The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding, as stipulated at the hearing, is whether the Petitioner has been subjected to discrimination on account of a handicap or disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner at times pertinent hereto was an employee of North Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center in Gainesville, Florida. She began working for that entity in 1985. Her position was that of Unit Rehabilitation Treatment Specialist. This required her to work with residents of the treatment and evaluation center. Her duties involved such things as helping move residents, and carrying food trays up and down stairs to residents. Sometime in 1993, the Petitioner suffered a back injury, the result of which has caused her to have chronic, substantial pain in her back and leg. The injury apparently occurred in the line of duty on the job with the Respondent agency. The Petitioner missed some time from employment for these medical reasons and in December of 1993, was placed on light duty status at work due to the medical restriction recommended by her doctor. This light duty status involved such restrictions on her full employment activities as doing only light lifting and restricted use of stairs. Her light duty restrictions involved a great many of her "resident contact- type" activities of her job such as meal monitoring, delivery of meals, escorting residents, handling laundry, medication delivery and the like because of the restriction against use of the stairs, as well as heavy lifting. She was on this light- duty status for approximately three years when, in November 1996, a doctor told her, and she informed her employer, that she could no longer climb more than four flights of stairs per day. Since all treatment buildings at the facility where she worked had at least one flight of stairs, this severely restricted her ability to perform her daily job functions. Nevertheless, she was maintained on light duty status in order to accommodate her disability. In December 1996, her doctor further restricted her employment status to no climbing of stairs at all. At that time, the Respondent temporarily assigned her to duty in the pharmacy in order to accommodate her inability to climb stairs or lift significant weight, as well as because there was a staff vacancy in the pharmacy. In February 1997 that assignment to the pharmacy ended because the staffing need there had ended. A person qualified and experienced in the pharmacy duties involved was hired. The Respondent then attempted to find a suitable position to accommodate the Petitioner's disability within the department's district. The job search was unsuccessful. Since there was no permanent position available outside the treatment area where the Petitioner worked, which could accommodate her disability, the Respondent requested a new status report from her doctor. Consequently, on February 5, 1997, the Petitioner's doctor stated that she was able to climb one flight of stairs in an eight hour day. The Respondent, therefore, continued to employ her on light duty in accordance with this restriction to one flight of stairs climbed in an eight-hour day, during the Petitioner's regular shift. She was allowed to work in her normal building location during her regular shift with this restriction with the result that other employees had to assume the duty she would normally have in her position as a unit treatment and rehabilitation specialist, which involved carrying medications, food or other items, climbing stairs, as well as handling patients or residents. She worked on this regular shift with these light-duty restrictions approximately three more months because the Respondent employer expected that situation to be temporary. Thereafter, however, her doctor advised that there would be no foreseeable change in that restriction in the future and he considered her physical limitations to be continuing indefinitely. Because of this more or less permanent restriction imposed by her doctor, the Respondent took the position and advised her, on May 22, 1997, that it believed that she was unable to perform a significant number of essential job functions required of unit treatment and rehabilitation specialists on the day shift. The Respondent advised her that it believed that she was unable to perform most meal-monitoring functions, to escort residents, handle laundry and do most supervised activities out of the building as well as crisis intervention, medication delivery, monitoring and "coverage" of other buildings. Consequently, the Respondent informed the Petitioner that it would no longer be able to assign her to light duty on the day shift because it did not feel that she could perform sufficient of her duties to reach an adequate performance level. Other employees were having to perform many of her duties on a more or less permanent basis. The Respondent did advise her that it felt her needs could be reasonably accommodated (as well as the needs of the employer) by changing her schedule to the night shift. The night shift has a much lower level of activities, with no regular duties out of the building and virtually no necessity for resident contact. The Respondent advised the Petitioner of this proposal to change her duties to the night shift and gave her time and an opportunity to respond and either accept or reject the position on the night shift. The Petitioner submitted a doctor's note on May 8, 1997, stating that she would not be able to work on the night shift and the Petitioner declined the position due to this and to family-related reasons. Consequently, the Respondent felt it had no choice but to start termination of the Petitioner's employment. The Respondent candidly told the Petitioner that this did not involve her misconduct and that it was not trying to discredit her in any manner. However, the Respondent was unable to keep her in her position because it was beyond her physical capabilities, even after according her a much longer than normal light duty status. In fact, unrefuted testimony shows that, normally, light duty status is accorded for a four to six-month period and the Petitioner was given that benefit or accommodation for approximately four years. In any event, the Respondent found that the position occupied by the Petitioner was beyond her physical capabilities, that the safety of residents and other personnel in the building required that every employee be able to fully perform essential job standards and functions and that the Petitioner could not do so. Thereafter she was given an opportunity to meet with the Respondent to discuss and propose any alternatives, but after these opportunities elapsed she was terminated from her position on or about June 3,1997. There is no question that the Respondent knew the Petitioner had a disability. Indeed that disability was accommodated by light duty for more than four years. The testimony of Ellen Young and Sue Tennant, testifying for the Respondent, establishes that the normal course of a light-duty assignment, in the case of a disability, is for a period of four to eight months. Thus, the Respondent went far beyond the norm in according more than four years of light duty. Indeed, thereafter, the Respondent gave her a temporary re-assignment to the pharmacy and thereafter sought to find another position she could occupy and perform well enough, with her disability, to no avail. The Respondent also sought to continue her in its employ by re-assignment of her to the less strenuous night shift. She refused this re-assignment due to her doctor's restrictions on her activities, as well as for personal and family reasons (she simply did not want to work at night). It is also the norm, according to the Respondent's unrefuted testimony, through the above two named witnesses, that light duty is a concept which means that such a disabled person cannot perform a small portion of his or her job. It does not mean that such a person can be maintained in employment for a long period of time or indefinitely when she cannot perform a large portion of the duties of the job. It was established by the preponderant evidence consisting of these witnesses' testimony that the Petitioner was unable to perform a large portion of the duties of her position and that other employees on her shift had to perform a significant portion of her duties. In summary, the Respondent made every reasonable effort to accommodate her disability and to continue her in employment, short of simply creating an entirely new position tailored to her disability limitations (and for that reason). It thus reasonably accommodated her disability limitations or tried to.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Maxie Broome, Jr., Esquire 3120 Atlantic Boulevard Suite Two Jacksonville, Florida 32207-8814 Dennis M. Flath, Esquire 1200 Northeast 55th Boulevard Gainesville, Florida 32641-2759 Azizi M. Dixon, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent, Lehigh Portland Cement Company/Furniture Division ("Lehigh"), discriminated against the Petitioner on account of her race (white) by discharging her from employment following a verbal altercation with a black co- employee in which the Petitioner allegedly uttered racial slurs directed at or concerning that black co-employee and whether the Petitioner was discriminated against on account of her sex (female) and because of a perceived interracial, personal relationship with another co-employee, who is black.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a former employee of Lehigh. She was discharged by that concern on August 4, 1989 as a disciplinary measure in response to her utterance of racial slurs concerning a black co-worker in the vicinity of the factory floor on Lehigh's premises immediately before the workday began on the date in question. She ultimately filed a charge of discrimination raising the issues and commencing the proceedings referenced in the above Statement of Issues and Preliminary Statement. Lehigh is a furniture manufacturer located in Marianna, Florida. Its plant consists of several large buildings where employees assemble and finish furniture. Lehigh employs somewhat over 400 persons at that factory. On the morning of August 2, 1989, Dorothy Hall and Major Hallmon, both black co-workers of the Petitioner, were having a discussion concerning union business just before the workday commenced on or in the vicinity of the shop floor of Lehigh's factory. Ms. Hall was a shop steward for the union in the paint shop, where the Petitioner was employed. Mr. Hallmon was the chief union steward for Lehigh as a whole. Ms. Hall was expressing concern to Mr. Hallmon about employees in her department or "shop", including the Petitioner, avoiding her, in her capacity as shop steward, and presenting problems directly to Mr. Hallmon when issues or incidents arose which they felt involved the responsibility of their union representatives. Ms. Hall mentioned the Petitioner as one of the employees who had complained about her to Mr. Hallmon. While Ms. Hall was making these comments to Mr. Hallmon, the Petitioner approached them and interrupted their conversation, getting into a verbal altercation with Ms. Hall. Mr. Hallmon attempted to get the Petitioner to cease arguing and yelling. Lehigh's personnel management procedures require that if employees engage in a physical or verbal altercation in their work area, they must cease arguing or fighting and move the disagreement to their supervisor's office for their supervisor to handle with them in an adult manner. Ms. Hall retreated from the confrontation with the Petitioner and walked into the office of George Williams, the supervisor of both of them. The Petitioner then made loud comments which were overheard by a number of co-workers. During their argument, or about the time Ms. Hall walked away in the direction of the supervisor's office, she referred to the Petitioner as a "stupid, white fool" or a "white fool". When the Petitioner walked away from the site of their verbal altercation, a white co-worker, Annette White, told the Petitioner that "Dorothy said she is going to whip your tail" or words to that effect. At this point, the Petitioner responded "I am not afraid of no black ass nigger." The Petitioner's comments were made in a very loud voice and were overheard by a number of co-workers nearby although Ms. Hall, herself, did not hear them nor did Mr. Hallmon. Anne Hamlin, a white woman, who worked in the Petitioner's department, heard the Petitioner say the above-quoted comment. Ms. Hamlin admonished the Petitioner that she should not be calling people by that name. Wilford Pittman, a black man, observed Mr. Hallmon trying to calm the Petitioner during or shortly after her verbal altercation with Ms. Hall. He heard the Petitioner use the word "nigger" and state words to the effect that "I am not scared of that nigger". Odell Harrison, a white man, also heard the Petitioner state "I am not scared of that nigger". Ron Baker, a black man, heard the Petitioner reference Ms. Hall as "a black son of a bitch". The Petitioner, herself, admitted that she stated "I am not afraid of no black ass nigger". The Petitioner immediately joined Ms. Hall in the office of the supervisor after the above incident. Mr. Jack Toole, a crew leader, was also present in the office on that occasion. The argument was renewed once the Petitioner and Ms. Hall were together in the supervisor's office. During the course of their renewed argument, in one of the Petitioner's comments, she used the words "I am white" to which Ms. Hall retorted "No you ain't, your shorts is white". Mr. Toole, who was present during the argument in the supervisor's office, recalls Ms. Hall telling the Petitioner that she was "a white fool for fooling around with Major Hallmon and ruining his life". He also recalls Ms. Hall first coming into the office when he was already present and stating words to the effect that "if we didn't do something about that white woman out there, she would do something with her". Mr. Williams remembers Ms. Hall stating "you make an old fool out of Major". The Petitioner then made a comment to the effect that Ms. Hall should stay home and tend to her "thieving husband" and stay out of other people's business, whereupon Ms. Hall picked up an ashtray as though to strike the Petitioner. Mr. Toole grabbed her arm and took the ashtray from her hand, replacing the ashtray on the desk. The signal to begin work then sounded and Mr. Williams instructed both antagonists to leave his office and begin work. Lehigh has a very specific policy prohibiting racial slurs. That policy provides: Further, it is a stated policy of Lehigh to prevent and prohibit discriminatory conduct in the work environment including statements or actions which could be interpreted as, racially, sexually, religiously or ethnically based, sexual harassment or any other discriminatory harassment or conduct with respect to co-employees, subordinate employees, or supervisors. Any employee who is found to have violated this policy will be subject to discipline, up to and including discharge. This equal employment opportunity policy was posted on all of the company's bulletin boards in the work place in early 1987 and was so maintained and posted forward of that time. Lehigh's management had experienced two disciplinary incidents in the past where two employees, Mr. Cecil Sims and Mr. Coy Jackson, both white, had used the word "nigger", in a conversational context with two black co-employees or in a circumstance where those employees overheard the comment, although it was not uttered in the course of an argument or verbal altercation. Those employees were disciplined by Lehigh for uttering that word, which is found to constitute a "racial slur". Shortly thereafter, during contract negotiations with the union in November of 1988, union representatives informed Lehigh's management that they felt that Lehigh was not enforcing its anti-discrimination policy as vigorously as it should, with the Sims and Jackson incidents used as examples of the union's perception that management's disciplinary practices with regard to the use of this racial slur by employees was too lax. Although Lehigh's management took the view, and still does, that it had taken appropriate disciplinary action in those two prior incidents, Lehigh also agreed with union representatives that such racial slurs constituted a serious offense and agreed that the company would thenceforth enforce its discrimination policy more vigorously. Lehigh's policy, with regard to racial slurs, includes its view that the word "nigger" is one of the most severe or offensive words used to disparage or embarrass a person on account of that person's race. This interpretation of its anti-discrimination policy is a reasonable one because it was established in the record that that word, dating from the time of slavery in America forward to the present time, has been used essentially as a term of disparagement. It is one of the few words in the American vocabulary most likely to demean the person to whom it is directed, to arouse ill will between the person employing the word and the person or persons to whom it is directed, or about whom it is referenced, and even to incite violence between them. It is rational for Lehigh to consider that the use of that racial slur is one of the most severe offenses to which its anti-discrimination policy is directed and designed to prohibit and prevent. In carrying out its disciplinary policy and procedures, Lehigh investigates alleged violations of company rules or policies to find out what occurred and to determine if a rule or policy was, indeed, violated. That customary procedure was performed in the instant case situation. If the management of Lehigh determines that an employee has violated a rule or policy of the company, it evaluates the nature of the offense and views it against the past employment and disciplinary record of the employee to determine what discipline, if any, is appropriate. The management of the company considers the severity of the offense; whether the violation was a willful one; whether it was done with malice; whether the employee under investigation was the aggressor in the incident; the degree of provocation for that employee's behavior; whether the employee expresses or demonstrates any remorse for the occurrence; and the employee's past general work history and disciplinary record. All of these factors are weighed by the company's management in determining what discipline is appropriate. The company customarily has viewed the disciplinary history of an employee as a very significant factor in determining the appropriate discipline to be imposed for a violation of company rules or policies under review as to that employee. In imposing discipline for infractions of company rules or policies, Lehigh employs progressive discipline whenever possible in order to attempt to persuade the employee to change his or her behavior which has resulted in the violation. If an employee exhibits a pattern of rule infractions, especially infractions of the same rule or type of rules, the company imposes a progressively harsher discipline. When considering an employee's past disciplinary record, the company considers only disciplinary violations which have occurred within the past nine months, however. This is because the company's union contract, by which it is bound in terms of its personnel policies and procedures with regard to its union-member employees, contains a provision which requires this restriction. This provision has been applied to all hourly employees of Lehigh for the life of that contract or approximately the past 18 years. It is thus a regular and customary past practice of the company for purposes of the terms of its union contract. The disciplinary measures, which the company imposes for infractions of its rules and policies, range from an oral reprimand (the imposition of which is recorded in the employee's personnel record even if delivered verbally); a written reprimand; suspension from employment for a discreet time period; and permanent discharge from employment. Mr. Albert Berger is the Vice President of Operations for Lehigh. He is responsible for personnel management, among other duties. His personnel management duties include the investigation of alleged infractions of the company's personnel policies and rules, interpreting the company's disciplinary policies and procedures and arriving at decisions about how to discipline employees. Mr. Berger investigated the subject incident involving the Petitioner and Ms. Hall, ultimately determined how to discipline each employee and imposed that discipline. He followed the company's disciplinary policies and procedures in deciding how to discipline the Petitioner and Ms. Hall concerning the incident of August 2, 1989. Upon learning of the incident between those two employees on August 2, 1989, Mr. Berger commenced an investigation of the matter that same day. After making a preliminary inquiry into the matter, he elected to suspend the Petitioner from work sometime on the morning of August 2, 1989, such that she left the company premises under suspension shortly before Noon. He continued his investigation that afternoon, conducting taped interviews with employees and supervisors who had witnessed the altercation. Those witnesses later signed summaries of their statements to Mr. Berger. The Petitioner returned to the factory between 1:00 and 2:00 on the afternoon of August 2, 1989, while Mr. Berger was still concluding his interviews of other employees and supervisors. He gave the Petitioner an opportunity to relate her version of the incident to him. During her taped interview, the Petitioner was very loud and hostile in her demeanor and statements and responses to his questions. She repeatedly employed the term "nigger" with reference to Ms. Hall and her version of the occurrence in question. During the course of the hearing, the Petitioner attempted to explain her behavior during the taped interview with Mr. Berger by insinuating that she was under the influence of alcohol when she exhibited loud and hostile demeanor and comments during the interview, including the use of the term "nigger". She attempted to substantiate this claim by stating that she had consumed several six-packs of beer between the time she left the company premises under suspension shortly before Noon on August 2, 1989 and the time of her interview with Mr. Berger at approximately 2:00 that afternoon. She did not, however, appear drunk or under the influence of alcohol to Mr. Berger when he interviewed her nor did her verbal statements and responses depicted on the tape of that interview justify a finding that she was drunk or under the influence of alcohol at the time of the interview. Moreover, this explanation of her conduct during the interview is self-serving and is thus deemed not credible. Upon concluding his investigation and in the process of determining what, if any, discipline to impose on the two protagonists, Mr. Berger reviewed and considered the employment histories of both the Petitioner and Ms. Hall. Ms. Hall's disciplinary record was a good one. Her most recent disciplinary offense had occurred 13 years before the August 2, 1989 incident. She had been disciplined only one other time, approximately 16 years before the August 2, 1989 incident. Under its union contract, Lehigh was prohibited from considering those two disciplinary incidents in deciding whether and how to impose discipline for the current August 2, 1989 occurrence because those disciplinary infractions occurred more than nine months prior to the August 2, 1989 incident. In addition to the fact that her disciplinary record was a good one with no disciplinary infractions for more than a decade, Ms. Hall readily expressed remorse for her involvement in the incident, apologizing to Mr. Berger and promising to let no such occurrence happen in the future. Because of this and because Lehigh's management, through Mr. Berger, viewed the racial slur "nigger", loudly uttered by the Petitioner, as more egregious than the remark "white fool", "old fool", or "you're not white, your shorts are white", made by Ms. Hall, a lesser discipline was imposed upon Ms. Hall. Mr. Berger imposed a written warning upon Ms. Hall for picking up the ashtray as a threatening gesture directed to the Petitioner and a verbal warning upon her for the above- quoted name calling. This is not a minimal sanction. Written memoranda of both types of discipline are made a part of such an cmployee's personnel record. Concerning the discipline imposed upon the Petitioner, the record establishes that on June 23, 1989, less than two months prior to the incident concerning Ms. Hall, the Petitioner received a three-day suspension for interference with company operations through the use of abusive language directed at another employee. This incident involved the Petitioner painting the words "High Ass" on the door front of a piece of furniture and sending it down the assembly line so that it could be viewed by the co-worker to whom the words were directed. The Petitioner admitted that the words were directed at a black co-worker who was farther down the assembly line. In conjunction with her suspension, Mr. Berger warned her that if she continued to engage in name calling or racial slurs, the consequences for the next such incident would be more severe, including the potential loss of her employment. Mr. Berger concluded and the record establishes that the Petitioner's conduct on August 2, 1989 clearly violated the company's explicit policy against racially-discriminatory conduct in the work place, as that policy is quoted in the above Findings of Fact. The Petitioner's conduct on August 2, 1989, along with the incident leading to her earlier suspension for similar conduct, establishes a pattern of abusive, racially-discriminatory behavior towards her co-workers. Further, the Petitioner was shown to be the aggressor in the incident, interrupting the private conversation between Ms. Hall and Mr. Hallmon, and making statements or comments which incited the ensuing argument and name-calling episode. The Petitioner showed no remorse for her behavior. She was still hostile and inflammatory in her description and reaction to the occurrence concerning Ms. Hall in her interview with Mr. Berger hours later, when she had every reason to believe that her job was at stake with a strong resulting incentive to be conciliatory and remorseful in her reaction and relation of her version of the occurrence to Mr. Berger. Because of these differences in her conduct, her past record, and the severity of her infraction of company policy, as opposed to that of Ms. Hall, and because of Ms. Hall's relative demeanor and reaction to the occurrence and the subsequent summons by Mr. Berger to account for it, Mr. Berger decided, after considering all of the above factors, to convert the Petitioner's suspension to a termination. Discharging the Petitioner for the August 2, 1989 violation in consideration of the above factors related to her conduct, demeanor and past record, as opposed to that of Ms. Hall, was shown to be reasonable, pursuant to Lehigh's customarily-followed "progressive discipline" policy. The differences in severity between the actions of the Petitioner and Ms. Hall, the differences in their personnel histories, the differences in the circumstances of their actions and their demeanor and conduct after the occurrence with regard to it support the differences in the discipline imposed upon them. In attempting to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment and discrimination related to her termination, the Petitioner employed in her case the examples of Coy Jackson, a white employee and crew leader, being disciplined, but not terminated for using the term "nigger" directed at a black co-employee, Rudolph Townsend, and the similar example of Cecil Sims, a department supervisor, who is also a white man, using the term "nigger" in the presence of a black co-employee. Mr. Sims was also not terminated, but was given a lesser level of discipline. Concerning the Jackson and Sims incidents, the record establishes that in 1988, Coy Jackson spoke of Mr. Townsend, the black employee, who had complained of being cold, as follows: "Get that nigger a coat before he freezes to death." Mr. Sims, a supervisor in that same department, investigated that incident. During Mr. Sims' investigation, he questioned the employees involved about the name calling and the use of the words "black" and "nigger". Mr. Sims stated to Mr. Townsend that there were two names "you all" (meaning black people) could be called-"black" or "nigger"-and he then asked Mr. Townsend which he preferred to be called. Mr. Townsend responded that he simply wished to be called by his own name. Mr. Townsend complained about Mr. Sims' comment to him; and Mr. Berger investigated that incident, as well. He ultimately decided to give Mr. Sims a verbal warning concerning it and admonished him that he was never to use the word "nigger" again in any context and that the next incident, when it occurred, would result in his discharge. The discipline imposed on Mr. Sims was based upon the fact that Mr. Sims readily expressed remorse for the incident, that he had a long, unblemished career with Lehigh, and was then near retirement. He had had no prior history of uttering abusive language, name calling, or the use of racial slurs in the work place. Moreover, the incident occurred in Mr. Sims' office in a normal conversational tone; it was not shouted or uttered loudly on the factory floor in the presence of a number of other employees. Mr. Jackson, the crew leader who made the remark concerning the coat, was also given a verbal warning for use of the word "nigger". The imposition of a verbal warning as discipline for Mr. Jackson was directly related to the fact that Mr. Jackson had personally apologized to Mr. Townsend for making the remark even before the occurrence had been related to Mr. Berger and any investigation of the matter instituted. Moreover, he had made the comment quietly to one other employee and did not shout it in the work place before a number of other employees. Further, these two incidents occurred in February of 1988 before Lehigh elected, at the urging of the employees' union, to more vigorously enforce its policy against racial slurs, which vigorous enforcement policy it has uniformly pursued since that time. These incidents were thus not proven to be similar to the incidents involving the Petitioner and her employment and disciplinary record. Neither involved the disciplining of a black employee differently than a white employee. The Petitioner, Mr. Sims and Mr. Jackson are white. The less severe discipline imposed on Mr. Sims and Mr. Jackson was rationally related to the mitigating circumstances described above, rather than to their status as men or white men. It is also noteworthy that several years before the Petitioner's discharge, a white man employed in Lehigh's loading department, in the course of a conversation with a black employee, held up a piece of rope, apparently tied as a hangman's noose, and told the black employee that he would show him what use was made of rope in the white employee's home town. The black employee, at this juncture, hit the white employee with his fist. Mr. Berger investigated that incident, as well. Although it was alleged to him that the white employee had used the term "nigger", Mr. Berger was not able to identify a disinterested witness who would actually establish that the term had been used. In any event, however, Lehigh's management, through Mr. Berger, determined that this was a serious, malicious violation of the company's anti-discrimination policy. He promptly discharged the white employee for this conduct. The black employee, in turn, was also discharged for engaging in violence, which the company has uniformly considered to be one of the most severe violations of its disciplinary rules. Each of those employees was individually disciplined for their respective violations of company policy, based upon the circumstances peculiar to each. Neither of those incidents is similar to the incident for which Lehigh discharged the Petitioner. The discipline imposed on each of them was shown to be consistent with the company's customary anti-discrimination policy. None of the exemplary incidents described above serve to establish that white employees, male or female,(or, for that matter, black employees) have been subjected to a pattern of discriminatory disciplinary measures, including termination. They, likewise, do not show that any of those employee groups were accorded favored treatment. Rather, the facts regarding these incidents show that the company has pursued a pattern of non-discriminatory employee discipline. The employees who were disciplined in these three incidents were not shown to be similarly situated to the Petitioner, in terms of the infraction she committed, her past record, the circumstances surrounding her infraction and the investigation afterward, versus the underlying reasons for the various disciplinary measures imposed on these other employees, related above. During the hearing, the Petitioner first raised the issue of alleged discriminatory treatment because of a perceived close interracial relationship between her and Mr. Hallmon. Accordingly, she amended the Petition, ore tenus, without objection. Mr. Hallmon and the Petitioner had apparently become close friends at the point when he asked her to be his assistant in his position as chief union steward. She accepted the position. Mr. Hallmon indicated that this was because of his concerns about tensions between black and white employees. He wished a white employee to be his assistant to, as he termed it, "balance things out". That association began approximately three years ago. Mr. Hallmon and the Petitioner customarily would spend their lunch period together on frequent occasions to discuss union business. They sometimes met after work, in the parking lot next to the factory, to discuss union business because, as Mr. Hallmon put it, he maintained his union business office in the trunk of his car. The two also met many mornings prior to work for donuts and coffee. Their apparent friendship is corroborated by the fact that Mr. Hallmon elected to urge one of the witnesses to the Petitioner's behavior on August 2, 1989 to conceal her knowledge of it. He stopped Anne Hamlin in the parking lot on the day of the incident and told her that she should say nothing about it. The Petitioner has been engaged in contesting her discharge through the union grievance procedure or the administrative process before the Commission on Human Relations and the Division of Administrative Hearings for more than a year and one-half as of the time of hearing. However, she never had complained prior to the day of hearing that her friendship with Mr. Hallmon or any perceived close, personal interracial relationship between her and Mr. Hallmon had been involved in the reasons for her discharge or any discriminatory treatment she believed had been imposed upon her. Mr. Hallmon contended at the hearing that 80% of the approximately 400 workers at Lehigh had made comments about their relationship but, upon questioning about this testimony, was only able to relate two specific comments which had been made to him concerning his and the Petitioner's relationship. Neither of these comments were made by management-level personnel of Lehigh. Moreover, both the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon, as union representatives, were acquainted with procedures for bringing a grievance to the attention of management, concerning discriminatory treatment, or any other basis for a grievance and yet neither had complained concerning any perceived discriminatory treatment to management. The only instance in which management might have gained any knowledge of their alleged relationship, other than personal observation, was from a conversation between Mr. Hallmon and Mr. Berger on one occasion when Mr. Hallmon asked Mr. Berger whether there was any violation of company policy if two people, black and white, or male or female, have lunch together. Mr. Berger responded by stating, in effect, that it was not any of management's business or anyone else's business concerning which employees had lunch together. Mr. Berger, however, upon learning that Mr. Hallmon had an apparent concern about the perception which management or co-employees might have concerning his and the Petitioner's relationship, did advise him to remember that "...this is the deep south...and I wouldn't want any of these rednecks catching up with you". When asked if he could recall any discussions between management personnel concerning the amount of time Mr. Hallmon and the Petitioner spent together, Mr. Berger answered "no, it's none of our business". Although Mr. Berger had observed the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon together on several occasions, he felt that was none of his business as a manager of the company. Neither body of testimony, appearing at pages 49, 50 and 90 of the transcript nor any other testimony or evidence in this record, establishes that management had any knowledge of any pervasive discriminatory pattern of behavior in the work place by co-workers toward the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon, if such indeed existed, which was not proven. It was also not established that management had any concern with any real or perceived relationship between the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon and it was not demonstrated that it had any effect on the decision to discipline the Petitioner nor on the severity of the discipline imposed. After her termination, the Petitioner attempted to secure employment through the services of Job Services of Florida by application of August 28, 1989. Job Services referred her to Russell Corporation on September 8, 1989 and to Wal-Mart on September 21, 1989. She applied for employment unsuccessfully at both places. These were the only attempts the Petitioner made to obtain employment from the time of her August 2, 1989 termination until the hearing. Her listing, as available for employment, with Job Services of Florida became inactive on November 30, 1989. It was not established that she sought to reactivate that listing until just prior to the hearing. During the period of her unemployment, there were opportunities to seek employment which she did not avail herself of. On the date of the hearing, there were 22 jobs with private employers and 15 jobs with public employers listed with Job Services of Florida for which the Petitioner could have qualified to apply. She contended that she had looked in the help-wanted advertisements in a weekly newspaper for jobs, but there were none for which she was qualified. Local papers published in Jackson, Calhoun and Liberty counties, in the immediate vicinity of the Petitioner's residence in Altha, reveal that there were a number of advertisements for jobs during her unemployment period which she could have qualified to apply for and possibly to secure. The Petitioner's payroll records for 1988 reveal seven pay periods out of 52 when her total hours equaled or exceeded 50 hours. There were seven pay periods when she worked fewer than 40 hours per week. The average hours worked weekly during 1988 were 42.2. The highest gross pay received in 1988 was $375.76 per week, and the lowest weekly gross pay was $98.56. Her weekly gross pay on an average basis for 1988 was, thus, $273.24. The Petitioner worked 36 pay periods in 1989. She worked more than 40 hours in only eight of those weekly pay periods. The time in excess of 40 hours in these eight pay periods varied, with 5.5 hours being the largest number of hours in excess of 40 hours worked for a weekly pay period; and .3 hours was the lowest number of hours in excess of 40 hours worked for a weekly pay period. In 15 of these 36 pay periods, the Petitioner worked fewer than 40 hours. The average hours per pay period for 1989 were, thus, 33.98. She received overtime pay in eight pay periods. Her highest gross salary for any pay period in 1989 was $309.28. Her lowest gross salary for a pay period in 1989 was $51.28. Her average gross pay for 1989 was, thus, $220.72 per week. The average weekly gross pay for the entire period of her employment was $246.12. She earned $6.41 per hour at the time of her discharge. Had she remained employed, this would have increased to $6.63 per hour on December 16, 1989 and to $6.83 on December 16, 1990. She was eligible for two weeks of paid vacation per year since she had been employed for three years, and eight paid holidays per year. Federal income tax, social security, and union dues were withheld from her gross weekly pay. In 1988, income tax withholding totaled $1,022.80; social security totaled $1,066.98; and union dues totaled $110.00. In 1989, federal income tax totaled $513.97; social security totaled $596.76; and union dues totaled $96.00 for the 36 pay periods she worked in 1989. Lehigh was self- insured for health insurance and any amounts exceeding the employee contributions were to be paid by Lehigh. The employees, including the Petitioner, contributed $7.50 per week towards health insurance. Her payroll records reveal, however, that she ceased participating in the employer-provided group health insurance after the seventh pay period of 1989. In arriving at the above Findings of Fact, it has been necessary, to some extent, to reject the testimony of the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon. This is because the Hearing Officer finds the testimony of other witnesses to the argument between the Petitioner and Ms. Hall and the surrounding circumstances and events to be more credible. The testimony of the other witnesses to these events was accepted because of their basic agreement on the significant circumstances concerning the occurrences in question and the fact that these other witnesses were demonstrated to have no reason to shade the truth concerning the occurrences and the underlying circumstances, including the fact that these witnesses, whose testimony has been accepted as more credible, are of both races involved. The Petitioner, however, is interested in the litigation and admits using the words "black ass nigger" and her tape-recorded statements made the same day of the argument in question are corroborative of the statements, behavior and demeanor on the part of the Petitioner reported by the other witnesses who have been found to be more credible and who are named in the above Findings of Fact. It is found that Mr. Hallmon's close relationship with the Petitioner might have influenced his recollection of the events in question. More significantly, his effort to actually prevent Ms. Hamlin from relating her knowledge about the incident is evidence of a bias in favor of the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner's testimony about alleged recent job-search efforts was impeached because in her deposition taken approximately a week prior to hearing, she repeatedly asserted that the potential jobs at Russell and Wal-Mart were the only ones she had sought, although she maintained at hearing that she had also applied for work at Oglesby Nursery and McDonald's two or three weeks prior to hearing. She offered no explanation of why she did not mention job applications allegedly made less than a month prior to her deposition testimony. It is simply not credible that she would have forgotten those applications if, indeed, they had been made, especially since she was repeatedly asked about that subject matter at her deposition. Thus, her testimony about applying for employment with the two additional employers is deemed not credible.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations finding that the Petitioner, Donna J. Brown, was not discharged in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1989), and was not the victim of a discriminatory employment practice and, therefore, that her Petition be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 7th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-6596 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-3. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter after determination of the relative credibility of the witnesses. Accepted. 6-9. Accepted. 10-11. Accepted. Accepted, but not material based upon the issues actually pled even by ore tenus amendment at hearing in this proceeding. It has not been established that the employer had knowledge, constructive or otherwise, of any pattern of usage of racial slurs by multiple employees on such a frequent basis, or with any frequency. Thus, it could not have condoned such a pattern of utterance of racial slurs if it was not shown to have known about them, nor was it established that the use of the word "nigger" by fellow employees approximately once or twice a month, as apparently heard by Mr. Hallmon, was made only by white employees. Accepted. Accepted, but not to the extent that this finding establishes a pattern of discrimination against white employees by Mr. Berger or the management of Lehigh. 15-17. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. As delineated in the Hearing Officer's findings of fact, a number of factors were considered in the decision to terminate as opposed to imposing another type or degree of discipline; not consideration of the word "nigger" alone. 20-21. Accepted. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. This finding of fact is not, in itself, materially dispositive of the issues to be adjudicated. Accepted, but not material to resolution of the relevant issues presented for adjudication. Accepted, but not material in this de novo proceeding. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's more detailed findings of fact concerning this subject matter and issue. 26-30. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter, including finding that the Petitioner did not participate in the group health insurance program any longer than the period of time delineated in the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. It has not been established that employment available for purposes of mitigation of damages for lost wages and benefits has to be precisely comparable in circumstances, condition, quality, wages or benefits or any other element in order to be a relevantly considered available job. Rejected, as contrary to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. It has not been established that the Petitioner would work 50 hours, with 10 hours of overtime, for each week which she would have worked since August 2, 1989 had she not been discharged. Such a figure is therefore speculative, rendering the figures contained in this proposed finding, other than the actual wage figures for a 40-hour work week, speculative. The Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter are adhered to and those in this paragraph are rejected as not supported by the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Rejected, as not supported by the preponderant evidence of record in light of the Hearing Officer's findings of fact concerning the liability issue. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Accepted. 3. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by the record. 4-6. Accepted. 7. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by the evidence of record. 8-10. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, except as modified by the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 15-17. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. 20-25. Accepted. 26. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 27-98. Accepted, except as modified by the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and by the Hearing Officer's acceptance of the proposed findings of fact by the Petitioner concerning the hourly wage rates Petitioner would have received with her next scheduled pay raises had she remained employed. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Ben R. Patterson, Esq. PATTERSON & TRAYNHAM 1215 Thomasville Road P.O. Box 4289 Tallahassee, FL 32315-4289 George J. Little, Esq. 134A Constitution Lane P.O. Box 1612 Marianna, FL 32446 John D.C. Newton, III, Esq. AURELL, RADEY, ET AL. Suite 1000, Monroe-Park Tower 101 North Monroe Street P.O. Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of sex in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, when it terminated his employment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a large corporate employer with corporate headquarters outside the State of Florida. Pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has a large manufacturing facility located in Palm Beach County, Florida. Petitioner is a male who was employed by Respondent at its Palm Beach facility between August 1978 and February 1993. Petitioner is a college graduate who subsequently earned a Master's degree in Business Administration (MBA). Respondent first employed Petitioner as a Financial Trainee, which is designated as a Grade 41 on the system by which Respondent designated pay ranges and relative job responsibilities. Respondent promoted Petitioner to a position referred to as Financial Analyst in 1979, which is a Grade 43 position. Respondent promoted Petitioner in 1981 to a position referred to as Senior Analyst, which is a Grade 45 position. Respondent promoted Petitioner in 1984 and assigned him to its Saudi Arabia Program as the Continental U.S. International Administrator, which is a Grade 46 position. Respondent laterally transferred Petitioner in 1986 from the Financial Department into the Human Resources Department to a position designated as Personnel Representative, which is also a Grade 46 position. Respondent promoted Petitioner in January 1989 to a position designated as Senior Resources Representative, which is a Grade 48 position. Respondent informed Petitioner on February 12, 1993, that his employment would be terminated, effective February 28, 1993. Petitioner's base annual salary at the time his employment was terminated was $56,484.00. As of the formal hearing, Petitioner was working for his wife's appraisal company in a nonpaying job. Karen Roberts is a female who has been employed by Respondent at its Palm Beach County facility since June 1980. Ms. Roberts is also a college graduate who subsequently earned an MBA. In addition, Ms. Roberts has been designated as a Certified Compensation Professional by the American Compensation Association. Ms. Roberts first began her employment with the Respondent as a Financial Trainee, Grade 41. She was transferred out of the Finance Department into the Human Resources Department in July 1984 as a Human Resources Representative, which is a pay grade 45. She was promoted to Senior Human Resources Representative in October 1992, which is a pay grade 48. Respondent's upper management determined in 1992 that it was necessary to reduce the number of its employees as part of an overall restructuring of its operations. The reduction in force, which was to be the largest separation of employees that Respondent had ever experienced, was for valid business considerations which are not at issue in this proceeding. The management group set the target for the number of employees in each department of the Palm Beach facility whose employment would be terminated. The management group decided that the Human Resources Department of the Palm Beach facility, of which Petitioner was a part, would be reduced by between 20-25 employees in February 1993. That decision by the management committee is not being challenged in this proceeding. William Panetta was, at the times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent's Vice President of Human Resources for the West Palm Beach facility. The management group informed Mr. Panetta in the fall of 1992 of the upcoming reduction in force and gave to him the targets that had been set for the various departments for the West Palm Beach facility. Soon thereafter, Mr. Panetta began meeting with the heads of major departments to devise a procedure for making the reductions in force. Among the senior staff who met with Mr. Panetta was John Roberson, who was manager of Human Resources for non-engineering personnel. Petitioner worked in Mr. Roberson's department from the time he was transferred to its Human Relations Department in 1986 until the termination of his employment in 1993. Mr. Roberson was Petitioner's second line supervisor. At different times, Bob Vogel, Charles Wilson, and John Hopkins served as Petitioner's direct supervisor. Mr. Roberson was asked by Mr. Panetta to prepare a draft of a proposal for the procedure to be followed in carrying out the reduction in force. This draft was to include a method to identify those employees whose employment would be involuntary terminated. Pertinent to this proceeding, Mr. Roberson's draft included a provision for selecting among multiple incumbents when some job positions or functions were being eliminated. In that situation, Mr. Roberson proposed that seniority be the primary factor and that relative performance of the incumbents be considered only if the more senior employee was ranked as a low performer on his or her annual evaluation. Respondent annually evaluated employees such as Petitioner as being either a "T" (top), a "M" (middle), or an "L" (low). The employees were also given annual evaluations by their supervisors called Performance Management Reports, which rated the employees on a scale ranging between unsatisfactory to exceptional. During his entire tenure with Respondent, Petitioner was rated at least as being fully competent on his Performance Management Reports and, at different times, as being either in the "T" or the "M" category. The procedure drafted by Mr. Roberson was never intended to be the final procedure that would be followed in accomplishing the reduction in force. In late 1992, Mr. Panetta presented Mr. Roberson's draft to the senior staff for comment and revision. The senior staff determined that Mr. Roberson's draft overemphasized seniority and was too inflexible. It was determined that such emphasis on seniority would hamper management's efforts to retain the most qualified employees. The Human Resources Department assigned to each of Respondent's major departments a Personnel Support Representative to assist with employee relations and to provide administrative support in personnel matters. As part of the procedure followed for the 1993 layoffs, the Personnel Support Representative for each department reviewed the candidates for layoffs with the Department Head to determine whether the selection was fair and properly documented. The Personnel Support Representative was to provide support only. Each Department Head had the responsibility for determining the employees within a department to be laid off. During the same time period that senior staff was trying to develop the procedure that would be followed for layoffs, Mr. Roberson met with the Personnel Support Representatives and discussed with them the drafted procedure he had prepared. He informed them that the draft was not the final product and asked for discussion. Mr. Roberson discussed with the Personnel Support Representatives the final policies that senior staff adopted before final selections were made and informed them that rigid adherence would not be given to seniority. Respondent has never used seniority as the controlling factor in any previous layoff. The senior staff decided that it would consider the following criteria to determine which of its qualified employees to layoff: documented poor performance, the elimination or consolidation of different positions, relative performance among the candidates, and seniority. Mr. Panetta determined that those employees of the Human Resources department should be "generalists" who are capable of performing a wide range of responsibilities as opposed to specialists. Respondent's plan was to either eliminate functions that had been performed by specialists or to consolidate those functions with other specialized functions. The employees in Human Resources who would still be employed would be required to take on new responsibilities and to perform tasks that had previously been performed by specialists. In the Human Resources department, an employee would have to assume responsibilities in labor relations, employee relations, and compensation. Mr. Panetta decided after conferring with Mr. Roberson that the Management Training, Placement and Compensation section in the Human Resources department for non-engineering personnel would be eliminated. Senior Human Resource Representatives and Human Resource Representatives were candidates for layoffs and were put into a resource pool. The employees in the resource pool were thereafter considered for other positions by comparing their qualifications with those of employees whose positions were not being eliminated. If an employee in the resource pool was considered to be more qualified than an employee whose position was not being eliminated, the more qualified person in the resource pool would be retained to fill the existing job and the incumbent employee would have his employment terminated. Petitioner and Karen Roberts were assigned to the compensation function at the time of the layoffs, but their positions were eliminated as a result of the layoffs. Petitioner and Karen Roberts were placed in the resource pool. Dave Swanson was employed as a Personnel Support Representative in the Human Resources Department prior to the reduction in force. Mr. Swanson's position was not eliminated, but it was determined that there were employees in the resource pool, including Petitioner and Karen Roberts, who were more qualified than Mr. Swanson. Respondent selected Ms. Roberts to fill the position that had been filled by Mr. Swanson. Petitioner's employment with Respondent was terminated. Petitioner asserts that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his sex in deciding to retain the employment of Ms. Roberts and to terminate his employment. There is no assertion by Respondent that Petitioner was an incompetent employee. To the contrary, Respondent considered Petitioner to be a competent employee, which is why he was a candidate to fill Mr. Swanson's former position. At the time of the layoffs, John Hopkins was the Manager of Technical Development and Compensation and the direct supervisor of Petitioner and Ms. Roberts. While Mr. Panetta had the ultimate responsibility for deciding whether Petitioner or Ms. Roberts would be retained in Mr. Swanson's former position, he relied heavily on Mr. Roberson's recommendation in making that decision. Mr. Roberson in turn relied on his own knowledge of the respective performances of these two employees and on information that had been given him by Mr. Hopkins. Mr. Hopkins believed that Ms. Roberts was a more valuable employee than Petitioner. Mr. Hopkins testified that Petitioner failed to timely complete certain assignments, that certain aspects of his performance was not satisfactory, and that he had experienced problems working with others. Mr. Hopkins received separate complaints from Joe Bressin, who was in charge of Executive Compensation, and Henry Ugalde, who was in charge of the Equal Employment Opportunity function, that Petitioner had not rendered satisfactory assistance to them. Petitioner did not meet all of the interim deadlines for preparation of a negotiations book that was being complied for use in labor negotiations. Several of Petitioner's supervisors met with him during his tenure with Respondent to discuss his perceived deficiencies and to review his assignments. Mr. Roberson was aware of these deficiencies at the time he recommended to Mr. Panetta that Ms. Roberts be selected to fill Mr. Swanson's former position. Mr. Hopkins considered Ms. Roberts to be a "solid performer" who was enthusiastic, worked well with others, and was capable of performing a wide range of tasks. Ms. Roberts prepared a book for other employees in the compensation function that detailed the procedures involved in performing hourly compensation duties relative to collective bargaining agreements. In addition, Ms. Roberts was chosen by Mr. Panetta to assist Respondent's negotiating team during negotiations with the labor unions for the 1992-1993 labor contract. Ms. Robert's worked on a complex computer program that computed the costs to Respondent of various collective bargaining proposals. Ms. Roberts was chosen for this assignment because Mr. Hopkins believed her to be the best employee to assume this responsibility. Mr. Hopkins selected her because of her competence, her enthusiasm, her ability to maintain confidential information, and her willingness to work irregular hours. Gender was not a factor in selecting Ms. Roberts for this assignment. Ms. Roberts performed with distinction the duties that had been assigned to her as a member of the negotiating team, thereby favorably impressing Mr. Roberson and Mr. Panetta. Mr. Roberson was aware of Ms. Roberts' job performance at the time he recommended to Mr. Panetta that she be selected to fill Mr. Swanson's former position. Mr. Roberson and Mr. Panetta did not rely heavily on their most recent job evaluations, which were the only documents they reviewed, nor did they consider it significant that Petitioner was in a position that is designated as pay grade 48 when his last evaluation was written and that Ms. Roberts was in a position designated as pay grade 46 when her last evaluation was written. 1/ Mr. Roberson and Mr. Panetta considered the responsibilities and job duties of these two positions to be identical. The relative job performances of Petitioner and Ms. Roberts were evaluated by Mr. Roberson and Mr. Panetta taking into consideration the future demands of the job and were based, in large part, upon direct experience with the two employees. There was no written documentation of their rationale for selecting Ms. Roberts to fill Mr. Swanson's former position. Petitioner established that Mr. Roberson occasionally made comments about attractive female employees and that he seemed to prefer the company of certain female employees, one of whom was Ms. Roberts, at social events. While due consideration has been given this evidence, it is found that the greater weight of the evidence established that Respondent had legitimate, nondiscriminatory business considerations for the employment decision that was at issue in this proceeding. These considerations were not shown to be pretextual. Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his sex by its decision to replace Mr. Swanson with Ms. Roberts instead of with Petitioner. The petition Petitioner filed before the Florida Commission on Human Relations contains an allegation that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of age. Petitioner abandoned that allegation at the beginning of the formal hearing. The petition Petitioner filed before the Florida Commission on Human Relations also contains an allegation that Respondent discriminated against him by failing to rehire him or recall him after his employment had been terminated. There was no evidence to support that allegation.
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 that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and that dismisses the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 9th day of January, 1995.
The Issue Whether Petitioners received salary overpayments from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioners Ileana Toledo, Norma Pedraza, and Lil Guerrero have been career service employees of Respondent. The Department of Management Services (“DMS”) has a classification and pay system that is used by Respondent, and DMS is responsible for designating employment positions within Respondent. A position is either included for overtime pay or excluded from overtime pay. At issue is whether Petitioners erroneously received monetary compensation for overtime hours worked after their position was reclassified from an included career service position to an excluded career service position. Prior to March 28, 2013, Petitioners held the position of Human Services Counselor III, which was designated by DMS as an included career service position. On March 26, 2013, Respondent proposed to reclassify Petitioners’ position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst, which is designated by DMS as an excluded career service position. The proposed reclassification resulted from a reorganization of Respondent’s regional offices, and an effort by Respondent to standardize its functions, services, and types of positions in its regional offices. In a letter dated March 26, 2013, Petitioners were advised by Respondent’s Human Resources Director, Dale Sullivan, that if they accepted an offer to reclassify their position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst, their “current status and salary will remain unchanged.” Notably, the March 26, 2013, letter makes no specific mention of overtime. On March 28, 2013, Petitioners accepted Respondent’s offer of employment to reclassify their position from Human Services Counselor III to Human Service Program Analyst. Typically, employees of Respondent who are appointed to new positions are placed in probationary status, as opposed to permanent status, and are required to review and execute new position descriptions. However, the reclassification of Petitioners’ position by Respondent was not typical. As part of the reclassification of Petitioners’ position to Human Service Program Analyst, Respondent provided Petitioners with a new position description. However, Petitioners’ job duties, salaries, and permanent status remained the same as they had been in their prior position of Human Services Counselor III. Petitioners read and acknowledged their receipt of the new position description on March 28, 2013. On the first page of the position description, there is a heading titled “Position Attributes”. Under this heading, the term “Overtime” is shown, followed by two boxes, “Yes” and “No.” The “No” box is marked, indicating that Petitioners are not eligible to work overtime hours. The position description further indicates that Petitioners would be career service employees. However, the position description does not specifically include the terms included or excluded. Prior to the reclassification, Petitioners were paid bi-weekly based on an 80-hour pay period. If they worked more than 80 hours in a pay period, they received additional monetary compensation for their overtime hours. Payment for Petitioners’ regular and overtime work hours was based on employee timesheets submitted to the People First leave and payroll system. After the reclassification of their position, Petitioners continued to work overtime in excess of their bi-weekly contractual hours, despite the prohibition in the position description. Petitioners were required to obtain approval by their supervisors before being allowed to work overtime. Petitioners’ overtime was approved by their supervisors after the reclassification despite the prohibition on working overtime hours as indicated in the position description. During the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-June 23, 2013, Petitioner Ileana Toledo worked a total of 28 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $464.63 from Respondent for these overtime hours. For the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 12-April 25, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-May 23, 2013, Petitioner Norma Pedraza worked a total of 32.25 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $624.14 from Respondent for these overtime hours. For the pay periods of March 29-April 11, 2013; April 12-April 25, 2013; April 26-May 9, 2013; and May 10-May 23, 2013, Petitioner Lil Guerrero worked a total of 25.50 hours of overtime, and received monetary compensation in the amount of $426.65 from Respondent for these overtime hours. Respondent’s payment of monetary compensation to Petitioners for the overtime hours worked after the reclassification of their position to Human Service Program Analyst occurred due to an administrative coding error, thereby resulting in the overpayment of monetary compensation to Petitioners by Respondent in the amounts the Respondent seeks to recover from Petitioners. The administrative coding error occurred because of Respondent’s failure to note the change from included to excluded on the People First system following the reclassification of Petitioners’ position. The error occurred due to an honest mistake, and resulted in the overpayments at issue. Petitioners should not have received monetary compensation for their overtime hours in the Human Service Program Analyst position because a Human Service Program Analyst position is an excluded career service position. An excluded career service employee must earn and receive regular compensation leave credits for overtime work, but cannot receive monetary compensation for overtime work. On the other hand, included career service employees, such as those persons in Petitioners’ previous position of Human Services Counselor III, must receive monetary compensation for overtime hours worked, rather than regular compensatory leave credits. Neither Petitioners nor their supervisors were aware at the time that the overpayments were made that Petitioners could not receive monetary compensation for their overtime hours, but must instead receive regular compensatory leave credits. At hearing, Petitioners did not dispute the amounts and hours of overtime worked as set forth in paragraphs 12-14 above. In accordance with the Department of Management Services’ Bureau of Payroll Manual, the amount of salary overpaid, and the amount sought to be repaid, was calculated as set forth in paragraphs 12-14 above. When an agency has determined that a salary overpayment has occurred, it is required to follow procedures set forth in the above-referenced manual, to seek repayment. Respondent followed those procedures in making the calculations relevant in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Agency for Persons with Disabilities determining that: 1) Petitioner Ileana Toledo was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $464.63; 2) Petitioner Norma Pedraza was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $624.13; 3) Petitioner Lil Guerrero was erroneously paid salary in the amount of $426.65; and 4) Petitioners are entitled to be compensated by Respondent through compensatory leave credits for the overtime hours worked as reflected in paragraphs 12-14 above. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 25th day of November, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent from April 29, 1979 until she was terminated on November 8, 1983. From approximately December 1982 to the time of her termination, Petitioner was a deli clerk. No evidence was presented of her job classification or duties from April 29, 1979 to December, 1982. On October 23, 1979 Petitioner was injured on the job while working for Respondent. She missed three weeks of work due to this injury. Petitioner sustained a second accident on the job on September 14, 1982 when she tripped over a protruding metal bar and fell, injuring her back, hip, arm and neck. Although she did not immediately miss any work following this second accident, she was out of work from early February 1983 until late April, 1983 while she was under a doctor's care for her injuries. She was released by her doctor to return to work on or about April 21, 1983. On September 29, 1983 Petitioner received a written warning from her supervisor for poor performance on the job, and violation of store procedures. Specifically, she was spending too much time with some customers while leaving other customers waiting, and was not properly making sandwiches pursuant to store procedures. Petitioner received no raises or promotions during the time material hereto, and other employees were hired after her for the same job at a higher rate of pay. Other employees did receive pay raises during this time. October 27, 1983 was Petitioner's last day of work. She went for a myelogram on the next day, her day off, and thereafter was told by the deli manager to take the rest of the week off. When she returned to work on November 7, 1983 she was told she had been replaced. On November 8, 1983 her supervisor met with her and officially terminated her. Petitioner testified the reason she was given for her termination was she "was not doing her work" and her supervisor "could no longer have her around" the store. Petitioner disputes these reasons for her termination. As a result of her injuries, Petitioner had to wear a back brace on the job, and she was in pain. However, she testified she always did her job, carried out all assigned tasks, including cleaning an 8 foot oven, assisted her co-workers in their jobs, and was always courteous and attentive to customers. Seven former co-workers called by Petitioner testified on her behalf and confirmed her testimony. Arnold Banals found no fault with Petitioner as a co- worker and tried unsuccessfully to get her a raise; Pam Meers had no problem working with Petitioner, and stated she was always on the job and courteous to customers; Betty Barrett described Petitioner as a hard worker and dependable; Mark Frierson considered Petitioner one of the best employees in the store who went cut of her way to help customers and co-workers; Mark Bradstock testified that Petitioner never took breaks and never complained about her back pain; Christina Dahl confirmed that Petitioner was a good worker and testified she cleaned the 8 foot oven spotless; and Sherrie Myers, Petitioner's daughter, Mark Frierson and Christina Dahl all confirmed they were making more than Petitioner and received raises, although Petitioner was employed by Respondent longer than them. Respondent admitted, through the testimony of Marshall Glass, that Petitioner was a conscientious worker who was good to some customers and co- workers. However, Glass testified Petitioner's injuries did adversely affect her job performance, and therefore, he stated that the termination was due solely to Petitioner's inability to do her job. A medical statement from Lawrence S. Cohen, M.D., dated November 28, 1983, which was approximately three weeks after her termination, states she had been cut of work for a month with shingles and a sprained ankle, and further, required brace immobilization. It indicates she would be returning to work in two days, but would require re-evaluation in 6 weeks. This statement contradicts Petitioner's position that she was able to work in early November, 1983. In fact, she had to have a myelogram, was suffering from shingles and a sprained ankle, and was immobilized with a back brace at that time. By November 30, 1984 Petitioner's back and hip condition associated with her injuries had deteriorated to the extent that Tomas E. Delgado, M.D., expressed the opinion that she had reached maximum medical improvement but could still not bend, lift more than 15 pounds, or stand for more than one hour at a time nor more than a total of four hours in a day. In September, 1985 C. Jin Whang, M.D., found Petitioner had reached maximum medical benefit. He advised her not to lift anything over 40 pounds and to avoid excessive lower back and neck movement. The medical diagnosis, nature and extent of her injuries is unclear since the medical statements submitted in evidence conflict in certain respects. Nevertheless, it is clear that from at least early November, 1983, Petitioner has been unable to stand for extended periods, lift, or perform movements associated with her former position of deli clerk. At the time of her termination in November, 1983, the evidence establishes that Petitioner was carrying out her job responsibilities in a satisfactory manner as far as her co- workers were concerned. However, medical statements confirm Respondent's testimony that her condition had deteriorated, and she could not perform her job in a manner that was satisfactory to her employer. Petitioner was 52 years of age at the time of her termination. There is no competent substantial evidence that she was terminated due to unlawful discrimination based on age. Other than the injuries discussed above, there is no competent substantial evidence of any handicap, nor of any unlawful discrimination based on a handicap. Regarding Petitioner's charge that Respondent unlawfully discriminated against her due to her injuries, and resulting disability sustained while on the job, Petitioner has not established a prima facie case of discrimination. Respondent has articulated a nondiscriminatory reason for the termination of Petitioner on November 8, 1983. The evidence does establish that Petitioner was unable to perform her job duties at the time of her termination, and therefore Respondent had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating her. Petitioner has not shown that she could have continued to perform her job duties during and after November, 1983, and therefore has not established that her termination at that time was pretextual. Petitioner has received workers' compensation benefits for lost wages from November 9, 1983 to the present. On the basis of this, Glass asserted, as Respondent's Comptroller, that Petitioner has sustained no economic loss even if unlawful discrimination occurred. Petitioner offered absolutely no evidence regarding her rate of pay with Respondent, the extent of her workers' compensation benefits and any economic loss she has sustained. She did not refute or in any way contest Glass' assertion, and admitted she has received workers' compensation benefits for all lost wages. Therefore, there is no basis for any finding of economic loss. Respondent does not contest that it is an "employer" with the meaning of Florida Human Rights Act of 1977, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued dismissing Petitioner's charge of discrimination against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Effie C. Tew 1902 Meridel Avenue Tampa, Fl 33612 Marshall R. Glass Post Office Box 1808 Tampa, Fl 33601 Regina McGriff, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1925 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Fl 32399-1925
The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of Sections 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Conoco meets the statutory definition of an "employer" within the meaning of Section 760.02, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Marlan D. Williams, who is black, is a member of a class protected by this statute. Petitioner began work at Conoco on January 4, 1990, as a sales associate and was discharged from his employment on May 27, 1992. When Mr. Williams was hired on January 4, 1990, he was required to sign a new employee agreement. Section 3 of that agreement explains to new employees the importance of good customer relations. After reading the employment contract, Mr. Williams signed the agreement. Mr. Williams testified that he understood the importance of good customer relations. Mr. Williams also testified that he understood that he could be terminated for multiple customer complaints and was aware of a white employee who had been terminated for customer complaints. Conoco's personnel policies and procedures regarding termination state in relevant part that, "involuntary terminations occur for a reason, such as when an employee's performance does not meet acceptable standards, if the employee violates Company policy, or when there is no work available for the individual." The details of Conoco's policy were left up to each sales district's manager. In this case, the district manager was Tammy Hunter. Her policy was that three complaints involving customers would result in termination. Ms. Hunter was not concerned with the truth behind these complaints, but only with the fact of multiple complaints. In the past, Conoco, through Ms. Hunter, has consistently applied its termination policy to employees receiving complaints involving customers in a nondiscriminatory manner. In fact, there was no evidence presented at the hearing that the policy was not applied in a nondiscriminatory or had unintended discriminatory impact. 1/ Over the term of his employment Mr. Williams received at least three complaints. Two of the complaints were made by customers directly to Ms. Hunter. One complaint was reported by management to Ms. Hunter and involved a very heated and nasty argument between Mr. Williams and a manager trainee in front of customers. Numerous other incidences of nonspecific poor customer relations involving employees and poor attitude were noted by the store manager, Julia Meuse. Mr. Williams received informal verbal and written counseling regarding his poor behavior towards customers, from his store manager and two assistant store managers. Conoco accordingly discharged Mr. Williams for violation of the Company policy regarding acceptable performance standards in customer relations and customer complaints. The evidence did not demonstrate these reasons were pretextual. Petitioner failed to present any evidence that he was replaced by a person not from a protected class. Therefore Petitioner has not established a prima facie case of discrimination. Finally, the decision to discharge Mr. Williams was made in good faith, for legitimate nondiscriminatory business reasons, and was based upon the objective application of Conoco's policies. Since Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons given by the Respondent for discharging him were a mere pretext to cover up discrimination on the basis of race, Petitioner has failed to establish he was discriminated against and therefore the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was discriminated against because of his race in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act and that the petition be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 June, 1994.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner for the reasons stated in the Charge Of Discrimination and Petition For Relief.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing, distributing, and selling cement and concrete. Respondent operates throughout the state and employs a substantial number of people. Respondent maintains an Equal Employment Opportunity Policy (the "policy"). Respondent promulgates the policy to all employees in its various facilities throughout the state. Respondent encourages the employment of disabled but qualified individuals. Respondent routinely makes reasonable accommodations for disabled employees. Respondent first employed Petitioner on June 29, 1981, but terminated that employment. Respondent subsequently rehired Petitioner in February, 1983, as a ready-mix driver and front end loader, and also as an occasional batcher. Respondent employed Petitioner in various positions until Petitioner resigned his last position on October 5, 1993. During his employment, Petitioner suffered physical injuries that resulted in both temporary and permanent impairment. All of the injuries occurred from work-related accidents. Petitioner suffered no other physical impairment. Petitioner is not physically disabled as a result of the physical injuries he suffered from his work-related accidents. The injuries Petitioner suffered did not substantially limit his ability to perform his duties and responsibilities. Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of Petitioner's physical impairment. Respondent provided Petitioner with reasonable accommodations. The first injury to Petitioner occurred on August 5, 1986. While driving a cement truck for Respondent, Petitioner drove his truck off of the road to avoid hitting a car that was stopped in front of him. Petitioner was thrown into the steering wheel and injured his stomach. Petitioner also injured his back and was treated by a chiropractor. On October 6, 1987, Petitioner reached maximum medical improvement under Workers' Compensation guidelines. His back injury left him with a total permanent impairment of seven percent. Petitioner returned to work on March 5, 1987. Respondent offered both light duty and regular work to Petitioner from October 6 through March 27, 1987. However, Petitioner refused to return to work prior to March, 1987, due to a labor dispute involving Teamsters Local 769. When the labor dispute was resolved, Petitioner returned to work as a batcher. The position was not defined specifically as a light duty job. However, it did accommodate the work restrictions prescribed after his previous accident. Petitioner subsequently resumed driving a truck for the Respondent. Petitioner was able to drive without restrictions. On March 17, 1988, Petitioner had the latest in a series of accidents as a truck driver for Respondent. On March 21, 1988, Respondent notified Petitioner that he had exceeded the number of accidents permitted under Respondent's "Accident Classification Policy" and prohibited Petitioner from operating any company vehicle for Respondent until further notice. On January 29, 1990, Petitioner passed a physical examination to be recertified as physically qualified to drive a truck. The examining physician certified Petitioner as physically able to drive a truck. Petitioner verified on the examination form that he did not suffer from any permanent defects resulting from illness, disease, or injury. Petitioner continued treatment for chronic discomfort caused by the back injury he sustained in August 1986. Petitioner's chiropractor intermittently prescribed light duty to alleviate Petitioner's discomfort. On September 6, 1991, Respondent attempted to accommodate Petitioner's chronic discomfort. Respondent offered Petitioner a position as a dispatcher in Respondent's Cocoa facility. The dispatcher position was not a light duty job. However, it did accommodate Petitioner's intermittent need for light duty work to alleviate his discomfort. Petitioner declined the dispatcher position. Petitioner elected to replace a junior truck driver in another location. Petitioner's chronic back discomfort continued to cause absences from work and frequent need for light duty work. However, no permanent light duty positions existed. Respondent repeatedly created temporary light duty work for Petitioner in attempts to provide Petitioner with employment. Respondent experienced increasing difficulty finding suitable work for Petitioner. The vast majority of positions involved a greater degree of manual labor than Petitioner was able to perform under his work restrictions. On August 13, 1992, Respondent's Worker's Compensation carrier had Petitioner examined by an orthopedic surgeon. At the time, Petitioner was being treated once a week by his chiropractor. Petitioner had a full range of motion in his cervical region, shoulders, elbows, wrists and fingers. X-rays showed no fracture, dislocation, or congenital abnormality. The orthopedic surgeon diagnosed Petitioner as suffering from a cervical sprain or strain which had become somewhat chronic in nature. He found that Petitioner had reached maximum medical improvement with a total permanent impairment of four percent according to Workers' Compensation guidelines. The orthopedic surgeon determined that Petitioner was able to work on a regular basis without restrictions. He concluded that Petitioner's permanent impairment did not interfere with the performance of his occupation. Petitioner aggravated his back injury while driving a truck. Petitioner's chiropractor excused him from work from September 28 through September 30, 1992, and placed him on light duty from December 10, 1992 through January 14, 1993. On December 17, 1992, the chiropractor sent a letter to Respondent's Risk Management Director discussing Petitioner's work restrictions. The letter designated Petitioner's work restrictions as: no prolonged sitting; no lifting over 30 pounds; no repetitive bending or twisting; and no climbing ladders. Climbing stairs was permitted. Petitioner's work restrictions continued in effect during the remainder of Petitioner's employment. In December, 1992, Respondent was unable to create temporary light duty work for Petitioner. Respondent had no other work available that accommodated Petitioner's work restrictions. Petitioner applied for Worker's Compensation benefits and apparently sought other employment for approximately two weeks. On January 5, 1993, Respondent located a suitable temporary position as a batcher at the Tarmac plant in Melbourne, Florida. Petitioner temporarily replaced the permanent batcher who was out on an extended illness. The batcher position was not a light duty position. However, it did accommodate Petitioner's work restrictions. After the permanent batcher returned, Respondent continued to find work Petitioner could perform. Respondent found temporary light duty work at the Melbourne plant. Respondent created a temporary position for an "aggregate dispatcher." Two employees performed the functions of the aggregate dispatcher in addition to their other regular job duties. The aggregate dispatcher position was not a position for which Respondent had a need. Respondent created the position for Petitioner in an attempt to accommodate his work restrictions and to keep him working. Respondent never represented the position as a permanent solution to Petitioner's need for light duty work. In July 1993, the permanent dispatcher at the Melbourne plant asked to move to another position. Respondent offered the full-time position to Petitioner. The dispatcher position was not a light duty position. However, it did accommodate Petitioner's work restrictions. Petitioner accepted the dispatcher position at the Melbourne plant. On August 1, 1993, Respondent promoted Petitioner to dispatcher and increased Petitioner's salary accordingly. Petitioner complained that he was unable to do the work by himself. Petitioner requested help to perform the job. The dispatcher job at the Melbourne plant had always been performed by one person and was routinely performed by one person at other locations. However, Respondent instructed Petitioner's supervisors to give him assistance when needed. In late August 1993, Petitioner stated to his supervisors that he could not perform the duties of dispatcher because he could not cope with the stress. Petitioner asked to be relieved of his responsibilities and resigned as dispatcher. No other suitable work was available. Petitioner agreed to remain in the dispatcher position until a replacement was hired and trained. A dispatcher from another plant, a 42 year-old female, transferred and took over the job. Petitioner's last day of employment was October 5, 1993. Unknown to Respondent, Petitioner was suffering from a severe major depression when he resigned from Respondent's employment. Sometime after August 13, 1996, an Administrative Law Judge for the U.S. Social Security Administration found that Petitioner had been disabled, within the meaning of the Social Security Act, since October 5, 1993. Petitioner suffered from a dysthymic disorder. He had a history involving a depressed mood. Petitioner did not respond to treatment. Petitioner lost his appetite, suffered insomnia, lethargy, inability to modulate anger in an effective manner, and disinterest in almost all activities. Petitioner was disabled. He was substantially limited in his ability to perform a major life activity such as work. Petitioner was significantly restricted, when compared with the average person having similar qualifications, from performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes. Petitioner entertained thoughts of suicide. He did not have the ability to follow instructions or to function independently. He had very limited concentration. His memory was impaired. Petitioner had marked deficiencies in concentration, persistence, pace, daily living skills, and socialization. Petitioner's disability prevented him from completing tasks in a timely manner. He suffered episodes of deterioration or decompensation in work resulting in withdrawal from the situation or exacerbation of his symptoms. Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of Petitioner's disability. Petitioner's disability existed for some time before Petitioner resigned from Respondent's employment. During that time, Respondent repeatedly provided Petitioner with reasonable accommodations to enable Petitioner to continue his employment with Respondent. Petitioner performed the duties of dispatcher satisfactorily prior to his resignation. There were no complaints about his work. Respondent had no reason to terminate Petitioner from the position. Petitioner did not express an interest in the possibility of alternative employment with Respondent. Petitioner did not request any further accommodations to enable him to continue working for Respondent. Petitioner's physical impairment did not prevent him from performing the dispatcher job. The dispatcher job at the Melbourne plant no longer exists because Respondent has undergone major restructuring. The functions of the dispatcher are presently divided among different individuals. Some of the functions are no longer performed at individual plants but are performed at centralized locations.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of discriminating against Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April 1997 COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission On Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission On Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Jack L. Shoemaker, pro se 106 Cameron Street, Southeast Palm Bay, Florida 32909 Charles S. Caulkins, Esquire Wendy J. Smith, Esquire Fisher and Phillips 2300 Nations Bank Tower One Financial Plaza Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33394
The Issue Whether respondent discriminated against the petitioner on the basis of
Findings Of Fact The petitioner was born on April 14, 1910. When she was hired by Beacon-Donegan Nursing Home in 1981, she was 71 years of age. At the time she was terminated, petitioner was 73 years old. Petitioner became a registered nurse (RN) in 1931 in Chicago. Petitioner always has been quite competent at her work, and respondent stipulated that petitioner performed her job well while working at Beacon- Donegan. On September 1, 1981, shortly before she began working for Beacon- Donegan, petitioner filled out a form entitled "Availability Record". On the form she indicated that she desired to work part-time, that she was available to work any night from 10:30 p.m. to 7 a.m., and that she had to limit her income to $5,500 per year due to Social Security. The form contained the following statement: If your availability changes, it is your responsibility to come to the personnel office to fill in another "Availability Record" indicating the changes. Such changes will be effective, then, for any future employment. On February 7, 1982, petitioner submitted a form entitled "Special Request for Time" in which she stated that she did not want to work three (3) nights in succession except in an emergency. The petitioner never submitted another "Availability Record" nor did she indicate in any other way that she wished to increase or change her hours of work. Petitioner was employed as a permanent part-time nurse working the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift in the Donegan wing. 1/ In July, 1983, the respondent had five part-time RNs working the 11 to 7 shift in the Donegan wing. They were Ms. Scheon, who was 66; Ms. Quayle, who was 67; Ms. Klackling, who was 64; Ms. Urbina, who was 27; and the petitioner. At that time the respondent decided that, from both an economic viewpoint and the viewpoint of improving patient care, it was undesirable to have so many part-time nurses caring for the patients. Respondent believed that continuity of care, especially for elderly patients, was very important. Elderly patients need familiar surroundings and people and may become confused and disoriented if they have to deal with too many different nurses and attendants. Thus, the respondent decided that it would be better for the patients and for the facility to have fewer RNs working longer hours, rather than more RNs working fewer hours. As a result of the foregoing decision, the respondent hired Ms. Endo, a graduate nurse who was considerably younger than petitioner, on a full-time basis. 2/ By August 25, 1983, Ms. Schoen, Ms. Quayle, Ms. Urbina, and petitioner had been terminated as part-time employees and were reassigned to "PRN" or "on-call" status. Ms. Klacking continued to work as a part-time employee. The petitioner's last day of work was August 2, 1983, and the respondent's Termination Action Form indicates that her termination date was August 2, 1983. The reason for termination stated on the form was "reduction of force." The termination form was not completed until November 10, 1983, because the petitioner had been in an "on call" status until that time. Because petitioner never returned to work, even though she had been called 3/, the termination form was finally completed to remove petitioner's name from the records, and the termination date was given as the last day petitioner worked. Although respondent contends that petitioner was not discharged from employment until November 10, 1983, the day the termination form was completed, the evidence supports a finding that petitioner was terminated from her employment on or about August 2, 1983, the date stated by respondent in its own records. An "on-call" employee has no job security, receives no employee benefits, and has no guarantee that he or she will ever be called to work. Therefore, when petitioner was terminated as a permanent part- time employee, she was, in effect, discharged from her employment despite being placed in an "on-call" status. On October 23, 1983, respondent advertised in the Fort Myers News-Press for part-time RNs. However, petitioner did not apply for the jobs or otherwise inquire about it, and respondent did not contact the petitioner to determine if she wished to return to work. However, because respondent had been informed that petitioner had no desire to work any station other than the Donegan wing, there was no reason for respondent to contact petitioner. Further, there was no evidence presented that the part-time positions were for the same shift that petitioner had been working, which was the only time that petitioner was available.
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 filed by the petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of September, 1985.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Hispanic male. Respondent is an 860-unit apartment complex in Ocala. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a full-time maintenance technician from 2001 through September 28, 2007. His job responsibilities included performing repairs and general maintenance work on the insides of the apartments. Petitioner’s starting wage in 2001 was $9.00 per hour. He received annual raises from 2001 to 2004, at which point his wage was $11.75 per hour. Petitioner did not receive any raises from 2004 through 2007. He was still earning $11.75 per hour when he was fired on September 28, 2007. Starting in 2004, Respondent did not give raises to any maintenance technicians who were not HVAC-certified. This policy applied equally to all maintenance technicians, including non-Hispanics, and was intended to encourage them to get HVAC- certified. HVAC certification was important to Respondent because the air conditioning systems at the apartment complex were getting older and were requiring more frequent repairs. Respondent provided the necessary study materials for the HVAC certification exam and paid for the exam. Petitioner is not HVAC-certified. He took the certification exam once, but he did not pass. He did not take the exam again, even though Respondent would have paid for him to do so as it did for other maintenance technicians. HVAC certification is not required to perform all types of work on air conditioners, and Petitioner continued to do some work on the air conditioners at the apartment complex after 2004 even though he was not HVAC-certified. Petitioner was characterized as a “fair” employee who did “okay” work. His supervisor, a Hispanic male, testified that there were some jobs that he did not assign to Petitioner, that Petitioner frequently got help from other employees, and that he received a couple of complaints from other maintenance technicians about Petitioner’s work. Respondent does not have an employee handbook, and the only written policy that Respondent has is a policy prohibiting sexual and other harassment. Respondent’s executive director, Laura Smith, testified that she expected employees to use “common sense” regarding what they can and cannot do at work. Respondent utilizes a system of progressive discipline, which starts with warnings (oral, then written) and culminates in dismissal. However, the nature of the misconduct determines the severity of the discipline imposed, and a serious first offense may result in dismissal. On October 5, 2006, Petitioner was given an oral warning for “improper conduct” for visiting with a housekeeper multiple times a day for as long as 20 minutes at a time. The housekeeper also received an oral warning for this conduct. On May 15, 2007, Petitioner was given a written warning for the same “improper conduct,” i.e., wasting time by going into an apartment to visit with a housekeeper. Petitioner acknowledged receiving these warnings, but he denied engaging in the conduct upon which they were based. His denials were contradicted by the more credible testimony of his supervisor and Ms. Smith. Petitioner was fired on September 28, 2007, after a third incident of “improper conduct.” On that day, Petitioner left the apartment complex around 10 a.m. to get gas in his truck. He did not “clock out” or get permission from his supervisor before leaving the apartment complex. Petitioner was away from the apartment complex for at least 15 minutes, but likely no more than 30 minutes. Even though Respondent does not have written policies and procedures, Petitioner understood, and common sense dictates that he was supposed to get his supervisor’s approval and “clock out” before he left the complex on a personal errand. Petitioner also understood the procedure to be followed to get the 14 gallons of gas per week that Respondent provided for maintenance technicians. The procedure required the employee to get the company credit card from the bookkeeper, get the gas from a specific gas station, and then return the credit card and a signed receipt for the gas to the bookkeeper. Petitioner did not follow any aspect of this procedure on the day that he was fired. He had already gotten the 14 gallons of gas paid for by Respondent earlier in the week. Petitioner’s supervisor, a Hispanic male, compared Petitioner’s actions to “stealing from the company” because he was getting paid for time that he was not at the apartment complex working. He also expressed concern that Respondent could have been held liable if Petitioner had gotten in an accident on his way to or from getting gas because he was still “on the clock” at the time. Petitioner testified that he and other maintenance technicians routinely left the apartment complex to fill up their cars with gas without “clocking out” or getting permission from their supervisor. This testimony was corroborated only as to the 14 gallons of gas paid for each week by Respondent. There is no credible evidence that other employees routinely left the apartment complex to do personal errands without “clocking out,” and if they did, there is no credible evidence that Respondent’s managers were aware of it. There is no credible evidence whatsoever that Petitioner’s firing was motivated by his national origin. His supervisor is Hispanic, and he and Ms. Smith credibly testified that the fact that Petitioner was Hispanic played no role in her decision to fire Petitioner. Petitioner claimed that he was “harassed” by Ms. Smith and that she accused him of having sex with a housekeeper in the vacant apartments. No persuasive evidence was presented to support Petitioner’s “harassment” claim, which was credibly denied by Ms. Smith. Petitioner also claimed that he was disciplined differently than similar non-Hispanic employees, namely James Stroupe, Jason Head, and Willie Hutchinson. Mr. Stroupe is a white male. He worked on the grounds crew, not as a maintenance technician. In May 2007, Mr. Stroupe was given a written warning based upon allegations that he was making explosive devices at work, and in September 2007, he was given an oral warning for “wasting time” by hanging out in the woods with Mr. Head. Mr. Head is a white male. He worked on the grounds crew, not as a maintenance technician. In September 2007, he received a written warning for “wasting time” by hanging out in the woods with Mr. Stroupe. Mr. Hutchinson is a white male, and like Petitioner, he worked as a maintenance technician. In September 2007, he was arrested for DUI. Mr. Hutchinson was not disciplined by Respondent for this incident because it did not happen during working hours and it did not affect his ability to perform his job duties as maintenance technician. The grounds department (in which Mr. Stroupe and Mr. Head worked) was responsible for maintaining the landscaping around the apartment complex, whereas the maintenance department (in which Petitioner and Mr. Hutchinson worked) was responsible for maintaining the insides of the apartments. The departments had different supervisors. Petitioner was initially denied unemployment compensation by Respondent after he was fired, but he successfully appealed the denial to an Appeals Referee. Petitioner received unemployment compensation through April 2008. On April 11, 2008, Petitioner started working for Holiday Inn as a maintenance technician. He is employed full time and his wage is $11.50 per hour. Respondent placed an advertisement in the local newspaper after Petitioner was fired in order to fill his position in the maintenance department. The advertisement stated that Respondent was looking for an applicant who was HVAC-certified. Respondent hired Javier Herrera to fill the position. Mr. Herrera, like Petitioner, is a Hispanic male.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of September, 2008.
