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 unlawfully terminated the employment of Petitioner, because of his age in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner by terminating him on October 3, 2005, after Petitioner filed a complaint with human resources alleging a hostile work environment.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Leviton Manufacturing Corporation manufactures electrical equipment and components. It is a New York corporation licensed to do business in the State of Florida. Inter allia, Respondent employs a sales force that covers the entire State of Florida. Respondent is an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA"). Respondent has implemented an employee handbook aimed at fostering a work environment that is free from harassment, discrimination and retaliation. Respondent's policies contain reporting and investigation procedures that encourage employees to report any and all incidents of perceived discrimination or harassment, and ensure that all reported incidents are investigated. Petitioner was employed with Respondent from June 1995 until November 2003, and from July 2004 through October 3, 2005. At the time of his termination, Petitioner was 49 years old. Petitioner first began working for Leviton in 1995 as a Service Representative. He received merit pay raises and promotions until November 2003, when Respondent laid-off 150 people in the retail division, including Petitioner. Petitioner was rehired in July 2004, as a Sales Representative. Upon rehire, Petitioner was supervised by District Manager Scott Robbins ("Robbins"). Petitioner presented the testimony of three of Respondent's managers, one retired, who supervised Petitioner for various periods of Petitioner's nine and one-half year career with Respondent. Each of them testified that Petitioner was dedicated and professional in which ever position he was assigned, including two assignments as a manager. Scott Robbins, Petitioner's supervisor immediately prior to Goodman, recommended Petitioner for re-hire as a Sales Representative following a lay-off, and was satisfied with his work in that position. Petitioner also presented the testimony of 12 customers of Respondent, in the territory that he covered between July 2004 and October 2005. Each of them expressed their opinion that Petitioner was an honest, diligent, and professional sales representative for his employer. Respondent presented the testimony of one customer who was not satisfied with Petitioner's performance as a sales representative. In January 2005, District Manager Warren Goodman ("Goodman") replaced Robbins and assumed his territories as well as his role as Petitioner's supervisor. At the time Petitioner was terminated, Goodman was 48 years old. Goodman supervised, and currently supervises, at least, 12 Sales Representatives, the majority of whom are over the age of 40, to wit: Name Age Name Age Roy Boykin 59 Mickey Ferrell 49 Don Yeager 59 Jose Monzon 40 Michael O'Reilly 56 Duane Bishop 38 Dave Lenoir 37 Kevin Bouton 34 Ken Davis 54 Paul Dube 41 Brad Taylor 10. When Goodman 52 took over as District Manager, it became readily apparent that Goodman's management style was distinctly different from Robbins. Goodman is demanding, blunt and aggressive, and closely manages his sales representatives. He expected prompt and accurate responses to his requests from his sales representatives. Petitioner was required to fulfill the same job expectations that were demanded of all other Sales Representatives. It included, but was not limited to, the timely submission of complete and accurate paperwork, client follow up, and travel to specific areas within his designated territory. Petitioner's area extended from Lakeland, Florida, to Thomasville, Georgia. Goodman expected Petitioner to visit customers in his territory at least every three weeks, staying at least two to three days on each trip at each location. Goodman's job as District Manager is to oversee his sales force and to enforce Leviton's guidelines, as he interprets them. Moreover, Goodman is charged with measuring his employees' compliance with Leviton's policies and procedures. Over the course of his tenure, Petitioner failed to abide by company rules and policies, as well as the terms of his employment, as understood by Goodman. On more than one occasion, Petitioner failed to provide expense reimbursements in an appropriate and timely manner. He also failed to travel with the frequency required by his sales position. Additionally, on numerous occasions, Petitioner failed to verify the accuracy of orders he placed for customers. On May 2, 2005, Goodman sent Petitioner an email addressing the importance of administrative responsibility and consistency. Goodman had just reviewed Petitioner's expense reports and noted that they covered a ten-week period, clearly in violation of the requirement that they be submitted within 30 days. Goodman also noted that the expense reports reflected no travel over a two-month period to the Thomasville/Tallahassee area, which composed a large portion of Petitioner's territory. Goodman requested that, thereafter, Petitioner forward his itinerary weekly, attaching as an example a copy of itineraries submitted by Petitioner's colleagues. Petitioner responded, apologizing for the late expenses. He attributed his tardiness in part to a change in his cellular telephone carrier. Petitioner set forth all his travel dates within the northern portion of his territory since his re-hire. The dates provided demonstrated that he was not in compliance with the travel requirements established for all Sales Representatives. Goodman responded and reminded Petitioner of the importance of adhering to guidelines for travel and paperwork submission. He encouraged Petitioner to improve his performance and to do what was necessary to satisfy Goodman's expectations of the proper skills necessary to do his job effectively. On May 9, 2005, Petitioner sent Goodman an email indicating his car was being repaired. The repair estimates attached to the email evidenced that Petitioner had been driving a 12-year-old vehicle, which was not within Respondent's car policy guidelines. Petitioner had reviewed and signed the car policy guidelines on January 12, 2005, and began receiving monthly payments (including retroactive payments), effective February 11, 2005. On May 18, 2005, Petitioner received and signed an Employee Warning. Significantly, Petitioner signed the Employee Warning indicating that he read and understood it. The Employee Warning cited violations for substandard job performance and violations of company policies or procedures, with specific reprimands for: (1) failure to timely submit expense reports; (2) failure to travel as specified and agreed to; (3) sloppy submission of paperwork; (4) lack of involvement with customer; and (5) failure to maintain a proper company vehicle in accordance with company policy. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner purchased a new truck for the purpose of meeting the company vehicle policy. On May 31, 2005, Goodman reviewed numerous quotes submitted by Petitioner for review and renewal. Goodman informed Petitioner that upon review, the quotes prepared by Petitioner were inaccurate and required various revisions and corrections. Some quotes were priced higher than stock; different prices were entered for the same item in a different color (when there should have been no price difference); there were items on quotes that were never purchased; and there was no increase in items ordered/quoted. In August 2005, Goodman advised Petitioner that his sales goals were not ambitious enough and that Petitioner needed to re-evaluate and re-consider his year-end goals. Petitioner indicated that he would do as instructed. In mid-August 2005, Petitioner once again submitted an incomplete quote to Goodman for approval. When brought to Petitioner's attention, he added the items missing from the quote, offering no explanation for this oversight. On August 30, 2005, Petitioner submitted order adjustments to Goodman's administrative assistant for completion. When the request was forwarded to Goodman, he immediately reminded Petitioner that all changes were required to be submitted to him, not his assistant. Moreover, the requested changes contained errors. Goodman requested that Petitioner review the complete order and re-submit it when it was accurate. Three days later, Petitioner still had not acknowledged or responded to Goodman's request. Goodman completed and submitted Petitioner's performance review on July 25, 2005. Due to the fact that no prior goals or skills development were accomplished by Petitioner, his review was deferred until the end of 2005. Based upon his seven-month assessment of Petitioner, Goodman felt that Petitioner only partially met expectations. Rather than precluding a merit increase in salary, Goodman gave Petitioner an opportunity to improve his performance by deferring his review for several months. Petitioner signed this July review, indicating that Goodman discussed the review and appraisal with him. On September 5, 2005, (Labor Day, a holiday) Goodman sent an email to all of his Sale Representatives, which required a response to specific inquiries no later than 5:00 p.m. Petitioner did not respond until September 7, 2005, at 4:15 p.m. This was clearly past the deadline. Goodman reprimanded Petitioner in his responsive email, specifically advising Petitioner that his continued employment was in jeopardy. He invited Petitioner to call Goodman the next day to discuss Petitioner's lack of diligence and timeliness. Only after a telephone call on the morning of September 9, 2005, did Petitioner, for the first time raise the issue of unfair treatment, but he did not raise age as a factor. Petitioner requested, via email, that Goodman assist Petitioner in filing a complaint against Goodman with Leviton's Human Resource Department for creating a hostile work environment. In this same email, Petitioner informed Goodman that Petitioner had involved clients in his grievance by requesting that the clients evaluate Petitioner's performance and provide their input to Respondent. Based upon the preceding client involvement, Goodman advised Petitioner on September 12, 2005, that he was suspended immediately, with pay, pending the outcome of Respondent's investigation regarding Petitioner's inappropriate conduct. Petitioner was therefore instructed to maintain contact with only the Human Resources Department (HR) until further notice. Thereafter, Petitioner corresponded, via email, with Shephard. On September 13, 2005, Petitioner forwarded his May 5, 2005, email exchange with Goodman to Kimberly Shephard, Respondent's Corporate Human Resource Manager. On that same day, Petitioner sent another email to Shephard containing a list of items that were still incomplete and required follow up. In forwarding this lengthy "to do" list, Petitioner demonstrated his inattention to detail and inability to complete administrative tasks. On September 16, 2005, Shephard drafted Petitioner's allegations in memorandum format, the accuracy of which Petitioner verified and signed on September 20, 2005. Goodman was given a copy of the allegations and provided a written response on September 19, 2005, refuting each of Petitioner's allegations. Meanwhile, HR conducted interviews with a random selection of Goodman's employees in the district and noted each employee's assessment of Goodman. Goodman was determined by each of the interviewed employees to provide equal treatment to all employees. The employees interviewed ranged in age from 35 to 58. On or about September 20, 2005, Shephard completed her investigation of Petitioner's complaint and determined that there was no basis that Goodman created an unlawful hostile work environment. Rather, it was determined that Goodman set the same standards for all of his employees; treated them all the same; and that accordingly, there was no basis to conclude Petitioner was singled out. Petitioner was ultimately terminated on October 3, 2005. The reasons cited by Respondent were based on Petitioner's unsatisfactory job performance. The specific reasons given for Petitioner's termination were: (1) his inability to perform the tasks associated with the Sales Representative position; (2) his failure to develop end-users sufficiently; (3) his administrative inadequacies; (4) his failure to meet deadlines and failure to follow instructions; and (5) his choosing to enlist customers in an internal company matter pertaining to Petitioner's poor job performance. Although Respondent determined that Petitioner's involvement of customer's in an internal dispute was grounds for immediate termination, Respondent determined it would investigate Petitioner's complaint prior to taking other action, since it occurred at the same time as the allegations of improper conduct by Goodman. At no time was Petitioner's age raised as a factor in any of the terms and conditions of his employment by Respondent. Nor was it a factor in any work related complaints regarding his deficiencies. Petitioner never informed any member of Respondent's management that he believed he was treated differently during his employment because of his age, or that he had been terminated due to his age. After Petitioner was terminated, Respondent did not hire anyone to replace him. Rather, Respondent re-assigned Petitioner's territory to existing salesmen. Paul Dube ("Dube"), aged 41, inherited the majority of Petitioner's territory. Goodman did not require that Dube travel to, or invest time in customers that only did a nominal amount of business with Respondent. Petitioner attempted to establish that he was unable to respond to several of Goodman's inquiries in a timely manner, or at all, because Petitioner's computer was being repaired by Respondent's IT department. Nevertheless, Petitioner had access to his work email via Respondent's webmail program during this period. Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was terminated by Respondent because of his age. Respondent failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was subject to retaliation after he filed a hostile work environment complaint with Respondent's HR department.
Recommendation Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying Petitioner's Petition for Relief and dismissing his charge with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2007, 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 13th day of August, 2007.
The Issue The issues are whether the Respondents committed unlawful employment practices against Petitioner, and if so, to what relief is she entitled.
Findings Of Fact In the spring of 1994, Respondent CSD began operating a residential detention program for juvenile offenders pursuant to a contract with the Department of Juvenile Justice. The purpose of the program, commonly known as Hamilton House, was to provide redirection to the lives of its youthful residents/clients. Hamilton House had 48 beds divided between two dormitories. Respondent CSD assigned each resident to the appropriate dormitory, level six or level eight, depending on the type of security and rehabilitative services required. The program included an educational program as well as facilities for vocational and recreational activities. Respondent CSD employed Petitioner, a 51 year-old white female, as a resident advisor at Hamilton House from March 24, 1994 through June 30, 1996. Petitioner initially worked the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift in the level six dormitory. At times she served as the acting shift supervisor though she was not paid a supervisor's wages. When Petitioner began working for Respondent CSD, she lived with her elderly mother, Lotus Musgrove, whose colon cancer was in remission. At that time, Mrs. Musgrove was able to live independently and did not need a caretaker. On April 24, 1994, some of the clients managed to gain access to a bottle containing an alcoholic beverage. Petitioner and other employees received a verbal warning for failing to adequately monitor the behavior and movement of the clients. A training letter was placed in each employee's personnel file. In May of 1995, Respondent CSD hired Bobby Williams, Sr., as a resident advisor in the level eight dormitory. Mr. Williams is a black male. He eventually assumed the position of shift supervisor for the entire facility. There is no evidence that Petitioner sought this full-time position or a similar supervisory position at any time during her employment with Respondent CSD. In October of 1995, some of the clients accused Petitioner and another staff member of inappropriate conduct including, but not limited to, furnishing them with prohibited magazines and movies. As a result of the allegations, Respondent CSD suspended Petitioner and her co-worker without pay on October 18, 1995. By letter dated October 20, 1995, Respondent CSD advised Petitioner in writing that there was insufficient evidence of misconduct to warrant termination of her employment. However, the letter stated that Petitioner had violated company policy and procedure by allowing a youth to leave his room for extended periods after curfew. Respondent CSD paid Petitioner and her co- worker for the time they were suspended during the internal investigation. Respondent CSD subsequently reassigned Petitioner and her co-worker to work in a different dormitory and on a different shift. The change in time and location of their work shift was necessary to ensure there was no contact between them and the clients who had accused them of improper conduct. Petitioner was assigned to work the 3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. shift in the level eight dormitory. In a written statement dated October 23, 1995, Petitioner objected to the change in her shift. She preferred to continue working the 11:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. shift. She asserted that, during the day, she took care of her 78 year-old mother who had cancer. Respondent CSD did not immediately honor Petitioner's request. On or about November 24, 1995, Petitioner voluntarily purchased some supplies in the amount of $20.98 from a retail store. The supplies included the following: hand sprayers, cotton swabs, hydrogen peroxide, rubbing alcohol, highlighters, marker, Sharpies, and other miscellaneous items. Petitioner requested reimbursement from Respondent CSD because she intended to use the supplies at work. Respondent CSD declined to reimburse Petitioner for the supplies. There is no evidence that Respondent CSD ever authorized the purchase of the supplies. On December 11, 1995, a resident in the level eight dormitory attempted to discard a container of contraband tobacco. Petitioner detected his effort and responded appropriately. She received a letter of commendation for exemplary action which was placed in her personnel file. On January 23, 1996, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Juvenile Justice made a formal and final determination that "[i]t is inconclusive that staff members Julie Toughton and Alice Musgrove engaged in improper conduct with clients." On or about February 1, 1996, Petitioner took a box of pens and pencils from a client's desk. The client became upset and exhibited inappropriate behavior toward Petitioner. As a result of the client's tantrum, Petitioner took token-economy points from the client. Petitioner filed a written complaint dated February 4, 1996, with Respondent CSD after learning that one of her supervisors, Mike Myers, changed the client's point sheet. Petitioner's February 4, 1996, statement also asserted that Supervisor Myers was mishandling clients' mail. She complained that he was logging clients' mail and making the clients read their personnel mail to him. According to Petitioner, handling client mail was the responsibility of "line staff." On one occasion in February 1996, Petitioner was 30 minutes late reporting to her assigned duty station in the dormitory. She spent that time in the administration building because she refused to work with one of her co-workers. Supervisor Myers was responsible for changing Petitioner's time sheet to reflect a 30-minute deduction in regular time. On another occasion in February 1996, Petitioner and other employees worked two hours of overtime due to a crisis situation with one of the clients. Petitioner elected to "bank" the overtime rather than receive time-and-one-half of overtime pay. The other employees chose to receive overtime pay. Petitioner was off from work on February 22-23, 1996. When Petitioner arrived at work on February 24, 1996, her time sheet was not with the time sheets of other employees. Petitioner's time sheet was locked in a supervisor's office until February 26, 1996, because the supervisor was not at work. There is no indication in the record whether Petitioner's time sheet was locked up inadvertently or due to a dispute over Petitioner's wages. On March 1, 1996, Petitioner filed a written grievance with Respondent CSD regarding her pay. She claimed that Supervisor Myers was harassing her and discriminating against her by changing her time sheet without her knowledge. Specifically, Petitioner complained that Mr. Myers cheated her out of 30 minutes of regular time on one occasion and two hours of overtime on another occasion. She complained that her time sheet was locked in a supervisor's office for four days. On March 4, 1996, the Program Director, Dale Edwards, agreed that Petitioner should not be penalized for one-half hour of regular pay because she was in the administration building during the disputed time. Additionally, Mr. Edwards directed Supervisor Myers not to change an employee's time sheet without prior approval. He also requested that Petitioner furnish documentation that the company owed her for the two hours of overtime. Mr. Edwards was under the mistaken impression that the dispute over Petitioner's time sheet had been resolved. In March of 1996, Petitioner was working the midnight shift in dormitory eight consistent with her written request dated October 23, 1995. On March 18, 1996 and March 27, 1996, Petitioner made written requests for a change to the 7:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. shift. Petitioner specifically wanted to replace a Ms. Aikens on the morning shift. Respondent CSD did not honor Petitioner's request. However, there is no evidence showing that Ms. Aiken's position was ever filled, and if so, whether Respondent CSD selected a person of a different race or a younger to file the position. Petitioner was absent from work between April 8, 1996, and April 16, 1996, on April 22, 1996, and on April 29, 1996, due to illness and/or medical appointments. While she was absent, her inner-office mail box became so full that the mail had to be removed. The administrative manager gave Petitioner's mail to her supervisor. On April 23, 1996, Supervisor Myers completed Petitioner's annual performance appraisal for the period March 14, 1995 through March 14, 1996. Petitioner disagreed with the determination that she had difficulty communicating with others. Petitioner's mental health counselor, Christine Clark, sent Mr. Edwards an unsolicited letter dated April 23, 1996. According to the letter, Ms. Clark was treating Petitioner for family/employment related stress reduction. The letter states as follows in pertinent part: Due to the demands of her home environment, caretaking of her elderly mother who is dying from colon cancer, I am recommending that Ms. Musgrove be reassigned new working hours, namely a day schedule of approximately 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM in order to effectively and efficiently facilitate the evening and night care of her mother. In addition, Ms. Musgrove appears to have unresolved issues regarding her personnel file and salary still due to her for 30 minutes or .5 hour pay as well as two hours uncompensated work from several weeks ago. I personally read your approval for this compensation but apparently this has still not yet been indicated on her pay check. There also remain the allegations of her misconduct charges that appears not to be fully resolved. As an employee she does have the legal right to have these fully addressed and challenged. From my understanding that although the misconduct charges have been dropped, there are still areas that compromise Ms. Musgrove's reputation as a resident advisor. Mr. Edwards did not disclose the contents of Ms. Clark's letter to any employee of Respondent CSD other than his superiors, who advised him to get a release from Petitioner before responding to the letter. After receiving Ms. Clark's letter, Mr. Edwards had a telephone conversation with Petitioner's mother because Petitioner was not at work or at home. During the conversation, Mr. Edwards inquired about the mother's health. Mr. Edwards learned that Mrs. Musgrove's cancer had been in remission since 1993 and that she no longer required assistance with daily living activities. Mr. Edwards did not disclose any information regarding Petitioner's employment status, medical condition, or personal business to Mrs. Musgrove. Petitioner's sister placed an unsolicited telephone call to Mr. Edwards several days after he talked to Mrs. Musgrove. The purpose of the call was to thank Mr. Edwards for his concern over Mrs. Musgrove's health. During the telephone call, Mr. Edwards and Petitioner's sister did not exchange any information relating to Petitioner's employment, medical condition, or personal business. On April 29, 1996, all staff at Hamilton House received a memorandum advising them as follows, in pertinent part: As a result of the recent competitive bid conducted by District 3, Department of Juvenile Justice, Gator Human Services has been awarded the contract to operate the Hamilton County Youth Treatment Complex starting July 1, 1996. The memorandum also included information regarding the transfer of operations to the new service provider. Respondent CSD advised employees that, if requested, it would supply Gator Human Services the name, position title, hire date, and current salary of each employee of record. Respondent CSD stated that no other information would be given to the new organization without the consent of the employee. On May 1, 1996, Mr. Edwards wrote two memoranda regarding Petitioner's pay. First, Mr. Edwards directed the administrative manager to pay Petitioner for .5 hours of regular wages out of the company's petty cash fund and to get a receipt for the payment. Second, he directed the resident life manager to allow Petitioner to leave work two hours early (with pay) at a time of her choosing within the next work week. Petitioner could not "bank" the time indefinitely because Respondent CSD's contract was scheduled to expire on June 30, 1996. Mr. Edwards phoned Petitioner at home on May 2, 1996, to request a written release so that he could respond to Ms. Clark's letter. Petitioner wrote that release on May 3, 1996. The release gave Mr. Edwards permission to disclose confidential information to Ms. Clark. On May 3, 1996, Petitioner signed a written acknowledgment that receipt of $4.06 in payment for .5 regular hours would end the issue of the .5 regular hours owed to her. On May 10, 1996, Respondent Gator informed the staff at Hamilton House of the procedure for handling applications for employment with Respondent Gator's new program, Tiger Success Center. Applications were due on or before May 28, 1996. Interviews were to be scheduled between May 28, 1996, and June 7, 1996. Applicants would be advised of the final selections and employment offers by June 14, 1996. Respondent Gator requested that each applicant take a copy of their most recent performance appraisal to their employment interview. By letter dated May 13, 1996, Mr. Edwards responded to Ms. Clark's inquiry. First, he explained that questions regarding Petitioner's compensation had been resolved. Second, he stated that letters from the Department of Juvenile Justice and from the Office of the Inspector General had been added to Petitioner's personnel file, clearing her of all misconduct allegations. Third, he explained that the day shift would be the least desirable shift in terms of stress reduction because the activity level of the residents is highest during the day. Mr. Edwards also revealed that Petitioner's mother was treated successfully for cancer in 1993 and that her current health failed to support the need for a change in Petitioner's shift. Finally, Mr. Edwards noted that he had to consider the needs of the residents and other staff. A copy of Ms. Clark's inquiry and Mr. Edwards' response were placed in Petitioner's personnel file. Neither of the documents were disclosed to unauthorized persons. On May 22, 1996, the employees at Hamilton House received another memorandum advising them that after June 30, 1996, Respondent CSD would no longer operate the facility. The employees were encouraged to apply for employment with the new organization. Petitioner was scheduled for an employment interview on May 30, 1996. However, the interview was rescheduled because she was unable to keep the appointment. Petitioner's application for employment with Respondent Gator is dated May 31, 1996. She also furnished Respondent Gator with copies of three performance appraisals. Petitioner's signature on the application authorized Respondent Gator to make inquiries of references and former employers regarding her general character and past performance. There is no evidence that Respondent Gator ever made any such inquiries about Petitioner. A panel of three people representing Respondent Gator interviewed Petitioner. The panel asked her the same questions that they asked other applicants. Petitioner was very negative and critical of the existing program and Respondent CSD during her interview. After the interview, each member of the interview panel tallied their score sheets independently. All three agreed that Petitioner should not be given further consideration for employment with Respondent Gator because of her negative attitude and low interview scores. On June 13, 1996, Petitioner received a memorandum from Respondent Gator stating that the company was unable to offer her a position of employment. That same day, Respondent Gator offered employment to every other Hamilton House staff applicant except one black male, Mr. Humphrey. Respondent Gator hired a black female, Latasha Bristol, who worked in the level eight dormitory with Petitioner. Ms. Bristol is younger than Petitioner. However, she was not hired to replace Petitioner. Respondent Gator hired Ms. Bristol to work in the level six dormitory. Respondent Gator offered an employment position to a white female, Lucy Oxendine. Ms. Oxendine was over 60 years old at the time. She declined to accept a job with Respondent Gator for personal reasons. Mr. Edwards was hired by Respondent Gator to continue as program director after July 1, 1996. However, neither he nor any other employee of Respondent CSD shared any information about Petitioner with Respondent Gator or had any input into Respondent Gator's decision not to hire Petitioner. Respondent Gator based its decision not to employ Petitioner solely on the results of her interview which was very negative. On June 14, 1996, the staff at Hamilton House received a memorandum stating that anyone interested in accepting employment with Respondent Gator must sign up on June 19, 1996. On June 14, 1996, Petitioner's doctor faxed a medical excuse to Respondent CSD stating that Petitioner could not return to work for an undetermined period of time. The document indicates that Petitioner's diagnosis involved anxiety, depression, and work-related stress. The doctor commented that Petitioner was the primary caretaker of her mother who was terminally ill with cancer. The doctor's June 14, 1996, fax was received by Respondent CSD in the administrative manager's office. It was on her desk for a brief period of time before it was delivered to Mr. Edwards. There is no credible evidence that any employee of Respondent CSD disclosed the contents of the fax to unauthorized persons. Petitioner's doctor did not give her permission to return to work until after July 1, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that FCHR enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's Charges of Discrimination against both Respondent CSD and Respondent Gator. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: H. B. Stivers, Esquire Levine and Stivers 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Faye Musgrove Post Office Box 657 Live Oak, Florida 32064 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent from January, 1986, until March 7, 1988. Petitioner worked as a tailor and performed alterations at Respondent's store located in Altamonte Springs. In the latter half of 1987, Mr. Pease became the manager of the Altamonte Springs store and thus became Petitioner's supervisor. As had the prior manager, Mr. Pease and Petitioner worked out a schedule that did not require Petitioner to work in violation of his religious principles. However, relations between Petitioner and Mr. Pease were not good. Shortly after becoming manager, for independent business reasons, Mr. Pease decided to reduce the amount of fitting done in the store. The effect of this decision was to reduce the amount of work available for Petitioner. At about this time, Petitioner suffered an accident unrelated to employment. The accident resulted in an extended absence from work. Petitioner received his physician's approval to return to work on February 16, 1988, but failed to do so. Without prior notice, Petitioner showed up at the store on March 7, 1988, and informed Mr. Pease that Petitioner was ready to return to work. Mr. Pease told Petitioner that the work schedule had already been arranged for the week. Mr. Pease told Petitioner that the only days he could work were Saturday, March 12, and Sunday, March 13. Petitioner told Mr. Pease that he could not work Sundays due to his religious beliefs. Mr. Pease reiterated that no other time was available that week. Petitioner told Mr. Pease that Petitioner understood that he was being fired. Mr. Pease told him that he was not being fired; rather, he was quitting if he left Respondent's employment. Two days later, Petitioner filed for unemployment compensation benefits. He never reported to work with Respondent again. Consistent with his Petition for Relief, Petitioner offered no evidence of discrimination due to national origin. Nothing in the record suggests the existence of any such discrimination. Petitioner has also failed to prove the existence of any religious discrimination. There is no evidence that Mr. Pease refused to try to accommodate Petitioner's religious beliefs with respect to work schedules after the weekend of March 12-13. The only evidence is that when Petitioner suddenly reported to work, the only days immediately available were the weekend days. The record does not even disclose whether Mr. Pease linked the two days, so as to prevent Petitioner from working the Saturday without working the Sunday. There is nothing in the record suggesting that Mr. Pease told Petitioner that if he failed to work the coming Sunday, he would lose his job. In sum, Petitioner has left it entirely to conjecture whether Mr. Pease would have failed to make reasonable accommodation for the religious beliefs of Petitioner. In fact, Mr. Pease was never presented with that opportunity. In addition, Petitioner has produced no evidence that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. There is no evidence of the number of employees working for Respondent at the relevant time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner be dismissed. ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5689 Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-3. Adopted in substance. 4-5. (first sentence) Adopted. 5. (second sentence) Rejected as irrelevant. 6-10. Adopted. s 11. Rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Margaret Agerton, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Weceslao Lugo Palermo 7505 Armstrong Road Lockhart, FL 32810 Richard D. Pease 590 West Highway 436 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was terminated from his employment with the Respondent in the Hospitality Department at the Grand Floridian Hotel on or about March 18, 1993 on the basis of his national origin (Hispanic-Dominican Republic), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an employer under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. The Petitioner was employed by the Respondent at its Grand Floridian Hotel as a valet/greeter/bellman in the Hospitality Department during the relevant period of time, including March of 1993. The Petitioner is of Hispanic origin from the Dominican Republic and is a member of a protected class. In approximately October of 1988, the Petitioner began his employment with the Respondent at the Contemporary Hotel as a valet/greeter. In April of 1989, the Petitioner received a written reprimand for not logging in a piece of luggage. The Petitioner did not grieve the April 1988 written reprimand. In May of 1989, the Petitioner transferred to the Respondent's Grand Floridian Hotel, where he was a valet/greeter/bellman. In February of 1990, the Petitioner received an oral reprimand for three separate incidents of improperly logging luggage. 9. The Petitioner could not recall if he grieved the February, 1990 oral reprimand. In August of 1990, the Petitioner again received an oral reprimand, this time for mixing up luggage while loading it into vehicles. The luggage had to be mailed to each rightful owner at the Respondent's expense and caused an inconvenience to the guests. The Petitioner could not recall if he grieved the August 1990 oral reprimand. In December of 1991, the Petitioner mishandled luggage by failing to tag all of a guest's bags. In May of 1992, the Respondent's management discussed with the Petitioner his failure to tag a piece of luggage. In July of 1992, the Petitioner received a verbal reprimand for failing to log in a guest's luggage. The Petitioner's verbal reprimand in July of 1992 was the result of a direct complaint by a guest, who was required to search for a piece of his own luggage in the Hotel's storage room. The Petitioner could not recall if he grieved the July 1992 verbal reprimand. In September of 1992, the Petitioner received a verbal reprimand for approaching a guest to discuss splitting a tip with a bellman, an impermissible practice. The Petitioner was not suspended for this incident. In December of 1992, the Petitioner received a written reprimand for failing to follow proper procedures regarding a guest's luggage on two separate occasions. The Petitioner did not grieve the December 1992 written reprimand. The Respondent decided not to consider the two incidents in December of the Petitioner's luggage-mishandling as separate incidents for progressive discipline purposes, even though such action was permissible under the collective bargaining agreement. The Respondent's decision not to consider the two December 1992 incidents separately for progressive discipline purposes was based upon the Petitioner's length of service and his good performance in other areas. The Petitioner had a good attitude, had good people skills, and had received good guest comments during the course of his employment. In December of 1992, the Petitioner understood that he was in the progressive discipline process. In January of 1993, the Respondent met with the Petitioner and offered to remove him from the responsibility of handling luggage by putting him in a non-tipped, dispatcher position. Also, in January of 1993, the Respondent and the Petitioner's union representative were working together to preserve the Petitioner's job. The Petitioner was reminded by his union representative about his previous reprimands and that one more incident would cause his termination. The Petitioner was told by his union representative that the purpose of moving him to a dispatcher position was to get him away from the luggage-handling area. The Petitioner was told that if he remained free of similar reprimands for one year, he could return to the tipped position of valet/greeter with no loss of seniority. After initially refusing the dispatcher position, the Petitioner accepted. The Petitioner was given the shift that he requested when he was transferred to the dispatcher position. In February of 1993 while on duty as a dispatcher, the Petitioner received a three-day suspension, without pay, for using poor judgment. He interrupted a valet while the valet was servicing a guest. The Petitioner did not grieve the February 1993 suspension. The Petitioner's action as a dispatcher of interrupting a valet was grounds for the valet to grieve such actions to the union. The suspension in February of 1993 for the Petitioner's poor judgment as a dispatcher was not the basis for his termination. The Petitioner requested a reclassification back to valet/greeter/bellman position. The Petitioner understood that one more incident of any kind would result in his immediate termination. The Petitioner requested the change from dispatcher back to valet/greeter/bellman for personal financial reasons; and his union representative also advised him that if one more incident of any kind occurred, he would be terminated. On March 16, 1993, the Petitioner mishandled luggage. The Petitioner did not properly log in a guest's luggage (a garment bag). 35. The Petitioner was terminated on March 18, 1993 for poor job performance. The progressive discipline which the Petitioner received was consistent with the union contract. The contract provides that an employee can be terminated for the next offense following a single written reprimand. The Petitioner had the opportunity to grieve all of the reprimands he received, and his union representative was aware of the actions taken in connection with the Petitioner's employment. The Petitioner grieved his termination, and that grievance was denied. The Petitioner failed to provide evidence of any similarly-situated employee who was not terminated for mishandling luggage on as many occasions as he had. The Petitioner failed to provide evidence regarding any discrimination against other Hispanic employees, other than his own belief, speculation or conjecture. The Petitioner understood that the Respondent's management was closely checking into everyone's performance. Management asked all of the employees at the Grand Floridian Hotel to help the Hotel earn a five-star rating. The Petitioner was never part of the Respondent's management and did not attend manager meetings. During the course of his employment, the Petitioner was chosen to train other employees because he knew the proper procedures for his valet/bellman/greeter position. The Petitioner knew the proper procedures for handling luggage received from guests. The Petitioner knew the proper procedures for logging in and handling bags. The Petitioner received copies of the Respondent's policies and procedures for a valet/bellman, including luggage handling. The Petitioner did not report many of the alleged discriminatory actions of his co-workers to management. The Petitioner conceded that on those occasions when he did make reports to management, these alleged actions stopped. The Petitioner received the overtime and schedules which he requested because of his seniority. The number of minorities employed at the Respondent's Orlando, Florida, work site has increased from 1993 to 1996. The number of minorities employed at the Respondent's Grand Floridian Hotel has either remained the same or increased from 1992 to 1995. In January of 1993, the number of minorities in the Grand Floridian Hotel's Hospitality Department was 14, of which 11 were Hispanic; and there were four Hispanics in the valet/greeter classification. In February of 1996, the number of minorities in the Grand Floridian Hotel's Hospitality Department (including valets, bellmen, greeters and dispatchers) was 16, of which 12 were Hispanic; and there were four Hispanics in the valet/greeter classification. The Petitioner failed to produce any evidence of an overall plan by the Respondent's management to eliminate minorities, including Hispanics, from employment at the company. The Respondent allows employees to review their employment records at any time upon request. The Petitioner presented only his own beliefs, speculation or conjecture as a basis for his claims of national origin 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 the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1996, 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 19th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-3990 The following constitute my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. The Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-20, 22-31, 33-39, 41-61. Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or as comment on the evidence: paragraphs 21, 32, 40. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Jorge V. Jimenez 2716 FDC Grove Road Davenport, Florida 33837 Myrna L. Galligano, Esquire Garwood, McKenna & McKenna, P.A. 731 North Garland Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Dana C. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent is guilty of discrimination in employment on the basis of race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is David L. Lucas. He was employed by Respondent, Marc Downs, Inc., a clothing store chain, from August of 1989 until January 28, 1990. Approximately two months before the conclusion of his employment with Respondent, Petitioner and other employees employed in the Marc Downs Store located in the Wal-Mart Shopping Center on East Apalachee Parkway in Tallahassee, Florida, began working under the supervision of a new store manager. The new store manager was Desiree DeVelder, a white female. In addition to DeVelder, there was one other white female employee on the store's sales staff. The remainder of the ten person sales force in the clothing store was black. Petitioner was the only black male member of that sales force. Petitioner and other employees became increasing aware of DeVelder's discomfort at working with a predominantly black sales force. She kept to herself when at all possible. She confided to Petitioner that she did not like the way that the black people acted and on one occasion she stated that there were too many blacks working in the store. On January 28, 1991, DeVelder called a meeting of the store employees after the store had closed for the day. She presented each of the black employees, but not the solitary white employee, with a form entitled "Employee Disciplinary Notice". The form had been filled out for each black employee recipient and documented that the employee was the subject of disciplinary action for "poor attitude and not following Marc Down's Employee Policy Manual". The form further documented that the corrective action was to be a 30 day probationary period for the employee and that unemployment compensation would not be paid if the employee quit or was dismissed from employment during the probationary period. Each form for each employee was signed by DeVelder. DeVelder asked each of the black employees to sign their individual forms. Petitioner asked for an explanation of the form. DeVelder refused to provide an answer and Petitioner said he would think about it and provide DeVelder with a decision the next day. As he turned to leave, DeVelder struck him in the back and began screaming at him that he was fired.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the Petition for Relief and directing the payment to Petitioner by Respondent of back pay at the rate of $400 per month from January 28, 1990. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1992.
The Issue Did Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, commit an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of race?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 35-year-old Black male. Prior to December 1986, Petitioner was employed by Respondent in an OPS position in "Central Files". His work performance in Central Files was both superior and exemplary, and he was offered a State Career Service position as a Senior Clerk within Respondent's "Complaint Section". Upon accepting the Career Service position, Petitioner entered into a mandatory six months' probationary period. In the Senior Clerk position, Petitioner's primary duties were to answer the phone a specific 4-hour daily shift; to assist or act as backup for phone answering during Senior Clerk Terri Jones' (Black female) 4-hour daily phone shift; to prepare and distribute Class II complaint cases to Respondent's "Legal Section"; and to distribute mail and other materials as assigned by his immediate supervisor, Louise Bull (white female). On January 5, 1987, Petitioner took 4 hours unauthorized leave without pay for which he received a written reprimand on January 6, 1987. He had previously been orally reprimanded for the same practice. It was established by competent substantial evidence that Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Louise Bull, had had a number of absences without leave, some of which occurred before Petitioner's termination and some of which occurred after his termination, and that she also received at least one written reprimand for these absences. For some of her absences, Ms. Bull was required to reimburse money to the State, however it was not clear whether the reimbursement was because she was absent when she falsely claimed to be present or was standard reimbursement procedure when the leave actually taken is not covered by accrued leave time. Either way, Ms. Bull was not in a probationary status at any material time and, clearly, as Petitioner's supervisor, hers was not a substantially similar position to that of Petitioner. Petitioner and Cindy Dexter testified that many permanent employees in addition to Ms. Bull were playing fast and loose with tardiness and absenteeism, but their evidence is very indefinite and the race and gender of the employees accused was not established. Ms. Dexter's testimony was vague and not credible on this point. Their testimony on this subject was not confirmed by other credible witnesses nor was it ever established that any of the permanent employees accused by Petitioner held positions substantially similar to his. From almost the beginning of his probationary period, Petitioner had difficulty adjusting to his new position. He evidenced difficulty accepting supervision from Ms. Bull. This disrupted standard office practice. Over the probationary term, Ms. Bull orally counselled Petitioner approximately seven times concerning his lack of acceptance of her supervision as well as excessive tardiness and excessive personal phone usage. Diane Orcutt, the regular Complaint Office Supervisor and Ms. Bull's superior, described Petitioner as avoiding Louise Bull and coming directly to her about problems he perceived in the office operation. Petitioner and Terri Jones, his female job counterpart who is also Black, had an early but undefined job- related dispute, after which he sent her flowers to "make-up". On one occasion, after a loud and disruptive argument arose between Petitioner and Ms. Bull in the general office area, Evelyn McNeely, who was acting supervisor to them both during Ms. Orcutt's vacation, required Ms. Bull to prepare a memorandum clarifying Petitioner's job duties because, in Ms. McNeely's view, the Petitioner did not seem to understand his duties. This was done on June 17, 1987. This memorandum, headed "Performance Evaluation" from Ms. Bull to Petitioner also warned Petitioner that Ms. Bull would recommend extension of his probationary period because he was falling short on acceptable performance in several areas. Louise Bull prepared, delivered, and discussed with Petitioner her performance evaluation, indicating, based upon her personal observations, his failure to satisfactorily perform in the following areas: repeatedly tardy over the last several weeks; failure to properly handle routine telephone duties; failure to comply with their section's procedures for routing of case files; and continued failure to accept supervision under their section's chain of command. Ms. Bull admitted that she suffered emotional problems while Petitioner worked for her and apparently thereafter. She had crying jags and consulted a psychologist. She also received a prescription from some source for the tranquilizer valium. Ms. Bull denied that she and the psychologist ever identified a reason for her emotional state. Melinda Wagoner testified that Ms. Bull related to her that her emotional problems stemmed from living in a Black neighborhood and fighting with Black children when she was a child. The foregoing hearsay is admissible as an admission of a party (DPR) through its supervising agent (Louise Bull), but even if fully credible, this evidence would be insufficient to establish a nexus between Bull's behavior and the reason for Petitioner's eventual termination, in light of the record as a whole. Terri Jones, the permanent employee most substantially similar to Petitioner, was also a Senior Clerk. She is also Black. Her job duties were identical to those of Petitioner, except that they had primary responsibility for phone calls during different parts of each day. Ms. Jones had no supervisory problems of her own with Louise Bull. Ms. Jones asserted that Petitioner had excellent telephone manners but confirmed that Petitioner's regularity in answering the phone either on his shift or as her backup was often insufficient. The Complaint Section's phone was often placed on "hold" with no one waiting on the other end. Although anyone in the office could place a call on "hold" and any caller could hang up before an employee returned to the phone, the inference from all witnesses' testimony as a whole was that this "hold" procedure was being done excessively by Petitioner. Diane Orcutt, regular Complaint Office Supervisor, reviewed Petitioner's phone logs prior to evaluating him at the six months' point. The representative phone logs of the two substantially similar employees, Petitioner and Terri Jones, show that Petitioner logged only 34 calls in the same period that Ms. Jones logged 359. This vast discrepancy can be interpreted in a number of ways: either Petitioner was not answering the phone as directed, or he was not logging all calls as directed, or he was not maintaining the logs as directed. By any interpretation of this empirical data, Petitioner was not fulfilling a prime requirement of his job. At the time of his six months' evaluation, on June 22, 1987, Diane Orcutt made a joint decision with Louise Bull to extend Petitioner's six months probationary period by four months. Ms. Orcutt did this for a number of reasons: his early absences without leave, oral complaints from lower echelon employees that Petitioner would frequently neglect his telephone duties in one way or another, and the disruptive nature of his failure to accept Ms. Bull's supervision. In requiring the additional probation, Ms. Orcutt gave greater weight to the administrative/managerial friction and less weight to Petitioner's reprimanded early absences; however, with regard to the complaints of other employees, she testified that she felt sure Petitioner could do the work because of his past excellent performance on OPS and because of her personal observation but that he needed more time to actually do the job instead of engaging in uncooperative disputes with Ms. Bull. Additionally, Ms. Orcutt was giving Petitioner the benefit of any doubt by taking additional time to sort out whether the disruption problem arose from Ms. Bull or from Petitioner, because at that point, Ms. Bull had no problems supervising other Black or white employees; no oral complaints had been made by other employees against Ms. Bull; and oral complaints against Petitioner confirming Ms. Bull's unrecorded observations of Petitioner had been received personally by Ms. Orcutt. When presented with Orcutt's Mid-Cycle Appraisal and the 4 months' additional probation plan on June 22, 1987, Petitioner was hostile, refused to sign the appraisal, and another disruptive scene arose among Petitioner, Ms. Bull and Ms. Orcutt. Petitioner spent all of the workday of June 23, 1987 in "Personnel" complaining that his evaluation and the 4 months' additional probation was unjust. On two of the remaining successive days of that work week, Petitioner accomplished some work. On one of the remaining successive days in that week, he took his "Personal Leave Day". A weekend intervened, and on Monday, June 28, 1987, Diane Orcutt reassessed the situation, determined that Petitioner was not intending to cooperate, and terminated him, as had always been her option during his probationary period.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Human Relations Commission dismissing the complaint and petition for relief filed by Robert Baucham. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 3rd day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0712 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact None filed Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent's proposals have been accepted in substance and modified to conform to the record. Where they have not been accepted, they are rejected as misleading as stated or not supported by the record as stated. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Baucham Hearings 1021 Idlewild Drive, P-161 Tallahassee, FL 32301 E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, Precision Tune Auto Care, on account of his race, or a result of a sexually abusive work environment in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, who was at all times relevant to this matter, an employee of Respondent, is an African-American male. Precision owns and operates five automobile service facilities in northwest Florida. They are generally referred to as the 9th Avenue (Pensacola) facility, the 9-Mile (Pensacola) facility, the Navy Boulevard (Pensacola) facility, the Fort Walton Beach facility, and the Crestview facility. Though there was no direct testimony as to the number of persons employed by Precision, the evidence is persuasive that each facility has a minimum of 4 to 6 full-time employees. Therefore, there is sufficient competent, substantial evidence to establish that Respondent employs more than 15 full-time employees at any given time. Petitioner’s Hiring On June 14, 2013, Petitioner started work at Respondent’s 9th Avenue location in Pensacola, Florida, as a lube-tech. When Petitioner was hired, Ms. Abbott was the manager of the 9th Avenue location, having started in that position in April 2013. Petitioner was not hired by Ms. Abbott. Rather, Mr. Geiger interviewed Petitioner and approved his hiring for the 9th Avenue lube-tech position. Prior to his employment at the 9th Avenue facility, Petitioner worked at Respondent’s Navy Boulevard facility. He was there for a single day. The circumstances of his departure were not explained. When Petitioner started work at 9th Avenue, he was provided with employee procedures handbooks issued by Respondent and by Lyons HR, Respondent’s payroll management company. Both handbooks contained policies prohibiting sexual harassment, and provided means for reporting complaints. On June 6, 2013, Petitioner signed written acknowledgement pages for each of the handbooks. Respondent’s employee procedures handbook had been revised in March 2013. The written acknowledgement page signed by Petitioner for Respondent’s employee procedures handbook was for an earlier revision. The evidence was persuasive that the page signed by Petitioner was one of a stack “kept in a drawer” for that purpose, a stack that had not been replaced when the handbook was updated. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Petitioner received the employee procedures handbooks issued by Respondent and Lyons HR. In addition, current handbooks were available at each of Respondent’s facilities for the employees’ use. Petitioner alleged in his Employment Complaint of Discrimination that he was hired at 9th Avenue because it was the only one of Respondent’s locations at which African- Americans were employed, which Petitioner attributed to Ms. Abbott’s alleged desire “to be with a black guy.”1/ The preponderance of the evidence establishes that Respondent employed African-American workers at its other locations, in positions including those of manager and technician. Lube-techs are employed by Respondent to perform oil changes. As they gain experience, they may be assigned to perform simple maintenance work. Technicians are employed by Respondent to perform a range of automotive repairs. Technicians are required to own a set of mechanics’ tools sufficient to perform more complex work, involving mechanical work, repair and replacement of water pumps, power steering pumps and the like. When he was hired as a lube-tech at 9th Avenue, Petitioner had neither the skills nor the tools to perform work as a technician. When he started work, Petitioner was perceived as a very good employee, doing work without being asked, cleaning, and generally doing extra work around the facility. As a result, Petitioner received a raise of 25 cents per hour after six-to-eight weeks on the job. Technician work is desirable because technicians have the ability to earn commissions. Petitioner soon began asking for technician work. His requests were refused. Although Petitioner was allowed to do some extra work, Mr. Geiger believed that he was not ready to be a full-time technician. On August 5, 2013, Morgan Hancock was hired as a technician at 9th Avenue. He had previously been a technician at another Precision facility. Petitioner felt as though he should have been given the opportunity to work as a technician, and there began to be friction between Petitioner and Mr. Hancock. As a result of the perceived slight at his not being promoted to technician, Petitioner began to exhibit a “bad attitude” and his performance began to “slack off.” His willingness to do more undesirable tasks that were expected of all employees, including cleaning, deteriorated over the ensuing weeks. He made several requests to transfer to a technician’s position at other Precision facilities, discussing the matter with both Ms. Abbott and Mr. Geiger. The dates of the verbal requests are unclear, though it appears that one was made on September 5, 2013, and one was made to Mr. Geiger within two weeks prior to Petitioner’s November 20, 2013, termination. The evidence is persuasive that the requests to transfer were denied for a number of non-discriminatory reasons. First, as set forth above, Petitioner did not have sufficient skills or an adequate set of tools to work as a technician. Second, Precision had been cutting back on employees, and there were no positions open at the other facilities for someone of Petitioner’s level of skill and experience. Finally, one of Petitioner’s requests was for a transfer to the Navy Boulevard facility. Petitioner had previously worked there for a short period, and the manager simply did not want him back. There is no evidence to support a finding that Petitioner’s requests for transfer were denied as a result of some racial animus, or as a result of Ms. Abbott’s alleged sexual desire for Petitioner. By the time Petitioner was at the end of his 90-day probationary period, his performance was such that he did not receive a discretionary salary increase. The evidence is persuasive that the decision was based on Petitioner’s increasingly poor job performance and not, as alleged by Petitioner, retaliation by Ms. Abbott for Petitioner’s failure to satisfy her sexual requests. On September 26, 2013, at Petitioner’s request, Ms. Abbott wrote a letter on Precision letterhead stating that Petitioner had worked for Precision since August 6, 2012. Petitioner had, in fact, started work for Precision in June 2013. Petitioner characterized the letter as evidence of Ms. Abbott’s willingness to falsify a document as a means of gaining favor with Petitioner, and as an enticement for Petitioner to provide sexual favors. Ms. Abbott testified, convincingly, that Petitioner asked her to write the letter so he could show one year of Florida residency, and therefore qualify for in-state tuition at George Stone, a technical center in Pensacola, where he wanted to take classes to gain skills to be a technician. She wanted to help him, and so wrote the letter knowing it to be false. Mr. McCoy witnessed Ms. Abbott giving the letter to Petitioner, and testified it was accompanied by no suggestive remarks. Her agreement to write the letter on Petitioner’s behalf was ill-advised, and upon its discovery, she was reprimanded by Mr. Gerhardt. The letter does not, by any means, suggest that Respondent or Ms. Abbott discriminated against Petitioner in any way, or that Ms. Abbott used the letter as an inducement for Petitioner to provide her with sexual favors. On October 7, 2013, Bret Ramsey was hired at 9th Avenue. Mr. Ramsey, who is Caucasian, was a technician who had previously worked at Respondent’s Navy Boulevard location. Mr. Ramsey worked at 9th Avenue for two weeks, at which time he transferred back to Navy Boulevard. Mr. Geiger could not remember the reason for Mr. Ramsey’s transfer, but assumed that Navy Boulevard was in need of an experienced and qualified technician. As to whether Petitioner would have been a suitable candidate for the transfer, Mr. Gerhardt testified credibly that the manager of the Navy Boulevard location would not accept Petitioner due to his past employment there. Mr. Ramsey’s transfer does not support a finding that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his race, or that Ms. Abbott was “keeping” Petitioner at 9th Avenue to satisfy her sexual urges. Respondent required its employees to “clock-out” for their lunch hour and leave the premises. By so doing, it was easier to ensure that work hours were not confused with off-duty lunch hours and to “keep payroll straight.” Respondent’s policy was applied evenly to all employees. Ms. Abbott would occasionally buy lunch for all of the employees at 9th Avenue, either when they were busy, or as thanks for their hard work. Petitioner characterized Ms. Abbott’s acts of kindness and gratitude towards the employees of 9th Avenue as “buying me expensive lunches” to induce cooperation with her requests for sexual favors, a characterization that finds no evidentiary support. Petitioner testified that Ms. Abbott would come to work drunk. Aside from the fact that Ms. Abbott’s state of sobriety, or lack thereof, has no bearing on whether Petitioner was subject to racial discrimination or sexual harassment, the evidence was insufficient to support Petitioner’s claim. Petitioner testified that Ms. Abbott cut his hours as retaliation for his failure to submit to her sexual advances. The time records for Petitioner demonstrates that Petitioner worked 40-hours plus overtime on 19 of the 23 weeks that he was employed at 9th Avenue, including five of his last six full weeks of employment. The other four weeks ranged from 35.90 to 38.68 hours per week. Thus, there is nothing to support the assertion that Petitioner’s hours were cut for any reason. Petitioner’s supposition that Ms. Abbott may have altered his time records--which records are managed and kept by Lyons HR--is not persuasive. Petitioner’s Termination On November 18, 2013, Ms. Abbott, after having spent the day cleaning the service pits, instructed employees to place all cars needing service on the facility’s lift racks, and not over the pits. That day, Petitioner pulled a car into position over a pit. Mr. McCoy advised Petitioner that Ms. Abbott had instructed that all cars were to be put on a rack. Petitioner responded to the effect that if Ms. Abbott wanted the car racked, she could rack it herself, sprinkling his response with some choice profanities. His response was loud enough that Ms. Abbott could overhear it through the window between the shop and the reception area. As a result of what Ms. Abbott understandably perceived as insubordination, she prepared a written warning based on the fact that “employee was told multiple times to place vehicles on lifts not over pit [and] refused.” She presented the Discipline/Discharge Form to Petitioner, who refused to sign the form to acknowledge receipt. Mr. McCoy was called in to witness that Petitioner refused to sign the warning. Petitioner became argumentative with Ms. Abbott, who then instructed him to go home for the day. Upon leaving the premises, Petitioner “peeled out” of the parking lot, spraying gravel in the direction of other parked cars. By that time, Ms. Abbott had called Mr. Geiger to discuss the circumstances of the written warning. Mr. Geiger was able to hear the sound of Petitioner’s exit from the premises. That act was taken by Mr. Geiger and Ms. Abbott as a second instance of misconduct warranting discipline. Ms. Abbott discussed the situation regarding Petitioner with Mr. Geiger and Mr. Gerhardt. The decision was made by the three of them, based upon that day’s behavior and Petitioner’s increasingly bad attitude, that Ms. Abbott should terminate Petitioner from employment. November 19, 2013, was a scheduled day off for Petitioner. When Petitioner returned to work on November 20, 2013, he presented Ms. Abbott with a letter in which he requested a transfer to another Precision location. In his letter, he indicated that he had previously discussed a transfer with Ms. Abbott because of “lack of communication, lack of supervision, lack of procedure standards and underlying personality conflicts.” No mention was made of any discriminatory or sexually inappropriate actions on the part of Precision or Ms. Abbott. Petitioner requested that Ms. Abbott sign the transfer request to acknowledge receipt, which she did. Her acknowledgement of receipt of the transfer request does not support a finding that Respondent or Ms. Abbott discriminated against Petitioner. Ms. Abbott advised Petitioner that a transfer was out of the question, and that he was being terminated from employment. Petitioner demanded that she give him a copy of his termination papers. Ms. Abbott advised that he would be faxed his Termination Record by Respondent’s human resources department. Petitioner then left the premises. He was subsequently sent a copy of the Termination Record as stated. Uniform Return When Petitioner left the employ of Respondent, he failed to return the company-issued uniforms, valued at $466.00. On January 6, 2014, after several verbal attempts by Ms. Abbott to recover the uniforms, Mr. Gerhardt sent a certified letter to Petitioner at his address of record. The address to which the letter was mailed, 6881 Twiggs Lane, Pensacola, Florida 32305, is the same address provided to the FCHR by Petitioner in his December 29, 2013 Employment Complaint of Discrimination, and his July 21, 2014 Petition for Relief. Mr. Gerhardt’s letter advised Petitioner that if he did not return the uniforms by January 31, 2014, the matter would be turned over to the state attorney. Petitioner did not return the uniforms and, as promised, the matter was turned over to law enforcement. Respondent has taken legal action to recover uniforms from former employees in the past, including Caucasian former employees. Ultimate Findings of Fact Up to and including the time of his termination, Petitioner did not contact the employee hotline, file a complaint, discuss with co-workers or management, or otherwise claim that he had been the subject of discrimination because of his race, or that Ms. Abbott had acted in a sexually inappropriate way towards him. No witness, other than Petitioner, testified that they ever saw Ms. Abbott dress “provocatively” or in other than standard work attire, ever heard Ms. Abbott tell off-color or racially-charged jokes, or ever heard or observed Ms. Abbott interacting with Petitioner in an inappropriate manner. There was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing to support a finding that any personnel decisions regarding Petitioner, including those regarding his requests to transfer, his written warning, and his termination, were made due to Petitioner’s race, or in furtherance of any effort to sexually harass or obtain sexual favors from Petitioner. There was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing that any persons who were not members of the Petitioner’s protected class, i.e., African-American, were treated differently from Petitioner, or were not subject to similar personnel policies and practices.
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 Respondent, Precision Tune Auto Care, did not commit any unlawful employment practice as to Petitioner, Reggie Dancy, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2014-0068. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 2014.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to a hostile work environment condoned by Respondent due to Petitioner's race and sex in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was previously employed by the Auditor General, Division of Public Assistance Fraud. That program, along with Petitioner, co-workers, and the persons in her chain of command, were later legislatively transferred to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. On January 28, 1999, Petitioner filed a complaint of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), alleging that the State of Florida, Office of the Auditor General discriminated against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections 760.01- 760.11, Florida Statutes (1999). Allegedly, the discrimination was based on Petitioner's race (African- American) and sex (female). Petitioner claimed that Respondent's actions created a hostile work environment as a consequence of her race and/or sex. Petitioner has not been demoted, reassigned, or terminated by her employer. Petitioner complained of certain events that occurred in 1994 regarding the assignment of particular cases. She alleged that she was not being fairly treated in the assignment of pending cases. These events, which occurred in 1994, are time-barred from further consideration by virtue of Section 760.11(1), Florida Statutes, which requires filing of a complaint within 365 days of occurrence of an alleged violation. On one occasion on an unspecified date during her employment, a co-worker asked Petitioner whether her ponytail was real. On March 11, 1998, Regional Supervisor William Martin, a white male, typed a memorandum for Petitioner. The memorandum was precipitated by a conference between Petitioner and her immediate supervisor in which procedures regarding work hours, breaks, and lunch hours were discussed. Petitioner was told in the course of the conference that some staff members perceived Petitioner as "not playing by the rules." Petitioner responded through the memorandum typed by Martin. The memorandum set forth Petitioner's complaints concerning her work situation, inclusive of her observation that others were committing the same violations of policy of which she was accused with no repercussions occurring to them. Petitioner had the opportunity to review a draft of the memorandum and made corrections to the draft. Petitioner then signed the final version of the memorandum, which included Petitioner's express declination to pursue the matter further, stating that she "wanted my personal concerns and feelings on record." Nowhere in the memorandum does Petitioner allege that she has been treated differently on the basis of her race or her sex. There are two supervisors in Respondent's Jacksonville, Florida, office. Petitioner’s immediate supervisor is Laverne McKinney, an African-American female. The other supervisor in the Jacksonville office is Stan Stephens, a white male. The relationship between Stan Stephens and Petitioner is strained. The strained relationship is not due to racial or sexual discrimination. On one occasion during Petitioner's employment, Stan Stephens asked Laverne McKinney to instruct Petitioner to let him know when Petitioner would not be available to work until 5:00 p.m., so that the office could be properly manned until that time. The request followed an incident when Stephens, who usually leaves the office at 4:30 p.m., was unable to find someone to mind the office when he left. Unknown to Stephens, Petitioner had left early to perform official business for Respondent. On another occasion during Petitioner's employment, while Laverne McKinney was the designated "Acting Regional Supervisor," Stan Stephens called William Martin, a former supervisor at the time, on a travel issue regarding Petitioner. Martin was working in Respondent's Miami, Florida, office at the time and McKinney was away from the Jacksonville Office.
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 13th day of February, 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 13th day of February, 2001.
The Issue Whether Respondent Gulf Coast Community College (Respondent or the College) violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes, by subjecting Petitioner Derek A. Robinson (Petitioner) to discrimination in employment or by subjecting Petitioner to adverse employment actions in retaliation of Petitioner’s opposition to the College’s alleged discriminatory employment practices.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. The College is a public institution of higher education located in Panama City, Florida. In 1998, Petitioner was hired by the College to work in its custodial department as a custodian. Petitioner held that position until his termination on February 11, 2009. The College's custodial department is part of the College's maintenance and operations division (collectively, ?Maintenance Division?) managed by the campus superintendent. The two other departments within the Maintenance Division are the maintenance and grounds departments. During the relevant time period, there were approximately 40 to 50 employees in the Maintenance Division. Of those, there were approximately 21 to 28 custodians in the custodial department. Most of the custodians were African-Americans and there were only three Caucasian custodians. The Caucasian custodians were Tom Krampota, Josephine Riley, and Tommy Gillespie. Custodial staff typically work shifts beginning at 2:00 p.m. and ending at 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. They are generally assigned housekeeping duties for a specific building. In addition to Monday through Friday, the College is also open on most weekends. Prior to 2001, the College began designating one employee to work a non-rotating weekend shift. Unlike other custodians, the designated weekend custodian worked from 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Fridays and 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. The weekend custodian was not assigned to a particular building, but rather worked in various buildings as needed and was to be available to open doors to campus buildings during weekend hours. Petitioner was the designated weekend custodian from 2001 until his duties were changed in September 2008. Dr. John Holdnak, who worked for the College for 26 years in various capacities, including four years as Director of Human Resources, was the one who established the position of designated weekend custodian. Dr. Holdnak served as the College's Vice-President for Administration Services for his last eight years of employment with the College until leaving in July, 2008. As vice-president, Dr. Holdnak reported directly to the president of the College, Dr. James Kerley. Sometime prior to 2008, Dr. Holdnak observed that the departments in the Maintenance Division were underperforming, not adequately supervised, and failing to meet expectations. Dr. Holdnak observed that the Maintenance Division employees took excessive breaks and showed lack of effort in their work. For example, mold was found in some of the classrooms, an open window with a bird's nest was found in another, maintenance orders were backlogged, and Dr. Holdnak received a number of complaints from faculty and College employees regarding the Maintenance Division's level of service. As a result of Dr. Holdnak's observations, the College removed the campus superintendent from his position because of the superintendent's inability to manage line supervisors, provide leadership, or supervise personnel. After that, Dr. Holdnak personally supervised the Maintenance Division for a time in order to assess and develop a solution to the problem. Based upon Dr. Holdnak's assessment, the College sought applications for a new campus superintendent who could change and clean-up the culture of the Maintenance Division. At the time, the three department supervisors within the Maintenance Division were: Carlos "Butch" Whitehead for maintenance, Dan Doherty for custodial, and Ronny Watson for grounds. All three supervisors were Caucasian. The vacancy for the campus superintendent position was advertised. Dr. Holdnak encouraged John Westcott to apply for the campus superintendent position because he had previously worked with Mr. Westcott on a College construction project and was impressed with his vigor and work ethic. Mr. Westcott, a Caucasian, applied. So did custodial department supervisor, Dan Doherty, and three other candidates. Mr. Westcott disclosed on his application that he had been convicted of a felony twenty years prior to his application. Dr. Holdnak determined that Mr. Westcott's prior conviction would not impact his candidacy for the position. The applicants were screened by a selection committee composed of a number of College employees from various divisions, including Petitioner. Of the five applicants who applied, the selection committee's first choice was John Westcott, who was qualified for the position. Petitioner did not agree with the selection committee's first choice and was not impressed with Mr. Westcott during the screening process because Mr. Westcott referred to himself as the "terminator." Based upon the selection committee's first choice and the conclusion that Mr. Westcott satisfied the necessary criteria to change the Maintenance Division's culture, Dr. Holdnak recommended that the College hire John Westcott as the new campus superintendent. John Westcott was hired as campus superintendent in January 2008. Once Mr. Westcott was hired, Dr. Holdnak specifically directed him to take control of his departments, ?clean up the mess? and hold his mid-level supervisors responsible for their subordinates' results. Dr. Holdnak instructed Mr. Westcott to take a hands-on approach, physically inspect and visit the buildings to ensure cleanliness, increase effectiveness, stop laziness, and decrease work order backlogs. During his tenure, Mr. Westcott increased productivity and reduced backlogs. Mr. Westcott took more initiative than previous superintendents with cleaning and maintenance, and he conducted weekly walkthroughs. While Mr. Westcott was campus superintendent, the backlog of 400 work orders he had inherited was reduced to zero. During Mr. Westcott's first month as campus superintendent, he had an encounter with a Caucasian employee named Jamie Long. On January 31, 2008, Mr. Westcott issued a written memorandum to Mr. Long as a follow-up from a verbal reprimand that occurred on January 28, 2008. The reprimand was Mr. Westcott's first employee disciplinary action as campus superintendent. According to the memorandum, the reprimand was based upon Mr. Long's confrontation and argument with Mr. Westcott regarding the fact that Mr. Westcott had been ?checking-up? on him. According to the memorandum, Mr. Westcott considered "the manner in which [Mr. Long] addressed [him as] totally inappropriate and could be considered insubordination." Mr. Long disputed Mr. Westcott's version of the incident and later sent a letter to College President Dr. Kerley dated June 23, 2008, complaining about "the alleged incident of insubordination" and the "almost non-stop harassment by John Westcott." There was no mention or allegation in the letter that John Westcott was racist or had discriminated against anyone because of their race. After Dr. Holdnak left the College in July 2008, John Mercer assumed his responsibilities. Mr. Mercer, like Dr. Holdnak, had the perception that custodial work was below par based on complaints and personal observations. He therefore continued to direct Mr. Westcott to address these deficiencies to improve the custodians' performance. Petitioner was the designated weekend custodian when Mr. Westcott was hired. In February 2008, Dr. Holdnak discovered a problem with the amount of paid-time-off Petitioner received as a result of his weekend schedule. The problem was that if a holiday fell on a weekend, Petitioner would take the entire weekend off, resulting in a windfall of 37.5 hours in additional paid-time- off for Petitioner over other employees because his work hours on the weekends were longer. In order to correct the problem, in approximately March 2008, Petitioner was placed on a similar holiday pay schedule as all other employees. At the time, the then-director of the College's Department of Human Resources, Mosell Washington, who is an African American, explained the change to Petitioner. According to Mr. Washington, Petitioner was not happy about the change in his holiday pay schedule. Petitioner, however, does not blame Mr. Westcott for initiating the change. Because of the change in his holiday pay schedule, Petitioner was required to work or use leave time for the additional working hours during the Fourth of July weekend in 2008. Petitioner called and asked to speak with Mr. Westcott regarding the issue. During the phone call, Petitioner used profanity. After being cursed, Mr. Westcott hung up the phone and then advised Mr. Washington, who told Mr. Westcott to document the incident. The resulting written reprimand from Mr. Westcott to Petitioner was dated July 11, 2011, and was approved by Mr. Washington. When Mr. Washington presented Petitioner with the written reprimand, Petitioner refused to sign an acknowledgement of its receipt and abruptly left the meeting without any comment. Petitioner did not tell Mr. Washington that he believed he was being targeted or discriminated against because of his race. In addition to setting forth Mr. Westcott's version of what occurred, the written reprimand advised Petitioner that the College had a grievance procedure, and also stated: I have an open door policy and will gladly address any concerns you may have whether personal or job related. If you have a grievance, tell me, but in the proper manner and in the proper place. Petitioner did not take advantage of either the College's grievance procedure or Mr. Westcott's stated open door policy. The College maintains an anti-discrimination policy and grievance policy disseminated to employees. The College's procedure for employee grievances provides several levels of review, starting with an immediate supervisor, then to a grievance committee, and then up to the College's president. Under the College's anti-discrimination policy, discrimination and harassment based on race or other protected classes is prohibited. Employees who believe they are being discriminated against may report it to the Director of Human Resources. Likewise, harassment is prohibited and may be reported up the chain of command at any level. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the College handbook and policies on August 17, 2007. In addition, both the College President, Dr. Kerley, and Vice President, John Mercer, maintain an ?open door? policy. After receiving the July 11, 2008, written reprimand, Petitioner spoke to both Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer, at least once, on July 15, 2008. Petitioner, however, did not tell them that he had been discriminated against because of his race. In fact, there is no credible evidence that a report of race discrimination was ever made regarding the July 11, 2008, written reprimand prior to Petitioner's termination. Petitioner, however, did not agree with the July 11, 2008 written reprimand. After speaking to Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer, Petitioner met with Jamie Long, the Caucasian who had earlier received a write-up from Mr. Westcott, for assistance in preparing a written response. The written response, dated August 4, 2008, and addressed to Mr. Washington, Mr. Westcott, and Mr. Mercer, stated: On July 25, 2008, I was called into Mosell Washington's office and was given a written letter of reprimand from John Westcott, the Campus Superintendent, which states that on July 3, 2008, I had used profanity in a phone conversation with him regarding my 4th of July work schedule. From the schedule that I received in February, from Mosell Washington, I believed I was off that weekend. I am writing this letter to dispute Mr. Westcott's version of our conversation and to protest the letter of written reprimand. Mr. Westcott says in the reprimand that I was insubordinate to him and had used profanity. I did not use profanity, and I do not believe that I was insubordinate in any manner to him during our brief conversation. I feel that my work record and my integrity speaks for itself. I have never been insubordinate, or been a problem to anyone until John Westcott, and had I known that I was supposed to be on the job that weekend, I would have been there. Mr. Washington, Mr. Westcott, and John Mercer all deny receiving the written response. In addition, contrary to the written response, at the final hearing, Petitioner admitted that he used profanity during the call and said ?ass? to Mr. Westcott. Moreover, the written response does not complain of race discrimination, and Dr. Kerley, Mr. Mercer, Dr. Holdnak, Mr. Washington, and Mr. Westcott all deny that they ever received a complaint of race discrimination regarding the incident. Evidence presented at the final hearing did not show that the written reprimand given to Petitioner dated July 11, 2008, was racially motivated, given in retaliation for Petitioner’s statutorily-protected expression or conduct, or that a similarly-situated non-African-American who used profanity to a supervisor would not be subject to such a reprimand. Mr. Westcott generally worked a more traditional Monday through Friday schedule and, because of Petitioner's weekend work schedule, had minimal contact with Petitioner. In fact, Mr. Westcott would not usually be on campus with Petitioner, except Fridays, and the two men rarely spoke until Petitioner's work schedule was changed in September 2008. During the weekends that he worked at the College, Petitioner was on-call and expected to return communications to his pager or mobile phone, even during his lunch breaks, regardless of his location. On Friday, August 22, 2008, after receiving a request from faculty member Rusty Garner, Petitioner’s supervisor Dan Doherty asked Petitioner to clean the music room floor. On Sunday afternoon, August 24, 2008, Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott were working when they received word from Mr. Garner that the music room floor had not been cleaned. After unsuccessful attempts to reach Petitioner by cell phone and pager, both Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott drove around the College campus to find him. They were unsuccessful. The reason Petitioner could not be reached was because he had left campus and had left his telephone and pager behind. According to Petitioner, he was on lunch break. Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott found another employee, Harold Brown, to help prepare the music room for Monday. Mr. Mercer was upset because he had to take time out from his own work to find someone to complete the job assigned to Petitioner. That same afternoon, Mr. Mercer reported the incident by e-mail to Mr. Washington and requested that appropriate action be taken. On August 27, 2008, Petitioner’s supervisor, Dan Doherty, issued a written reprimand to Petitioner for the August 24th incident. No evidence was presented indicating that the written reprimand was racially motivated, or that a similarly situated non-African-American who could not be located during his or her shift would not be subject to such a reprimand. In September 2008, Dr. Kerley unilaterally determined that no single employee should work his or her entire workweek in three days. He believed this schedule was unsafe, and not in the best interests of the college. He therefore directed Mr. Westcott and Mr. Mercer to implement a rotating schedule for the weekends. Mr. Westcott was not in favor of the change because it meant additional scheduling work for him to accommodate new rotating shifts. No credible evidence was presented that the schedule change was because of Petitioner’s race, or made in retaliation for Petitioner’s statutorily-protected expressions or actions. From August 27, 2008, through January 2009, there were no other disciplines issued to Petitioner or reported incidents between Petitioner and Mr. Westcott. In December, 2008, a group composed of most of the custodial employees, including Petitioner, conducted a meeting with the College's president, Dr. Kerley, and vice-president, Mr. Mercer. The group of custodians elected their new supervisor James Garcia, an Asian-Pacific Islander, as their spokesperson for the meeting. The custodians' primary purpose for the meeting was to address complaints regarding Mr. Westcott’s management style, his prior criminal conviction, and approach with employees. They felt that Mr. Westcott could not be pleased. Various concerns about Mr. Westcott expressed by the employees were condensed into three typed pages (collectively, ?Typed Document?) consisting of two pages compiled by Jamie Long and his wife Susan Long which contained 12 numbered paragraphs, and a third page with six unnumbered paragraphs. Mr. Garcia did not transmit the Typed Document to the president or vice- president prior to the meeting. Neither Jamie Long nor his wife attended the meeting. During the meeting, Mr. Garcia read several of the comments from the Typed Document and Dr. Kerley responded to each comment that was read. Mr. Garcia did not read through more than the first five of the 12 items listed on the Typed Document. The Typed Document was not reviewed by the president or vice-president and they did not retain a copy. Petitioner asserts the comment listed in paragraph 9 on the second page of the Typed Document constitutes a complaint or evidence of racial animus. Although not discussed at the meeting or reviewed by Dr. Kerley or Mr. Mercer, paragraph 9 states: During a recent candidate forum, Westcott used the term ?black ass? in regard to School Superintendent James McCallister. This was heard by at least two witnesses. Q. Are such racial slurs and inappropriate, unprofessional behavior condoned and acceptable? Mr. Westcott denies making the alleged statement referenced in paragraph 9 of the Typed Document. No evidence of other racial remarks allegedly made by Mr. Westcott was presented. There is no evidence that the College or its administration condoned the alleged statement. President Kerley, Vice President Mercer, and Mr. Washington all gave credible testimony that they were not made aware of the statement and that, if the statement in paragraph 9 of the Typed Document or any alleged racial discrimination by Mr. Westcott had been brought to their attention, immediate action would have been taken. As a result of custodial employees’ complaints about Mr. Westcott’s management style, Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer required Mr. Westcott to attend several sessions of management training. In addition, Dr. Kerley counseled Mr. Westcott against using harsh tactics and rough language that may be acceptable on a construction site, but were not appropriate on a College campus. On February 9, 2009, Mr. Westcott observed both Petitioner and a co-worker leaving their assigned buildings. He asked their supervisor, Mr. Garcia, to monitor their whereabouts because he thought that they appeared to not be doing their jobs. Mr. Westcott also told Mr. Garcia that, although the two workers may have had a legitimate reason for walking from their assigned buildings, he had not heard anything on the radio to indicate as much. The next day, on February 10, 2009, Mr. Garcia told Petitioner that Mr. Westcott had wanted to know where they had been headed when they left the building the day before. Petitioner responded by saying that if Mr. Westcott wanted to know where he was, Mr. Westcott could ask him (Petitioner). Later that day, Petitioner spoke to Mr. Washington on campus. Petitioner was very upset and said to Mr. Washington, ?What’s wrong with Westcott? He better leave me alone. He don’t know who he’s messing with.? Later that same afternoon, Petitioner had a confrontation with Mr. Westcott. According to a memorandum authored that same day by Mr. Westcott: I [John Westcott] had stopped outside the mailroom to talk with Beth Bennett. While talking with her I observed Derek [Petitioner] leave Student Union West. After seeing me, he returned to Student Union West and waited outside the door. Beth walked toward the Administration building and I headed through the breezeway. Derek approached me and said that he had heard that I wanted to ask him something. I asked him what he was talking about. He said that I wanted to ask him where he was going the evening before. I said ok, where were you going? Derek said that it was ?none of my f_ _ _ ing business.? I told him that since I was his supervisor, that it ?was? my business. At this time, he stepped closer to me in a threatening manner and said ?if you don’t stop f_ _ _ ing with me, I’m going to f_ _ _ you up.? I told him that if he would do his job, that he wouldn’t have to worry about me. He replied ?you heard what I said--- I’ll f_ _ _ you up?, as he walked back into SUW. I left the breezeway and went to John Mercer’s office to report the incident. Mr. Westcott’s testimony at the final hearing regarding the incident was consistent with his memorandum. While Petitioner’s version of the confrontation is different than Mr. Westcott’s, at the final hearing Petitioner admitted that Mr. Westcott had a legitimate question regarding his whereabouts and that he failed to answer the question. And, while he denied using the specific curse words that Mr. Westcott attributed to him, Petitioner testified that he told Mr. Westcott to leave him the ?hell? alone because he was doing his job. While there is no finding as to the exact words utilized by Petitioner to Mr. Westcott, it is found, based upon the testimonial and documentary evidence, that on the afternoon of February 9, 2009, Petitioner was confrontational towards Mr. Westcott, that Petitioner refused to answer a legitimate question from Mr. Westcott, that Petitioner demanded that Mr. Westcott leave him alone even though Mr. Westcott had a legitimate right to talk to Petitioner about his job, and that Petitioner used words that threatened physical violence if Mr. Westcott did not heed his warning. After Mr. Westcott reported the incident to Mr. Mercer, both Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott went to Dr. Kerley and advised him of the incident. Dr. Kerley believed the report of the incident and that Petitioner had threatened Mr. Westcott. Mr. Washington was then informed of the incident. After reviewing Petitioner’s employment history, including Petitioner’s recent attitude problems, as well as Mr. Washington’s own interaction the same day of the latest incident, Mr. Washington concluded that Petitioner should be terminated. Mr. Washington gave his recommendation that Petitioner be terminated to Dr. Kerley, who adopted the recommendation. The following day, February 11, 2009, Mr. Washington called Petitioner into his office and gave him a memorandum memorializing Petitioner’s termination from his employment with the College. The memorandum provided: This memorandum is written notification that because of a number of incidents which the administration of the college deems unprofessional, adversarial, and insubordinate, you are hereby terminated from employment at Gulf Coast Community College, effective immediately. At the time that he presented Petitioner with the memorandum, Mr. Washington provided Petitioner with the opportunity to respond. Petitioner told Mr. Washington, ?It is not over.? Petitioner did not state at the time, however, that he believed that his termination, change of schedule, or any disciplinary action taken against him were because of racial discrimination or in retaliation for his protected expression or conduct. Further, at the final hearing, Petitioner did not present evidence indicating that similarly-situated non-African- American employees would have been treated more favorably than was Petitioner for threatening a supervisor. Further, the evidence presented by Petitioner did not show that the decision to terminate him was based on race or in retaliation for protected expression or behavior, or that the facts behind the reason that Petitioner was fired were fabricated. Following his termination, Petitioner met with both Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer and apologized for acting wrongly. The empirical record evidence of discipline against College employees in the Maintenance Division during Mr. Westcott’s tenure does not demonstrate a tendency by Mr. Westcott or the College to discriminate against African- American employees. The majority of disciplines and the first discipline taken against Mr. Long by Mr. Westcott were administered to Caucasians. In total, Mr. Westcott only reprimanded five employees. Of these, three were Caucasian -- Mr. Long, Mr. Whitehead, and Mr. Doherty. Despite the fact that the majority of the custodians were African-American, only two African-Americans were disciplined -- Petitioner and Harold Brown. During Mr. Westcott’s employment, the only two employees who were terminated were Petitioner and a white employee, Mark Ruggieri. Excluding Petitioner, all African-American witnesses testified that Mr. Westcott treated them equally and not one, except for Petitioner, testified that they were treated differently because of their race. The testimony of Petitioner’s African-American co-workers is credited over Petitioner’s testimony of alleged discrimination. Harold Brown’s discipline was based upon the fact that he gave the College’s master keys to an outside third-party contractor. Although Mr. Brown disagreed with the level of punishment he received, in his testimony, he agreed that he had made a mistake. Mr. Brown further testified that he did not believe African-Americans were targeted. According to Mr. Brown, Mr. Westcott did not discriminate against him because of his race, and ?Westcott was an equal opportunist as far as his behavior? and ?seemed agitated towards everybody when he was in his moods.? Mr. Garcia was the lead custodian when Petitioner was terminated and is currently the College’s custodial department supervisor. While several employees told Mr. Garcia that they did not like Mr. Westcott’s management style, Mr. Garcia never heard a racist comment and testified that Mr. Westcott was strict and threatened the entire custodial and maintenance staff. Butch Whitehead believes that Mr. Westcott attempted to get him and his maintenance crew ?in trouble.? He had no personal knowledge of the manner in which Mr. Westcott treated Petitioner. Mr. Whitehead's testimony does not otherwise support a finding that Mr. Westcott was a racist or that the College discriminated against Petitioner because of his race. Tom Krampota, a Caucasian and longtime employee and former supervisor, agreed that Mr. Westcott was firm with all custodians and complained about everybody, but was not a racist. Lee Givens, an African-American, testified that his custodial work was monitored because Mr. Westcott took issue with dust and cleanliness, but that if he did his job Mr. Westcott did not bother him. Mr. Givens did not testify that he felt discriminated against because of his race, but rather stated that Mr. Westcott made the job hard for ?all the custodians.? Horace McClinton, an African-American custodian for the College, provided a credible assessment of Mr. Westcott in his testimony which summarized how Mr. Westcott treated all of his subordinates: There were certain things that he wanted us to do that we should have been doing already, and he was just there to enforce it . . . he did not think anybody was doing their job . . . . He was put there to make sure we were doing our job . . . . I don't think he was a racist. Mr. McClinton further testified that all Maintenance Division employees, including Caucasian supervisors, were afraid of Westcott because it was ?his way or the highway.? Latoya ?Red? McNair testified that he was being monitored like the other custodians but did not believe it was because of race. Just as Petitioner’s co-workers’ testimony does not support a finding that Mr. Westcott was a racist, Dan Doherty’s deposition testimony does not support a finding that Mr. Westcott’s actions against Petitioner were because of race. A review of Mr. Doherty’s deposition reflects that Mr. Doherty has no first-hand knowledge of actual discrimination. Mr. Doherty stated, ?I don't know? when asked how he knew Westcott was motivated by race. Nevertheless, according to Mr. Doherty, five African-Americans were singled out, including Petitioner, Mr. McClinton, Mr. Givens, Mr. McNair, and Mr. Brown. Two of these alleged ?victims? outright denied that Mr. Westcott treated them unfairly because of race. The others did not testify that they believed Mr. Westcott treated them differently because of race. Mr. Doherty testified that besides the five identified, the remaining African-Americans were not criticized or targeted. Mr. Doherty also conceded that it was possible that Mr. Westcott just did not like the five custodians. Further, despite the fact that Mr. Doherty was written up by Mr. Westcott more than any other employee, including Petitioner, Mr. Doherty never reported Mr. Westcott for discrimination and did not state in his exit interview from the College that Mr. Westcott was a racist or complain that race was an issue. Rather than supporting a finding that Mr. Westcott was motivated by race, Mr. Doherty’s testimony demonstrated that the problems he had with Mr. Westcott were similar with those pointed out by others—-namely, that Mr. Westcott had a prior criminal conviction, had a harsh management style, and closely scrutinized all workers. While Petitioner and Mr. Long contend that they raised the issue of discrimination with the College's management, the College's president, vice-president, director of human resources, former vice-president, and superintendent all deny receiving a report of discrimination or that any employment action was based on race or in retaliation. Mr. Long’s testimony that he complained of race is not substantiated because he did not witness any discrimination first hand. He also never documented his alleged concerns about racial discrimination prior to Petitioner's termination. In addition, in his testimony, Mr. Long admitted that he never heard Mr. Westcott use a racially discriminatory term. Likewise, Petitioner never documented alleged discrimination until after being terminated. Considering the evidence presented in this case, and the failure of Petitioner and Mr. Long to document alleged complaints when an opportunity was presented, it is found that the allegations of reported complaints of discrimination by Mr. Long and Petitioner are not credible. Further, the testimony from Petitioner’s co-workers and supervisors, which indicates that Mr. Westcott was harsh with all employees but not racially discriminatory, is credited. It is found that Petitioner did not show that any employment action by the College or Mr. Westcott against him was based on race. Rather, the evidence presented in this case demonstrates that Petitioner was not targeted or treated differently from any other employees based upon race. The evidence also failed to show that Petitioner was retaliated against because of his protected expression or conduct. In sum, the evidence did not show that Petitioner was subject to racial discrimination or wrongful retaliation, and Respondent proved that Petitioner was terminated for engaging in a pattern of unprofessional, adversarial, and insubordinate behavior, including a threat to his supervisor’s supervisor, John Westcott.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner’s Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 2011.
