The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to discrimination in the work environment by Respondent due to Petitioner's gender in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed as a payload operator by Respondent, a fertilizer manufacturer, at the time of her employment termination in August of 1996. Petitioner’s job duties included scooping fertilizer onto the pay loader, or front-end loader, and dropping the fertilizer into a “hopper” for subsequent loading into rail cars. Petitioner was expected, along with other payload operators, to perform other duties, including the cleaning of work areas when she ceased her loading function. During Petitioner's employment, a union contract existed between Respondent and the International Chemical Workers Union of which Petitioner was a member. The union contract governed overtime assignments, pay structure, shift structure, disciplinary/termination procedures and lay-offs, among other things. Respondent paid Petitioner and gave her breaks, contrary to her allegations, in the same manner as other employees. Governed by the union contract during the busy 1995-96 period, Respondent assigned work to employees on many different shifts. The plant operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Overtime requirements were based on business necessity. All employees worked the same number of hours regardless of the shift to which they were assigned. Petitioner never formally complained to anyone regarding displeasure with shift assignments. Neither salary nor number of work hours were affected by Petitioner’s assignments to different work shifts. Petitioner and other employees worked the same number of hours. Petitioner took breaks just like other employees. Changes from shift to shift experienced by Petitioner had nothing to do with her gender. The union contract governed how Respondent assigned overtime to its employees. The contract established a procedure that distributed overtime hours evenly and fairly among all of Respondent's employees. Those procedures were adhered to by Respondent and all employees were given overtime opportunities in an equal manner without regard to gender. On one occasion, Petitioner complained about her overtime assignment. She felt that she should have been called into work on a day when another operator (male) was called to come in and work. Respondent had attempted to contact Petitioner at contact numbers provided by Petitioner, without success. Safety equipment was distributed to all employees. Petitioner signed a check list indicating that she had received or knew how to request safety equipment. A pair of boots requested by Petitioner on one occasion had not yet arrived, but did arrive before the conclusion of the business day. The delay in delivery of Petitioner's requested boots to her was not related to her gender. Petitioner complained that adverse comments were made to her on the job by male workers. The alleged comments ranged from women should only do "clean up work" to "if you don't smoke or drink, we don't need you in this department." All of the alleged comments were roundly denied by Petitioner's co-workers at the final hearing. The credibility and candor of the testifying co-workers establishes that the adverse comments were not made. One incident in which Petitioner complained about her work assignment resulted in the general foreman's immediately contacting Respondent's human resource department. A meeting was then held with Petitioner to address the situation. The foreman felt confident that Petitioner would voice any additional concerns if the situation did not change. Petitioner never voiced further concerns to the foreman. Petitioner alleged that she was denied the right of free speech at a meeting attended by her, Respondent representatives, and union representatives. As established at the final hearing, she was told by the union representative to remain quiet and let him do the talking if Respondent representatives made Petitioner angry. However, the union representative did not instruct Petitioner to otherwise remain silent. Under the union contract, Respondent could terminate employees who received three reprimands within a 12-month period. Petitioner was aware of this procedure. Petitioner had numerous instances of work-related misconduct and received more than three reprimands in a 12-month period. Counseled on June 4, 1995, for damaging a payloader, Petitioner received a reprimand on July 18, 1995, for again damaging a payloader. Petitioner was counseled again on August 14, 1995, for failure to communicate with the shipping operator. On October 16, 1995, Petitioner received a second reprimand for poor work performance for mixing discarded product with good product, a violation of Respondent policy. Petitioner received her third reprimand on February 28, 1996, for loading hot fertilizer, a violation of Respondent's policy. The difficulty of loading fertilizer before it cooled was the later removal of the hot product which would harden upon cooling into a concrete-like substance. Petitioner was given a second chance and not fired upon receiving her third reprimand in a 12-month period. Management hoped that Petitioner would seek to improve her work performance. Petitioner refused to help clean the plant on July 10, 1996, and was counseled by her supervisor. On July 25, 1996, she received a verbal warning for failure to report an accident. In August of 1996, Petitioner received her final reprimand for failure to attend a company meeting at the proper time and for again loading hot product. Petitioner's employment was terminated. The various reprimands imposed on Petitioner were from different supervisors at different times. None of the reprimands were based on Petitioner's gender. After a complete review of Petitioner's case, the union representative determined that Respondent had properly terminated her employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Azizi M. Dixon, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Artie Johnson 2672 Northwest 6th Drive Jennings, Florida 32053 Mary L. Wakeman, Esquire McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope, and Weaver, P.A. Post Office Drawer 229 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0229 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Pritesh, Inc., d/b/a IHOP 36-151 ("IHOP"), committed unlawful employment practices contrary to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2011),1/ by discharging Petitioner from her employment in retaliation for her complaints regarding racial and religious discrimination in the workplace.
Findings Of Fact IHOP is an employer as that term is defined in subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. IHOP is a restaurant in Leesburg. IHOP is owned by Pritesh Patel, who owns and operates a total of four International House of Pancakes stores in the Leesburg area through his corporation, Pritesh, Inc. Petitioner is a black female who is an observant Jew. Because of her religious beliefs, Petitioner does not work on the Sabbath, from sundown on Friday until sunset on Saturday. Petitioner was hired to work as a server at IHOP on March 19, 2012. She made it clear that she did not work on the Sabbath, and IHOP agreed to respect her religious beliefs. There was some difference in recollection as to the notice Petitioner gave to IHOP. Petitioner testified that she made it clear she could not work until sundown on Saturdays. The store manager, Brian Jackson, also recalled that Petitioner stated she could only work Saturday evenings. Mr. Patel testified that Petitioner said that she could work on Saturday "afternoon." Petitioner's version is credited as being more consistent with her stated beliefs, though there is no doubt that Mr. Patel was testifying honestly as to his recollection. Petitioner was the only black server working at IHOP at this time. Both Mr. Patel and Mr. Jackson credibly testified that IHOP has had many black servers through the years. Mr. Jackson noted that Petitioner only worked for IHOP for a period of two weeks and therefore was in no position to judge IHOP's minority hiring practices. Petitioner testified that assistant manager Hemanshu "Shu" Patel, a relative of the owner, created a hostile working environment for her from the time she started on March 19. She complained that Shu would alter the seating chart so that she would have fewer tables to cover, meaning a reduction in her tips. Petitioner also stated that Shu was disrespectful and rude, in a manner that caused her to believe there was a racial motivation behind his actions. Despite the fact that Shu was subordinate to Mr. Jackson, Petitioner believed that Shu was really in charge because he was a relative of Mr. Patel and therefore "untouchable" as an employee of IHOP. Petitioner's main complaint was that Shu, who was in charge of work schedules for the restaurant, scheduled her to work on Saturdays. Petitioner testified that on the first Saturday of her employment, March 24, Shu called her to come into work at noon. She replied that she could not come in until after sundown. This problem was apparently worked out to Petitioner's satisfaction, and she was not required to report to work on Saturday afternoon. However, when Shu posted the next week's schedule on the following Tuesday, Petitioner saw that she had been scheduled to work on the morning of Saturday, March 31. Petitioner complained. Both Mr. Patel and Mr. Jackson testified that Shu had merely made an error in scheduling that was rectified as soon as Petitioner notified them of the problem. Petitioner did not deny that the problem was resolved mid-week, well before any Sabbath conflict could arise. Mr. Patel testified that he wanted Petitioner to work from 4 p.m. until midnight on Saturday, March 31, so that she would not lose a day's work due to the scheduling error. Shu phoned Petitioner early on Saturday afternoon and asked her to come in. Petitioner told Shu that she could not come in until 8 p.m. Mr. Patel testified that he did not need someone to work a four-hour shift, and that Petitioner was told not to come in. As a further reason for declining to work on Saturday evening, Petitioner testified that she had only been trained for the morning shift. Mr. Jackson testified that the only distinction between the dayshift and the nightshift is that the latter is less busy. All servers are trained for the morning shift. Mr. Jackson stated that, once trained for the morning shift, a server would find the night shift "a piece of cake." Petitioner's reason for not working in the evening was not credible in this respect. Mr. Patel testified that he had no problem with Petitioner's not working on that Saturday, provided that she understood she was going lose a day. Mr. Patel stated that from his point of view the problems began when Petitioner insisted that he give her weekday hours to make up for the lost Saturday hours. Mr. Patel declined to cut another employee's hours for Petitioner. Petitioner came in to work on the morning of Sunday, April 1. Sunday morning is a busy time for IHOP. According to head server Bernadine Hengst, Petitioner stood near her at the register and voiced her complaints about Shu, who was working in the kitchen. Shu heard Petitioner and stepped into the dining room, asking her, "You got something to say to me?" Petitioner and Shu became loud, and their argument was moved outside for fear of disturbing a restaurant full of people. Petitioner finished her shift then went home and composed a letter to Mr. Patel. She made copies of the letter for every employee at IHOP. Ms. Hengst was the first to see the letter. She phoned Mr. Jackson at home to tell him about it, and Mr. Jackson phoned Mr. Patel. The letter read as follows: On March 19, 2012, I was hired to work as a server. I am a professional, pleasant, respectful, prompt and dutiful individual. As the only African-American server, it is imperative that you know since I have arrived at IHOP, I have faced fierce blatant hostility from a manager ("Shu") and co- workers ("C.C., Misti and Cherish"). I feel Shu has deliberately created a divisive and hostile working environment. It is my understanding Shu is a family member yet his behavior is definitely bad for business. On two separate occasions, Shu altered the seating chart that Brian originally created and took two tables from me. He lacks proficient management skills and is totally unprofessional, disrespectful and rude. On Sunday, April 1, 2012, Shu spoke to me in a loud, impolite manner in front of staff and customers. Shu communicated in a very bellicose fashion and for a moment, it felt as though he would physically attack me. You must take it serious that Shu's conduct is detrimental to your business. When Shu hired me I made it clear that I am Jewish and do not work on the Sabbath ("Saturday"). Nevertheless, Shu called me to come into work on Saturday about noon; I told him I would come in after the Sabbath at 7:00 p.m. The following week I was scheduled to work a Saturday, which in turn caused me to lose a day of work. Also on April 1, 2012, Shu assigned me only two booths for the whole day; when I spoke up about it he threatened to take another booth from me. This type of attitude and his unfair behavior cannot be tolerated in the United States of America in 2012. Shu is outwardly mean, discriminative, and racist towards me. He acts like a tyrant, a bully and he feels he is untouchable. On Sunday, April 1, I was only assigned two booths while my co-workers had four to six tables. This was unfair seating arrangements. At the end of the day, Bernie [Hengst] told all the servers to tip out the busboy, yet I did not because I was unjustly treated by only being assigned two tables. This was one-sided and insulting. I am an exceptional waitress and I depend on this job to pay my bills. During my first week, I was scheduled to work 36.10 hours and this week I was only given approximately 23.0 hours. Everyone should be treated fairly and equally. I ask that you continue to give me a full schedule each week. This letter officially informs you of the battles I have dealt with in your establishment and I have not worked here for one whole month. All Americans have the right to work without being harassed. I urge you to intervene and equitably resolve this issue. Ms. Hengst testified that Shu is a loud person who "talks with his hands," but she saw nothing that gave her the impression that Shu would "physically attack" Petitioner. She did not detect that Shu treated Petitioner any differently than he treated other servers. Ms. Hengst saw Petitioner as an equal participant in the April 1 confrontation. As to Petitioner's complaint about the number of tables to which she was assigned, Mr. Jackson testified that servers are always trained on two booths and then moved to four booths after training is completed. He stated that Petitioner was doing a "terrible" job working four booths, which caused Shu to move her down to two. Mr. Jackson stated that it is counterproductive to overwhelm a new server, and that the server must demonstrate the ability to perform the basics before taking on more tables. On the morning of April 2, after reading Petitioner's letter, Mr. Patel went to the IHOP and sat down for a meeting with Petitioner in hopes of addressing her complaints. Mr. Patel testified that the first thing Petitioner asked him was, "Do you know how many black employees you have?" Though he had been willing to discuss Petitioner's grievances concerning scheduling, Mr. Patel decided to fire Petitioner when she started "threatening us" based on claims of "black and white discriminating." He decided to fire Petitioner for the future of his business, because he did not want the problems associated with allegations of discrimination. Mr. Jackson was also at the April 2 meeting, and testified that Petitioner claimed she was being singled out because of her race. Based on all the testimony, it is found that Petitioner had little basis for claiming that IHOP was discriminating against her based on her race or religion during the actual course of her job. She was mistakenly scheduled to work on Saturday, but was not required to come in to the store once she made management aware of the error. She did lose one shift's worth of work for March 31, but that was partly due to her declining to work the evening shift. The evidence established that Shu Patel was loud, somewhat hotheaded, and perhaps not the ideal choice for managing a busy restaurant, but did not establish that he singled out Petitioner for particular abuse because of her race or religion. The evidence established that Petitioner's poor job performance was the cause of at least some of the friction between her and IHOP management. However, Mr. Patel's own testimony established that he dismissed Petitioner in direct retaliation for her complaint of discriminatory employment practices. IHOP offered no legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Petitioner's dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Pritesh, Inc., d/b/a IHOP 36- 151 committed an act of unlawful retaliation against Petitioner. It is further recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations remand this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary proceeding to establish the amount of back pay/lost wages owed to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by VOTRAN from June 6, 1977, until his discharge on January 19, 1982. He started as Serviceman; was promoted to Mechanic B on October 31, 1977; to Night Leadman on August 7, 1978; to Mechanic A on January 13, 1980; and to permanent Night Leadman on November 30, 1981. He was the senior mechanic in the maintenance department and, prior to December, 1981, was Leadman on the day shift. Effective November 30, 1981, the position as Leadman on the day shift was abolished and these duties were absorbed by the Maintenance Superintendent, Owen Davis. Pursuant to the Union contract in effect at VOTRAN, available jobs are bid by seniority and go to the most senior qualified man seeking the position. When the Day Leadman position was abolished, Petitioner bid on the Night Leadman position and, as senior mechanic, was awarded the job. Working days (or nights) for the Night Leadman are Tuesdays through Saturdays, with Sundays and Mondays off. This was known to Petitioner at the time he submitted his bid and was awarded this position. After a short time as Night Leadman, Petitioner requested leave on Saturday to attend an uncle's funeral in Georgia. Davis told Petitioner this would leave them shorthanded. Petitioner then told Davis that he did not like working on Saturday and wouldn't come in. Davis reported this incident to the General Manager, Kenneth Fischer. Late in December Petitioner met with Fischer, at which time Petitioner told Fischer he was unable to handle the job of Night Leadman. Fischer offered Petitioner the option of swapping jobs with a Mechanic A on the day shift but that job paid less and Petitioner turned it down. On another occasion, Fischer learned Petitioner had called in and said he could not come to work on Saturday because he had to move furniture. That resulted in a memo of January 12, 1982 (Exhibit 3) memorializing the December 29, 1981, meeting between Petitioner and Fischer in which Fischer repeated his warning to Petitioner against calling in sick on Saturdays unless his illness could be documented. This memo was delayed getting into Petitioner's box and was not received by him until the following Friday. Fischer was off Saturday, Petitioner was off Sunday and Monday, and on Tuesday, January 19, 1982, Petitioner met with Fischer. After Fischer had entered his car in the parking lot around 6:00 p.m. preparing to go home, Petitioner approached the car and told Fischer he would like to speak to him. Fischer got out of his car, they walked back into the building, Fischer unlocked his office, and they entered. Petitioner tossed the memo of January 12, 1982, on the desk complaining that he thought he was being discriminated against and that if the rules respecting sick leave of less than three days were being changed they should apply to all employees and not just to Petitioner. The meeting quickly escalated into a confrontation with Petitioner telling the younger Fischer that Petitioner was a 40-year-old man with a family, and that Fischer was not man enough to fire him. Whereupon Fischer told Petitioner to "hit the door." Petitioner then told Fischer that he would get VOTRAN's "shit" together and for Fischer to get Petitioner's "shit" together, and Petitioner left. Petitioner's voice immediately prior to his departure was sufficiently loud to be heard by two employees from 200 feet down the hall from Fischer's office. Petitioner's testimony conflicted with the above finding of what went on at the fateful meeting of January 19. Petitioner testified that he remained calm during the meeting, that he never told Fischer that the latter was not man enough to fire him, that he told Fischer they should discuss the matter like grown men, that he used the word "shit" to indicate personal property, and that Fischer is the one who got angry and told Petitioner to "sit down" before he told Petitioner to "hit the door." Petitioner also testified that during the little ever a month he was Leadman on the night shift he missed one or two Saturdays, that the memo of January 12 made him feel he was being treated differently from others, and that he and Fischer had at least three conferences before January 19, 1982, when he was fired. VOTRAN is a publicly owned transportation company subsidized by Volusia County and originally financed by the Federal Government. While funded by the Federal Government VOTRAN was subject to and in compliance with all federal laws proscribing discrimination. Of the 83 employees of VOTRAN, 20 are black. In Volusia County blacks constitute approximately 13 percent of the population. While employed at VOTRAN, Petitioner attended three schools to improve his training and VOTRAN paid the tuition. Although there was a discrepancy between Petitioner's testimony that he was the only black mechanic employed by VOTRAN, and VOTRAN's testimony that there were two blacks employed as mechanics, the evidence was unrebutted that following Petitioner's discharge another black mechanic was hired by VOTRAN. To further support his claim that he was fired because of his race, Petitioner testified that as a Leadman he was never issued a white shirt, that white shirts and blue pants were provided supervisors (including leadmen) by VOTRAN, and that blue shirts were issued to other workmen except in the bodyshop where the workers were issued white pants and shirts. Petitioner mentioned this difference to one of the shop's stewards who told Petitioner that if he felt wronged he should file a grievance. Petitioner never filed a grievance and neither the Superintendent nor the Director of Maintenance was asked by Petitioner to provide him with a white shirt. Other witnesses testified that some leadmen wore white shirts, others wore blue shirts, and it was generally left to the choice of the leadman which color shirt he wore. One witness called by Petitioner testified that he once overheard a Fischer and Davis conversation at which the phrase "dumb niggers" was used. Both categorically denied ever making such a racial slur. No other witness testified to any incident which could lead to a conclusion that Fischer was in any manner prejudiced or racially discriminatory. His reputation among the bus drivers is that he "goes by the book." As another ground to support his charge of racial discrimination, Petitioner testified that while he was Night Leadman he was not provided a key to the Superintendent's desk which other night leadmen had been provided; and that when it was necessary to get into the desk for special tools kept there, it was necessary to call the Superintendent, who would come down and unlock the desk. The Superintendent, Davis, confirmed that Petitioner had not been issued a key because a short time before Petitioner started the night shift too many keys had been issued, all of these keys had been called in, and, when he found his presence was frequently required at night to open the desk, he reissued a key to the Night Leadman. By this time Petitioner had been terminated. The contract between VOTRAN and the Teamsters Union provided for arbitration of grievances. This document also provides that neither employer nor Union will discriminate against any individual with respect to recruitment, hiring, training, promotion, or other employment practice for reasons of race, etc. (Exhibit 1, Article 9). When Petitioner told the shop's steward (also black) that he had been fired, he did not indicate he was fired by reason of race. Petitioner was advised by the shop's steward that he could file a grievance with the Union and his firing could go to arbitration if not settled prior to that step. Petitioner was not a dues-paying member of the Union, and, although covered by the contract, did not feel he would get a sympathetic ear from the Union. The General Manager, William Barrett, who preceded Fischer, was called as a witness by Petitioner. Barrett was General Manager when Petitioner was hired, approved the various training programs taken by Petitioner at VOTRAN's expense, and found Petitioner to be a good and reliable employee. Barrett further testified that it was necessary to maintain discipline in order to operate effectively and that if an employee challenged his authority he would have no choice but to fire the employee immediately.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner based on her race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female. Respondent initially hired Petitioner through a temporary labor service. Petitioner worked for approximately 60 days as a temporary employee in the position of a medical transcriptionist preparing medical chronologies. At the end of the 60-day period, Respondent decided to eliminate Petitioner's position. Petitioner decided to enhance her career opportunities by applying for a position as a paralegal with Respondent. In a letter dated June 19, 1996, Petitioner expressed her interest in working for Respondent as a full-time employee. According to the letter, Petitioner had worked for over 20 years as a secretary/administrative assistant, including some experience in the areas of management and supervision. The letter, together with Petitioner's resumé, indicated that she had experience as a legal secretary. In a letter dated August 26, 1997, Respondent offered Petitioner a job as a paralegal. Petitioner accepted the offer. Randy Fischer, Esquire, explained the duties of a paralegal to Petitioner and gave her a copy of a paralegal's job description. The duties included, but were not limited to, the following: (a) drafting pleadings and correspondence; (b) drafting discovery requests; (c) organizing files and preparing file indexes; (d) investigating cases; (e) scheduling depositions; (f) attending document productions, exhibit exchanges, and pretrial conferences; and (g) assisting in legal research. Respondent gave Petitioner an employee handbook. The handbook included, among other things, information about attendance, discipline, and the firm's anti-discrimination policies and procedures. Petitioner also received a paralegal manual and billing guidelines. Respondent's anti-discrimination policy communicated to employees that sexual harassment, racial discrimination, or any other type of discrimination would not be tolerated. Respondent had an "open door" policy by which employees could report discrimination to the office manager or the office-managing partner. At all times material here, Mr. Fischer was the office-managing partner, and Janet Siefert was the office manager. Petitioner never took advantage of the opportunity to report any alleged racial discrimination to anyone on Respondent's staff. From the beginning of her employment as a paralegal, Mr. Fischer communicated to Petitioner that she would be expected to schedule, coordinate, and calendar activities for attorneys. He frequently was critical of Petitioner's performance because she failed to meet these expectations. There is no persuasive evidence that Mr. Fischer's criticisms were racially motivated. Respondent regularly provided written performance evaluations of employees. Petitioner's first review took place in December 1997. The evaluation indicated that Petitioner's attendance or dependability and teamwork were "highly acceptable." Her performance in oral expression, writing ability, decision-making ability, work product accurateness, and work product volume was "acceptable." Petitioner "needed to improve" in the following areas: (a) knowing subject matter; (b) analyzing problems; (c) obtaining information; (d) meeting deadlines; (e) performing assignments resourcefully and creatively; (f) recording billable time; (g) showing initiative; and (h) following through on assignments. Petitioner's overall rating on the evaluation was "acceptable." During the evaluation, Mr. Fischer counseled Petitioner about her job deficiencies. He particularly discussed Petitioner's need to follow appropriate guidelines for billing. This was important because Respondent routinely had to reduce Petitioner's excessive billing time in some areas. There is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner was singled out in terms of having billing time entries removed from the timesheets. In February 1998, Petitioner began having problems with her attendance and low work productivity. A written disciplinary action dated February 11, 1998, outlined the following deficiencies: (a) inattention to detail in handling files by failing to schedule the continuation of a deposition; poor performance in handling the Angela Davis file; leaving the building during work hours without proper authorization; (d) being late for work on numerous occasions; and (e) taking numerous personal absences. Regarding the Angela Davis file, Petitioner's failure to follow instructions adversely affected Mr. Fischer's handling of the file. Mr. Fischer became angry because it took Petitioner two hours to drive from Ocala, Florida, to Gainesville, Florida, with only a portion of the Angela Davis file that he had requested. However, there is no evidence that Mr. Fischer's anger was racially motivated. Petitioner admits that she occasionally left the building during her work breaks to go to the bank or for other personal reasons instead of spending that time in the employees' break room. She asserts that she did not know she had to have permission to do so and that she had to sign in and out. According to Petitioner, other employees were allowed these privileges without being reprimanded. Petitioner's testimony in this regard is not credible. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that her attendance record was problematic due to personal problems. On at least one occasion, Mr. Fischer agreed to let Petitioner make up some of the time she had lost. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent's attendance policy was applied more rigidly to Petitioner than to any other employee. More importantly, Petitioner admitted that she was not qualified to perform all of the duties of a paralegal when she accepted the position. It is clear that she had difficulty learning "on-the-job." On February 20, 1998, Mr. Fischer wrote Petitioner and another paralegal a note regarding the importance of pulling a file together and following directions. Mr. Fischer had gone to mediation without the necessary file documents because Petitioner and her co-worker had not followed his directions. On March 12, 1998, Mr. Fischer reminded Petitioner and another paralegal about the importance of providing him with daily timesheets in a timely manner. Petitioner and her co-worker were at least a week behind in providing him with their timesheets. On March 26, 1998, Petitioner used the firm's copy machine and other supplies for personal reasons. On April 8, 1998, Petitioner was late to work due to a flat tire. In May 1998, Petitioner requested a more flexible work schedule so that she could attend class in Orlando, Florida, one afternoon each week. Mr. Fischer responded that her billing hours were already low and that she was routinely late to work. However, Mr. Fischer agreed to give her the time off for a 30-day period if she documented her time at the office, improved her productivity, and billed a minimum of 25 billed hours per week. In June 1998, Mr. Fischer had to remind Petitioner again about the importance of keeping calendars for the attorneys. Because Petitioner failed to follow instructions, no attorney from Respondent's office attended a scene viewing. In July 1998, Mr. Fischer sent Petitioner an e-mail message criticizing her for not properly issuing a subpoena and deposition notice. When he realized that Petitioner was not at fault, he promptly apologized in a subsequent message. On August 18 and 19, 1998, Petitioner received two personal facsimile transmissions at the office. On August 25, 1998, Mr. Fischer gave Petitioner a written disciplinary action and placed her on probationary status. The discipline was based on the following reasons: (a) Petitioner had been out of the office for various personal reasons 31 times in the last 90 days; (b) Petitioner had provided Respondent with inaccurate or incomplete reasons for those absences; (c) Petitioner's productivity was below office standards; (d) Petitioner had failed to properly schedule activities and calendar events for an attorney; (e) Petitioner had failed to follow repeated instructions in relation to file handling, scheduling depositions, and scheduling meetings; (f) Petitioner had used firm time to receive and review personal facsimile transmissions, to discuss personal information, and to participate in personal telephone calls; and (g) Petitioner had inappropriately used firm resources. On September 16, 1998, Mr. Fischer gave Petitioner another written disciplinary action. The memorandum outlined continued problems with Petitioner's performance. One example of Petitioner's poor performance involved her failure to properly arrange for a deposition. Other examples involved excessive billing for making summaries of records; the lack of time billed for other case activities, such as setting and noticing depositions and hearings; failure to resolve unpaid costs on a case; and modification of timesheets after they had been edited. The September 16, 1998, disciplinary action also reviewed continued problems with Petitioner's attendance and attitude. Respondent's paralegals are required to bill 100-105 hours per month. Some examples of Petitioner's billing hours are as follows: (a) March 1998, 97.3 hours; (b) April 1998, 58.9 hours; (c) May 1998, 74.3 hours; and (d) June 1998, 69.7 hours. Respondent fired Petitioner on September 25, 1998. Her termination was based on cumulative reasons, including low productivity, failure to be attentive to detail in the handling of files, and frequent absences and tardiness. During the time that Petitioner worked for Respondent, Mr. Fischer fired Robin Carr, a white female, for similar reasons that Petitioner was terminated: excessive absences, inappropriate use of personal time in the office, and excessive personal telephone calls. Mr. Fischer also fired Art Monig, a white male, for low work productivity. Ms. Carr and Mr. Monig both worked as paralegals. Petitioner testified that, on one occasion, Ms. Carr and other employees were in the employees' break room discussing the turnover of staff in the office. Petitioner testified that Ms. Carr made the statement that Petitioner did not have to worry about losing her job because she was a "token." In the Petition for Relief, Petitioner alleges that Ms. Seifert made this comment. Ms. Carr did not testify at the hearing but Ms. Seifert did testify and denies making such a statement or ever hearing it made. Similarly, Jennifer Whitehead, who was Mr. Fischer's secretary from February 1997 through May 2001, testified that she never heard anyone in the office make a statement that Petitioner was a "token" or a "quota." Nevertheless, Petitioner's testimony in this regard is persuasive. Petitioner admits that she never reported the statement allegedly made by Ms. Carr to anyone in Respondent's office. She admits that Mr. Fischer never made inappropriate racial comments in her presence. Mr. Fischer's dissatisfaction with Petitioner's performance may have caused Petitioner to be uncomfortable from time to time, but there is no evidence that his reactions to her poor performance were racially motivated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorine Alexander 1421 Southwest 27th Avenue Apartment No. 1807 Ocala, Florida 34474 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randy Fischer, Esquire Boehm, Brown, Fischer & Harwood, P.A. Post Office Box 4140 Ocala, Florida 34478 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On December 6, 7 and 8, 1988, petitioner Harold E. Solano was absent from his job at the Department of Transportation without leave.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Administration enter a final order deeming petitioner to have abandoned his career service position with respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of July, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold E. Solano Route 1, Box 5 Elkton, Florida 32033 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Andrew J. McMullian, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment action by discriminating against Petitioner based on her race contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2005).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as defined in Section 760.027, Florida Statutes (2005). Petitioner is an African-American female. At all times relevant here, Petitioner worked full-time as a floor technician (floor tech) at Respondent's nursing home facility. As a floor tech, Petitioner was responsible for dusting, mopping and buffing the floors. At all relevant times, Cheryl Johnson was Respondent's facility administrator. Ms. Johnson has held that position since December 2002. In May 2003, Petitioner asked Ms. Johnson if she could receive her paycheck early. Petitioner was aware that Ms. Johnson had given an early paycheck to a nurse. The record does not reveal the nurse's race. Ms. Johnson refused to give Petitioner the early paycheck. Ms. Johnson admitted that she had made a mistake in giving the nurse an early paycheck. Ms. Johnson stated that she would not violate Respondent's policy against early paychecks again. Petitioner filed a grievance, claiming that Ms. Johnson was not being fair. Sometime thereafter, Ms. Johnson gave an early paycheck to a dietary employee. The dietary employee was an African- American. With regard to early paychecks, there is no evidence that Ms. Johnson ever gave preferential treatment to employees who were not members of a protected group. In October 2003, Sue Goldfarb was Petitioner's supervisor. Ms. Goldfarb criticized Petitioner because Petitioner was spending too much time in the Activities Room. Petitioner complained to Ms. Johnson and filed two grievances, claiming that she was being treated unfairly. According to Petitioner, Ms. Goldfarb and a medical records clerk, Pam Brock, did not get into trouble for spending time in the Activities Room. Ms. Johnson explained that Petitioner could assist in the Activities Room, but only after she completed her floor tech duties. There is no evidence that Respondent ever allowed employees to assist in the Activities Room before they completed their regularly assigned duties. Petitioner did not suffer any adverse consequences as a result of Ms. Goldfarb's criticism. At some point in time, Respondent informed all housekeepers, including Petitioner, that their hours were being cut from seven-and-a-half hours per day to six-and-a-half hours per day. Respondent also informed the housekeepers that they would not be eligible for overtime hours. Respondent took these actions because the facility's "census" (number of residents) was low. In February 2004, Ms. Johnson decided to redecorate the Activity Room as a special weekend project. Ms. Johnson requested Gary Brock, Pam Brock's husband and a maintenance man for the facility, to work over the weekend to complete project. Ms. Johnson also requested Ms. Brock to assist with the project because Ms. Brock recently had been short on hours. Thereafter, Petitioner impermissibly reviewed a document on a supervisor's desk. The document indicated that Ms. Brock, the medical records clerk, received three hours of overtime on the weekend of the special project. Petitioner copied the document and returned the original to the supervisor's desk. Petitioner admitted during the hearing that she was not supposed to be looking at documents on the supervisor's desk. In February 2004, Petitioner filed a grievance, complaining that Ms. Brock had received overtime. Petitioner thought it was unfair for Ms. Brock, a medical records clerk, to receive overtime hours, while the housekeepers had their hours reduced. There is no evidence that Petitioner was treated any differently than any other housekeeper. At some point in time, Petitioner complained to Ms. Johnson and filed a grievance that Ms. Goldfarb was not doing her job. After receiving Petitioner's complaint, Ms. Johnson decided to obtain a statement from each housekeeper as to whether they had any concerns regarding Ms. Goldfarb. In March 2004, Ms. Johnson temporarily held all of the housekeepers' paychecks. She requested the housekeepers to visit her office, render their opinions about the housekeeping supervisor, and collect their checks. Petitioner, like all of the housekeepers had to visit Ms. Johnson's office to pick up her paycheck. While she was there, Petitioner signed a statement, indicating that Ms. Goldfarb did not treat her fairly. Subsequently, Petitioner filed a grievance, complaining, in part, because Ms. Johnson held the paychecks for the entire housekeeping department. There is no evidence that Petitioner was treated any differently than any other housekeeper. At the end of March 2004, Petitioner had a confrontation with a co-worker, Robert Goldfarb. Mr. Goldfarb was Sue Goldfarb's husband. The altercation occurred after Mr. Goldfarb walked across a wet floor that Petitioner had just mopped. Mr. Goldfarb had to walk across the wet floor to get to the restroom. Petitioner and Mr. Goldfarb cursed at each other and engaged in a shouting match. Petitioner filed a grievance about the incident. Respondent did not discipline Petitioner or Mr. Goldfarb for getting into the argument. Petitioner and Mr. Goldfarb have not had a similar exchange since the March 2004 incident. In September 2004, Petitioner and her supervisor, Ms. Goldfarb, engaged in an argument outside Ms. Johnson's office. Ms. Johnson suspended both employees for three days. After an investigation, Ms. Johnson reinstated Petitioner and Ms. Goldfarb and gave them back pay to make them whole. Since September 2004, Petitioner has received pay raises. She has not received any write-ups, reprimands, or any other type of discipline. She has not filed any grievances since September 2004. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Goldfarb was still Petitioner's supervisor. Petitioner was serving as Respondent's Chairperson of the Safety Committee, a position of special trust and responsibility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorina Smith 1160 East Mays Street Monticello, Florida 32344 Alvin J. Taylor Delta Health Group 2 North Palafox Street Pensacola, Florida 32502 Mark E. Levitt, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 324 South Hyde Park Avenue Suite 225 Tampa, Florida 33606 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 Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Overall organization. The City of Tarpon Springs has a mayor and four commissioners and operates under a city manager form of government. Neither the commissioners nor the mayor play an active role in the day to day operation of the City. The City Manager has the responsibility of operating the day to day affairs for the City. Collective bargaining relationships exist between the City and unions representing the Police and Fire Departments. The City Manager negotiates for the City in these relationships. Other than the Police and Fire Departments, there are approximately fifteen or sixteen departments with over 100 employees within the City. The actual number of employees varies seasonally, with the City employing more in the winter. At this time, the City employs approximately seventeen persons under the CETA program. The Public Works Department consists of ten or eleven separate departments, each of which, is headed by a foreman, and the Public Works Director has overall responsibility for the entire Department. His position is primarily one of assistant city manager. Four or five times a year, the City has supervisory meetings attended by the City Manager, the Public Works Director and the foremen of the various departments. Discussed at such meetings, are problems involving personnel, discipline and scheduling. Uniforms are available to most City employees on a voluntary basis. If, an employee chooses to wear a uniform, the City pays half the price of the uniform for the employee, with the exception of school crossing guards for whom the City furnishes uniforms and CETA employees for whom uniforms are not available. Uniforms worn by foremen have the word "foreman" written on them. Foremen. Each department under the Public Works Department is headed by a single foreman, with the exception of the Parks and Cemeteries Department which has two foremen. These various departments each have between three and eighteen employees, and include the departments of streets, sewer, sanitation, water distribution, building and maintenance, meters, water pollution control, and general maintenance. The City generally does not hire persons for the various departments without the recommendation or approval of the foreman. Under normal conditions, the foremen make the decision as to overtime work and the transfer of employees from one department to another. Written and oral evaluations and recommendations for wage increases are made by the foreman to the Public Works Director, which recommendations are normally approved. If an employee were caught drinking on the job, a foreman may fire the employee and then tell either the City Manager or Public Works Director about it later. The City then conducts an investigation into the matter to avoid possible future problems, but normally the decision of the foreman is approved. With a less offensive problem, such as absenteeism, the foreman issues a warning in writing. After the second warning, the foreman informs the Director or Manager that he is dismissing that employee and the City then terminates employment. Foremen make the decision as to time off for personal problems or emergencies and also grant approvals for vacation times. If there are complaints or grievances within a department, the foreman of that department normally takes care of it, very seldom do grievances come to the Public Works Director. An employee may be transferred from one department to another through the agreement of the two foremen involved. The primary duty of the various foremen is to direct the employees and supervise the activities within their respective departments. During shortages of personnel, foremen participate in the same type of work as their employees. Supervisory authority is one of the basis, along with longevity, for the pay differentials between foremen and other employees. Foremen assist in the formulation of policies and work schedules within their respective departments and are consulted with respect to the preparation of the budget. There are no supervisory-type personnel between the foremen and the Director of Public Works. Foremen handle grievances and would thus have a role in the administration of collective bargaining agreements. CETA employees. CETA employees work along with other City employees and the City is reimbursed for their salaries by the federal government. While they may have the same rate of pay as another person in their classification and do receive overtime pay, they do not receive raises nor do they have the fringe benefits which other employees have, such as hospitalization, uniforms, paid holidays, vacation, and sick leave. The CETA program presently extends through September 30, 1976, and such employees are hired until that time. If the City had a vacancy in a regular, permanent position, it would fill that position with a good CETA employee rather than going out and hiring another employee. Part-time employees. The City employs a number of part-time employees to work as school crossing guards, to police the beach, to do summer work with recreation, to work in the library and to do clerical and custodial work. Certain of these part-time employees are seasonal. In order to receive hospitalization benefits, an employee must work thirty or more hours per week. The three school crossing guards work 25 hours per week and receive uniforms fully paid for by the City. They are supervised by the Chief of Police. Other part-time employees fall under the supervision of the foreman or director for the department for which they work. Vacation and sick leave, as well as holiday pay, are prorated for part-time employees based upon the number of hours that they work. Their rate of pay is based upon the federal minimum wage though some regular part-time employees receive merit pay increases. In accordance with F.S. Section 447.307(3)(a) and F.A.C. Rule 8H-3.23, no recommendations are submitted. Respectfully submitted and entered this 4th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Curtis Mack Chairman Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 300 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida Mr. Edward R. Draper 5400 West Waters Avenue, B-4 Tampa, Florida 33614 Mr. Allen M. Blake, Esquire Marlow, Mitzel, Ortmayer & Shofi 607 South Magnolia Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Edith Rogers, was employed as a data operator with the Indian River County Health Unit, a sub-unit of the Department. She was hired by the Department on January 4, 1988 and began working for Gerry L. Waite as a data operator in October, 1988. When employees are hired by the Health Unit, they are briefed on the unit's leave policies and procedures and are given a copy of the unit's personnel policies for which each employee is obligated to sign a receipt. That portion of the handbook dealing with absences provides that when possible, employees requesting to be absent should request authorization from their supervisor in advance. If prior application is not possible, and absence is necessary, the employee is to call in at the earliest possible moment to let the supervisor know what is going on and approximately how long the employee will be absent. Respondent has complied with these policies on several occasions in the past. On July 26, 1991, a Friday, the Respondent was at her place of employment and there was no indication given that she was experiencing any difficulty. The following Monday, however, July 29, 1991, she did not report for work and Ms. Waite, her supervisor, knew from an article which had appeared in the prior day's newspaper, that Respondent had been arrested. Respondent did not call in on that day, nor did anyone else call in for her. Respondent remained in jail until August 19, 1991. Subsequent to Monday, July 29, 1991, Ms. Waite called the jail twice a week to check on the Respondent's statue. Each time the Respondent was there. At no time during that period did Respondent, or anyone else on her behalf, call her duty section and speak with her supervisor regarding the basis for her absence, nor did Respondent write a letter to explain, though she was able to do so. Mrs. Rogers did not come to work on August 20, 1991, a Tuesday and the day after her release from jail, nor did she come in on August 21 or 22, 1991, the following Wednesday and Thursday. There was no contact from the Respondent, and her absence subsequent to her release had not been authorized. Ms. Waite is satisfied that Respondent knew the abandonment provisions and the potential results of failing to appear for several days without authority since, in 1984, a similar action was taken regarding her employment with the Department in St. Lucie County, and she was deemed to have abandoned her position at that time. Respondent was seen in Walmart by another Department employee on the morning of Tuesday, August 20, 1991. At that time she was buying clothes for her 13 year old son preparatory to getting him enrolled in middle school. She admits she did not call her office on that day, however, on Wednesday, August 21, 1991, after arranging to have the power to her residence turned on and taking care of some other personal affairs, she called a friend of hers, Mrs. Brenda Troutman, who works for the Health Unit in its vital statistics division, and explained where she was. Ms. Troutman, however, was not working in Respondent's division nor was she in any supervisory capacity over her. Though Ms. Rogers claims she asked Ms. Troutman to notify Ms. Waite of her status for her, Ms. Troutman declined to do so, suggesting Ms. Rogers make the contact herself. On Thursday, August 22, 1991, Respondent did call her office and asked to speak with Ms. Waite. Unfortunately, she called at lunchtime, sometime between 1 and 1:15 PM, and neither Ms. Waite, nor anyone else in authority was there to speak with her. Respondent admits she did not leave her name at the time of that call. The evidence is clear that at no time, from the time Ms. Rogers was placed in jail in July until Ms. Waite spoke with her on the evening of Friday, August 23, 1991, did Respondent, or anyone on her behalf, make any sincere effort to contact the Unit to explain, officially, to anyone in authority where she was, the reason for her absence, and when she would be back. At that time, Ms. Rogers advised Ms. Waite that she would be back to work on August 26, 1991, but Ms. Waite told her then it was too late as she had already been processed for abandonment of her position. Ms. Waite is quite certain that Ms. Rogers is and was aware of the procedures to be used when an absence is anticipated or when it was unavoidable, because Respondent has taken advantage of these procedures and utilized them several times in the past during the period she has been working for the Department. According to Ms. Register, the employee specialist with the Department's District office, there is a difference between an abandonment action and a termination for cause. The latter is a disciplinary action and is appealable through the Public Employees Relations Commission or through union grievance procedures. The abandonment is a determination made after an unauthorized absence with a provision for review, and is more a constructive action determined on the basis of the employee's failure to appear. Respondent is quite insistent that she did not intend to abandon her position and intended to come back to work the Monday following her release, (August 26, 1991). She claims one of the reasons for her delay in going back to the office was her embarrassment in going back and facing her coworkers after having been in jail, but she contends that at all times she wanted her job back. She differentiates her situation in this case from that in the 1984 abandonment action. Then, she admits, she walked away from her job because of her addiction to cocaine. Here, she claims, this was not her intent, and she fully intended to go back to work just as soon as she was able to do so.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent, Edith Rogers, abandoned her position with the Indian River County Health Unit and resigned from the Career Service. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 24th day of January, 1992. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 January, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen M. Miller, Esquire DHRS, District 9 111 Georgia Avenue West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Charles A. Sullivan, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 2620 Vero Beach, Florida 32961-2620 John Slye General Counsel DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk DHRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service under the facts and circumstances of this case. At the hearing the Respondent offered eleven exhibits into evidence and presented the testimony of two witnesses, Charles Crozier and Sam Visconti. The Petitioner offered two exhibits, both of which were rejected. The Petitioner did not call any witnesses to testify on his behalf. He expressly declined to be sworn as a witness and testify on his own behalf, even after being specifically advised of his right to do so and being specifically advised that no findings of fact could be made on the basis of his unsworn assertions.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the sworn testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner, Leroy Williams-El, commenced his employment with the Respondent, Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind, in 1977. His last position was Dorm Supervisor I, which position he had held since the 1980-81 school year. The position Petitioner held was somewhat critical in that not only did he have to oversee the portion of the dormitory that was assigned to him, but he was also specifically in charge of the care and safety of some ten or twelve students. The Petitioner was a permanent employee, but his work period coincided generally with the school year and ran for ten months, generally from August to June each year. The Petitioner's last official work day was June 11, 1985. He was not in a work status during the summer of 1985. The dorm supervisors were supervised by Charles Crozier, Director of Student Life. At the end of the 1985 school year, the dorm supervisors remained at the school for approximately a week after the students had left and the administration conducted a post-planning week. During the post-planning week, Crozier met with the employees, discussed the upcoming 1985-86 school calendar, and Petitioner and the other dorm supervisors were told that their date to report back to work was August 26, 1985. In addition to discussing the return date with the various employees at the June post-planning meeting, Crozier, under date of August 21, 1985, mailed a letter to the Petitioner at his last known address as it appeared in the school file, that is, 75 1/2 Lincoln Street, St. Augustine, Florida 32084, reminding the Petitioner that his return date for reporting back for work was August 26, 1985. The Petitioner did not return to work as instructed on August 26, 1985. On August 27, 1985, the Petitioner called Crozier and advised Crozier he had been unable to report to work on August 26, 1985. He was advised by Crozier that he must report to work on Thursday, August 29, at 8:00 a.m. (Exhibit 2) The Petitioner did not report to work on August 29, but instead again called Crozier. Crozier, at this point, got the personnel officer of the school, Sam Visconti, on the phone with him. During the conversation on August 29, 1985, the Petitioner requested that the school "transfer" him to a position with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in Miami. Crozier and Visconti both explained to him that the school had no authority to "transfer" the Petitioner to another job with another agency in another city. He was told that he should report to work immediately or submit a request for leave without pay. At the time of Petitioner's telephone call on August 29, 1985, Crozier had already prepared a letter dated August 29, 1985, advising the Petitioner that inasmuch as he had failed to report to work on August 26 and had not reported on August 29 as directed, he was being given an official reprimand. He was further advised that if he did not contact Crozier by September 4, 1985, he would be suspended without pay and failure to report to work would result in his termination. The Petitioner did not report to work on September 4, 1985, as instructed. On September 6, 1985, Crozier received a call from Lynn Rowe, Visconti's assistant in the personnel office, relaying a telephone call from a lady purporting to be the Petitioner's sister. Ms. Rowe was inquiring whether or not Crozier had any instructions for the Petitioner. Crozier advised Ms. Rowe that the Petitioner was to report to work by the time his normal work week would start, which would be Sunday, September 8. The Petitioner did not report to work on September 8, September 9, or September 10, 1985. The Petitioner did not call in and make contact with Crozier or Visconti on any one of those days. When the Petitioner did not report to work for those three days, Crozier again contacted Sam Visconti, the personnel officer, and reported this fact to him. At no time during the period from August 26 through September 10, 1985, did the Petitioner request from Crozier or Visconti, the personnel officer, annual leave, leave without pay, or any other type of approved leave. The conversations he had with Crozier and Visconti concerned a request that he be "transferred" to a job with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in Miami. On September 11, 1985, after Crozier advised Visconti of the Petitioner's failure to report to work, Visconti prepared a dismissal letter under the date of September 11, 1985. This letter summarized the chronology of events concerning Petitioner's failure to report to work and advised the Petitioner that he was considered to have abandoned his position. Petitioner was further told of his right to seek a determination and review of his abandonment. The letter of September 11, 1985, was mailed to the Petitioner's last known address in the personnel file, which was the St. Augustine address. Late in the afternoon of September 11, Petitioner called Visconti and informed him of the new address in Miami, Florida. Visconti then sent an additional copy of the same letter to Petitioner on September 13, 1985, to the Miami address. The Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind is a separate state agency and is not in any way connected with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Furthermore, the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind has no offices or positions available in the Miami area. Visconti and Crozier discussed with Petitioner his repeated requests for a "transfer" on more than one occasion and repeatedly advised him the Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind had no authority to transfer him to a different job with another state agency. At no time did the Petitioner request a leave of absence from Visconti. Visconti advised the Petitioner of the critical nature of his position as a Dorm Supervisor I and explained to him the difficulties created by Petitioner's failure to return to work. Visconti further advised the Petitioner that if he wanted a leave of absence, the personnel officer had to receive the request for the leave of absence in writing and the president of the school would consider the request after it had been received. It was imperative, however, that the Petitioner either bring or mail in a written request for a leave of absence. The Petitioner did not send a request for leave of absence to the school. The last conversation Crozier had with the Petitioner occurred sometime in late October or November and concerned a request by the Petitioner that Crozier send a copy of the Petitioner's college transcripts to an HRS office in Miami. At that time the Petitioner did not request to be re-employed or to be reinstated. Crozier mailed the materials as requested. Williams did not report to the school for employment on or after August 26, 1985, and was considered to have resigned effective September 10, 1985.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing it is recommended that a Final Order be issued concluding that the Petitioner abandoned his position and that his petition should be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of July 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of July 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Leroy Williams 1360 N.W. 199th Street Miami, Florida 33169 Mr. Leroy Williams-E1 10566 McLaurin Road Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Mr. Samuel R. Visconti Personnel Officer Florida School for the Deaf and the Blind 207 North San Marco Avenue St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Gene T. Sellers, Esquire State Board of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gilda H. Lambert, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard L. Kopel, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following are my specific rulings on each of the findings of fact proposed by each of the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner The rulings which follow immediately below refer to the five (5) unnumbered paragraphs which appear under the caption "Facts To Examine" in Petitioner's post-hearing document titled Order To Commence On Final Argument. The paragraphs are referred to in the order in which they appear. First paragraph on first page: First sentence is rejected as constituting a conclusion not supported by the evidence. The last sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. First paragraph on second page: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence and as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. Second paragraph on second page: This paragraph is rejected in its entirety as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Third paragraph on second page: This paragraph is rejected as constituting argument rather than proposed findings. Fourth paragraph on second page: This paragraph is rejected in its entirety as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Findings proposed by Respondent All of the findings proposed by the Respondent have been accepted with a few editorial modifications in the interest of clarity and accuracy. ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION LEROY WTLLlAMS-EL, Petitioner, vs. DOA Case No. AB-85-18 DOAH Case No. 85-3600 FLORIDA SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF AND BLIND, Respondent. /
The Issue The issue herein is whether petitioner was unlawfully terminated from her employment with respondent because of race. Based upon all the evidence herein the following findings of fact are determined:
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Ruby McKenzie, is a black female who was first employed by respondent, Bach Engineering, Inc. (Bach), on June 14, 1982, in the position of electronics assembler. She initially held a temporary position but was later placed in a permanent position in March, 1993. At the time of her termination on February 17, 1984, she was earning $4.82 per hour. Bach, which is located in Altamonte Springs, Florida, is a manufacturer of radio systems, components and parts for the airline industry. As such, it requires that workers have some degree of skill and precision. The business employs some 55 to 50 persons, of whom perhaps a dozen are black, and is functionalized into departments (e.g., quality control, repair, final assembly and stockroom). All departments are under the control of a supervisor. During much of her employment with Bach, McKenzie's supervisor was Ida Metzer, who was responsible for most of her performance evaluations and criticisms. However, Metzer was killed in an automobile accident in late 1984. At the time of her discharge, McKenzie was in the repair department where her supervisor was Karen Miller, a white female. Bach's personnel policies regarding attendance and tardiness are set forth in a document entitled "Personnel Manual." Although its president, Michael Bach, claimed that this document is disseminated to all employees, there was evidence that this was not true. Nonetheless, all employees including McKenzie, had the "understanding" that if they were going to be absent or late for work (which began at 7:00 a.m. each day Monday through Friday), they were to call their department supervisor before the beginning of the work day. This was generally consistent with the instructions in the personnel manual. Under company "policy", an employee with "excessive" absenteeism or tardiness is first given a verbal warning, then a written warning, and is then subject to termination. McKenzie understood that even after a verbal and written warning had been given, she would then be placed on probation for a 50 or 90 day period rather than being terminated. However, Michael Bach said his policy was that once a verbal warning is given, the employee is automatically placed on probation for "around" 90 days. In all cases, he stated that a verbal and written warning is given prior to an employee being discharged. Bach hires both temporary (part-time) and permanent employees. The temporary employees are generally supplied by a local agency that provides this type of employee. The rules regarding absenteeism and tardiness apply to both temporary and permanent employees, although Michael Bach stated that mode leeway is given temporary employees when enforcing the rules. McKenzie worked in various departments within the firm. She was described by Michael Bach and the operations manager as being capable of doing a food job, but did so only when she enjoyed the job she was performing. If she did not like her job, her work was described as being less than satisfactory. Nonetheless, she received at least a satisfactory rating for each six month period she worked at Bach, the last being for the period July 5, 1983 through January 5, 1984, or approximately six weeks before being discharged. Bach stated that even though McKenzie received a satisfactory rating, these evaluations were not always accurate, because if less than satisfactory ratings were given, it would tend to discourage a worker from performing satisfactorily during the next six months period. Despite the satisfactory performance evaluation, McKenzie's most recent performance on the job was characterized as "very poor" by the operations manager. She was also criticized for poor workmanship on the "boards," did not wear glasses as required by her job, and was slower than counterparts in performing her work duties. This was confirmed by a coworker (black) who stated that she worked twice as many boards each day as did McKenzie, and frequently had to do "rework" on McKenzie's errors. Bach gives each worker five days sick leave and five days vacation time annually. Employees are expected to use their vacation time during July of each year when the plant is shut down. McKenzie was absent from work or tardy a total of 100 hours during 1983, or more than her allotted amount of sick and annual leave, and 19.5 hours the first month and a half in 1984. In 1983, she received a verbal warning for her absenteeism and tardiness on March 31 and October 12, and a written warning concerning the same on April 19, 1983. She was again given a verbal warning on February 15, 1984. The next day she was discharged for "absenteeism, inconsistent (sic) in quality and quantity of work." Her termination prompted the instant proceeding. McKenzie's dismissal was ordered by Michael Bach after McKenzie's immediate supervisor (Karen Miller) complained to the operations manager (Sonja Schultz) about McKenzie's continued tardiness, absences and poor work. Indeed, most recently, she had been late on February 10 and 13, and simply left a message on February 15 that she "wasn't coming in." The termination notice reflected that the "employee was warned on several occasions about attendance and workmanship, failure to do acceptable jobs in areas required", and that she was ineligible for reemployment "due to attendance and workmanship." To substantiate her complaint, McKenzie points to two white female employees, Debbie Price and Connie McIntosh, both temporary employees, who had more absences than her when she was fired, but were allegedly not terminated by Bach. Mclntosh was absent 50.5 hours from October 13, 1983 through the end of the year, and 85.5 hours from January 1 through March 9, 1984 when she was laid off because of a production slowdown. However, more than half of Mclntosh's absences were due to her child's illness. She was given a verbal warning concerning her attendance on February 15, 1984, or just prior to being laid off. The other employee (Price) requested a change to a permanent status in her job, but was turned down because of poor attendance. Because of this, she quit her job on February 17, 1984, the same day McKenzie was discharged. A third employee, also a white female was fired on March 10, 1984, for excessive absenteeism after receiving two verbal warnings and two written warnings between September, 1953 and February, 1984. In the latter case, the employee had been absent 114 hours in 1983 and 90 hours in 1984 prior to her termination. Bach has been in operation for some five years. Its president has a policy of treating all employers equally, and claims its hiring and firing policies apply equally across the board to all employees regardless of race or sex. A number of employees (all black) confirmed this and denied the existence of any discriminatory practices employed by the company. Indeed, McKenzie herself could not identify any such practices, and merely "guessed" that the reason she was fired was because she was black. After being terminated by Bach, McKenzie was unemployed for approximately six weeks. She then obtained a job with Sonitrol Electronics Corporation at an hourly wage of $4.00, or .82 cents less an hour than she earned at Bach. She has been employed continuously with Sonitrol since obtaining that job. In this proceeding, she asks for the difference between her present salary and the salary she received at Bach, the loss of wages while she was unemployed, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs for prosecuting this complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's petition for relief be GRANTED, that respondent be found guilty of unlawful employment practice, and that petitioner receive the relief set forth in paragraph 5 of the conclusions of law portion of this order. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 8th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry L. Lamb, Jr., Esquire 521 N. Fern Creek Avenue Orlando, Florida 32803 Mr. Michael C. Bach 654 N. Douglas Avenue Altamonte Springs, Florida 32301 Aurelio Durana, Esquire 325 John Knox Road, Ste. 240, Bldg. F Tallahassee, Florida 32303
