The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment act against Petitioner pursuant to Chapter 70 of the Pinellas County Code, as amended, and Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a black female, is a member of a protected group. Respondent is an employer as defined in the Pinellas County Code, as amended, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Respondent hired Petitioner as a telemarketer on December 8, 1997. Petitioner's job required her to call the telephone numbers on a list furnished by Respondent. After making the call, Petitioner was supposed to solicit the booking of vacations in time-share rental units by reading from a script prepared by Respondent. The script included an offer to sell potential customers three vacations in three locations for $69. When Respondent hired Petitioner, she signed a copy of Respondent's "New Employee Policy and Procedures" manual. Petitioner admits that this manual required her to book 25 vacations each pay period after a two-week training period. She also admits that the manual required her to only use the prepared script, including preplanned rebuttals to customer questions when talking over the telephone. Petitioner understood that during the two-week training period, she would be required to book 14 vacations or be terminated. She knew that Respondent's supervisors would monitor her sales calls. Petitioner sold four vacation packages in her first week at work with no complaints from her supervisors. In fact, one of Respondent's supervisors known as Mike told Petitioner, "You got the juice." On December 15, 1997, Mike monitored one of Petitioner's calls. Petitioner admits that she did not use the scripted rebuttals in answering the customer's questions during the monitored call. Instead, she attempted to answer the customer's questions using her own words. According to Petitioner, she used "baby English" to explain the sales offer in simple terms that the customer could understand. After completing the monitored call on December 15, 1997, Mike told Petitioner to "stick to the shit on the script." Mike admonished Petitioner not to "candy coat it." Petitioner never heard Mike use profanity or curse words with any other employee. Before Petitioner went to work on December 16, 1997, she called a second supervisor known as Kelly. Kelly was the supervisor that originally hired Petitioner. During this call, Petitioner complained about Mike's use of profanity. When Kelly agreed to discuss Petitioner's complaint with Mike, Petitioner said she would talk to Mike herself. Petitioner went to work later on December 16, 1997. When she arrived, Mike confronted Petitioner about her complaint to Kelly. Petitioner advised Mike that she only objected to his language and hoped he was not mad at her. Mike responded, "I don't get mad, I get even." When Petitioner stood to stretch for the first time on December 16, 1997, Mike instructed her to sit down. Mike told Petitioner that he would get her some more leads. Mike also told Petitioner that she was "not the only telemarketer that had not sold a vacation package but that the other person had sixty years on her." Petitioner was aware that Respondent had fired an older native-American male known as Ray. Respondent hired Ray as a telemarketer after hiring Petitioner. When Petitioner was ready to leave work on December 17, 1997, a third supervisor known as Tom asked to speak to Petitioner. During this conversation, Tom told Petitioner that she was good on the telephone but that Respondent could not afford to keep her employed and had to let her go. Tom referred Petitioner to another company that trained telemarketers to take in-coming calls. Tom gave Petitioner her paycheck, telling her that he was doing her a favor. During Petitioner's employment with Respondent, she was the only black employee. However, apart from describing the older native American as a trainee telemarketer, Petitioner did not present any evidence as to the following: (a) whether there were other telemarketers who were members of an unprotected class; (b) whether Petitioner was replaced by a person outside the protected class; (c) whether Petitioner was discharged while other telemarketers from an unprotected class were not discharged for failing to follow the script or failing to book more than four vacations during the first ten days of employment; and (d) whether Petitioner was discharged while other telemarketers from an unprotected class with equal or less competence were retained. Petitioner was never late to work and never called in sick.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the City's Human Relations Review Board enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Boudreau Vacation Break 14020 Roosevelt Boulevard Suite 805 Clearwater, Florida 33762 Donna Conway 3156 Mount Zion Road No. 606 Stockbridge, Georgia 30281 William C. Falkner, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Stephanie Rugg, Hearing Clerk City of St. Petersburg Community Affairs Department Post Office Box 2842 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether the Respondent, Tallahassee Coca-Cola Bottling Company (Coke), engaged in an unlawful employment practice on the basis of race in its termination of James Andrews, the Petitioner. Andrews was purportedly terminated because of allegations that he had repeatedly sexually harassed and touched female employees. Resolution of the ultimate issue does not require a determination of whether such sexual harassment actually occurred. Instead, the issue is whether Coke's motivation for the termination was racially based and thus impermissible.
Findings Of Fact Andrews, who is black, was initially hired by Coke in 1969 and worked on the production line until he quit in 1971. Andrews was rehired by Coke in 1973, also in the production department. He worked in various positions in both the production department and in the inventory warehouse, and was promoted to assistant production superintendent in 1977. When the production department was closed in June 1982, Andrews transferred to the warehouse as assistant warehouse supervisor. In 1983, he assumed the responsibilities of head shipping and receiving clerk, and was placed in charge of inventory control, plant security and vehicle maintenance. Warehouse Supervisor Dale Dunlap resigned in July 1988 and Andrews was promoted to Warehouse Supervisor. As warehouse supervisor, Andrews had primary responsibility for the overall management of the warehouse, including inventory control, shipping and receiving, personnel management, and warehouse and vehicle maintenance. Andrews' performance evaluations were generally excellent, but the most recent evaluations were less favorable than his earlier reviews. Reports of Sexual Harassment Prior to Andrews' termination reports of sexual harassment were made to Coke by three employees: Susan Lingerfelt, Mandy Stinson, and Sue Rosenthal (now Rubin). In summer 1989, Lingerfelt reported to Office Supervisor Mandy Stinson that Andrews had just grabbed her in the warehouse by the Coke machine and had forced her head back and kissed her. She had shoved Andrews into the Coke machine, told him not to do that, and went to report it to her supervisor. Because the Sales Center Manager had resigned and his replacement had not yet been appointed, the two women agreed not to tell anyone about the incident, but instead to wait until the new manager arrived. In February 1990, around Valentine's Day, Lingerfelt reported that Andrews came up behind her when she was sitting alone at a computer terminal, grabbed her hair, pulled her head back, and again kissed her on the lips. Lingerfelt again protested and tried to get away from Andrews. Lingerfelt again reported the incident immediately to Stinson. Stinson and Lingerfelt went immediately to Lee Burk, the new Sales Center Manager, and reported the incident and the earlier incident at the Coke machine. During this same meeting with Lee Burk, Stinson also complained that she had been repeatedly harassed by Andrews and that Andrews had come up behind her, given her a "bear hug," and tried to kiss her. Burk was confused about what had happened to Lingerfelt because a black employee, Roosevelt Humphrey, had reported to him a couple of months before that he had seen two employees consensually embracing at the Coke machine. Humphrey had not identified the two employees except to say one was a supervisor. Burk mistakenly believed that the two separate Coke machine incidents were the same event. Based on this mistaken belief, Burk thought that a supervisors' meeting would be enough to solve the problem. A few days later, Burk called a supervisors' meeting and discussed several topics, including sexual harassment. He redistributed and discussed Coke's written policy forbidding sexual harassment. Burk told all the supervisors in no uncertain terms that he would not tolerate unwelcome sexual advances at the plant and that if anything of that sort had happened, the supervisor had better clean up his act. In August 1990, Andrews again was reported by Lingerfelt for grabbing her hair, pulling her head back and kissing her on the lips. Lingerfelt tried to slap Andrews, but missed, hitting him on the shoulder. Lingerfelt went immediately to Stinson and they went to see Burk. Lingerfelt was quite upset and was crying. When Burk heard the report, he said he would take care of it. Lingerfelt left the plant for about an hour to collect herself. While Lingerfelt was gone, Burk called Andrews to his office and confronted him with the two women's allegations, including the previous reports by both women. Andrews categorically denied the allegations, except that he had once put his arms around Lingerfelt. He denied ever kissing her and said he did not mean anything by his actions. Burk stressed to Andrews that he could not touch any female employee again, even if he didn't think anything was wrong with it--that he must stop it. Andrews claimed that Lingerfelt had invited the contact by bumping against him and that she was making the allegations because he was black. Andrews also claimed that Lingerfelt had allowed sexually explicit advances from a white supervisor, Doc Roddenberry, and that Roddenberry, not Andrews, should be the subject of Burk's admonitions. Burk told Andrews that he had only gotten complaints about him (Andrews) and that if he continued with his unwelcome conduct, he could lose his job. No advances were reported by Lingerfelt for a few months, but she did complain that Andrews was uncooperative with her about work. In January 1991, Lingerfelt noted that Andrews was calling her frequently and spending long periods of time in her office. Because this behavior was similar to Andrews' conduct before the previous incidents, Lingerfelt became concerned. On January 16, 1991, Stinson was in Jacksonville at Coke's regional office. Lingerfelt became so concerned that she called Stinson in Jacksonville and reported that Andrews had spent several hours that day in Lingerfelt's office staring at her. Stinson immediately asked the Regional Human Resources Manager, Thomas Bauman, for assistance. Stinson informed Bauman of all the prior alleged sexual harassment by Andrews. The next day Stinson returned to Tallahassee and she and Lingerfelt spoke with Burk. Lingerfelt, who was visibly scared and crying, explained to Burk that Andrews had been standing around her office staring at her. Burk said he would address the problem immediately. After talking with Bauman and obtaining his approval, Burk called Andrews into his office and confronted him again. Andrews denied that he had been hanging around Lingerfelt's office staring at her. Burk then brought Stinson into his office to confront Andrews about his persistent harassment against her. Andrews denied the allegations and accused Stinson of "coming on" to him. Andrews again asserted that the women's allegations were racially motivated. He also brought up his allegations against Roddenberry and Lingerfelt and demanded to know why Roddenberry could "get away with it" and he couldn't. Burk advised Andrews that it was only his own misconduct which was being addressed at the moment. Burk also informed Andrews that the allegations of Andrews' misconduct would be brought to the attention of Bauman for further action. Shortly thereafter, Coke's Special Events Supervisor, Sue Rosenthal (now Rubin), reported several events of sexual harassment by Andrews. She had come forward to help support Lingerfelt. Coke's Investigation After discussing the situation and receiving instructions from Buddy Donaldson, Coke's Florida Human Resources Director, Bauman travelled to Tallahassee to conduct an investigation on January 24 and 25, 1991, into the allegations against Andrews. Bauman first met with Burk and received a briefing on the series of allegations. Burk reported the incident which Roosevelt Humphrey had reported to him, still thinking that incident involved Andrews. Bauman interviewed Lingerfelt, who related in great detail each of the alleged incidents set forth above. Bauman took notes and Lingerfelt signed those notes as being an accurate account of her statement. Bauman asked Lingerfelt whether she had any racial motivation for her reports. Lingerfelt denied that Andrews' race had anything to do with her allegations. At this meeting, Lingerfelt told Bauman that she had hired an attorney and had filed sexual harassment charges against Coke with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Bauman next interviewed Roosevelt Humphrey. Humphrey told Bauman that the two people he had reported were Lingerfelt and Roddenberry, not Lingerfelt and Andrews. Humphrey also acknowledged that he had not seen any other such incidents involving Lingerfelt and Roddenberry since the one incident he had reported to Burk without giving names. Bauman then went to Lingerfelt and asked if Roddenberry had sexually harassed her. Lingerfelt denied that Roddenberry had ever harassed her. Bauman next interviewed Rosenthal. Rosenthal told Bauman that before she became a supervisor in early 1989, Andrews had engaged in unwelcome sexual conduct toward her on three occasions. The first two times, Andrews came up behind her in her office, lifted the hair on the back of her neck, and kissed her on the neck. The third time, Andrews surprised her by kissing her on the lips after she had finished a telephone call and had turned around. Rosenthal said she was too startled to say anything after the first incident, but after the second and third events, she told Andrews not to do that. She said she did not report these incidents at the time because she was new, young and nervous. Rosenthal also reported that she had recently seen Andrews "stalking" Lingerfelt, staring at her for long periods of time and waiting for Rosenthal to leave so that he could be alone with Lingerfelt. Bauman asked Rosenthal whether her allegations could be racially motivated. Rosenthal said race had nothing to do with it and, in fact, she lived with a black roommate. Rosenthal had selected that woman from a pool of applicants who had responded to her newspaper ad seeking a roommate. Bauman next interviewed Stinson. Stinson told Bauman of the harassment she had suffered from Andrews, which included several attempts by Andrews to hug and kiss her. She also related information about the times Lingerfelt would come to her and they would go to Burk about Andrews' actions toward Lingerfelt. On January 25, 1991, Bauman officially interviewed Burk. Burk related the actions he had taken, including the supervisors' meeting in February 1990 and the personal meetings with Andrews in August 1990 and January 1991. Burk also recommended that Andrews be terminated for sexual harassment and stalking. Suspension and Termination Bauman then called Donaldson and discussed the information he had learned. They decided that Andrews should be suspended immediately, pending a final decision. They also decided not to interview Andrews again because he had denied any wrongdoing twice, most recently a week earlier. They had no reason to believe that Andrews would recede from his denials. Before suspending Andrews, Bauman asked Lingerfelt and Stinson to leave the building. He did so because of his concern and the women's concerns about their personal safety, especially when Andrews was told of the suspension. As soon as the two women had left the building, Bauman called Andrews to Burk's office. They told Andrews that he was being suspended for conduct unbecoming a supervisor. Andrews wanted to know "who said what" about him, but Bauman declined to give him further details. As he was leaving Burk's office, not knowing that Lingerfelt and Stinson had left the building, Andrews shouted to the closed door of Stinson's office something to the effect of "Did you women hear that--are you happy now?" As soon as Andrews was escorted from the premises, Coke changed all the locks at the Tallahassee facility, which was standard procedure. Bauman also had an automatic front door lock installed so that no one could enter the front office without being pre-screened. The following week, Bauman and Donaldson reviewed all the information, including the interview notes which had been attested to by the three women. They concluded that sufficient evidence existed to require termination of Andrews' employment. On January 31, 1991, Donaldson came to Tallahassee, summoned Andrews to the facility, and terminated him for misconduct. The decision to terminate Andrews was based on a good faith belief that he had engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct on multiple occasions, despite and in the face of at least two warnings by the sales center manager. Coke did not immediately replace Andrews. Due to a "cost containment" program that had recently been instituted and because Tallahassee's volume was too low, Burk was not permitted to hire a replacement. In February 1992, more than a year later and after two neighboring sales centers were closed and their operations consolidated at the Tallahassee facility, Burk was allowed to hire a replacement. He hired the warehouse manager from one of the closed sales centers, a white male. Other Victims Come Forward While Coke knew of only three female employees who had been harassed by Andrews when Coke terminated him, three additional women also came forward to testify about sexual harassment they had suffered at the hand of Andrews. Johnnie Mae Marshall, a black woman who had worked for Coke as a receptionist, said Andrews had suggestively rubbed her arms and hands when she handed him documents. To stop it, she ceased to hand him papers, instead placing all such documents in a mail tray for him. Christen Cheshire, a white female telephone sales operator, testified that Andrews harassed her beginning in late 1988. She said Andrews came into her office once or twice a day, hugged her around the neck, and kissed or attempted to kiss her. This went on for about two months before Cheshire was able to persuade Andrews to stop the unwelcome advances. While Cheshire never reported Andrews' advances, Marshall remembers Cheshire complaining to her about it. Jeanie Benton, a white female who worked for Coke from 1987 to 1990, also testified about Andrews' unwelcome advances. One time when she rose from her desk and turned around, Andrews was right behind her and tried to kiss her. She told him to get back and leave her alone. On a later occasion, Andrews tried to massage her shoulders and she told him to stop. Thereafter, Andrews would stand in her office door and stare at her. Andrews' Claims of Discrimination Andrews' claims that the termination was motivated by racial discrimination and that Coke's reasons for terminating him were pretexts for discrimination. As evidence, he offered a story that Roddenberry committed egregious acts of sexual harassment and misconduct, but was not disciplined. Additionally, he alleged that a "white clique" wanted to get rid of him because they did not like that a black man was made warehouse supervisor. Not one shred of credible evidence was given to support Andrews' claims. Besides Andrews' own testimony, the only witness who claimed to have seen any sexually inappropriate conduct between Roddenberry and anyone, including Lingerfelt, was Roosevelt Humphrey. Humphrey was not a credible witness. First, he was terminated by Coke for stealing a check from a coworker and cashing it. Next, he said he saw Roddenberry and Lingerfelt three times a week with Roddenberry kissing Lingerfelt, rubbing her buttocks and her breasts. However, he was not even working at the warehouse during most of the time he said he saw this and his testimony was filled with contradictions and discrepancies. Finally, he named others who saw and discussed this behavior; but each of those named persons denied ever seeing any sexually inappropriate behavior between Roddenberry and Lingerfelt or other female employees. Andrews' suggestion that his termination was racially motivated by false reports from a group of white employees, including Lingerfelt, Stinson, Rosenthal, and Roddenberry, is also unworthy of belief. Andrews' purported to support his conspiracy theory with anecdotes about other white employees, Jeanie Benton and William Beck, who tried to help him in the face of the covert actions of the alleged conspirators. However, Benton and Beck both denied that the events Andrews described in his anecdotes ever occurred. Additionally, Andrews' version of all these incidents was simply implausible and inconsistent with the credible and substantial evidence. Finally, Andrews presented no credible evidence to rebut Coke's evidence of its legitimate reason for the termination. Andrews simply offered no competent or probative evidence of a racial motivation for his termination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order denying and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by James Andrews, Jr. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 23rd day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-2063 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, James Andrews, Jr. 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-3(1-3); 9-12(8-11); 17-19(13- 15); 23-25(20-22); 34(29); 36(31); 37(32); 40(35); 41(36 & 37); 42(38); 45(42); 46(43); 50 & 51(46); and 53(47). 2. Proposed findings of fact 4-8, 13-16, 20-22, 26-33, 35, 38, 39, 43, 44, 47-49, and 54 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 3. Proposed finding of fact 52 and 55 are irrelevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Tallahassee Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 53(35). 2. Proposed findings of fact 4, 5, 12-17, 19, 20, 22-27, 29-36, 40, 43, 44, 47-52, 55, 56, 79, 80, 87-90, 127, and 137 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 3. Proposed findings of fact 6-9, 11, 18, 85, 91, 102, 107-113, 117, 118, 121, 128-130, 134, and 136 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. 4. Proposed findings of fact 10, 21, 28, 37-39, 41, 42, 45, 46, 54, 57-78, 81-84, 86, 92-101, 103-106, 114-116, 119, 120, 122-126, 131-133, 135, and 138-152 are irrelevant, repetitive, unnecessary, and contain summaries of testimony and argument which are not appropriate proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Marie A. Mattox Attorney at Law 3045 Tower Court Tallahassee, Florida 32303 William R. Radford Attorney at Law 5300 First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2339 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his age, as stated in the Charge of Discrimination, in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes. Preliminary Statement Petitioner, Alton Saunders, filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations ("Commission") on May 10, 2000. The Commission did not make a determination regarding Petitioner's charge of discrimination within 180 days as required by Section 760.11(3), Florida Statutes. On December 27, 2000, Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief and thereby requested an administrative hearing. On March 2, 2001, the Commission referred the matter to Division Of Administrative Hearings to conduct an administrative hearing. On March 22, 2001, a final hearing was set for May 9-11, 2001, in Orlando, Florida. The final hearing was reset for June 6-8, 2001. On March 27, 2001, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that Petitioner "failed to timely request an administrative hearing with the Florida Commission on Human Relations as required by Section 760.11(6), Florida Statutes." On May 17, 2001, an Order Reserving Ruling on Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was entered, reserving ruling until the matter was reconsidered after the close of evidence at the final hearing. At the onset of the final hearing, Petitioner requested a continuance, which was denied. In support of his request for continuance, Petitioner presented a letter from Robert Wheelock, an Orlando attorney, which was made a part of the record as Petitioner's Exhibit A, but not received into evidence. Petitioner presented James "Jan" Saunders, Hugh Paton, Brett Saunders, Doris Dixon, Debra Sweeney, and himself as witnesses. Petitioner offered two exhibits, 1 and 2, which were received into evidence. Respondent presented Debra Sweeney and two additional witnesses, Richmond Taylor and Karl D. Fillauer, by deposition. Respondent offered 13 exhibits; 1-8 and 14-17 were received into evidence. Respondent's exhibit 11 was not admitted into evidence. The Transcript of proceedings was filed on July 23, 2001. Respondent filed a Proposed Recommended Order on August 20, 2001. Petitioner did not file a proposed recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on August 16, 1922, is 79 years old, and is a member of a protected class. Respondent, Hanger Prosthetics and Orthotics, Inc. ("Hanger"), employed Petitioner at the time of the alleged discrimination. Hanger is engaged in the manufacture, service, and sale of prosthetics and orthotic devices around the country, including in Central Florida. Petitioner and his family have also been engaged in the prosthetics and orthotics industry throughout Central Florida for many years, operating under a variety of different business names. From approximately 1985 through 1997, Petitioner was employed as a general office employee by Amputee and Brace Center, a prosthetics and orthotics company owned by Petitioner's sons, Jerome and Jan Saunders. In 1997, Amputee and Brace Center was acquired by NovaCare, a competitor in the prosthetics and orthotics industry. As part of the sale, members of the Saunders family, including Petitioner, became employees of NovaCare. Shortly after the acquisition of Amputee and Brace Center by NovaCare, several members of the Saunders family left NovaCare's employ to work for competing prosthetics and orthotics companies. For example, Scott Saunders, Petitioner's grandson, left NovaCare's employ and opened a competing company, ABC Prosthetics and Orthotics, Inc. across the street from NovaCare's facility on Gore Street in Orlando. In July 1999, NovaCare was acquired by Hanger, previously another competitor of NovaCare. Following the merger of NovaCare and Hanger, Petitioner became an employee of Hanger and remained at the facility located on Gore Street in Orlando. As a result of the merger, numerous personnel changes occurred at the Gore Street facility. For example, Debra Sweeney, a longtime Hanger employee, was transferred to the Gore Street facility as the Clinical Operations Director. In December 1999, the title of Clinical Operations Director was changed to Area Practice Manager. Ms. Sweeney was the individual ultimately responsible for the Gore Street facility where Petitioner was then employed. On March 8, 2000, a misdirected envelope and its contents arrived with the rest of the mail at the Gore Street facility. The envelope was addressed to Dr. Steven Goll, a significant source of patient referrals for Hanger. The return address on the envelope was the return address of ABC Prosthetics and Orthotics, Inc., the company owned by Petitioner's grandson, Scott Saunders, and Hanger's biggest competitor in Central Florida. The envelope was routinely opened by a member of Hanger's office staff and then delivered, along with its contents, to Debra Sweeney. The envelope addressed to Dr. Steven Goll contained a solicitation letter bearing Petitioner's signature seeking business referrals on behalf of a new company, Anatomically Correct Cosmetic Restorations ("Anatomically Correct"). The envelope also contained Petitioner's business card and a trifold marketing piece which explained the types of products and services offered by Anatomically Correct. According to the trifold, Anatomically Correct offered prosthetic and orthotics services and devices which were identical to significant services and devices being offered by Hanger. Upon receiving the marketing materials, Debbie Sweeney immediately recognized the return address on the envelope and trifold marketing piece as the return address for Hanger's competitor, ABC Prosthetics and Orthotics, Inc. ABC Prosthetics and Orthotics, Inc., Hanger's competitor, had given Petitioner permission to use the business address of ABC Prosthetics and Orthotics, Inc., as well as ABC Prosthetics and Orthotics, Inc.'s envelopes in distributing the Anatomically Correct marketing materials. Petitioner's granddaughter-in-law, the wife of the president of ABC Prosthetics and Orthotics, Inc. designed the marketing materials for Anatomically Correct. Upon examining the contents of the envelope, Ms. Sweeney suspected that Petitioner was engaged in improper competition with their employer, Hanger. On March 9, 2000, a meeting was held among Ms. Sweeney, Petitioner, and Rose DeLucia, the branch manager of the Gore Street facility, during which time Ms. Sweeney presented Petitioner with an opportunity to explain the contents of the envelope that had arrived at Hanger's Gore Street facility the previous day. During the March 9, 2000, meeting, Petitioner admitted that he had developed the marketing materials, signed them, and distributed them. Additionally, Petitioner admitted that he had mailed the solicitation materials out to physicians practicing throughout the Orlando area who referred patients to Hanger for the purpose of seeking patient referrals from them for his new business. Petitioner had not solicited business from Hanger's referring physicians during the time that he was actively working for Hanger, i.e., 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. Petitioner acknowledged that he had not advised Hanger that he intended to start Anatomically Correct and engage in business. Petitioner's conduct was a violation of Hanger policy as well as the policy of Petitioner's former employer, NovaCare, which merged with Hanger. As a result of the discussion and Petitioner's acknowledgment of production and distribution of the solicitation materials, Ms. Sweeney advised Petitioner that his employment was terminated for conduct in conflict with his obligations to Hanger, specifically competing with Hanger while employed by Hanger. Petitioner's employment was terminated for his improper competition with his employer, Hanger, and was unrelated to Petitioner's age. In his March 10, 2000, application for unemployment compensation benefits with the State of Florida Department of Labor, Petitioner indicated that he had been informed that he was being terminated because his "outside work is in conflict with their type of work." In a July 1999, conversation involving overstaffing at the Gore Street facility, Wallace Faraday, a Hanger executive, suggested, "Isn't it time for Al [Respondent] to resign, maybe one of his sons will hire him," or words to that effect. On April 27, 2000, Petitioner signed and dated a Charge of Discrimination. The Charge of Discrimination was filed with the Commission on May 10, 2000. Section 760.11(3), Florida Statutes, requires that the Commission determine whether there was reasonable cause for the Charge of Discrimination within 180 days of the date Petitioner filed his Charge of Discrimination. The last day the Commission could have issued its determination of reasonable cause was November 6, 2000. The Commission failed to issue an order determining reasonable cause. When the Commission failed to determine reasonable cause, Petitioner had 35 days from November 6, 2000, or no later than December 11, 2000, to request an administrative hearing in accordance with Sections 760.11(4), (6), (7), and (8), Florida Statutes. Petitioner executed an Election of Rights form indicating his desire to withdraw his Charge of Discrimination and file a Petition for Relief to proceed with an administrative hearing on December 27, 2000. Petitioner did not file his request for administrative hearing within 35 days of November 6, 2000. Petitioner's claim is barred. Section 760.11(6), Florida Statutes, expressly provides, in pertinent part: "An administrative hearing pursuant to paragraph 4(b) must be requested no later than 35 days after the date of determination by the commission."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order granting Hanger's Motion to Dismiss finding that Petitioner's Election of Rights and request for an administrative hearing was not timely filed, finding that Hanger did not discriminate against Petitioner, and denying Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa H. Cassilly, Esquire Ashley B. Davis, Esquire Alston & Bird, LLP One Atlantic Center 1201 West Peachtree Street Atlanta, Georgia 30309-3424 Azizi M. Dixon, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Alton M. Saunders Jerome Saunders 418 Seville Avenue Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent Employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice on the basis of failure to hire (sex discrimination), sexual harassment, and/or retaliatory termination.
Findings Of Fact This case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on or about August 15, 2006. The parties filed respective responses [sic "compliances"] with the Initial Order herein, which responses were considered in setting the case for hearing. Petitioner's response requested that the final disputed-fact hearing be scheduled for any day after October 12, 2006. On September 6, 2006, final hearing was noticed for November 8, 2006. On October 5, 2006, Petitioner provided a change of address to New York. On October 10, 2006, a joint Pre-hearing Stipulation was filed. On October 23, 2006, Petitioner filed a Motion to Continue [sic “Request for Continuance for Good Cause”]. On October 27, 2006, Respondent filed its Objection to Petitioner's Request for Continuance. On November 1, 2006, a motion hearing was held by telephonic conference call. At that time, both parties agreed to continue the final disputed-fact hearing to January 16, 2007. Petitioner was orally cautioned that no further continuances would be granted except upon good cause shown. Also on November 1, 2006, an Order Granting Continuance and Re-Scheduling Hearing was entered and mailed. The new date noticed for final hearing in that Order was January 16, 2007, as follows: 2. This cause is hereby re-scheduled for final hearing on January 16, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., at the Department of Transportation, Seminole County Conference Room, 4th Floor, 719 South Woodland Boulevard, Deland, Florida. On January 8, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion, titled "Motion Requesting a Continuance of Hearing Date for Good Cause." Apparently also on January 8, 2007, Respondent filed a response in opposition to the proposed continuance, but this item was not seen by the undersigned until January 16, 2007, at the final hearing.1/ Petitioner's Motion did not, in fact, state good cause for a continuance and was denied by an Order entered January 10, 2007, which Order was mailed that day to Petitioner's address of record in New York. On January 11, 2007, a copy of the Order was mailed to the Florida address which Petitioner had given under her signature on her Motion. On January 16, 2007, the final disputed-fact hearing was convened as noticed in the November 1, 2006, Order. At that time, the undersigned, a court reporter, Respondent's counsel, Respondent's principal, and two additional witnesses on behalf of Respondent were present. Petitioner was not present. The undersigned inquired by telephone of her office staff and of the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings if Petitioner had contacted the Division with any explanation for her absence and was told that she had not. The undersigned sounded the docket in the hallway of the hearing room in Deland and inquired at the front desk. Petitioner had not appeared in the building. After waiting 30 minutes, Petitioner still had not appeared. Respondent's counsel represented on the record that he had spoken to Petitioner by phone on January 10, 2007, at which time Petitioner had told him that she would not appear for the January 16, 2007, hearing herein. He produced a January 10, 2007, letter he had sent Petitioner at the Florida address she had used on her second motion to continue. (See Findings of Fact 11 and 13.) Respondent's counsel's letter was admitted as Exhibit R-1, and represents that Respondent’s counsel advised Petitioner that her motion to continue had been denied and that the final disputed-fact hearing would be going forward on January 16, 2007, as previously noticed for hearing on November 1, 2006. (See Finding of Fact 10.) Respondent then moved ore tenus for a Recommended Order of Dismissal, which was taken under advisement, pending the undersigned's return to the Division of Administrative Hearings and further inquiries as to why Petitioner had not appeared for the final disputed-fact hearing. Respondent next moved ore tenus to tax fees and costs, and presented Exhibit R-2, itemizing the charges of Respondent’s counsel to Respondent and further presented the testimony of Respondent's principal, James Frank Kulger, in support thereof. Respondent's counsel was granted five days in which to file an affidavit of reasonableness in regard to the services and charges billed on Exhibit R-2. That affidavit was timely filed, and has been marked and admitted as Exhibit R-3. No transcript was provided. Upon the undersigned’s personal inquiries, when she returned to Tallahassee, of her office staff and of the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on January 17, 2007, the undersigned was yet again informed that Petitioner still had not contacted the Division with any excuse for not attending the previously-noticed final disputed-fact hearing on January 16, 2007. On January 18, 2007, the undersigned's secretary informed her that Petitioner telephoned the secretary to the undersigned and indicated that prior to January 16, 2007, Petitioner had received the January 10, 2007, Order denying a continuance; knew the final hearing had remained scheduled for January 16, 2007; and had elected not to attend the hearing. Petitioner inquired if the hearing had gone forward anyway, and was told by the secretary that it had. Petitioner inquired if an order had been entered and was informed that one had not.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2007.
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Mario Medero, discriminated against the Petitioner, Sharon L. Zbikowski, on the basis of her sex, female?
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Sharon L. Zbikowski, is a female. The Respondent, Mario Medero, is a male. Dr. Medero is a physician. He practices medicine as a professional association. Dr. Medero is the chief executive officer and the supervisor or principal of the professional association. The professional association operates a medical office in Ocala, Florida. The medical practice performed by Dr. Medero consists primarily of treating individuals who have been injured on the job and who are covered by workers compensation insurance. Ms. Zbikowski's Employment. On August 20, 1992, Ms. Zbikowski was hired for employment by Dr. Medero's professional association as the front desk receptionist at Dr. Medero's office. At the time she was hired, Ms. Zbikowski was told that she would be considered for an accounts payable clerk position at the office. The position was held by Barbara Redding if Ms. Redding left the position. Ms. Zbikowski was told at the time of her employment that her consideration for the position of accounts payable clerk was dependent upon Ms. Redding actually leaving. Ms. Redding ultimately decided not to resign her position. The evidence failed to prove that Ms. Zbikowski was hired as a bookkeeper or accounts payable clerk, or that she was not placed in the position she was hired to fill. Ms. Zbikowski's Performance. Ms. Zbikowski worked initially at the front desk. Her performance was considered inadequate by Marilyn Hartsel, the office manager and Ms. Zbikowski's immediate supervisor. Ms. Zbikowski was moved to other positions within the office. She worked for a while in medical records and for approximately one day in accounts payable with Ms. Redding. Ms. Zbikowski's performance in medical records and in accounts payable was also considered inadequate by Ms. Hartsel. Within three or four weeks after Ms. Zbikowski began her employment, Ms. Hartsel had decided to recommend that Ms. Zbikowski be terminated because of the inadequacy of her work. Ms. Zbikowski's Employment by Dr. Medero. At the time that Ms. Zbikowski was initially employed at Dr. Medero's office, Dr. Medero had caused the office to advertise for a housekeeper for his home. Ms. Zbikowski discussed the position with Dr. Medero. Dr. Medero agreed to employ Ms. Zbikowski as his housekeeper and Ms. Zbikowski agreed to work as Dr. Medero's housekeeper. Ms. Zbikowski agreed to clean Dr. Medero's house, run errands for him and the office, pick up his son from school and take his son to and from tennis lessons, meet Dr. Medero's former wife half way between Ocala and Tampa to pick up or to drop off Dr. Medero's daughter, who was in the custody of his former wife, and generally oversee his household. Although the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Zbikowski performed services in her capacity as housekeeper for anyone other than Dr. Medero, Ms. Zbikowski was paid for her services out of accounts of the professional association and Ms. Hartsel continued to be her immediate supervisor. The evidence failed to prove that Ms. Zbikowski was forced in any way to accept employment as Dr. Medero's housekeeper. The evidence proved that she accepted the position voluntarily and without coercion. Ms. Zbikowski continued to work as Dr. Medero's housekeeper until September 28, 1992. During her employment as Dr. Medero's housekeeper, Dr. Medero was satisfied with Ms. Zbikowski's performance. Alleged Sexual Harassment. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Medero sexually harassed Ms. Zbikowski. Ms. Zbikowski testified about very few specific alleged incidents involving Dr. Medero and the evidence failed to substantiate those incidents. Ms. Zbikowski admitted that she had had no physical contact with Dr. Medero except for one occasion when she hugged him from advancing funds to her to pay for her son's day care and on another occasion when he gave her a physical examination after being in an automobile accident. The evidence failed to prove that either incident involved improper conduct by Dr. Medero. Ms. Zbikowski's testimony that Dr. Medero evidenced a "flirtatious manner" was not substantiated by competent substantial evidence of specific incidents. The most specific incident, and the incident which led to Ms. Zbikowski's termination from employment, took place on Thursday, September 24, 1992. At lunch on that day, Ms. Zbikowski and her four year old son were in Dr. Medero's back yard. Ms. Zbikowski was cleaning lawn furniture. Dr. Medero and Ms. Redding came to Dr. Medero's house, waved at Ms. Zbikowski and went into Dr. Medero's bedroom. The curtains/blinds to the bedroom windows were closed soon after Dr. Medero and Ms. Redding went into the room. Dr. Medero and Ms. Redding, both of whom were not married at the time, were lovers. Ms. Zbikowski was aware of their relationship. At no time did Ms. Zbikowski see Dr. Medero or Ms. Redding in Dr. Medero's bedroom. Ms. Zbikowski believes that Dr. Medero and Ms. Redding engaged in sexual intercourse while in the bedroom. This belief was not, however, substantiated by competent substantial evidence. Dr. Medero and Ms. Redding, who is not longer involved personally or in a working relationship with Dr. Medero, both testified that they did not engage in sexual intercourse. Ms. Zbikowski did not see them engage in intercourse. At best, Ms. Zbikowski's belief was based upon hearing "giggling" and "these little, um, sounds and things" from the bedroom. Ms. Zbikowski's Termination from Employment. On the afternoon of September 24, 1992, Ms. Zbikowski spoke with Ms. Hartsel and told her that Dr. Medero and Ms. Redding had sexual intercourse in her presence and her son's presence. Ms. Zbikowski was very upset and Ms. Hartsel told her to take the afternoon off and report to the office the next morning. Ms. Zbikowski also made other allegations, which the evidence failed to substantiate, of incidents of sexual harassment by Dr. Medero. Ms. Zbikowski left a beeper and a garage door opener she had been provided by Dr. Medero at Dr. Medero's home and left. The next morning, Friday, September 25, 1992, Ms. Zbikowski reported to the office. She was told that she would be expected to the work at the office in the mornings and then work at Dr. Medero's home in the afternoons. Ms. Zbikowski left at lunch and did not return. Ms. Zbikowski informed Ms. Hartsel that she did not intend to return that day because she did not want to return to Dr. Medero's home. Ms. Hartsel told Ms. Zbikowski that she would discuss the matter with Dr. Medero. Ms. Hartsel did not, however, order Ms. Zbikowski to return to work that day or inform her that she was not authorized to stay home. After speaking to Ms. Hartsel by telephone that weekend and being told that Ms. Hartsel had not yet discussed the matter with Dr. Medero, Ms. Zbikowski reported to work Monday, September 29, 1992. By the time that Ms. Zbikowski returned to the office on Monday, Dr. Medero had been informed of the allegations of sexual harassment she had made against him to Ms. Hartsel. Shortly after arriving at the office, Ms. Zbikowski was escorted to her automobile by Dr. Medero, Ms. Hartsel and a nurse and was told by Dr. Medero not to return. Ms. Zbikowski was, therefore, fired by Dr. Medero. Ms. Zbikowski was terminated because of the allegations she made concerning Dr. Medero and Ms. Redding and the other allegations of sexual harassment. Ms. Zbikowski was not terminated because she was not performing her duties as Dr. Medero's housekeeper in a satisfactory manner. Ms. Zbikowski's Subsequent Employment. Ms. Zbikowski was employed, and eventually terminated, by other physicians after her termination from employment by Dr. Medero. The evidence failed to prove that Dr. Medero was involved in any manner in Ms. Zbikowski's subsequent terminations from employment. Ms. Zbikowski's Charge of Discrimination. Ms. Zbikowski filed a Charge of Discrimination against Dr. Medero with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Ms. Zbikowski alleged that she had been discriminated against based upon the following: I am a female. I worked for the above named respondent since August 20, 1992, until September 28, 1992 when I was discharged from my position of maid. During my employment I was subjected to sexual harassment by Dr. Mario Medero, and also I was subjected to different terms and conditions in my employment. I believe I have been discriminated against because of my sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. On September 2, 1993, the Commission issued a "Determination: No Cause" finding "no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred " Ms. Zbikowski filed a Petition for Relief, requesting a formal administrative hearing on October 19, 1993. In the Petition for Relief filed with the Commission Ms. Zbikowski alleged, in part, the following: Respondent has violated the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, in the manner specifically described below: Petitioner did not abandoned [sic] her job. Petitioner was hired for one position and was told to accept another position 1 1/2 weeks into her employment which was not mentioned, nor described as part of original position. The disputed issues of material fact, if any, are as listed below: Petitioner did not abandoned [sic] her job. Petitioner was hired for one position and was told to accept another position 1 1/2 weeks into her employment which was not mentioned, nor described as part of original position. The ultimate facts alleged and entitlement to relief are as listed below: . . . . The alleged fact memos are that Petitioner was hired for a "Bookkeeping" position but was never given the opportunity to work in this position as original Bookkeeper (Dr. Medero's girlfriend) decided not to leave her position, so Petitioner was given a less meaningful job as "Housekeeper" but was subjected to harassing sexual misconduct by Respondent. The relief is as follows: Petitioner has for 1 year been trying to maintain and seek employment in the Medical field, one which she has worked in for 13 years, but because of Dr. Medero's influence in the Medical field has made it very hard for Petitioner to continue in this field. Petitioner is seeking recovery for the discriminating position he placed her in while under his employment plus relief from the undue hardship which has been placed upon her because of his lies in this matter. . . . . . . . Ms. Zbikowski proved the following allegations contained in her Charge of Discrimination and the Petition for Relief: "I am a female." "I worked for the above named respondent since August 20, 1992, until September 28, 1992, when I was discharged from my position of maid." "Petitioner did not abandoned [sic] her job." The remaining allegations contained in the Charge of Discrimination and the Petition for Relief were not supported by the weight of the evidence. The Commission requested that the Division of Administrative Hearings assign a Hearing Officer to conduct the hearing requested by Ms. Zbikowski. Ms. Zbikowski failed to prove that any action of Dr. Medero was based upon Ms. Zbikowski's sex: she was not held to any standard or requirement based upon her sex, she was not sexually harassed and she was not terminated because of her sex. Ms. Zbikowski failed to prove that any policy or standard of Dr. Medero or his office had a disparate impact on female employees. Ms. Zbikowski failed to prove that she was replaced by a male or that other female employees with comparable or lessor qualifications were retained. Ms. Zbikowski failed to prove that she was sexually harassed by Dr. Medero. Ms. Zbikowski failed to prove that Dr. Medero or his office discriminated against her on the basis of her sex, female.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner's employment with the Respondent was terminated in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the allegations of this case, Petitioner was an employee of FRSA. On or about September 26, 1989, Petitioner's employment with FRSA was terminated and the charges of discrimination were filed. Prior to termination, Petitioner's work performance with the company had been acceptable. In fact, for the performance review issued on January 31, 1989, Petitioner received a superior rating in eight of the eleven categories, a good rating in two categories, and an outstanding rating in one category. At the time of her termination with FRSA, Petitioner earned an annual salary of $35,000. Petitioner claims a total of $83,568 for the lost wages and benefits resulting from her termination with FRSA. At the time of her termination, Petitioner was pregnant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the charge of discrimination filed by the Petitioner in this cause against the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Rubeis Reno Rubeis 4350 Wyndcliff Circle Orlando, Florida 32817 Susan McKenna Garwood & McKenna, P.A. 322 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 1992. Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
The Issue Whether Respondent, Sojourn Hospitality-Naples Bay Resort, discriminated and retaliated against Petitioner, Richard Puccini, on the basis of his sex, in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The record is comprised solely of Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 and 2, which constitute inadmissible hearsay for which no exception to the hearsay rule has been established.3/ Because no testimony or other admissible evidence exists, as to which such hearsay could be used to explain or otherwise supplement, there can be no findings of fact.
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 in this proceeding finding that the Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his sex or retaliating against him and dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ANDREW D. MANKO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 2019.
The Issue The issue is whether respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice as alleged in the petition for relief filed on April 19, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this discrimination case, petitioner, Arthur R. Jones, alleges that in October 1993, when he was fifty-four years of age, he was unlawfully terminated from his position as a welder with respondent, Progress Rail Services, Inc. (PRS), on account of his age. After conducting a preliminary investigation of the claim, the Commission on Human Relations (Commission) concluded that there was no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice occurred. Petitioner then filed his petition for relief realleging the same disparate treatment. Respondent is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of refurbishing railroad cars and is located in Green Cove Springs, Florida. Although there is no direct evidence as to the number of persons employed by PRS, through representation of its counsel in his opening statement, it can be inferred that PRS employed fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the year when the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, or in the preceding calendar year. After taking a welding test, petitioner began employment with PRS in April 1992. Initially, he worked as a carpenter, but he was later transferred to a "weld out" position. The latter position involved physically demanding work and required petitioner and a co-worker, working as a team, to weld steel tops onto railroad car frames. During petitioner's tenure as a PRS employee, PRS had a progressive discipline policy which provided that an employee would receive a verbal warning, followed by a written warning, which was then followed by placement on probation. The fourth and final step was termination of employment. PRS's absenteeism and tardy policy was based on a point system. Employees received one point for tardy or early leave, and two points for absences. When the employee reached eight points, a verbal warning was given in accordance with the progressive discipline policy. A total of twelve points resulted in a written warning while sixteen points resulted in a period of probation. Eighteen points resulted in termination. On November 17, 1992, petitioner was given his first verbal warning regarding absenteeism. On March 24, 1993, petitioner again received a verbal warning for failing to report to work on time. On the March 24 disciplinary action form, petitioner was admonished by his supervisor to "come to work on time." On May 12, 1993, petitioner was given a written warning for absenteeism. On the disciplinary action form, the supervisor noted that petitioner "need(ed) to improve on come (sic) to work all work day." As of May 24, 1992, petitioner had accumulated seventeen points, and thus he was placed on probation for excessive absenteeism. His supervisor again warned him in writing "not (to) be late or absent," and if he was, "(i)t will result in your termination at (PRS)." All of the foregoing disciplinary actions were taken by supervisor O'Bryant. Sometime after May 24, 1992, petitioner began working under a new supervisor, Thomas M. Martin. On December 12, 1992, petitioner was given a verbal warning by Martin for "not wearing safety shoes." The warning was justified since petitioner was not wearing lace-up safety shoes as required by company policy. In May 1993, petitioner was transferred to a "weld-out" position under the supervision of Randy Cochran. On September 3, 1993, Cochran gave petitioner a written warning for "not doing (the) job assign(ed) to him!" Petitioner had been instructed to clean out a storage boxcar but was found reading a newspaper. He was advised in writing that he "need's (sic) to perform the job assign(ed) to him!" On October 1, 1993, petitioner was placed on probation for poor "work performance" due to not meeting established time standards for a particular job. Specifically, he was charged with "taking too long to do the work" by "spend(ing) 5.0 hours on (a job that) should have taken 2.0 hours to complete." He was told in writing to "(d)o (his) job within the time standards," or face possible "termination." After observing petitioner continually failing to meet established time standards during the next few days, on October 6, 1993, Cochran verbally warned petitioner that unless he "made the time standard" on the job he was working that morning, he would be terminated. When Cochran later observed petitioner "way behind" on his job, petitioner was terminated for poor "work performance." According to the disciplinary action form, petitioner was "not able to complete work within time standards." These time standards were uniformly applied to all welders regardless of age, and the dismissal was in conformity with PRS's progressive discipline policy. There is no credible evidence that PRS was motivated by discriminatory animus when it made this employment decision. Whether petitioner was replaced by another person, and if so, the age of that person, is not of record. When an employee leaves employment with PRS, an exit interview is conducted to identify any problems with employment policies and procedures, including management practices. Complaints made by the employee regarding unfair treatment, such as discrimination, are recorded on the exit interview form. When petitioner was discharged, an exit interview was conducted. During the interview, petitioner made no complaints regarding suspected age discrimination. Petitioner was not employed from the time of his discharge until November 16, 1994. On that date, he began collecting Social Security disability benefits. During the years 1991 through 1994, PRS discharged eighty-one employees. Of those, twenty-four were age forty or over. In 1995, respondent had one hundred fifty-seven employees, of which sixty-one were age forty or older. At hearing, petitioner contended that Randy Cochran, his supervisor from May 1993 until his termination, made discriminatory comments regarding his age. Specifically, petitioner contended that, on more than one occasion, Cochran called him an "old man" and threatened to fire him on account of his age. These allegations, however, are not deemed to be credible and are hereby rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the the Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order denying the petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 1st day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Arthur R. Jones Post Office Box 8 Satsuma, Florida 32189 Charles F. Henley, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 40593 Jacksonville, Florida 32203-0593 Dana A. Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was employed with the Respondent from August 3, 1985 until May 10, 1986, as a waitress in the dining room of the Kings Inn Restaurant in Pensacola, Florida. In March, 1987, the Petitioner became pregnant. She then informed her employer, Mr. Judge of her pregnancy. He told her initially that she could work as long as the doctor allowed her to. Shortly thereafter, he told her that she could not work after five months of pregnancy. On another occasion, his assistant manager, Mr. Dungan, told her that she could not work after she "started showing." Once the Respondent, Mr. Judge, learned of the Petitioner's pregnancy, he began a regime of harassing treatment. For instance, Mr. Judge made her do the "side work," filling up all the salt and pepper shakers and sugar bowls for all of the waitresses and waitress stations. It had always been uniform policy that each waitress had the responsibility to do her own side work for her own station and tables. Mr. Judge also began yelling and cursing at her in front of her workers and customers, causing her great humiliation and embarrassment. He criticized her publicly about her posture and the way she serviced customers, although she had always had an excellent record as a competent waitress and had no complaints from customers or former employers, before announcing that she was pregnant. Mr. Judge also began a practice of constantly questioning other employees about the Petitioner's job performance, although he apparently learned of no substandard performance in both her duties and her attitude toward her customers. He also took her to task about her "charge tips" being less than other employees, apparently the measure he used to determine if a waitress was serving her customers appropriately and adequately. This situation, however, was caused by his discriminatory conduct toward her in giving her fewer tables to serve and thus, reducing her tip income. Mr. Judge additionally assigned her to clean up a portion of the kitchen area, particularly the "bread shelves" when normal policy had been for kitchen personnel to perform all kitchen clean-up duties, with any clean up of the bread shelf area being rotated amongst the dining room personnel. The Petitioner, however, was singled out for this duty exclusively after it became known that she was pregnant. The Petitioner was also required to stay late and perform certain closing duties at the end of business late at night, much more often than other waitresses. In addition to performing restaurant closing duties, she was frequently required to wait on cocktail tables as late as 2:00 in the morning on many of the "late duty" occasions, even though she was hired as, and until she became pregnant worked exclusively as, food waitress. Petitioner's testimony and Petitioner's exhibit 2, in evidence, establishes that, although Petitioner was only scheduled to stay late three times in March, three times in April and once in May that, in fact, she worked late, that is, after all other employees or waitresses had been released for the evening seven out of nine days that she worked in March; nine out of twelve days she worked in April; and six out of the seven days she worked in May. Indeed, on May 10, 1986, the last day she worked for the Respondent, Mr. Judge required her to stay late and to "bus" all the tables, that is clean all the tables, in the dining room, allowing the waitress who was scheduled to stay late that night to leave early. The Petitioner became quite upset at this turn of events and resigned her position, due to the repeated pattern of harassment as described herein. Although Mr. Judge initially told the Petitioner that she could work as long as the doctor allowed her to during her pregnancy, in fact, on April 11, 1986, Mr. Judge hired the Petitioner's replacement. He hired Pamela Modes and had the Petitioner train her in her waitress duties. He stated to Ms. Modes privately when hiring her "that he needed a food waitress" because "he's got a girl that's pregnant." Additionally, he told the Petitioner that he objected to her working because of her pregnancy and claimed his insurance would not allow him to employ her after she was five months pregnant. These statements, coupled with the statement by his assistant manager, Mr. Dungan, to the effect that she would not be employed there "once she started showing" reveal an intent by the employer to terminate the employee, the Petitioner, because of her pregnancy. Instead of terminating her outright, the Respondent chose to put sufficient pressure on the Petitioner through extra, unscheduled work duties and the other above-mentioned forms of harassment, so as to coerce her into leaving the Respondent's employ. The Petitioner thus made a prima facia showing that she was forced to terminate employment due to her sex and her pregnancy, and no countervailing evidence was adduced by the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and the demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida Human Relations Commission finding that an unlawful employment practice has occurred through the Respondent's discrimination against the Petitioner because of her sex (pregnancy) and that she be accorded all relief allowed under the above- cited section, including backpay and related benefits in accordance with the requirements of Section 760.10(13), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 21st of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 21st day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Debra A. Larson, Pro Se 9742 Aileron Avenue, Apt. 606 Pensacola, Florida 32506 Dracut Corporation d/b/a Kings Inn Restaurant Lawrence F. Judge, Jr. Owner/General Manager 1309 Maldonado Pensacola Beach, Florida 32561-2323 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (“Walmart”), discriminated against Petitioner, Ramon Santiago Lopez (“Petitioner”), based upon his national origin or age, and/or terminated his employment in retaliation for engaging in protected activity, in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2016).1/
Findings Of Fact Walmart is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Walmart is a national retailer. Petitioner is a Cuban (Hispanic) male. He was 62 years old when he was hired by Walmart in November 2005 and was 72 years old at the time of his dismissal. Petitioner was initially hired to work at a store in Jacksonville, but transferred to Tampa. In June 2010, Petitioner requested a transfer back to Jacksonville and was assigned to Store 4444 on Shops Lane, just off Philips Highway and I-95 in Jacksonville. The store manager at Store 4444 was Scott Mallatt. Mr. Mallatt approved Petitioner’s transfer request and testified that he “very much” got along with Petitioner. Petitioner confirmed that he never had a problem with Mr. Mallatt. Petitioner testified that when he first started at Store 4444, he had no problems. After about four months, however, he began reporting to a supervisor he recalled only as “Lee.” Petitioner described Lee as “kind of a maniac.” Lee would harass Petitioner and give him impossible assignments to accomplish. Petitioner testified that he complained repeatedly to Mr. Mallatt about Lee’s abuse, but that nothing was ever done about it. Eventually, Petitioner gave up complaining to Mr. Mallatt. Mr. Mallatt testified that Petitioner never complained to him about being discriminated against because of his national origin or age. Petitioner apparently did complain about being overworked, but never tied these complaints to any discriminatory intent on the part of Lee. Petitioner testified that Lee no longer worked at Store 4444 in January 2016. From 2010 to 2015, Petitioner worked from 1:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. in various departments, including Grocery, Dairy, Paper, Pet, and Chemical. In 2015, Petitioner spoke with Mr. Mallatt about working at least some day shifts rather than constant nights. Mr. Mallatt approved Petitioner’s request. In August 2015, Petitioner was moved to the day shift in the Maintenance department. As a day associate, Petitioner typically worked from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Assistant Store Manager April Johnson transferred to Store No. 4444 in October 2015. Petitioner reported directly to Ms. Johnson. On January 14, 2016, Petitioner was scheduled to work from 8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. He drove his van into the parking lot of Store No. 4444 at approximately 7:58 a.m. He parked in his usual spot, on the end of a row of spaces that faced a fence at the border of the lot. Petitioner liked this spot because the foliage near the fence offered shade to his vehicle. Closed circuit television (“CCTV”) footage, from a Walmart camera with a partial view of the parking lot, shows Petitioner exiting his vehicle at around 8:00 a.m. Petitioner testified that he could see something on the ground in the parking lot, 50 to 60 meters away from where his van was parked. The CCTV footage shows Petitioner walking across the parking lot, apparently toward the object on the ground. Petitioner testified there were no cars around the item, which he described as a bucket of tools. Petitioner stated that the bucket contained a screwdriver, welding gloves, a welding face mask, and a hammer. The CCTV footage does not show the bucket. Petitioner crosses the parking lot until he goes out of camera range.3/ A few seconds later, Petitioner returns into camera range, walking back toward his car while carrying the bucket of tools. When Petitioner reaches his van, he opens the rear door, places the bucket of tools inside, then closes the rear door. Petitioner testified that after putting the tools in the back of his van, he went to the Customer Service Desk and informed two female African American customer service associates that he had found some tools and put them in his car. Petitioner conceded that he told no member of management about finding the tools. Walmart has a written Standard Operating Procedure for dealing with items that customers have left behind on the premises. The associate who finds the item is required to take the item to the Customer Service Desk, which functions as the “lost and found” for the store. Mr. Mallatt and Ms. Johnson each testified that there are no exceptions to this policy. Petitioner was aware of the Standard Operating Procedure. On prior occasions, he had taken found items to the Customer Service Desk. Petitioner conceded that it would have been quicker to take the bucket of tools to the Customer Service Desk than to his van. However, he testified that he believed that he could have been fired if he had taken the tools to the desk before he had clocked in for work. Petitioner cited a Walmart policy that made “working off the clock” a firing offense. It transpired that the policy to which Petitioner referred was Walmart’s Wage and Hour policy, which states in relevant part: It is a violation of law and Walmart policy for you to work without compensation or for a supervisor (hourly or salaried) to request you work without compensation. You should never perform any work for Walmart without compensation. This language is plainly intended to prevent Walmart from requiring its employees to work without compensation. Petitioner, whose English language skills are quite limited, was adamant that this policy would have allowed Walmart to fire him if he performed the “work” of bringing the tools to the Customer Service Desk before he was officially clocked in for his shift. Therefore, he put the tools in his van for safekeeping and informed the Customer Service Desk of what he had done. Petitioner was questioned as to why he believed it was acceptable for him to report the situation to the Customer Service Desk, but not acceptable for him to bring the tools to the desk. The distinction he appeared to make was that the act of carrying the tools from the parking lot to the desk would constitute “work” and therefore be forbidden, whereas just stopping by to speak to the Customer Service Desk associate was not “work.” The evidence established that Petitioner would not have violated any Walmart policy by bringing the tools to the Customer Service Desk before he clocked in. He could have been compensated for the time he spent bringing in the tools by making a “time adjustment” on his time card. Mr. Mallatt testified that time adjustments are done on a daily basis when associates perform work prior to clocking in or after clocking out. Petitioner merely had to advise a member of management that he needed to make the time adjustment. Mr. Mallatt was confident that the adjustment would have been granted under the circumstances presented in this case. Petitioner did not go out to retrieve the tools after he clocked in. Mr. Mallatt stated that employees frequently go out to their cars to fetch items they have forgotten, and that Petitioner absolutely would have been allowed to go get the tools and turn them in to the Customer Service Desk. Later on January 14, 2016, Ms. Johnson was contacted by a customer who said tools were stolen off of his truck.4/ Ms. Johnson had not heard anything about lost tools. She looked around the Customer Service Desk, but found no tools there. Ms. Johnson also called out on the store radio to ask if anyone had turned in tools. Finally, the customer service manager at the Customer Service Desk told Ms. Johnson that Petitioner had said something about tools earlier that morning. Ms. Johnson called Petitioner to the front of the store and asked him about the missing tools. Petitioner admitted he had found some tools in the parking lot and had placed them in his vehicle. Ms. Johnson asked Petitioner why he put the tools in his vehicle. Petitioner told her that he was keeping the tools in his car until the owner came to claim them. Ms. Johnson testified that Petitioner offered no other explanation at that time. He just said that he made a “mistake.” Ms. Johnson explained to Petitioner that putting the tools in his vehicle was not the right thing to do and that he should have turned them in to “lost and found,” i.e., the Customer Service Desk. Petitioner was sent to his van to bring in the tools. After this initial conversation with Petitioner, Ms. Johnson spoke with Mr. Mallatt and Mr. Cregut to decide how to treat the incident. Mr. Cregut obtained approval from his manager to conduct a full investigation and to interview Petitioner. Mr. Cregut reviewed the CCTV footage described above and confirmed that Petitioner did not bring the tools to the Customer Service Desk. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Cregut spoke with Petitioner for approximately an hour to get his side of the story. Petitioner also completed a written statement in which he admitted finding some tools and putting them in his car. Mr. Cregut described Petitioner as “very tense and argumentative” during the interview. As the interview continued, Mr. Cregut testified that Petitioner’s reaction to the questions was getting “a little bit more hostile [and] aggressive.” Mr. Cregut decided to try to build rapport with Petitioner by asking him general questions about himself. This tactic backfired. Petitioner volunteered that he was a Cuban exile and had been arrested several times for his opposition to the Castro regime. Petitioner then claimed that Mr. Cregut discriminated against him by asking about his personal life and prejudged him because of his activism. Mr. Cregut credibly testified that he did not judge or discriminate against Petitioner based on the information Petitioner disclosed and that he only asked the personal questions to de-escalate the situation. Mr. Cregut’s only role in the case was as an investigative factfinder. His report was not colored by any personal information disclosed by Petitioner. At the conclusion of the investigation, Mr. Mallatt made the decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment. The specific ground for termination was “Gross Misconduct – Integrity Issues,” related to Petitioner’s failure to follow Walmart policy by bringing the tools to the Customer Service Desk. Mr. Mallatt testified that his concern was that Petitioner intended to keep the bucket of tools if no owner appeared to claim them. Mr. Mallatt credibly testified that had Petitioner simply taken the tools to the Customer Service Desk, rather than putting them in his vehicle, he would have remained employed by Walmart. Walmart has a “Coaching for Improvement” policy setting forth guidelines for progressive discipline. While the progressive discipline process is used for minor and/or correctable infractions, such as tardiness, “serious” misconduct constitutes a ground for immediate termination. The coaching policy explicitly sets forth “theft” and “intentional failure to follow a Walmart policy” as examples of serious misconduct meriting termination. Petitioner conceded that no one at Walmart overtly discriminated against him because of his age or national origin. He testified that he could feel the hostility toward Hispanics at Store 4444, but he could point to no particular person or incident to bolster his intuition. Petitioner claimed that his dismissal was in part an act of retaliation by Ms. Johnson for his frequent complaints that his Maintenance counterparts on the night shift were not adequately doing their jobs, leaving messes for the morning crew to clean up. Ms. Johnson credibly testified that Petitioner’s complaints did not affect her treatment of him or make her want to fire him. In any event, Ms. Johnson played no role in the decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment. Petitioner’s stated reason for failing to follow Walmart policy regarding found items would not merit a moment’s consideration but for Petitioner’s limited proficiency in the English language. It is at least conceivable that someone struggling with the language might read the Walmart Wage and Hour policy as Petitioner did. Even so, Petitioner was familiar with the found items policy, and common sense would tell an employee that he would not be fired for turning in customer property that he found in the parking lot. At the time of his dismissal, Petitioner had been working at Walmart for over 10 years. It is difficult to credit that he was completely unfamiliar with the concept of time adjustment and truly believed that he could be fired for lifting a finger to work when off the clock. Walmart showed that in 2016 it terminated three other employees from Store 4444 based on “Gross Misconduct – Integrity Issues.” All three were under 40 years of age at the time their employment was terminated. Two of the employees were African American; the third was Caucasian. Petitioner offered no evidence that any other employee charged with gross misconduct has been treated differently than Petitioner. At the hearing, Petitioner’s chief concern did not appear to be the alleged discrimination, but the implication that he was a thief, which he found mortally offensive. It could be argued that Mr. Mallatt might have overreacted in firing Petitioner and that some form of progressive discipline might have been more appropriate given all the circumstances, including Petitioner’s poor English and his unyielding insistence that he never intended to keep the tools. However, whether Petitioner’s dismissal was fair is not at issue in this proceeding. The issue is whether Walmart has shown a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Petitioner’s employment. At the time of his dismissal, Petitioner offered no reasonable explanation for his failure to follow Walmart policy. Mr. Mallatt’s suspicion regarding Petitioner’s intentions as to the tools was not unfounded and was not based on any discriminatory motive. Petitioner offered no credible evidence disputing the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons given by Walmart for his termination. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Walmart’s stated reasons for his termination were a pretext for discrimination based on Petitioner’s age or national origin. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that his termination was in retaliation for his engaging in protected activity. The employee who was allegedly retaliating against Petitioner played no role in the decision to terminate his employment. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Walmart discriminated against him because of his age or national origin in violation of section 760.10.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 2018.
