher scores. The only performance evaluation regarding Petitioner's job performance that was admitted into evidence is a document titled "Employee Review" that was dated January 31, 2015; Petitioner received a 3.10 overall performance score on this performance evaluation.12/ The Employee Review for Harper dated January 31, 2015, also was admitted into evidence; Harper's overall performance score was 3.00. Upon careful consideration of the competent substantial evidence in the record, it is determined that Petitioner failed to carry his burden13/ to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by Respondent on the basis of his race. To do so, Petitioner must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was subject to adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified to do the job; and (4) his employer treated similarly-situated employees outside of his protected class more favorably than he was treated.14/ It is undisputed that Petitioner, as an African- American, is a member of a protected class. However, the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner was subject to adverse employment action. With respect to his assertion that Respondent failed to promote him on the basis of his race, Petitioner needed to show that, in addition to being a member of a protected class, he applied for and was qualified for a promotion; that he was rejected despite his qualifications; and that other equally or less-qualified employees outside of his class were promoted.15/ While Petitioner frequently sent email correspondence to Respondent's corporate legal office requesting to be promoted, the evidence does not show that he followed Respondent's formal online application process for applying for promotions.16/ Further, although the evidence indicates that Petitioner is very hard-working, energetic, bright, and detail-oriented, he did not demonstrate that those characteristics necessarily qualified him for the supervisory positions about which he inquired. He also did not demonstrate that Respondent filled the positions about which he had inquired with less-qualified non-African-American employees. In fact, Petitioner acknowledged, in testimony at the final hearing and in email correspondence with Respondent's corporate legal office, that in his view, some of the individuals who had been promoted were qualified for the positions to which they had been promoted. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not demonstrate adverse employment action by Respondent by failing to promote him on the basis of his race. Petitioner also did not show that he received a lower pay rate and lower evaluation scores than did other similarly- situated employees who were not members of his protected class. The only comparator to which Petitioner referred was Harper, the other part-time hardlines merchandiser that sometimes worked in the Toy Department. However, as discussed above, the evidence showed that Harper actually scored lower than did Petitioner on the January 31, 2015, evaluation.17/ Further, Harper was not similarly situated to Petitioner with respect to pay rate because Harper is a longer-term employee who had received hourly pay rate raises in 2005 through 2008, before Respondent ceased giving raises of hourly pay rates in 2009, but Petitioner was hired in 2014, after Respondent ceased giving hourly pay raises. Petitioner also did not show, by the greater weight of the evidence, that Leach discriminated against him on the basis of his race by electing to reassign him, rather than Harper, to a cashier position after Christmas 2015, and by later reassigning Yaw to fill a full-time hardlines merchandiser position that included responsibilities of working in the Toy Department. As discussed above, when Leach decided to eliminate the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position, he chose not to reassign other employees who were not directly affected by the elimination of that position. The evidence shows that Leach did not reassign Harper to a cashier position because Harper's position was not directly affected by the elimination of the daytime hardlines merchandiser position——not because Leach favored Harper over Petitioner due to race. Also as discussed above, Leach reassigned Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser position after her office manager position——also a full-time position——was eliminated. Because Yaw was a full-time employee, she did not fill a position for which Petitioner was eligible as a part-time employee; furthermore, under any circumstances, she was not similarly situated to Petitioner because of her longer term of employment with Respondent. For these reasons, neither Harper nor Yaw are similarly situated to Petitioner for purposes of being comparators. For these reasons, it is found that Petitioner did not establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination against him by Respondent on the basis of his race. Further, even if Petitioner had established a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of race, Respondent articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions with respect to Petitioner. As discussed above, Respondent did not promote Petitioner because he did not go through Respondent's formal application process for seeking promotions, and also because Leach determined, on the basis of Petitioner's lack of experience and employment longevity, that Petitioner was not qualified for supervisory positions at that time. Additionally, Leach's decisions regarding reassigning Petitioner to a cashier position while retaining Harper and reassigning Yaw to hardlines merchandiser positions were management decisions based on business needs and requirements, rather than on the basis of race. Petitioner did not present evidence showing that these reasons were a pretext for discrimination against him on the basis of his race. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of his race, in violation of section 760.10(1)(a). Religious Discrimination Claim As previously discussed, shortly before Christmas Day 2015, the employee work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was posted in the Store. This schedule showed Petitioner as being scheduled to work from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Christmas Day, which fell on a Friday in 2015. The Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, which was a paid employee holiday; however, employees could work that day on a voluntary basis and they would be paid time-and-a-half for doing so. As noted above, Petitioner did not volunteer or otherwise indicate that he was willing to work that day. Upon seeing that he was scheduled to work on Christmas Day, Petitioner contacted Respondent's corporate legal department, which then contacted Leach. Leach had Petitioner removed from the work schedule for December 25, 2015. Petitioner was not required to work that day, did not work that day, and was paid for the Christmas Day 2015 holiday. Petitioner claims that by scheduling him to work on Christmas Day, Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion. Petitioner asserts, as evidence of Respondent's discriminatory intent, that there are others who worked in the Toy Department who were not of the Christian faith, so that if someone was needed to work on Christmas Day, one of those individuals could instead have been scheduled. As previously noted, on December 28, 2015, Leach presented Petitioner with a Request for Religious Accommodation form to sign. Leach credibly testified that the purpose of having Petitioner sign the form was to have a written record of Petitioner's religion so that Petitioner would not again be assigned to work on a Christian religious holiday. Petitioner signed the form, but protested being required to do so, because, in his view, Respondent already was on notice that he is of the Christian faith because he always had Sundays off of work. Petitioner testified that when he was hired in April 2014 (notably, before Leach became Store manager) he had verbally requested Sundays off, effectively placing Respondent on notice that he is of the Christian faith. On this basis, Petitioner asserts that Leach and other managers and supervisors at the Store knew that he is Christian and that they nonetheless intentionally scheduled him to work on Christmas Day. Petitioner acknowledged that he never heard Leach make any comments with respect to his (Petitioner's) religion. Leach credibly testified that before he was contacted by Respondent's corporate office regarding Petitioner's concerns about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015, he did not know that Petitioner was Christian, and he had not inferred that from the fact that Petitioner did not work on Sundays.18/ Leach testified, credibly and persuasively, that Petitioner was scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 by mistake. He explained that the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was generated using a pre-populated "template" method. This method, which is a method by which the Store sets its weekly work schedules, entails week-to-week copying of the regular——i.e., "template"——work schedule for all Store employees, then modifies that schedule as needed to address changes to individual employee work schedules. Leach explained that in using this method to establish the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, Respondent had inadvertently scheduled employees who had not volunteered to work on Christmas Day. He surmised that this was a possible explanation for why Petitioner mistakenly was scheduled to work that day. As noted above, Petitioner was not the only Store employee scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. Upon consideration of the competent substantial evidence in the record, it is determined that Petitioner failed to carry his burden to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by Respondent on the basis of his religion. To do so, Petitioner must show that he: (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) informed Respondent of this belief; and (3) suffered adverse employment action as a result of failing to comply with the employment requirement that conflicted with his belief. It is undisputed that Petitioner falls within a protected class for purposes of a discrimination claim on the basis of religion. However, Petitioner did not prove the existence of the other two elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of religion. Specifically, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent knew that he was Christian or that his Christian faith prohibited him from working on Christmas Day. As noted above, Petitioner was hired at the Store before Leach became Store manager. Further, because Petitioner had not been required to complete a written religious accommodation form when he was hired in April 2014, Respondent did not have any written notice in its possession that would have informed Leach that Petitioner was Christian or that Petitioner needed certain Christian holidays, such as Christmas Day, off of work. As noted above, Leach credibly testified that he did not know that Petitioner was Christian until Respondent's corporate legal office contacted him regarding Petitioner's religion-based complaint about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. The evidence also shows that Petitioner did not suffer any adverse employment action. As soon as Respondent was informed of Petitioner's complaint, Petitioner was removed from the work schedule for Christmas Day 2015, did not work that day, and was paid for that holiday. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not establish, by the greater weight of the evidence, a prima facie case of discrimination by Respondent against him on the basis of his religion. However, even if Petitioner had established a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of religion, Respondent produced credible, persuasive evidence showing a legitimate, non- discriminatory basis for its action——that is, that through the Store's use of the template work scheduling system, Petitioner was mistakenly scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. As noted above, as soon as Petitioner complained to Respondent, Respondent immediately accommodated his request by removing him from the Christmas Day 2015 work schedule. Petitioner did not present any evidence showing that Respondent's proffered reason for scheduling him to work on Christmas Day 2015 was a pretext for discrimination on the basis of his religion. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion, in violation of section 760.10(1)(a). Retaliation Claim Petitioner claims that Respondent retaliated against him for complaining to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 by reassigning him from his position as a daytime hardlines merchandiser——a position that he clearly liked and at which he believed he excelled——to a cashier position——a position that he clearly considered demeaning and that also was physically difficult for him to perform due to a previous injury. Petitioner was informed that he was being reassigned to a cashier position only five days (and the first workday) after he complained to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day.19/ Petitioner testified that Leach told him that the part- time daytime merchandiser position had been eliminated due to the lack of work demand, particularly in the Toy Department, after the Christmas season was over. Petitioner testified that when he asked Leach about available positions in to which he could transfer, Leach told him that only cashier or pizza-making positions were available. Petitioner provided evidence that a softlines customer service job, which he claims he would have preferred, was open at the time he was reassigned and that Leach did not inform him of that opening or offer him that position. Petitioner also disputes that the part-time daytime merchandiser job that he had occupied had been eliminated. As evidence, he contends that Harper continued to occupy that position, and also that Leach subsequently reassigned Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser rather than transferring him back into a hardlines merchandiser position, as he had requested. The part-time cashier position to which Petitioner was transferred was the same level of employment position in Respondent's employment hierarchy as was the part-time daytime merchandiser position that he previously held. Additionally, as discussed above, as a part-time cashier, Petitioner continued to receive the same hourly pay rate and work scheduling availability as he had received when he was employed as a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser. As discussed above, on or before January 26, 2016, Petitioner was reassigned to the Store's date code specialist position. According to Leach, that position came open after Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, and Leach believed that the date code specialist position would play well to Petitioner's strengths of being methodical and detail- oriented. Petitioner bears the burden, by the greater weight of the evidence, to establish a prima facie case of retaliation by Respondent. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Petitioner must show that: (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) he suffered a materially adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.20/ For the following reasons, it is found that Petitioner did not satisfy his burden to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. It is determined that Petitioner engaged in a "protected activity" when he complained to Respondent's corporate legal office, by email dated December 23, 2015, that he had been scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. The email stated: Attn: Legal My schedule states that I am scheduled for Christmas day. I am a Christian I exercise religious right no work on a high religious day. Christmas is the day I celebrate the birth of Christ thus the name Christmas day. A Jewish person was assigned to my department (toys) and was allowed to have off all the Jewish holidays. I was told that is his right and approved, I said fine, I don't know who was arguing this but this was fine with me, because I have many Jewish friends, so I understand. Easter which falls on a Sunday and Christmas are my holidays. I am requesting off. I am requesting Christmas day off with holiday pay as my religious day, just like I requested Sundays off. Only I can change my religious day and work on Sunday, which I might have to when promoted. If management tells me I cannot be promoted because I exercise my religious right not to work on the seventh day, then I will have to do as Jewish people have done for centuries, they are released from the commandment that they may only eat Kosher. If captured by the enemy they may eat to survive. So if I can only be manager if I give up my religious right not to work on Sunday, then I will do what management says is a requirement. Thank you. Lawrence Brown Kmart-Hollywood, Fl Oakwood Plaza To be a "protected activity," the activity giving rise to the alleged retaliatory action must, at the very least, communicate to the employer that the complainant believes the employer is engaging in discrimination against him. Petitioner's email can be read broadly to inform Respondent that he believed he was being discriminated against on the basis of his religion by being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. To that point, Petitioner specifically compared his circumstances to those of a Jewish employee who had requested and been allowed to have all Jewish holidays off of work. While not specifically using the word "discrimination," Petitioner's email can be reasonably read to place Respondent on notice that Petitioner believed he was being treated differently than a similarly-situated employee who was not a member of Petitioner's protected class and who had been excused from work on the holidays observed by his religion. Additionally, Leach was aware that Petitioner had complained to Respondent's corporate legal department about being scheduled to work on a Christian holiday. Accordingly, it is determined that Petitioner has established the "protected activity" element of his retaliation claim. However, Petitioner did not show that he suffered a materially adverse employment action as a result of having engaged in protected activity. His reassignment to the part-time cashier position effectively was a lateral transfer that did not affect his hourly pay rate or hours of work scheduling availability. Although Petitioner subjectively considered the cashier position to be demeaning and below his skill level21/ and although his job responsibilities changed, the evidence shows that Petitioner was not reassigned to an objectively less prestigious or otherwise inferior employment position. Furthermore, in any event, approximately three weeks after Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, Respondent reassigned him to a position as the Store's date code specialist——a position that he has officially held since January 26, 2016, and from which he has not requested to be transferred. In this position, Petitioner earns the same hourly wage and has the same number of hours of work availability as he did in the hardlines merchandiser and cashier positions. He is solely responsible in the Store for ensuring that date-coded merchandise on the shelves has not exceeded its expiration date—— a position that entails significant responsibility and, as Leach put it, is "very important." The evidence also does not support Petitioner's assertion that his removal from the work schedule in early January meant that he was effectively terminated. Although the evidence does not clearly show what days Petitioner did not work during the week after Christmas in 2015, or whether he did (or did not) call in to notify Respondent that he would be absent, the evidence does clearly establish that Petitioner was not scheduled to work the first week of January 2016, and it is also clear that management personnel at the Store did not believe that he had called in to notify them of his absence. Leach explained that if an employee does not report to work when scheduled and does not call in to notify the Store of his or her absence, the employee will not be scheduled to work the following week; this is to ensure that there are enough cashiers available as needed to work in the upcoming week. In any event, when Petitioner noticed that he had not been scheduled to work, he contacted the Store's human relations manager, who told him to come back to work. In fact, Petitioner worked the first and second weeks of January 2016, and thereafter, and he continues to be employed at the Store. Further, Petitioner was never told or otherwise notified, formally or informally, that his employment with Respondent had been terminated. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not suffer a materially adverse employment action by being reassigned for a short period of time from a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser to a part-time cashier position. Petitioner also did not demonstrate the existence of a "causal link" between a protected activity and adverse employment action. As discussed above, Petitioner's sending an email to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 constituted a "protected activity." However, as discussed above, it is determined that Respondent did not engage in an adverse employment action; thus, Petitioner's engagement in protected activity did not "cause" Respondent to take any material adverse employment action against him. Furthermore, in any event, Respondent articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for reassigning Petitioner to a cashier position shortly after Christmas Day 2015—— specifically, that the part-time daytime merchandiser position that Petitioner had held was eliminated due to seasonal workload decline and other business management decisions reallocating hardlines merchandise-related tasks between the overnight and daytime shifts. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, that Respondent retaliated against him for engaging in a protected activity, in violation of section 760.10(7). Damages Petitioner has requested an award of damages in the amount of $5,000,000. However, section 760.11(6), which governs the award of remedies in administrative proceedings brought under the FCRA, does not authorize DOAH to award damages. Further, the evidence establishes that Respondent did not engage in any unlawful employment practices with respect to Petitioner, and, in any event, Petitioner did not present any evidence to support his entitlement to an award of damages in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 14th day of June, 2017.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent due to Petitioner's race in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent hired Petitioner on October 13, 1997, as a maintenance operator. Six months later he was promoted to the position of Maintenance Technician I. During his employment, Petitioner was one of six technicians. He was the only black technician. Petitioner was initially paid at a rate of $6.00 per hour. He received no pay increase with his first promotion. His yearly evaluation was delayed, but finally received by him on December 7, 1998. His evaluation for 1999 was received by December 23, 1999. His wages had climbed by this time to $8.40 per hour. His evaluations were satisfactory or above. Although Petitioner had been told he would be provided training on the job, he was relegated to the night shift, working by himself. As a consequence, he educated himself on maintenance of Respondent’s facility. In 1999, all technicians were to receive formal training. Another technician, who was white and lower in seniority than Petitioner, was selected for training before Petitioner. When Petitioner brought this to the attention of a supervisor, Petitioner was sent to other training provided by Siemen’s Corporation in Atlanta, Georgia. Petitioner stated he was treated unfairly because he was required to absorb the cost of lodging for the first night in Atlanta, prior to commencement of training. The five other technicians employed by Respondent were being paid a minimum of $11.00 per hour when Petitioner, on or about May 5, 2000, requested an increase from his current $8.40 per hour rate to $10.00 per hour. His supervisor responded that he could not grant the increase. An argument ensued and Petitioner left the office and returned to work. Later that day, Respondent’s human resource officer contacted Petitioner. He informed Petitioner that Petitioner’s employment was terminated due to “insubordination.” On Respondent’s termination form, the reason listed for Petitioner’s termination was insubordination and using “slanders to his senior manager.” The form also listed Petitioner’s absence from work on Saturday, April 29, 2000, as a reason for employment termination. In rebuttal, Petitioner produced a copy of an annual leave slip at final hearing requesting approval of his absence on the date in question. Petitioner had accumulated ample leave to cover the requested time. Respondent’s approving authority failed to approve Petitioner’s absence, but no notification was given to Petitioner. Respondent’s claim of unauthorized absence is effectively rebutted. According to a copy of a letter dated June 19, 2003, and received by DOAH on June 24, 2003, bearing the purported signature of David Anderson, registered agent for Respondent on June 20, 2002, Respondent was reputed to have ceased operation. According to statements contained in the letter, the Bank of America sold Respondent on March 10, 2002, in the “form of rights in collateral.” The letter additionally stated “unliquidated assets” in the bankruptcy were “sold in a Section 363 auction” on May 23, 2002. No direct evidence was presented on behalf of Respondent corroborating the contents of the letter and consequently the letter is not credited. Petitioner produced documentation at the final hearing, specifically a corporation reinstatement form issued by the Florida Department of State, documenting Respondent’s continued existence as of April 22, 2002.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered directing that Respondent to cease the discriminatory employment practice evidenced in this case and awarding Petitioner back pay at the rate of $10.00 per hour for each normal 40-hour work week between May 5, 2000, and the present. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael F. Coppins, Esquire Coppins & Monroe Post Office Box 14447 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4447 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dwight E. Mazion 1713 Calgary Drive Desoto, Texas 75115 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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 Respondent violated Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes (2002), by forcing the termination of Petitioner's employment with Respondent because of his gender (male), and/or national origin (Venezuela), and/or his age (37); and because Petitioner alleged that younger, female lifeguards were given better work assignments.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent from November 26, 2002, until April 17 2003, in the position of deep water lifeguard at Respondent's facility at the Grand Floridian Hotel (Grand Floridian) located in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. He worked in that position until his resignation on April 17, 2003. Petitioner is a Hispanic male, aged 37, and a member of a protected class. Respondent is an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA). Petitioner was hired for a full-time position to work 40 hours per week. He normally worked a ten-hour shift, four days a week. Petitioner never applied for any other position or promotions during his employment. All full-time lifeguards at the Grand Floridian are covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Respondent and the Services Trades Council Union. A lifeguard working at the Grand Floridian does not have to be a member or pay dues to the union in order to be covered by the terms of the CBA. Petitioner is not a member of the union. At the time of his hire, Petitioner was provided with a packet of materials containing Respondent's employment policies. Respondent had a policy regarding harassment that covered all of its employees and prohibited all types of harassment in the workplace, including any such behavior based on age, national origin, and/or gender. Respondent also has an "equal opportunity" policy that applies to all of its employees. This policy provides that all employees should be treated equally in terms of hours, work location, and scheduling based on seniority. Operations at the Grand Floridian Of the class of lifeguards hired at the same time, Petitioner was the only one assigned to the Grand Floridian. At the time of being assigned to the Grand Floridian, there were approximately 25 lifeguards employed there. The lifeguards at the Grand Floridian are full-time, part-time casual, or part- time regular employees. There are also "college program" lifeguards who perform all of the same duties as the full-time and part-time employees. The starting times for employees are staggered, based on the needs of the area and the time of the year. The main duties of a lifeguard at the Grand Floridian are to ensure safety and guard the pools, clean the pool and beach areas, work the cash register, and operate the marina. The head supervisor of the Grand Floridian lifeguards during Petitioner's employment was Jerry Davis. Davis has been employed with Respondent for nine years. He has served in his current position as the recreation operations manager for six years. His duties in this position include supervising the outside recreation areas, including the pools, boats, and lifeguards at the Grand Floridian. Davis plays no role in hiring the employees that report to him, but rather Respondent's Employee Relations Department is responsible for hiring these employees. Davis has the authority to terminate lifeguards that report to him. Prior to terminating an employee, however, Davis seeks the input of the Employee Relations Department. The evidence is credible that Davis is accessible to his direct reports and makes sure that his office is always open to them. If a lifeguard wants to speak with Davis, he will make himself available to him or her. As a manager, Davis has undergone training from Respondent regarding its equal employment policies and anti- harassment policies. He has also been trained that employees may raise complaints about working conditions with either their manager or the Employee Relations Department. All employees are made aware of these policies and complaint procedures as a part of their orientation program. Under Davis, the next supervisor was Darin Bernhard. Bernhard has been employed with Respondent for eight years and is currently employed as a recreation guest service manager. Until October 2003, Bernhard was employed at the Grand Floridian. In that capacity, Bernhard directly supervised lifeguards, marina employees, and activities' employees. Bernhard had continuous interaction with lifeguards throughout the day while at the Grand Floridian. Bernhard had an open-door policy to all employees and made himself accessible to them. Under Davis and Bernhard, there were three coordinators who served as the immediate supervisors of the lifeguards. The weekly work schedule for lifeguards was posted on the wall every week. Bernhard, along with Respondent's Labor Office, was responsible for preparing this weekly schedule. The factors used in preparing this schedule were a scheduling bid submitted by each employee, scheduled vacations, and operational needs. As for operational needs, Bernhard would try to give a combination throughout the week based on full-time, part-time, and college program employees and avoid having all college program employees on duty at one time, thereby providing more experience on each shift. The CBA contains a provision stating as follows: "The principles of seniority shall be observed in establishing days off and work schedules by department, location, or scheduling pool." As a result, the schedule bids of all employees were considered based on the seniority of the employees. At the time of his hire, Petitioner spoke with Bernhard about special scheduling requests. Specifically, Petitioner asked to receive early shifts and weekends off. He wanted the weekends off due to child-care issues with his son. Bernhard informed Petitioner that he would attempt to work with Petitioner on this, but that he was limited in what he could do based on the seniority requirements set forth in the CBA, as well as the fact that most of the lifeguards preferred to have weekends off. At that point in time, Petitioner had the least amount of seniority of all the full-time lifeguards, since he was the most recently hired employee. Despite the CBA restrictions, Bernhard made every effort to provide Petitioner with at least one day each weekend off and tried to provide him with two, whenever possible. On a regular basis, Petitioner was scheduled to have Saturdays off. In addition, on numerous occasions, he was given Friday, Saturday, and Sunday off from work, in accordance with his special request. At no time during his employment did Petitioner ever complain to Bernhard about not getting enough days off on the weekend. Employees would occasionally complain to Bernhard about the weekly schedule. When he received such complaints, Bernhard would listen to their complaints and not take any adverse action against any employee for complaining to him about scheduling issues. On occasion, lifeguards would be sent home early due to slow business or inclement weather. This decision would be made either by the immediate supervisor on duty or one of the coordinators. The lifeguards would be allowed to volunteer to go home on a "first-come, first serve" basis. No lifeguard, however, was forced to go home early. Similarly, Bernhard did not receive complaints from any lifeguard about being forced to go home early. The coordinators at the Grand Floridian were responsible for making the daily rotation schedules. There were five primary positions that the lifeguards could be assigned to on a daily basis, consisting of two lifeguard positions at the pool, the slide, the marina, and cashier. The coordinators made these assignment decisions based on the people they had available that day. The primary focus was to make sure that all of the areas were properly covered. Such daily rotation assignments were also based on certain needs during particular periods of the day. In addition, certain assignments were given to certain employees if they are more capable of performing the task. It is also not uncommon for the daily rotation to be changed during the day based on unexpected factors, such as absent employees. In terms of shift assignments, an effort is made to make sure that regular employees and college program employees are working together so that the regular employees can provide guidance when needed. During a workday, most of the employees rotate positions every 30 minutes to an hour. The rotation of duties for the lifeguards changed on a daily basis. Petitioner enjoyed working as a lifeguard because he considered himself a stronger lifeguard than others in his department. He also described himself as the "leader of the lifeguards." All lifeguards are trained in the cashier duties, but very few individuals are chosen to actually work as a cashier. These cashiers undergo special training prior to performing these duties. The primary attributes for a cashier are good guest interaction and good phone skills because a cashier is required to interact with guests, both on the telephone and in person. This assignment also differs from the other assignments in that the employee assigned to this position normally does not rotate throughout the day to other assignments. It is not uncommon for the same employee to serve as a cashier for an entire day. Petitioner was sometimes assigned to work at the marina, but not as a cashier. Petitioner never spoke with any of his supervisors or coordinators about working more at the marina or as a cashier. Each lifeguard at the Grand Floridian was required to complete four hours of in-service training each month, either at his home resort or at another resort. Attendance at these training sessions were tracked on a daily sign-in sheet. If a lifeguard failed to complete his or her in-service training for the month, he would be reprimanded. Davis prepared a reprimand for Petitioner on April 1, 2003. This reprimand was the result of Petitioner's failing to complete his in-service training hours for the month of March 2003. As a result of failing to complete this training, Petitioner received a two-point reprimand for poor job performance. Petitioner did not know when Davis prepared the Poor Job Performance Memorandum dated April 1, 2003. Davis and Petitioner did not see each other between Petitioner's accident on March 30, 2003, and the date Petitioner signed the Poor Job Performance Memorandum on April 9, 2003. At the time that Davis prepared this memorandum, Petitioner had not made any complaints of discrimination or harassment to Davis. The attendance of the lifeguards on a daily basis was tracked by the use of an electronic swipe card. The daily schedule and attendance of the lifeguards was also tracked on a daily sheet completed by the coordinators. This sheet was kept in the managers' office and was forwarded to the Respondent's Labor Office when it was completed. Bernhard usually reviewed these sheets on a daily basis as well. The lifeguards did not have access to these sheets on a daily basis. Under the attendance policy in the CBA, three absences in a 30-day period warranted a one-point written reprimand. An employee had to receive three written reprimands within a 24- month period before he could be terminated for attendance issues. The reasons for an absence did not make a difference for purposes of accruing points under the policy. On March 24, 2003, Petitioner called in sick and did not appear for work. On his way home from work on March 31, 2003, Petitioner was in a car accident in a parking lot on Respondent's property. As a result of that accident, Petitioner's car had to be towed because it was not drivable. Petitioner did not, however, seek medical treatment as a result of the accident. Shortly after the accident occurred, Petitioner contacted Bernhard. He informed Bernhard of the accident and told him that he would not be available for work the next day because his car had been destroyed. He did not inform Bernhard that he had been injured in any way. Petitioner was absent from work on April 1, 2003, because he had no transportation. Petitioner called in his personal absence on April 1, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 16, 2003, and was a "no show" on April 2, 2003. As a result of these numerous absences, Davis made a decision to contact Petitioner by telephone and inquire about the reasons for these multiple absences. Petitioner informed Davis that he still did not have transportation. Petitioner expressed concern to Davis that he was afraid he was going to accrue too many points and get himself terminated. Davis responded to Petitioner that if he did not return to work, he would accrue points under the attendance policy. Petitioner asked Davis if it would be better if he terminated himself or if he was terminated by Respondent. Davis also informed Petitioner that if he terminated himself, at some point he might be able to return to his job at Respondent, though he did not guarantee him that he could simply return. Davis made it very clear to Petitioner that this was a decision he had to make. At the time of Davis' phone call to Petitioner, he had accrued sufficient points under the applicable "attendance policy" set forth under the CBA to warrant giving him a one- point written reprimand. Davis had not been able to give the reprimand to Petitioner, however, because he had not returned to work. At no time had Davis ever informed Petitioner that such a reprimand was waiting for him. In addition, such absences would not have provided a basis for terminating Petitioner at that point in time. Petitioner contacted Davis the following day and informed Davis that he was going to voluntarily resign his employment. Upon learning of this decision, Davis informed Petitioner that he needed to return his uniform and all other of Respondent's property prior to receiving his last paycheck. All employees are required to return their uniform and Respondent's property at the time of resignation. Davis never informed Petitioner that he was being terminated or that he had an intention of terminating him. Similarly, Davis never told Petitioner that he had no option but to resign. Davis had no problem with Petitioner returning to work, provided he could obtain proper transportation. After Petitioner's resignation, Davis completed the required paperwork and indicated that Petitioner should be classified as a "restricted rehire." Davis chose this restriction due to Petitioner's tardiness and attendance issues, as well as his failure to take responsibility to make it to work. This decision to categorize him as a "restricted rehire" was not based on Petitioner's age, national origin or his gender. Petitioner visited Respondent's casting center (human resource department) on June 17, 2003, approximately two months after his resignation, with the intent to reapply for his prior position. Petitioner wanted to return to his same position at the Grand Floridian, working for Davis and Bernhard, as well as working under the same coordinators. On June 17, 2003, Petitioner met with Fernanda Smith, who has served as a recruiter for Respondent for five years. Smith was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and is Hispanic. As a recruiter, Smith is responsible for interviewing, selecting, and hiring the strongest candidates for positions at Respondent. She is responsible for hiring employees for all hourly, entry- level positions. The hiring process used by Respondent is the same for both new applicants and former employees of Respondent. That process is set forth in the "Rehire Review" policy given to each recruiter. Once Smith is randomly assigned an applicant, she brings them to her office and reviews their personal data in the computer. She then reviews the application for accuracy and completeness. She also confirms that they are qualified to work in the United States and their criminal background. Smith reviews the conditions of employment with the applicant, including compensation, appearance, ability to attend work and transportation. If the applicant was previously employed by Respondent, Smith also reviews the application for the reasons the employee previously left employment and the applicant's rehire status. The different rehire statuses are "yes rehire," "restricted rehire," and "no rehire." If a former employee has been categorized as a "restricted rehire," Smith then must confirm that the person is currently employed and that he or she has been at that employment for a period of at least six months at the time of re-application. Assuming they can satisfy these requirements, the applicant is required to provide an employment verification letter from their current employer within one week of the interview. At that point, the information is forwarded to a rehire committee for consideration. On June 17, 2003, Smith interviewed Petitioner for potential rehire with Respondent. She recalls that when she met him in the lobby, he was very professionally dressed. Upon entering her office, Smith reviewed the information on Petitioner's application with him. At that point, she noticed that he had a recent date of termination from Respondent and asked him the reasons for his termination. Petitioner responded that he had left his employment because of transportation problems and that he had missed a number of days from work. In reviewing Petitioner's application, she realized that he did not meet the requirements for consideration as a "restricted rehire." First of all, Petitioner did not offer any evidence of current employment at the time of the interview. Secondly, Petitioner had only been gone from Respondent for a period of approximately two months, and thus, did not have the six months of continuous employment to be considered for rehire. Smith shared with Petitioner that he did not meet the minimum requirements for a "restricted rehire." Petitioner had no idea what that designation meant. At that point, Petitioner responded by getting very upset, yelling and screaming at Smith, standing up and pointing his finger at her. He then informed Smith that he was going to sue Respondent for discrimination and left her office. Petitioner did not allow Smith to make any other comments to him. Immediately after Petitioner had left the building, Smith prepared the standard evaluation that she prepares for all applicants she interviews, including the incident that occurred in the interview with Petitioner. If Petitioner had allowed Smith to explain the process and eventually provided the appropriate documentation, he might have been considered for rehire. Based on his behavior in the interview, however, Smith recommended that he not be considered for rehire, particularly for the position of lifeguard where he would be dealing with guests on a regular basis. Allegations of Discrimination Petitioner alleges that one of the coordinators referred to his national origin in a derogatory manner on one occasion. Other than this isolated alleged comment, he stated he never heard anyone else at Respondent make any derogatory comments about his being Hispanic or Venezuelan. Petitioner did not complain about this comment to anyone at Respondent and specifically did not complain to Davis, Bernhard, or employee relations about it. Other than this one comment by an unnamed coordinator, Petitioner offered no evidence that any actions or decisions were taken against him based on his national origin. In support of his age discrimination claim, Petitioner alleges that some of his co-workers referred to him once or twice as "old." Petitioner did not offer any evidence that any of his supervisors or coordinators ever used any of these terms in reference to him. Petitioner does not know whether or not he ever discussed his age with other workers. At the time of Petitioner's resignation, he was not the oldest lifeguard working at the Grand Floridian. Penny Ivey and Sherry Morris were both older than Petitioner, and Davis was born on February 5, 1951. At the time of Petitioner's resignation, Davis was 52 years old. Other than these alleged isolated comments, Petitioner offered no other evidence that any actions or decisions were taken against him based on his age. Petitioner claims that one example of gender discrimination was that the rotation schedule was not equal. In particular, he alleges that the "young and beautiful girls" were preferred in the rotation schedules because they were allowed to work in the marina and at the cash register more than males. Petitioner alleges that Jaimy Tully, a 23-year-old female lifeguard, was always late. For example, Petitioner alleges that Tully was late on March 2, 2003, based on the fact that she was supposed to be there at 10:00 a.m. The daily schedule indicates that she arrived for work at 9:30 a.m. In reviewing the document, however, it indicates "S/C" which means that a schedule change was made, and Tully showed up for work half an hour early, not late, and she still worked her scheduled day of ten hours. A schedule change would occur for several reasons, including the need to have certain employees come in early for an in-service session or the personal request of an employee. It sometimes required employees to come in for work early and other times required them to work later. Petitioner similarly alleges that Tully was late on March 22, 2003, and should have been fired for that. In reviewing the daily schedule for that date, however, it is evident that a schedule change was made, and Tully was scheduled to work from 9:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., a regular 10-hour day, and that she actually worked those hours. Petitioner admitted at the hearing that she was actually early to work and not late. Petitioner alleges that Tully was late again for work on April 7 and April 16, 2003. A review of those daily schedules, however, reveals that Tully had a schedule change on each of those days and that she worked the hours that she was assigned. Of all these allegations of Tully being late to work, Petitioner never complained to anyone about it. Petitioner then alleges that Tully arrived for work early on February 15, 2003, and that she was allowed to work extra hours and earn overtime. On that particular occasion, however, Tully was called in early because she needed to attend an in-service training session that was occurring that day. Petitioner conceded that Tully was not late on that day. Petitioner admitted that both males and females were called in to work additional hours as lifeguards. For instance, Michael Whitt, a male employee, was allowed to start work earlier based on a schedule change on March 4, 2003. Similarly, a schedule change was made involving Whitt on February 25, 2003, and he was required to report to work at 11:40 a.m., not 10:00 a.m., and as a result, was not given any breaks that day. Petitioner never received any discipline as a result of being late to work or for leaving work early. Petitioner claims that he suffered discrimination on January 12, 2003, because Tully was allowed to start work later than he and then was allowed to work as a cashier for the majority of the day. He claims that she should have been on a rotation like him and that she was given more hours than he was. Tully was trained as both a lifeguard and a cashier, but she had more cashier experience than the majority of the other lifeguards. She also had good guest-interaction and cash- handling skills, and thus, she was placed as a cashier more than most of the other lifeguards. The cashier assignment also differed from the other assignments in that the employee assigned to this position normally did not rotate throughout the day, and it was not uncommon for the same employee to serve as a cahier for an entire day. Petitioner never spoke with any of his supervisors or coordinators about serving as a cashier, nor did he ever complain to Bernhard about any of his daily assignments. He alleges that the woman and the "young girls" were always placed at the marina. When asked to identify "these girls," he stated he was referring to Mindy and Matt, a male employee. In particular, Petitioner testified that on December 25, 2002, Matt served in the marina for three consecutive rotations on that particular day. He also points out that Matt had a longer break than he did on that particular day. There was no pay differential between employees who were assigned to work at the marina and those who worked at the pool. Similarly, there was no pay differential between employees working as a cashier and those at the pool. Petitioner never made any complaints to Davis about his weekly schedule or his daily rotation assignments. Similarly, Petitioner never complained to Davis about any disparate treatment or harassment based on his age, national origin, or gender. Petitioner never raised any complaints about discrimination or any other working conditions with Bernhard. Bernhard never made any derogatory comments to him or about him. Bernhard does not give any preference to any employees based on age, national origin, or gender. Petitioner was aware that there was an Employee Relations Department located at the casting center, but never complained to them about his working conditions or alleged discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order which DENIES Petitioner's Petition for Relief and dismisses his complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Fernando J. Conde 4732 Olive Branch Road Apartment No. 1205 Orlando, Florida 32811-7118 Paul J. Scheck, Esquire Shutts & Bowen, LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 4956 Orlando, Florida 32802-4956 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed his petition and request for formal hearing approximately December 1, 1992. The attachments thereto suggest that he began requesting redress June 19, 1992. The agency referred his December 1, 1992 petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings, pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S. The Petitioner alleges that Petitioner's substantial interests are adversely affected by his employing agency paying other employees similarly situated more than Petitioner is paid. The Petition's attachments also obliquely put at issue the agency's refusal to process a special pay increase request for an individual exception in Petitioner's pay rate to the Department of Administration (now Department of Management Services). Such an application was refused by the agency approximately May 21, 1990. (See Petition attachments and Petitioner's Exhibit P-6.) Petitioner has not formally petitioned to invalidate any agency rule. Petitioner was hired by the Department of Corrections on April 6, 1965 in the position of guard. On September 1, 1965, he was promoted to Road Prison Officer I (RPO I), and his salary was increased. On October 27, 1989, he was promoted to Correctional Officer II (CO II). At the time of his promotion to CO II, his biweekly salary was $1,029.07. The maximum biweekly salary for that class was $1,004.14. Salary ranges for a job-class are posted on the job vacancy notice for that position. Petitioner had constructive, if not actual, knowledge of the pay grade range (maximum and minimum) at the time he accepted his October 27, 1989 promotion to CO II. Petitioner remained in the CO II class as of the date of formal hearing, however CO II is now known as Correctional Officer-Sergeant. The Petition herein has not affirmatively put at issue the Respondent agency's failure to promote Petitioner since 1989, however it is noted that at all times material, Petitioner met or exceeded all job performance requirements of a CO II. Petitioner, like all other employees similarly situated, has received salary adjustments and pay raises as appropriated by the legislature since October 27, 1989, even though he exceeded the maximum salary for the class he was occupying at the time. The testimony is clear that, as a CO II, Petitioner's salary is negotiated with the Respondent agency by a bargaining representative of the Police Benevolent Association, and that Petitioner was aware, at least by May 21, 1990, when he was denied an individual pay adjustment above the maximum for his pay grade, that he could file a grievance. He has never done so. From the foregoing, the only reasonable inference is that Petitioner has, at all times material, been subject to the terms of a collective bargaining agreement for State of Florida career service employees which provides for a grievance procedure. The terms of the collective bargaining agreement are not in evidence, however. As of the date of formal hearing, Petitioner also has filed no action before the Public Employees Relations Commission. The maximum authorized annual salary for a Correctional Officer- Sergeant as of the date of formal hearing was $29,479.84. At the present time, six employees ranked as Correctional Officer-Sergeant receive salaries in excess of Petitioner's salary. These employees in the same class are James Vaughn, Charles Williams, John C. Norman, Glynn H. Dunham, James Newsome and James Hamilton. Some of these employees have been employed by Respondent fewer years total than Petitioner. James Vaughn was promoted to CO II (now Correctional Officer-Sergeant) on April 19, 1974; Charles Williams on November 28, 1975; John C. Norman on February 20, 1976; Glynn H. Dunham on November 9, 1975; James Newsome on January 9, 1976; and James Hamilton originally on December 1, 1975 and then after a separation from employment, rehired as a CO II on January 1, 1985. As of January 1, 1987, all six of these employees were granted an across the board pay raise which equalized their salaries. The excess raise was given to the employees in a lump sum payment. Employees working in certain geographical regions of the state were granted a set pay adjustment for that region, up to $5,000. This amount may cause an employee's salary to exceed the maximum of the pay range for the CO II class. The Petitioner does not work in one of these geographic regions. By the time Petitioner was promoted to the position of CO II on October 27, 1989, the other six employees were earning $1,120.04, biweekly. Although their salaries exceeded the maximum salary for that class ($1,004.14), their pay raises were appropriated by the legislature across the board, regardless of whether the maximum range would be exceeded. Petitioner was also being paid in excess of the maximum for his class (RPO I) and in excess of the promotional class (CO II). Petitioner's biweekly salary at that time was $1,029.07. He also was given a raise in salary whenever it was authorized by a legislative appropriation bill. (See Finding of Fact 5). In early 1993, Petitioner brought to Respondent agency's attention that another employee, Richard E. Cobb, was making a salary in excess of what was permissible. Once the Department became aware of the error, it forwarded the information to the State of Florida, Office of the Comptroller for review. The error was corrected, and Richard E. Cobb's salary was reduced prospectively and the retroactive recovery of the overpayment was begun through deductions to Mr. Cobb's salary. Petitioner also complained about employee Blendage Weeks being promoted on September 1, 1989 with a 3.5 percent pay raise. Mr. Weeks is not a similarly situated employee because he is in a different job class than Petitioner. Also, although Petitioner believed that Mr. Weeks was given a raise in excess of the maximum for his class (Correctional Officer Chief I), in fact, the evidence shows that Mr. Weeks received a raise that brought him up from his then salary of $1,209.55 biweekly to the maximum for his class of $1,253.31 biweekly. 17. Rule 60K-2.002(5), F.A.C. (formerly 22A-2.001) provides: An employee shall not be paid in excess of the maximum of the salary range for a class, unless such payments are authorized by these rules or legislation. 18. Rule 60K-2.004(1)(b), F.A.C. (formerly 22A-2.004) provides: The agency head is authorized to grant a promotional appointment to an individual at a base rate of pay from the minimum to the maximum of the salary range for the class to which promoted provided such increase does not exceed 10 percent of the employee's base rate of pay prior to promotion. Pursuant to the foregoing rules, promotional pay raises are treated differently than legislatively appropriated pay raises and the agency may grant a promotional pay raise as long as it does not exceed the maximum of the salary range for the class into which the employee is being promoted. Petitioner does not fall into any of the protected classes governed by Section 760.10, F.S. and has filed no charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the relief sought be denied and the petition therefore dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of December, 1993, 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 21st day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7417 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: 1-2 Accepted, except as to month and day. Accepted as to content of Rule 60K-2.002(5) [not 60K-1.002(5)] F.A.C. The remainder of PFOF 3 is not properly cited. Accepted. Accepted as to what the salaries are and their names. The remainder of PFOF 5 is rejected as mere argument. Respondent's PFOF: 1-7,9-11,14-15 Accepted. 8,12 Accepted as modified to more accurately reflect the record evidence. 13 Covered in FOF 8; otherwise rejected as immaterial. Rejected as mere argument. Covered except as cumulative; see FOF 16. Rejected as evidentiary rulings or cumulative; see FOF 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian T. Hayes, P.A., Esquire 245 East Washington Street Monticello, Florida 32344 Laura S. Leve, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Harry K. Singletary, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Louis A. Vargas, Esquire General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by terminating her employment in violation of the Age Discrimination Employment Act.
Findings Of Fact Lombardi started her employment as a judicial assistant with Dade County in 1971. Judge Mattie Belle Davis was the first judge who hired Petitioner. Judicial Assistants serve at the pleasure of the appointing Judge.1 Judge Bruce Levy hired Lombardi as his judicial assistant after Judge Davis retired. In December 2004, Judge Levy lost his re-election bid and Petitioner no longer had a full-time position as a judicial assistant with a judge. Lombardi started working in the temporary pool of judicial assistants. The position allowed Petitioner to retain her benefits while seeking a permanent judicial assistant position. While serving in the pool, Petitioner worked for Judge Leon Firtel from February 14, 2005, through February 28, 2006, before he let her go. Petitioner then worked for Judge Rosa Rodriguez from April 1, 2006, through May 23, 2007, until she let her go. Petitioner last worked for Dade County when she served as retired Judge Roger Silver's ("Silver") judicial assistant from September 1, 2007, until January 7, 2008. Lombardi was terminated in Silver's chambers with a bailiff and Ms. Suarez from Human Resources present. Silver informed the Petitioner her services were no longer needed and he was letting her go. Petitioner questioned why she was being terminated; however, Silver did not provide an explanation. Silver terminated Petitioner because he was not happy with her work performance. Silver testified that Petitioner had the following problems regarding her work: taking lunch breaks beyond the one hour he had discussed with her; numerous complaints from attorneys; selling Avon at the work place; not answering the phones and allowing calls to go to voicemail; and repeatedly setting unnecessary hearings on the docket. Prior to terminating Lombardi, Silver inquired with Human Resources about a replacement and was informed that he could not be assured that he would be able to get a temporary assistant to replace Lombardi due to the unavailability of funding. He still choose to terminate Petitioner because, "[he] felt having no one was better than what [he] had under the circumstances." Petitioner was not able to go back in the "temporary pool" of judicial assistants as she had in the past after Silver terminated her. In 2008, the Eleventh Judicial Circuit had a hiring freeze whereby the temporary pool was no longer funded. Human Resources eventually sent Elizabeth Gonzalez, whose date of birth is May 26, 1965, to Silver as a temporary judicial assistant. Silver had never met Gonzalez prior to her coming to work for him. There was no discussion of age when Silver requested a judicial assistant or when Gonzalez was assigned to him. Gonzalez served as Silver's temporary judicial assistant for a number of weeks and, when personnel advised him he could hire someone, including Gonzalez, Silver hired Gonzalez on or about March 10, 2008, because he was pleased with her work. Gonzalez worked with him until his retirement in December 2008. At the time when Petitioner filed her Charge of Discrimination, Petitioner was unaware of the exact age of her replacement. Petitioner's date of birth is May 18, 1948.
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 Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2009.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was denied training, subjected to unequal terms of employment and denied promotion to three jobs including the position of Lead Custodian with the Respondent in the Physical Plant Department in 1993, on the basis of his gender (male) and race (African- American), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an employer under the 1992 Florida Civil Rights Act. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a custodian in the Physical Plant Department since July 1989 and during the relevant period of time including 1993 and 1994. Petitioner is a male African-American, and a member of a protected class. Petitioner applied for a promotion to three different positions at the college between August 26, 1993 and December 6, 1993. In late August, 1993, Petitioner applied for the part-time position of House Manager at the college theatre. Petitioner was not selected because his present work schedule would overlap the position at the theatre and his prior work experience was not relevant to the position. In addition, another candidate possessed better interpersonal and communication skills, and his education and work experience was more relevant to the position than the Petitioner's. In early October, 1993, Petitioner applied for the position of HVACR (heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration) apprentice. The position is a learning position which requires working with a lead mechanic. Part of the job requirement for the apprentice position was the ability to attend trade school in HVACR. During the employment interview Petitioner expressed reservations about attending the HVACR training because he was presently enrolled in night classes at Rollins College. In addition to Petitioner, two white males and a Hispanic male applied for the position. A Hispanic male was selected for the position who had better qualifications. Thereafter, the racial make-up of the HVACR Department consisted of two whites, one black and one Hispanic male. On October 14, 1993, three vacancies for the newly created position of Lead Custodian in the Physical Plant Department was advertised by Respondent. Petitioner was one of nine applicants for the position. The nine individuals who applied for the position of Lead Custodian consisted of four African-American males, three African-American females and two Caucasian females. Following the review of each persons application and file and a personal interview, two African-American males and one African-American female were selected for the positions. Petitioner was not recommended for one of the vacancies. The selection process was based on relevant work experience and work history, and was not based on improper or discriminatory race or gender considerations. Petitioner was not denied training based on his race or gender. Petitioner applied for and attended six seminars covering a variety of subjects over the last several years. Respondent's stated reasons for its promotion and training decisions were not proven to be pretextual.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order which DENIES the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 24th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: Accepted in substance: paragraphs: none Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or as comment on the evidence: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. COPIES FURNISHED: Lea Ann Banks, Esquire BAKER & HOSTETLER P. O. Box 112 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Ulysses B. Williams 1020 Polk Avenue Orlando, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
