The Issue Whether the Petitioner has been subjected to employment discrimination by termination, allegedly based upon race, and by retaliation, for filing a charge of discrimination.
Findings Of Fact On or about November 29, 2005, the Petitioner applied for a job as a part-time sales clerk with the Respondent. The Petitioner indicated that she was available to work on Sundays, Mondays, and Wednesdays from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This was because she was already employed in another job. During the course of the hiring and orientation process, the Petitioner learned of the policies of the Respondent against harassment and discrimination of all types. She was instructed in those policies and acknowledged receipt of them. The Petitioner began her employment with the Respondent on December 27, 2005, as a part-time sales clerk at a convenience store (No. 31) in Milton, Florida. When she began her employment, the Store Manager was Bob Kukuk. The Assistant Managers for that store were Michael Morris and "Cynthia." There were also two other sales clerks, Cherie Dorey and Lugenia Word. Both Ms. Dorey and Ms. Word are white. Soon after the Petitioner was hired, Mr. Kukuk announced his resignation as store manager. On January 31, 2006, the Petitioner attended the new employee training session in Milton, Florida, which included training in the equal employment and non-harassment policies of the Respondent. During the question and answer session, concerning the harassment and discrimination portion of the training, the Petitioner told Training Manager, Robert Birks that she had a problem at her store involving a conflict with another employee. She felt that she was being required to do things that other employees were not required to do. Mr. Birks advised Ms. Myles that she should provide a written statement concerning her complaints to her supervisor and he provided her with pen, paper, and envelope to do so on the spot. The Petitioner wrote out a note and returned it to Mr. Birks in a sealed envelope and he gave the envelope to the District Advisor, Jamie Galloway on that same date. After reading the Petitioner's note, Ms. Galloway met with Petitioner on that same day to discuss her complaints. The Petitioner informed Ms. Galloway that Michael Morris, an Assistant Manager at her store, was telling employees that he was going to be the new store manager. The Petitioner told Ms. Galloway that she felt Morris did not like her because of her race. Ms. Galloway informed the Petitioner that, in fact, Morris would not be selected as store manager for store No. 31 and that Mr. Kukuk would be replaced with someone else other than Morris. She also informed the Petitioner that the Respondent had a zero tolerance for harassment and discrimination and that if the Petitioner had any problems with Mr. Morris that she should personally contact Ms. Galloway. In her capacity as District Advisor, Ms. Galloway supervised the day-to-day operations of a number of stores. In fact, during the above-referenced time period, Ms. Galloway was supervising her own normal district area, as well as that of another district manager who had resigned. The three sales clerks at store No. 31, Ms. Dorey, Ms. Word, and Ms. Myles were all reprimanded ("written-up") in February 2006, because of their cash registers being "short," or containing insufficient funds at the close of the business day or shift. The Petitioner was also counseled for insubordination on this occasion because she told Ms. Word, in front of customers, that she was not going to take out the trash because Mr. Morris and Ms. Dorey would be into work soon and "they never did anything anyway." Ms. Word confirmed that Ms. Myles had made that statement to the store management. Sometime in February 2006 the Petitioner expressed the desire to transfer to a store on the West side of Pensacola because she was no longer employed in her other job in the Milton area. She therefore wanted to work for Tom Thumb at a location closer to her residence. The Manager, Mr. Kukuk at that time, informed Ms. Galloway of this wish on the part of the Petitioner. Ms. Galloway contacted the District Advisor for the West side of Pensacola, Bill Jordan, to inquire whether any positions were available that would fit the Petitioner's schedule. Ms. Galloway followed up on the question with Mr. Jordan several days later, but Mr. Jordan said that he had no employment positions available at that time. The Petitioner then filed her Charge of Discrimination on February 16, 2006, (her first charge). In her Discrimination Charge the Petitioner maintains that she was constantly "getting written-up" for unnecessary matters by Mr. Morris, the Manager. In fact, however, she was written-up only once while Mr. Morris was the Assistant Manager of the store, as were Ms. Word and Ms. Dorey, the other clerks. Both Ms. Word and Ms. Dorey are white. Patricia Merritt was installed as the new store manager at store No. 31 on February 24, 2006. Ms. Merritt has worked for the Respondent for 17 years as a clerk, assistant manager, and manager. Ms. Merritt had the responsibility of managing the store, ascertaining that all duties involved in store operation were accomplished and supervising and monitoring the performance of other store employees. She imposed discipline, including termination if necessary, and also hired employees. Mr. Morris failed to appear for work, beginning the first week of March 2006. He was terminated from his employment with the Respondent on March 9, 2006. In February or early March, Ms. Merritt informed Ms. Galloway that she had overheard another employee referring to the Petitioner having filed a claim against the Respondent because of Mr. Morris. Prior to that time Ms. Merritt was unaware of any problem between Mr. Morris and the Petitioner. Between the time that Ms. Galloway met with the Petitioner on January 31, 2006, and the time she heard from store manager Merritt that the Petitioner was still having a problem with Morris in late February or early March, the Petitioner had not contacted Ms. Galloway to report any problem. After being advised of the matter by Ms. Merritt, Ms. Galloway advised Ms. Merritt to contact the Petitioner to find out her version of the events which occurred and to offer her a transfer to any one of five stores that Ms. Galloway was responsible for on the East side of Pensacola. Ms. Merritt met with the Petitioner and offered her the transfer opportunity, which the Petitioner refused at that time because she had a mediation pending. When Ms. Merritt began duties as store manager a misunderstanding occurred about the Petitioner's schedule. Ms. Merritt understood, mistakenly, that the Petitioner was available for fewer hours of work than she actually was. This resulted in the Petitioner being scheduled to work fewer hours for two or three weeks. Ms. Merritt was then informed of the Petitioner's actual scheduling availability by someone from the management office. On March 20, 2006, the Human Resource Manager, Sheila Kates, met with the Petitioner. The Petitioner complained about her reduced hours which Ms. Kates discussed with Ms. Merritt. As soon as Ms. Merritt realized that she had misunderstood the Petitioner's hours of availability she increased the Petitioner's hours on the work schedule. The Petitioner agreed that Ms. Merritt had been unaware about any problem between the Petitioner and Mr. Morris, when she reduced the Petitioner's work hours schedule because of her misunderstanding of the Petitioner's availability. Ms. Kates again offered to allow Ms. Myles to transfer to another store if she wished (apparently to help her avoid her apparent conflict with Mr. Morris), but the Petitioner again declined. Ms. Galloway, as part of her duties as District Advisor, conducted store inventory audits. She conducted a store inventory audit for Store No. 31 on May 30, 2006. During that audit she discovered that the store had a significant inventory shortage. Ms. Galloway therefore scheduled a "red flag" meeting the next day with each employee at the store, as well as meeting with them as a group to discuss inventory control. All of the employees at the store were counseled regarding the inventory shortage, including Ms. Myles and Ms. Word. Ms. Word, who is white, was issued a written reprimand on March 24th and April 24th, 2006, because of cash shortages. Ms. Word was subsequently terminated on June 16, 2006, for causing inventory shortages by allowing her friends to come in and take merchandise out of the store without paying for it, as well as for excessive gas "drive offs," or instances where people pumped gas into their vehicles and failed to pay for it. The Petitioner was given a $1.00 per hour raise by Ms. Merritt on or about April 2006. Ms. Merritt also changed the Petitioner from a part-time to a full-time employee in May 2006. This change enabled the Petitioner to become eligible for employee benefits. Ms. Merritt also, however, reprimanded the Petitioner for a cash shortage on July 14, 2006. The Petitioner admitted that her cash register was $48.00 dollars short on that day. The Petitioner complained to Ms. Galloway sometime in July of 2006 that Mr. Morris, the former store manager, and no longer an employee, had been vandalizing her car when he came to the store as a customer. Although these allegations were uncorroborated at that time, Ms. Galloway advised the Petitioner to call the police about the matter and to contact Ms. Kates directly, in the Human Resources office, if there were any more such incidents. The Petitioner filed a retaliation claim against the Respondent on August 7, 2006. Ms. Merritt had been considering the Petitioner for promotion to assistant store manager. The Petitioner completed a background check authorization for that position on September 19, 2006. Mark Slater is a Regional Manager for the Respondent. His duties include supporting the District Advisor's position, which includes recruitment, hiring and training of managers, reviewing sales trends, and reviewing any other financial trends, such as cash shortages, "drive offs" and inventory losses. In mid-October 2006, in the course of a routine review of reports from Store No. 31, Mr. Slater became aware of a possible problem regarding excessive gasoline drive offs, and an unusual purchase-to-sales ratio. Shortly after his review of those reports, Mr. Slater went to Store No. 31 to review the store's electronic journal. The electronic journal contained a record of all the store transactions. In his review of that journal, he focused on "voids," "no sales," and "drive offs," which could explain the irregularities that he had observed in his initial review. In his review of the "voids" at store No. 31 during the period in question, Mr. Slater noted quite a few voids for cigarette cartons, for large amounts, in a very short period of time. Specifically, in the course of seven minutes, he observed voids in the total amount of $406.23. He found this to be highly irregular and suspicious. Mr. Slater also looked at the drive-offs, because he had noticed some trends on that report as well. In reviewing drive-offs, he noticed that the same employee number was involved in both the voids and the drive-off transactions. Mr. Slater noted in his review that one drive-off was held on a void and then brought down as a drive-off, which appeared suspicious to him. Mr. Slater than matched up the electronic journal transactions with the security video tape that corresponded with that journal entry. In observing the video tape, Mr. Slater identified the transaction entered as a drive-off, but saw from the video tape that a customer had in fact come in and paid for the gas in question with cash. When he began his review Mr. Slater did not know which employee had the employee number that was used in association with the voids and the gasoline drive-offs. However, after he had concluded his investigation, he researched that number and found out that it was the number assigned to the Petitioner. Mr. Slater thus knew that the Petitioner had voided the drive- off transaction, as shown in the electronic journal, while the video tape showed that the Petitioner had actually served the customer who, in fact, did not drive-off without paying, but had paid $20.00 in cash for the gasoline in question. When she was asked about the security video showing the Petitioner accepting the $20.00 for the transaction which she had entered as a gas drive-off, the Petitioner responded that she did not recall it. Mr. Slater concluded that the Petitioner had not properly handled the transaction and took his findings to the Human Resources Manager, Sheila Kates. After consulting with Ms. Kates, the decision was made to terminate the Petitioner's employment. Prior to making his investigation and prior to making his conclusions, Mr. Slater was unaware of any issues between the Petitioner and Michael Morris. None of his findings and decisions regarding the situation with the Petitioner's voids and drive-offs had anything to do, in a retaliatory sense, with any issues or complaints the Petitioner might have had against Michael Morris or to the Respondent concerning Michael Morris. After being discharged for related types of conduct, neither Ms. Lugenia Word, who is white, nor the Petitioner, Ms. Myles, are eligible for re-hire by the Respondent.
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 dismissing the charges of discrimination and retaliation at issue in their entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Latarsha Myles 2103 Haynes Street, Apt. C Pensacola, Florida 30326 Cathy M. Stutin, Esquire Fisher & Philips LLP 450 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Publix Super Markets, discriminated against Petitioner, Babak Sharifzadeh, on the basis of his national origin (Iranian), religion (Muslim), and/or in retaliation, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an Iranian-born male who is Muslim (or, as he refers to it in his complaint, a Moslem). He has worked for Respondent since being hired as a part-time front service clerk (historically known as a "bag boy") at Publix Store 0133 in Orlando, Florida. Petitioner, thereafter, went to full-time employment and was promoted several times before becoming a store manager in April 2006 at Store 1024 in Montgomery, Alabama. In March 2007, Petitioner agreed to step down to the position of assistant store manager in exchange for a transfer back to Florida. He was transferred to Store 0758 in Poinciana, Florida. On July 13, 2008, Petitioner was transferred to Store 1181 (the "Store") in Kissimmee, Florida, and promoted to store manager.1/ Until his transfer to the Store, Petitioner had not received any disciplinary actions from Respondent. However, in late January 2009, Petitioner was accused of sending several sexually explicit messages to a female employee. The messages contained graphic and crude language that made the recipient uncomfortable. The employee said that in addition to the messages, Petitioner had hugged her a few times when she worked at the Store. Petitioner admitted hugging the employee and giving her a ride home on occasion. He denies sending the messages to her, even though the messages apparently were traced to Petitioner's computer. Petitioner speculated that his son may have used his (Petitioner's) password and sent the messages or perhaps someone hacked into the employee's computer. Petitioner's testimony in that regard lacks credibility. Petitioner was counseled about the need for appropriate behavior at all times and warned that any further incidents could result in loss of his position. Respondent did not feel Petitioner was being honest about the incident with the employee, but decided to give Petitioner the benefit of the doubt. Petitioner was therefore warned, an associate counseling statement was issued, and the matter was resolved. Before long there were new allegations against Petitioner related to sexually inappropriate comments to employees and store customers. Petitioner allegedly discussed the appearance of an employee's breast with another employee, a produce manager. He was also said to have made inappropriate comments about customers to that same produce manager. Petitioner admitted making comments about customers, but denied making any comments about the employee, Ms. Ramos. The produce manager, however, confirmed that he and Petitioner had made the comments. Ramos refused to corroborate the produce manager's statement, but she appeared to be protecting herself, rather than being forthright with Publix investigators. Ultimately, Publix decided that the allegations had merit. Petitioner was counseled by Respondent about the Ramos issue on May 3, 2010. He was warned that further incidents would not be tolerated. During the counseling for the Ramos matter, Petitioner became angry with his supervisors and accused them of harassing him. He did not express at that time that the reason for their harassment was his religion and national origin.2/ Petitioner accused the district manager, Hall, of giving him inferior department managers in an effort to make him fail. He also said neither the district manager nor the retail associate relations specialist, Houk, provided him any support. He did not, however, equate the alleged treatment he was receiving to discriminatory behavior based on religion or national origin. In her report dated November 1, 2011, Susan Brose, human relations legal specialist, wrote that during the May 3, 2010, counseling session, Petitioner said his treatment by Houk and Hall was due to his religion and national origin. That hearsay statement was not corroborated or confirmed by Houk and Hall. No complaint was filed against Houk and Hall despite Petitioner's remonstrations that he would file such complaints. Petitioner testified that his store was excellent and operated above average. Petitioner always received an annual raise and received more than the minimum salary for a person in his position. As late as March 25, 2011, Petitioner wrote in his performance review session that "I appreciate all Mr. Hall has done for me and my team." By all accounts, Petitioner continued to operate without any sanctions or discipline throughout his employment at Publix.3/ Petitioner was issued two Associate Counseling Statements after the Ramos incident: One statement was for his comment to Ramos; one statement was for his belligerence during the counseling session. No sanctions were imposed as a result of the incident. In October 2010, Publix received an email from someone identifying himself as Craig Bancoff (which was apparently an alias for the writer). According to the email, Bancoff had seen Jennifer Gerini and her manager, referred to as "Bob," kissing and drinking alcohol while at work.4/ Bancoff alleged that Gerini and Bob were having an affair. Publix took the email to mean that Petitioner and Gerini, another Publix employee, were having a personal relationship in derogation of Publix policies. Gerini at that time was going through a divorce. It was later pointed out to Publix that the email from Bancoff contained a physical address that was the same as Gerini's address before she separated from her husband. It is likely--but not proven-- that the email came from Gerini's estranged husband. Petitioner denied any relationship with Gerini and acknowledged that it would be against company policy for him to be romantically involved with an employee. He did say that he had tried to give Gerini comfort and support during the time of her divorce. Six months later, however, Petitioner told Hall that he would be unable to attend an event scheduled for store managers because his girlfriend was pregnant and needed care. When questioned, Petitioner told Hall that his pregnant girlfriend was Gerini. However, Petitioner maintains that no relationship existed between him and Gerini while she was an employee at his store. Gerini left the Store in November 2010. She claims to have moved in with Petitioner in December 2010 and gotten pregnant by Petitioner in January 2011. In February 2011, she resigned from Publix. Petitioner and Gerini's child was born September 22, 2011--just over ten months from the Bancoff email.5/ Bancoff's email, coupled with the fact that Gerini gave birth to Petitioner's child seven months after resigning from Publix, strongly suggests that Petitioner and Gerini were involved in an intimate relationship while both were Store employees. If so, then Petitioner was not truthful to his employers and was in violation of the rules of conduct for Publix employees. It is also possible that Petitioner and Gerini only started their relationship after Gerini was transferred from the Store in November 2010. Petitioner stated in a document dated July 14, 2011, that any one of the ten people he disclosed therein could confirm that no relationship existed between him and Gerini. Only one of those persons (Rosa) testified at the final hearing. Rosa did not address the Gerini-Petitioner relationship in his testimony. Another employee who worked at the Store with Petitioner and Gerini (Jimenez) wrote statements to management saying that Gerini had admitted to her that there was a sexual relationship between Gerini and Petitioner. Jimenez said she saw Petitioner's name come up on Gerini's home telephone screen and that Gerini said she had performed oral sex on Petitioner a number of times at the Store. Jimenez testified that "[Petitioner and Gerini] acted very friendly [and] took frequent smoke breaks together. At that point, Jennifer was taken off cash and she was put on some other miscellaneous jobs and every time you couldn't find Jennifer, she was usually with Bob." She had a strong suspicion that there was something going on between Petitioner and Gerini, even though she never witnessed any physical or sexual contact. It was not until later that her suspicions were confirmed. Gerini said that Jimenez never came into her house and that she never told Jimenez she was in a relationship with Petitioner. Petitioner suggested that Jimenez was not an honest person and that her testimony could not be believed. However, from observation, Jimenez appeared truthful and honest. She was no longer an employee at Publix and, thus, had nothing to gain from her testimony. Although Gerini said she and Jimenez were never really friends, Petitioner offered into evidence a document indicating fairly personal Facebook messages between Jimenez and Gerini, an indication of some sort of friendship, at least. In total, Jimenez' testimony was more believable that Gerini's.6/ Publix's perception of the alleged relationship between Petitioner and Gerini was sufficient to warrant termination of Petitioner's employment. Publix scheduled a Discharge Review on July 18, 2011, to inform Petitioner of its intent to discharge him from employment and to give him an opportunity to respond. At the Discharge Review meeting, Petitioner, for the first time, accused Hall of referring to him as "Bin Laden" and making derogatory comments concerning September 11, 2011, and shoe bombers. Again, there is no documented evidence that Petitioner ever made such complaints prior to being notified of his impending termination from employment. According to his district manager (Hall), Petitioner had never made a complaint about any discriminatory actions against him based on his national origin or religion. One of Petitioner's assistant managers, Rosa, testified as to one incident of alleged discriminatory language, to wit: Rosa said that Hall told Petitioner that he (Petitioner) did not understand a reference to the television show Six Million Dollar Man because that show was not shown in Iran. Hall denied ever making the comment. Of the two witnesses, Rosa was least credible. He had recently been discharged from his position at Publix and was planning to file a legal action against Publix. In fact, Rosa's attorney accompanied him to the final hearing in this matter. There is no documented evidence that Petitioner ever complained to his superiors about discrimination until after a decision had been made to terminate his employment with Publix. Petitioner states that he made several complaints, but none of his supervisors recall ever receiving such a complaint. One of Petitioner's alleged complaints was that a store manager, Van Der Berg, called him a shoe bomber and other such derogatory things. However, on the day that Petitioner was called to the district office to be discharged from employment, he called Van Der Berg to say he was being called to the office. It does not seem congruent for Petitioner to call to chat with a person who had maligned him. Upon review of all the evidence, including the fact that Petitioner received positive annual evaluations and raises, there is no basis for a finding of fact that Petitioner raised discrimination claims prior to July 12, 2011 (the date a Notice of Discharge was issued). It is counterintuitive to believe that Publix hired, promoted, and rewarded Petitioner for years and, then, suddenly decided to discriminate against him because of his place of national origin and religion.7/ Publix has a long-standing policy against employees at a single store being romantically involved. The so-called No Conflict Policy prohibits employees who are romantically, emotionally, or sexually involved from working together. Every employee is made aware that such fraternization can result in termination of employment. Publix, if it failed to take appropriate action against an employee, could be liable should a subsequent event occur. Thus, it was incumbent upon Publix to strictly enforce its policies. Under Publix's rules of unacceptable conduct, being dishonest is the first and most important rule. Publix gave Petitioner numerous opportunities to comply with the rules and policies governing its employees. Instead of sanctioning Petitioner or imposing a disciplinary action against him, Publix issued counseling statements. Such statements are not considered discipline by Publix. Ultimately, when Publix concluded that Petitioner engaged in a relationship with an employee and then was untruthful about his actions, he was terminated from his position.8/ Publix has discharged a number of managers for violating the rules relating to inappropriate behavior and untruthfulness. Publix provided a list of five Caucasian men and one woman who were found to have engaged in improper sexual relationships with employees and were terminated. Although the facts of each of their cases were different, and each case had its own individual issues, it is clear Publix treats all its employees similarly. Petitioner's treatment was no more or less severe than that afforded to other managers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations denying the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 15th day of June, 2012.
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner because of a handicap.
Findings Of Fact Sometime in July 2002, Petitioner was hired by Respondent as a Store Clerk (now known as a Sales Associate) at Store No. 3727 in Panama City, Florida. On March 1, 2003, Petitioner was promoted to Lead Sales Associate. Sometime around December 2005, Petitioner was diagnosed with absolute glaucoma and cataracts. As a result of her deteriorating eyesight, Petitioner asked the Store’s Manager, Michaelene Mellor, to be reassigned to her earlier Sales Associate position. Although there was some conflict in the evidence on whether Petitioner was reassigned as a “store stocker,” the better evidence demonstrated that Dollar General did not have a formal position known as a “store stocker.” Dollar General did have a position known as a “Sales Associate.” The Sales Associate position consisted of a variety of duties. Essential to the position were the following: assist in setting and maintaining planograms and programs; build merchandise displays; operate a cash register; itemize and total a customer’s purchase; collect payment from a customer and make change; operate a handheld scanner; and assist with ordering merchandise and maintaining inventory in the store. Planograms are shelving strips that contain shelf tags. They are the method that employees use to place merchandise in the store and on the shelves. They also help in inventory control. Petitioner was reassigned by Ms. Mellor. Her primary duties were to stock the store by using the planograms and shelf tags. Ms. Mellor advised the District Manager about the reassignment. However, she did not inform the District Manager that Petitioner would primarily be limited to stocking the store. Under Ms. Mellor’s tenure as Store Manager, Store 3727 was not properly managed. The store was dirty, had incorrect or out-of-date signage, incomplete or nonexistent planograms, merchandise on the floor and blocking the aisles, and a high incidence of inventory loss. Because of these problems, Ms. Mellor was terminated in October 2006. That same month, Thomas Rector became the Store Manager. His goal was to bring the store into compliance with Dollar General’s operation policies and to reduce the store’s inventory loss. At the time Mr. Rector took over Store 3727, the store had 4 positions and 7 employees allotted to it. The positions were Store Manager, Assistant Store Manager, Lead Sales Associate and Sales Associate. Each store was allotted a specific number of labor hours, excluding the hours worked by the manager, to cover the hours the store is open for business. Because Store 3727 had only 7 employees, only two or three employees worked during any given shift. With so few employees to cover each shift, it was essential that all employees be able to perform all the duties of the position that they filled. In this case, it was essential that Petitioner be able to read a scanner, run the cash register, make change, read a planogram, read a shelf tag, locate merchandise and stock merchandise. For the next several months, Mr. Rector observed that Petitioner could not clock herself in or out of work. More importantly, he observed that Petitioner had difficulties in stocking merchandise in the proper place. He observed that other employees had to sometimes help Petitioner with stocking. Improperly stocked items caused inventory control problems, increased the labor hours used by the store because time was required to correctly place store items and could result in lost revenue due to improper pricing. He also observed that she had trouble reading the scanner, the planograms and shelf tags. Based on his observations, Mr. Rector concluded that Petitioner could not fulfill the duties of a Sales Associate. He contacted the District Manager, Joe Peebles, and advised him that Petitioner could not perform the duties of a Sales Associate. On June 6, 2007, Mr. Peebles met with Petitioner. He read her the list of duties that a Sales Associate must perform and asked her if she felt she could perform those duties. Those duties are outlined above. Petitioner admitted she had difficulty with reading a planogram and operating a cash register. Likewise at the hearing, Petitioner admitted and demonstrated that she could not accurately read a planogram or shelf tag. She admitted she could not build a merchandise display, could not operate a cash register and could not make change for a customer. The evidence was clear that Petitioner could not perform the essential functions of a Sales Associate. Eventually, Petitioner was placed on leave and was told that, if her vision did not improve, she would be terminated. At no time did Petitioner ask for or identify any reasonable accommodation that could be made by Respondent to enable her to perform her duties as a Sales Associate and the evidence did not reveal that any such accommodations existed or were available. Ultimately, Petitioner was terminated because she could not perform the duties of a Sales Associate. The evidence did not demonstrate that her termination was discriminatory or the reasons given for her termination were pretextual. Finally, the evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioner’s vision impairment could be reasonably accommodated. Given these facts, Petitioner’s Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 9th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jean Marie Downing, Esquire 221 Thomas Drive Panama City Beach, Florida 32408 Alva L. Cross, Esquire 2300 SunTrust Financial Centre 401 East Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulation of establishments licensed for the sale of alcoholic beverages in the State of Florida. Robert DeCosey is the sole owner and operator of the Respondent. At all times material to this case, the Respondent held Special Restaurant License No. 63-05489, Series 4-COP/SRX. Pursuant to law, the Respondent must derive at least 51 percent of his gross sales from food and non-alcoholic beverages in order to maintain the license, and the Respondent is required to maintain sufficient records to document such sales. The Petitioner conducted an audit for the period of April 1, 2008, through July 31, 2008. Based upon information that the Respondent provided to the auditor, the auditor estimated that 41.2 percent of the Respondent's gross revenue came from the sales of food and non- alcoholic beverages. The sales information provided to the auditor by the Respondent lacked supporting documentation and was not reliable. The Respondent maintained no verifiable information regarding his gross sales during the audit period. The Respondent provided no credible information regarding inventory levels, and, accordingly, the auditor was unable to calculate the Respondent's expenses. Sales prices were not provided during the audit, and, therefore, the calculation of revenue was little more than speculative. At the hearing, the Respondent testified that the "business model" he utilized focused on "special events" and that he did not open the restaurant on a routine basis. He testified that food was available during the events and served buffet-style. There was no documentation to support the testimony, and it has been rejected. The Respondent testified that he rented the facility during non-business hours to patrons who wanted to bring in their own food and alcoholic beverages, some of whom may have left food or alcohol behind after the private event concluded. He also testified that he opened the facility for events during which no food was available. Although the Petitioner asserted subsequent to the hearing that such practices were violations of state beverage law, the violations were not alleged in the Administrative Complaint and are outside the scope of this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order revoking the special license held by Urban Hospitality Ventures, Inc., d/b/a DeCosey's Restaurant and Lounge. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert DeCosey Urban Hospitality Ventures, Inc., d/b/a DeCosey’s Restaurant and Lounge 2349 Lake Debra Drive, No. 617 Orlando, Florida 32835 Michael B. Golen, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 40 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John R. Powell, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1020
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. In May of 1990, Petitioner, a black male, began working as a delivery driver for the former owner of the Domino's Pizza franchise in Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent bought the franchise in March of 1992 and retained Petitioner as a driver to deliver pizza at store number 5131. On March 30, 1992, Petitioner signed a statement that he had read and understood the Respondent's Employee Orientation Manual setting forth, among other things, standards for personal conduct. This manual specifically advises that an employee may be disciplined or discharged for: (1) negligent handling of company funds; (2) insubordination and refusal to do assigned work; (3) disturbing the work force and/or creating a disturbance; and (4) harassment of team members. At all times material hereto, Scott Nelson was the store manager at Respondent's store number 5131. Mr. Nelson had authority to hire and fire employees at that location. Though it was against store policy, Mr. Nelson and other employees frequently used profanity and told vulgar off- color jokes while working. Sometimes the jokes involved inappropriate racial overtones. At times Mr. Nelson would call black customers "stupid niggers" after they left the store. Petitioner would also use the term "nigger" in conversations but in a context he believed to be acceptable. Mr. Nelson encouraged employees to discuss any problem they had with management in the privacy of the office at the rear of the store. Mr. Nelson told the employees that they could speak freely during these discussions and nothing they said would be taken personally. The purpose of holding the discussions in the office was to prevent customers from overhearing the conversations. Occasionally, Mr. Nelson and an employee would have a heated argument and curse at each other as long as no customers were in the store. Other employees heard these arguments but there is no evidence that the arguments took place outside the confines of the office. During some of these arguments, Mr. Nelson would threaten to fire employees but not follow through with his threats or report the incidents to his superiors. At all times material to this proceeding, Niki Supplee, a white female, worked as a delivery driver at Respondent's store number 5131. She and Mr. Nelson had heated arguments in which they cursed each other. She was never written up or disciplined after these outbursts. The record does not reveal the location or the subject matter of the arguments between Ms. Supplee and Mr. Nelson. At all times material to this proceeding, Ms. Supplee had a black boyfriend. Upon learning that her boyfriend was black, Mr. Nelson offended Ms. Supplee by asking why she was attracted to a black man. He wanted to know what was wrong with her and why she could not find a white guy. Once or twice when Ms. Supplee heard Mr. Nelson use a racial epithet, she informed him that she did not appreciate that kind of language. Subsequently, Mr. Nelson would use a racial slur then apologize to Ms. Supplee. Petitioner and Mr. Nelson occasionally had a beer together after work. On one of these occasions, Mr. Nelson admitted that he had been raised in an environment where there were very few black people. Mr. Nelson admitted that he had to learn how to get over certain feelings about being around black people when he first began working at Domino's Pizza. At the hearing Mr. Nelson admitted that on occasion he may have made racial slurs in front of his employees about customers after they left the store. However, prior to the incident which is the subject of this proceeding, no employee ever complained to Mr. Nelson's supervisor, Ron LeStourgeon, about Mr. Nelson's use of racial epithets or perceived racial prejudices. There is no evidence that Mr. Nelson ever used a racial slur directed towards his employees or in relation to an employment decision. During the period of Petitioner's employment, he was given verbal warnings about failing to be at work on time, making personal stops on company time without permission, and refusing to perform certain tasks on the premises. Mr. Nelson would occasionally instruct Petitioner to do an assigned task at the store when other white employees were standing around talking. However, there is no persuasive evidence that Mr. Nelson's instructions to Petitioner were anything more than a reminder to do a previously assigned routine job for the day. Mr. Nelson required Petitioner to sign a statement on September 7, 1993, as a result of his refusal to follow directions without complaint. Mr. Nelson prepared the statement in which Petitioner agreed to follow the direction of management staff promptly and without complaint or risk disciplinary action including termination. The statement advises Petitioner that he should go directly to Mr. LeStourgeon if Petitioner had a complaint he could not resolve with Mr. Nelson. There is no competent persuasive evidence that Mr. Nelson created written or verbal policies designed to adversely impact Petitioner and not other employees. Mr. LeStourgeon was in the store 275 to 300 times during 1993. Petitioner did not attempt to contact Mr. LeStourgeon regarding any perceived racial discrimination at work. Petitioner's testimony to the contrary is not persuasive. On October 21, 1993, Petitioner filed a claim with the United States Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division of the Employment Standards Administration. This complaint alleged that Respondent did not pay Petitioner for all of the hours he worked. Mr. Nelson subsequently resolved this dispute by taking Petitioner's word that he was due the money and including that amount in the next pay check. There is no competent persuasive evidence that Respondent's decision to terminate Petitioner's employment was related to the filing of this claim. On October 21, 1993, Petitioner also went to the Florida Commission on Human Relations and spoke to an in-take counselor. He did not file a claim but wanted advice because he believed the problems he and other blacks were experiencing at work were due to racial discrimination. On November 16, 1993, Petitioner made a certain pizza delivery and inadvertently failed to turn in $8.55 when he checked out that night. Milton Finkelstein, the assistant manager on duty, realized after Petitioner left for a two-day vacation that the store was short by that amount. Mr. Nelson was not on duty that evening. Mr. Nelson returned to work on November 17, 1993, but Mr. Finkelstein had the day off. Mr. Nelson did not determine which driver was responsible for the missing money until Mr. Finkelstein returned to work on November 18, 1993. Petitioner lived very close to the store but had no telephone. On occasion, a driver was sent to Petitioner's house to ask him to report to work. However, Petitioner let the managers know that he did not want to be bothered at home when he was off. Petitioner did not return to work until November 19, 1993. Mr. Finkelstein showed the ticket for the missing money to Petitioner who confronted Mr. Nelson in the office. Because Petitioner denied that he made the delivery, Mr. Nelson called the customer who thought a black man delivered the pizza three days before. Petitioner was the only black driver on duty at store number 5131 on November 16, 1993. Petitioner's testimony that he worked at another Domino's Pizza store for most of that evening is not persuasive. After the telephone call, Mr. Nelson insisted that Petitioner would have to reimburse the store for the missing $8.55. Mr. Nelson also told Petitioner that he would have to pay future missing receipts even if management did not identify Petitioner as the responsible driver for three days. Petitioner began to argue loudly and yell at Mr. Nelson. As Petitioner stormed out of the office, he screamed back, "Fuck you, Scott," repeating it several times. Three employees in the front of the store heard Petitioner make these statements. Mr. Nelson then told Petitioner to, "Go get your money. Go get your mileage." Mr. Nelson was upset at the time of this incident because it was the most threatening scene that had ever occurred in the store. Petitioner and Mr. Nelson had argued in the past but Petitioner had never been so openly defiant. Mr. Nelson intended to take some disciplinary action but did not make an immediate decision to fire Petitioner. Petitioner's testimony that Mr. Nelson fired him before he yelled profanities is not persuasive. When Petitioner left the store on November 19, 1993, he had cash from that day's deliveries that belonged to the store. Mr. Nelson sent Mr. Finkelstein and another employee to Petitioner's home to retrieve the cash. Upon their arrival, Petitioner was uncooperative and verbally abusive. They returned to the store without the cash. Mr. Nelson called Mr. LeStourgeon, to advise him of the situation and ask him what, if any, disciplinary action should be taken. Mr. LeStourgeon directed Mr. Nelson to do what was necessary to retrieve the day's receipts and fire Petitioner for insubordination. Mr. Nelson called the Tallahassee Police Department. Two police officers interviewed Mr. Nelson then went to Petitioner's house. The officers returned to the store without the cash receipts. There is no evidence that Mr. Nelson ever signed a complaint. About 1:30 a.m. on November 20, 1993, Petitioner voluntarily returned to the store and gave the cash receipts from November 19, 1993, to Mr. Nelson. He did not pay the $8.55 which he owed the store. Petitioner inquired whether he was fired. Mr. Nelson informed Petitioner that he was fired for insubordination. Petitioner did not hire black people to work in the store then cut back their hours or fire them in order to replace them with more recently hired white people. Testimony to the contrary is not persuasive. Mr. Nelson was more than just insensitive at times to other people's feelings. He often failed to conduct himself in a professional manner. He had difficulty supervising and working with white and black employees. He no longer works for Petitioner as a store manager. Regardless of Mr. Nelson's inappropriate behavior and lack of management skills, his decision to report Petitioner's insubordinate conduct to Mr. LeStourgeon was not motivated by intentional racial discrimination. Rather, Mr. Nelson sought the advice of his superior because of Petitioner's gross insubordination: (1) he cursed the store manager in front of other employees; (2) he refused to pay $8.55 for the pizza delivered on November 16, 1993; (3) he refused to promptly turn in the cash receipts from November 19, 1993 upon request; and (4) he verbally abused the assistant manager and the other employee who attempted to retrieve cash receipts. Competent persuasive evidence indicates that Mr. LeStourgeon made the decision to fire Petitioner based on his conduct alone with no knowledge of Mr. Nelson's policies regarding profanity or vulgarity. Mr. Nelson's racial prejudices, if any, were unknown to Mr. LeStourgeon and not a consideration in the employment decision. Moreover, Mr. LeStourgeon would have fired Petitioner because of his blatant insubordination and threatening attitude even if he had been aware that Mr. Nelson had tolerated similar conduct in the past. The same decision would have been reached absent the presence of Mr. Nelson's alleged discriminatory motive. There is no evidence that Petitioner replaced Petitioner with another driver, white or black. Mr. Nelson hired Mr. Finkelstein's daughter, a white person, while Petitioner was still working for Respondent. She backed into a customer's car in the parking lot. Respondent gave the customer twenty-five free pizzas for damage to his car because Mr. Finkelstein agreed to pay Respondent for the pizzas. Mr. Finkelstein subsequently reimbursed Respondent. This incident does not show favoritism for white employees. During 1993, Respondent had approximately twenty-three (23) employees at store number 5131. Of those employees, sixteen (16) were white, five (5) were black, and two (2) were Hispanic. Petitioner was the only employee fired from Respondent's store number 5131 in 1993.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor or the witnesses, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding that Respondent did not discharge or otherwise discriminate against Petitioner on account of his race and dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer 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 29th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitutes specific rulings on the Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. Respondent did not file Proposed Findings of Fact. Rejected. Testimony of management concerning this point is more persuasive. Rejected. See paragraph 20. Accepted as modified in paragraphs 5-7. Accepted as modified in paragraph 8. Rejected. See paragraphs 16-17. Rejected. Not supported by competent persuasive evidence. Rejected. See paragraph 30. Accepted as modified in paragraphs 5, 10, and 12. Reject the last sentence entirely as argumentative. Rejected. See paragraph 30. Rejected. See paragraph 16. Rejected. See paragraph 16. Rejected. See paragraph 25. Rejected. See paragraph 22. Rejected as not supported by competent persuasive evidence. Rejected. No evidence that Petitioner applied for promotion. COPIES FURNISHED: Lenny Fulwood, II 790 El Dorado Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Thomas Bean President of Seminole Pizza, Inc. 6005 Benjamin Road, Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33643 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
The Issue Whether Respondent, Superior Optical Shop (Respondent), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections 760.01– and 509.092, Florida Statutes, by subjecting Petitioner, Janice Jennings (Petitioner), to discrimination in employment and by discharging Petitioner in retaliation for Petitioner’s opposition to Respondent’s discriminatory employment practices.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female. Respondent is a corporation with its corporate headquarters located in Ocean Springs, Mississippi. Respondent operates an optical shop in a Veteran’s Administration (V.A.) Hospital located in Lake City, Florida. At its Lake City location, Respondent fills prescriptions written by eye physicians at the V.A. Hospital, assists patients with choosing frames, and fits patients with their prescription eye glasses. Respondent’s optical shop in Lake City is fast-paced, with a constant stream of patients, averaging 50-to-60 patients a day. If the optical shop is running behind schedule, it is problematic because often physicians at the V.A. Hospital are waiting to see the patients served by the optical shop. In 2009, Petitioner interviewed for a position at Respondent’s optical shop in Lake City, Florida. During her interview, Petitioner advised Respondent that she had competent computer skills and significant experience working in an office environment and with eye doctors. On May 27, 2009, Respondent hired Petitioner as a part- time clerk at the optical shop. Petitioner was terminated prior to working 90 days for Respondent. When Petitioner was hired, two full-time employees worked at the optical shop: office supervisor, Jean Hartup, and optician, Kathleen Denton. Ms. Hartup has been employed with Respondent for approximately five years. Ms. Denton has been with the optical shop for approximately two and a-half years. As office supervisor, Ms. Hartup can be distant with employees and “hard” at times. She can also be “direct” when speaking to employees. Ms. Hartup demonstrates these traits with all of the employees at the optical shop. Ms. Hartup has written up Ms. Denton in the past and the two have had personality conflicts. Both Ms. Hartup and Ms. Denton assisted with training Petitioner. Evidence indicated that Petitioner received adequate training to perform the tasks she was assigned to perform as a clerk. She often had to be re-trained on the same tasks. Respondent’s optical shop in Lake City is a very small room, approximately ten-feet by ten-feet square inside the V.A. Hospital. There are two small desks in the shop and it is very crowded. Petitioner was aware of the small working environment at the time she accepted employment with Respondent as a part- time clerk. Past and present employees at the optical shop have had to share desk space. Sometimes work has to be performed in the hallway because of the small office space. All new hires for Respondent are subjected to a 90-day probationary period. As explained in Respondent’s “Employee Handbook of Office Policies and Benefits,” of which Petitioner was aware: There will be a 90-day probationary period during which time the employer may terminate the employee at any time for any reason or for no reason regardless of any other provision of these policies. Sick leave and personal days are accrued but cannot be used during this period. Respondent’s Employee Handbook of Office Policies and Benefits also provides: [Respondent] does not and will not tolerate any employee discriminating against their work peers for any reason i.e., race, color, religion, sex, national origin or handicap. Any known verifiable discrimination will be grounds for immediate termination. Once on the job, Petitioner was not proficient on the computer and, despite repeated training, failed to show any improvement and was slow in performing her job duties. Because of this, service to patients at the optical shop slowed down and the optical shop was frequently behind, resulting in physicians having to wait for patients being served by the optical shop. Ms. Hartup became frustrated with Petitioner’s unsatisfactory job performance and the resulting delays. In addition, Petitioner began to show a lack of interest in her job and even stated that she “didn’t really need a job; she just wanted to be out of the house.” Despite repeated training and opportunities to improve her work performance, Petitioner failed to improve. Petitioner was given a notebook with information from the American Board of Opticians for review but she failed to read it or return it to Respondent. Prior to the end of her employment with Respondent, Petitioner called Respondent’s corporate headquarters in Mississippi and spoke to Mary Walker. Petitioner complained to Ms. Walker that Ms. Hartup was being too hard, was impatient, and was expecting too much of her. Petitioner did not raise concerns with Ms. Walker that she was being discriminated against based on her race, or that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment because of her race. In fact, there is no evidence that Petitioner ever complained of race discrimination or a hostile work environment based on race discrimination while she was still employed by Respondent. During that first telephone conversation with Petitioner, Ms. Walker suggested to Petitioner that she should talk to Ms. Hartup about the problems. Petitioner assured Ms. Walker that she would. Two days later, Ms. Walker called Ms. Hartup and inquired whether Petitioner had discussed her concerns with Ms. Hartup. Petitioner, however, had not spoken to Ms. Hartup about her complaint. Ms. Walker gave Ms. Hartup the authority to run the optical shop at Lake City, including making hiring and firing decisions. Ms. Walker did not discipline Ms. Hartup because of Petitioner’s complaints. Rather, Ms. Walker told Ms. Hartup to handle the situation regarding Petitioner’s complaints. Ms. Hartup then met with Petitioner and they spoke about Petitioner’s concerns that Ms. Hartup was being too harsh and about Petitioner’s poor work performance. As a result of that meeting, Ms. Hartup felt the situation had been resolved. Petitioner subsequently advised both Ms. Denton, as well as Ms. Walker at Respondent’s headquarters, that the conversation with Ms. Hartup had gone well and that their issues had been resolved. Petitioner’s work performance, however, did not improve. Prior to the end of her 90-day probationary period of employment, Respondent terminated Petitioner from employment for poor work performance, for failing to reach her capabilities as an employee, and because her poor work performance was a detriment to Respondent’s Lake City optical shop. Petitioner testified that, from her point of view, she truly felt as though she had been discriminated against because of her race. That testimony, however, was without further support and was unpersuasive, especially in view of the fact that there is no evidence that Petitioner ever mentioned to anyone during her employment with Respondent that she believed she was being discriminated against. There was otherwise no evidence presented at the final hearing that would support a finding that Respondent’s decision to terminate Petitioner was in retaliation for Petitioner’s complaint against Ms. Hartup. Further, the evidence produced at final hearing does not support a finding that either the manner in which Petitioner was treated during her employment with Respondent, or her termination from that employment, was based on Petitioner’s race. Respondent filled the position of part-time clerk left vacant after Petitioner’s termination by hiring a Native- American male.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner’s Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2010.
The Issue The issue presented for determination is whether Respondent, Dillard’s, discriminated against Petitioner, Tanya Chun, based on her age, in violation of section 760.101, Florida Statutes (2012),1/ when it did not hire her for a sales associate position.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Chun was born April 4, 1957. Ms. Chun applied for a position as a sales associate at Dillard’s Department Store No. 209 in Lakeland, Florida, on June 7, 2012. At the time, she was 55 years old. Ms. Chun completed the employment application at a kiosk in the store linked to Dillard’s personnel system. Ms. Chun’s application disclosed only two periods of employment. The most recent was with Golf Plus, Inc., as a bookkeeper handling accounts receivable and accounts payable from January 1998 to May 2012. The other was employment at Macy’s in New York City from April 1993 to October 1994 in clothing sales and customer services as a retail sales associate. At the time, the Lakeland Dillard’s store had five openings--two in cosmetics, two in ladies’ shoes, and one in men’s shoes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Walter Soto was operation sales manager at the store with authority to hire people to fill the openings. Mr. Soto interviewed Ms. Chun and seven other applicants for the five positions. During the interview and hiring process, Mr. Soto relied upon the information the applicants provided in their applications and the interviews. Mr. Soto hired five of the applicants. He did not hire Ms. Chun. During Ms. Chun’s interview, Mr. Soto asked her a number of questions about Macy’s sales procedures and common sales procedures and practices. Ms. Chun was not familiar with common concepts, such as sales per hour and items per transaction. These are concepts with which someone with retail experience and knowledge should be familiar. The five people Mr. Soto hired are Emil Pancorbo, Angelique Schoenmakers, Taylor Swallow, Ashley Thirion, and David Tilton. All were younger than Ms. Chun, although Ms. Schoenmakers was only three years younger. The information available to Mr. Soto about Emil Pancorbo, which he relied upon, indicated that Mr. Pancorbo had recent retail experience at large retailers, JCPenney from October 2008 to April 2011, and Guitar Center from April 2011 to September 2011. Mr. Soto considered this experience in deciding to hire Mr. Pancorbo, instead of Ms. Chun. The information available to Mr. Soto about Angelique Schoenmakers, which he relied upon, indicated that she had recent retail experience as a counter manager for Elizabeth Arden and that she worked for Macy’s from October 2010 to April 2012. Ms. Schoenmakers was recruited to work for Dillard’s. Mr. Soto considered Ms. Schoenmakers’ employment history in deciding to hire Ms. Schoenmakers, instead of Ms. Chun. Ms. Schoenmakers was born January 15, 1960, making her only three years younger than Ms. Chun. The information available to Mr. Soto about Taylor Swallow, which he relied upon, indicated she had recent retail experience, working for Kohl’s from August 2011 to June 2012. Ms. Swallow also had cosmetic experience. She had applied makeup on clients. Mr. Soto considered Ms. Swallow’s employment history in deciding to hire Ms. Swallow, instead of Ms. Chun. The information available to Mr. Soto about Ashley Thirion, which he relied upon, indicated she had recent retail experience working at a Clinique cosmetics counter at Macy’s from June 2011 to November 2011. Clinique is a cosmetics line that Dillard’s also carries. Mr. Soto considered Ms. Thirion’s employment history in deciding to hire Ms. Thirion, instead of Ms. Chun. The information available to Mr. Soto about David Tilton, which he relied upon, indicated that Mr. Tilton had recent retail experience at a large retailer, Bealls from May 2010 to May 2012. Mr. Tilton worked in the shoe department for Bealls. Mr. Soto considered Mr. Tilton’s employment history in deciding to hire Mr. Tilton, instead of Ms. Chun. Based on the information from the applications and interviews available to him, Mr. Soto made a fair and rational decision to hire applicants other than Ms. Chun. In particular, the fact that the retail experience of each of the applicants was more recent than that of Ms. Chun supports Mr. Soto’s decision. All of the applicants, except Ms. Swallow and Ms. Thirion, also had more retail experience than Ms. Chun. Ms. Swallow and Ms. Thirion both had cosmetics experience, and two of the positions that Mr. Soto was filling were for the cosmetics department. The Dillard’s employment procedure includes preparing an applicant summary for each individual interviewed. For the hiring cycle involved here, eight of the applicant summaries, including Ms. Chun’s, indicate the person was hired. In order for the Dillard’s system to permit obtaining a background check, Mr. Soto had to change an applicant’s status on the applicant summaries to “hired.” At the time, Mr. Soto was not following the Dillard’s procedure of only conducting a background check for an employee after the employee was hired. He did not think the procedure was fair to the applicants, who may be hired and then “un-hired” after the background check. Mr. Soto chose to conduct background checks before extending job offers. The status on Ms. Chun’s applicant summary states “hired.” But she was not hired, just as Ricky Davis and William Guadalupe, whose summaries state “hired,” were not hired. The status for all the applicants said “hired,” only because Mr. Soto changed the status in order to run a background check. If Dillard’s hires an employee, a Basic Employee Information sheet is prepared. There is no Basic Employee Sheet for Tanya Chun because she was not hired. There are Basic Employee Information sheets for Emil Pancorbo, Angelique Schoenmakers, Taylor Swallow, Ashley Thirion, and David Tilton. If an employee is hired, Mr. Soto conducts reference checks. He did not conduct a reference check for Ms. Chun because she was not hired. Ms. Chun maintains that Mr. Soto told her at the interview’s conclusion that she was hired and that they agreed to a start date and compensation of $10.00 per hour with full medical and dental insurance. She also maintains that Mr. Soto told her she would undergo a routine background check and requested that she sign a consent form and provide her identification card for the background check. Ms. Chun says that Mr. Soto stated that she did not “look that old” after he looked at her identification. She also claims he then said he had to talk to someone else and left the room for about five minutes. Mr. Soto denies Ms. Chun’s descriptions of the conversation. Ms. Chun, according to her own testimony, called for Mr. Soto a few times in the days following the interview to check on her employment status. She was correctly told that he had been transferred. On June 18, 2012, Ms. Chun sent a letter with the following text to Mr. Soto: I am writing to inquire the status of my employment application and I would like to receive your written response. Early last week, I applied for employment at Human Resources. The next day I was called in for an interview by you and when we met, before you offered a position you stated that I seemed to be a good candidate, and requested my identification and social security card, made photocopies, then stated that you will do a background check. As you reviewed my identification papers, your tenor changed and you stated that you will get back to me. I am writing to ask the status. I would like to request a copy of the documents I completed, as I do not have them for myself--both the application and the background disclosure form. And I would like to know why my identification with date of birth was requested before I was offered a position, and why my identification became the basis of your change of discussion. Thank you for your prompt attention. She did not receive a response. On February 28, 2013, Ms. Chun sent another letter, this one to the Dillard’s Human Resource Department. It states: I wrote the attached letter [June 18, 2012, letter] to your company more than six months ago, and I have received no response. My discussion with Walter at the interview, before being requested to provide my ID showing my age, was that I was going to be hired. Then, when my ID revealed my age I was told “we will get back to you” and I have requested an explanation and copies of the documents pertaining to my application, but you have totally disregarded my letter. I am writing to reiterate my request, and I request that you respond within five business days. Neither letter, both of which are specific and articulate, includes the claim Ms. Chun now makes that Mr. Soto said she did not “look that old” after seeing her identification. Dillard’s did not respond until March 11, 2013. A woman named “Arlie” called that day and told Ms. Chun it was Dillard’s policy to obtain identification and again advised that Mr. Soto had been transferred to another location. The weight of the credible, persuasive evidence does not establish Ms. Chun’s version of the events. The factors resulting in this determination include the fact that she testified that Mr. Soto told her she was hired and that they agreed upon a start date. Yet, she also testified that she called several times to check on the status of her application. Calling to check on the application’s status is inconsistent with having accepted a job and having agreed to a start date. If Ms. Chun had been offered and accepted a job, she would have reported for work, not called to check on the status of her application. In addition, Mr. Soto’s testimony about the process and the events is consistent with the documents for the applicants he interviewed. Finally, Ms. Chun did not make her very specific claim about what Mr. Soto said, “you don’t look that old,” in either of her letters or her initial Complaint of Discrimination filed with the Commission. From April to November of 2013, Mr. Soto hired at least ten individuals born in 1957, like Ms. Chun, or born earlier. This is persuasive evidence corroborating Mr. Soto’s testimony that he does not weigh an applicant’s age against the applicant when making his hiring decisions. Mr. Soto hired five applicants other than Ms. Chun because he found their qualifications superior for the open positions. Ms. Chun’s age was not a factor in Mr. Soto’s decision.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations deny Ms. Chun’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 19th day of June, 2014.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner based on her disability and by retaliating against her, and if so, what, if any, relief is Petitioner entitled to receive.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Respondent's former employee who began working for Respondent in 1993. Petitioner was most recently assigned to the warehouse in eastern Jacksonville, Florida, where she worked from October 2000 until September 2007. When she first transferred to the warehouse, Petitioner worked as the Return-to-Vendor (“RTV”) Clerk. As the RTV Clerk, Petitioner was responsible for shipping out returned merchandise to vendors and shipping salvaged items to the salvage companies. In 2004, Petitioner transferred to the Receiving Clerk position. Petitioner remained in the Receiving Clerk position until September 19, 2007, when she began a medical leave of absence. Jason Zook became the manager of the warehouse in May 2005. As the Warehouse Manager, Mr. Zook is responsible for overseeing the entire warehouse, including the Receiving Department. Mr. Zook is familiar with the requirements of the Receiving Clerk position because he previously worked in that position at another warehouse. Michael Sinanian is one of the Assistant Warehouse Managers. Mr. Sinanian transferred to the warehouse as an Assistant Warehouse Manager in 2002. Prior to becoming an Assistant Warehouse Manager, Mr. Sinanian worked in the Receiving Department at other warehouses for a little over two and a half years. During that time, Mr. Sinanian worked as a Receiving Manager, a Receiving Supervisor, an RTV Clerk, and a Receiving Clerk. The Receiving Department is located at the back of the warehouse. The warehouse is approximately the length of a football field from front to back. At all times material here, the Receiving Department at the warehouse had four positions: Receiving Manager, Receiving Clerk, Receiving Secretary, and Forklift Driver. In 2007, Deborah Lenox was the Receiving Manager, an employee named Sonya was the Receiving Secretary, Petitioner was the Receiving Clerk, and an employee named Valdean was the Forklift Driver. The Receiving Secretary and the Receiving Clerk have different job responsibilities. The Receiving Secretary is responsible for answering the phone, making vendor appointments, logging the appointments, dealing with paperwork, creating and printing out receiving tags, and logging shipment information into Respondent's computer system. The Receiving Clerk is responsible for counting and checking merchandise against freight bills, opening boxes and cartons with a box knife to verify and count the product, stacking bed-loaded merchandise or merchandise from damaged or unacceptable pallets onto approved pallets, separating mixed items from pallets for checking, wrapping pallets with plastic wrap in preparation for movement onto the warehouse floor, loading merchandise and emptying pallets onto trucks using a manual pallet jack or hand cart, and cleaning and clearing the receiving dock of any debris and trip hazards. Each of these essential job functions requires standing, which is consistent with the job analysis for this position. Respondent has written job analyses, which identify the essential functions of each job and are used to assist the Company, the employee, and the employee’s doctor in determining if the employee can perform the essential functions of his/her job with or without reasonable accommodations. Respondent does not remove or eliminate essential job functions, but will sometimes modify the manner in which the function is to be completed. Respondent will not displace another employee from his position in order to accommodate a disabled employee. A pallet of merchandise can be as much as 60 inches high. A typical pallet coming in the warehouse is a 60-inch cube. An electric pallet jack is a double pallet jack and is approximately 18 feet long. In order to operate an electric pallet jack, an employee has to stand and lean in the direction that she wants the machine to go and turn the handle. There is no seat on an electric pallet jack. Petitioner’s original foot condition was due to osteomyelitis, an infection of the bone. Between 1998 and 1999, Petitioner had four surgeries to address her foot condition. A surgeon placed an artificial plastic bone in Petitioner's foot in July 1999. In September 1999, Petitioner returned to work with medical restrictions that prevented her from standing for long periods of time and from lifting more than 25 or 35 pounds. At some point thereafter, while Petitioner was working at one of Respondent’s warehouses in Memphis, Tennessee, her podiatrist changed her restrictions to add limitations against cashiering, stocking, and inventory. Petitioner understood that the reason for these additional restrictions was that she was not able to do these tasks to the extent they required her to stand for a prolonged period of time. Petitioner’s medical notes stated that she was able to use her discretion as to her limitations, which Petitioner understood to mean that she could sit and rest her foot as needed. Each of these restrictions was permanent. Mr. Zook, Ms. Lenox, and Mr. Sinanian were all aware that Petitioner had medical restrictions relating to her foot condition that prevented her from standing for prolonged periods of time. They were aware that Respondent had agreed to allow Petitioner to sit down when she felt it was necessary, without first having to ask for permission. Despite her restrictions, Petitioner is able to ride her bike, go the grocery store, and work out at the gym. During the relevant time period, Petitioner worked out at the gym approximately four days a week. Her work-out routine included warming up on an elliptical machine for approximately 15-to-20 minutes or walking approximately one mile on the treadmill and using a leg press machine. Respondent performs inventory twice a year. It takes an inventory at all warehouses in February and August. The inventory process begins on Friday night and continues until the following Wednesday. The back-stock is counted on Friday night after closing and the stock on the sales floor is counted on Saturday night after closing. The post- audit process begins on Sunday morning before the warehouse opens to its members and continues on Monday morning. The Saturday night inventory count is more labor- intensive and is considered “all hands on deck.” The Saturday night inventory requires the staff to count approximately $9 million worth of inventory during roughly a five-hour period. On Saturday, Respondent assigns two employees to count the items in each aisle at the same time. The employees double- check each other’s counts. If there is a discrepancy between the employees’ counts, both will recount the items until their counts agree. If there are discrepancies after the Saturday counts between the physical counts and the computer records, the items are recounted during the Sunday post-audit. If variances still remain after the three counts, then the variances are researched during the Monday post-audit. For the Monday post-audit, Respondent only focuses on the larger-quantity, higher-dollar discrepancies. When researching the discrepancies from the variance reports, employees have to perform the following tasks: (a) count items on the floor or up in the steel racks; (b) verify bin tags; (c) research billing, shipment, and return-to-vendor records on Respondent’s computer system; and (d) check the receiving paperwork in an effort to locate and correct the source of the discrepancy. Some items will have been sold between the Saturday night count and the Monday post-audit process. Therefore, the Monday post-audit team also may have to research the sales history on a computer and back out the Sunday sales from the total count. The variance reports reflect the aisle where the item is located, the item count from the inventory count, the computer system count, and the amount of the variance. Employees are typically assigned to work in one department of the warehouse, which may require them to walk from aisle to aisle within that department. In order to assist the Monday post-audit team, the team is permitted to use computers throughout the warehouse. Employees can sit down at the computers when they are researching the variances in item counts. It can take anywhere from 15-to-30 minutes to research one item. The duties involved in the inventory post-audit process are similar to the job duties of the Receiving Clerk position. However, the post-audit does not require as much standing and is less physically demanding because the focus during post-audit is on researching the sources of the variances, rather than simply receiving, counting, and checking- in shipments. In selecting employees to work on the Monday post- audit team, Respondent prefers to schedule people who are familiar with Respondent’s return-to-vendor and receiving processes. Respondent also selects employees who are knowledgeable about Respondent’s AS-400 computer system. In February 2007, Petitioner worked the Saturday night inventory. During that time, she counted the bread then worked at the control desk. Petitioner's job at the control desk was to key-in inventory count sheets into Respondent’s computer system. Petitioner did not view this assignment as inconsistent with her restrictions against working inventory because she was seated for most of the time. In August 2007, Mr. Sinanian was responsible for the post-audit processes, including the scheduling of employees to work post-audit. Due to the requirements of post-audit, Mr. Sinanian selected people who, like Petitioner, were familiar with Respondent’s AS-400 computer system. Approximately 20 employees worked during the Monday post-audit. Mr. Sinanian and Ms. Lenox knew that Petitioner could use her discretion to sit down whenever she felt it was necessary. They had no reason to believe that the post-audit process was inconsistent with Petitioner’s medical restrictions. Therefore, she was selected to work the Monday post-audit. On Saturday, August 25, 2007, Petitioner was again assigned to count bread and then assist with keying inventory count sheets into the system. Petitioner was able to sit down while she was working at the control desk keying the inventory count sheets. Petitioner did not consider her Saturday assignments inconsistent with her restrictions. Petitioner did not work or perform any inventory or post-audit, inventory-related duties on Sunday, August 26, 2007. On Monday, August 27, 2007, the post-audit process lasted from approximately 5:00 a.m. until 10:00 a.m. Petitioner’s shift began at 5:00 a.m. After Petitioner clocked in, she reported to the control desk, where Mr. Sinanian assigned her to check variances for approximately 6 items in Department 14, the sundries department. The sundries department runs along the back right side of the building near the Receiving Department. The sundries department includes items like paper towels, cleaning chemicals, laundry detergent, water, juice, and soda. Petitioner was assigned to research variances between the physical counts and the computer system’s counts for Swiffers, dog bones, dog beds, water, soda, and paper towels. During the August 2007 post-audit process there were at least 18 computers for the employees to use. The computers were located in the Receiving Department, the front office, at the membership desk, and at the podium on the front-end. Employees were free to use any available computer and were able to sit down at most of the computers while researching items. Petitioner never had to wait to use a computer. Petitioner went to whichever computer was closest to her at the time to verify items. After she finished researching all of the items on her variance sheet, Petitioner, like all of the other employees who worked post-audit, met with Mr. Sinanian at the control desk at the front of the store to explain her findings. There was a chair at the control desk for Petitioner to sit in while meeting with Sinanian. The process of meeting with Mr. Sinanian took anywhere from 10-to-30 minutes. Other than discussing her assignment for the day and the post-audit research results, Mr. Sinanian did not have any other discussions with Petitioner on August 27, 2007. Petitioner was able to use her discretion to sit down during post-audit. She was never told that she could not sit down nor was she reprimanded for sitting down. Petitioner admits that she used her discretion to sit down at least twice during post-audit and to kneel down a couple of times. Petitioner also took a 15-minute break during the post-audit process, during which she sat down. After Petitioner finished working post-audit at approximately 10:00 a.m. on August 27, 2007, she returned to the Receiving Department, but left shortly thereafter to take her lunch break. Petitioner’s lunch break lasted for approximately a half-hour. Petitioner walked from the back of the warehouse, where the Receiving Department is located, to the front of the warehouse, where the break room is located, to take her lunch and walked all the way back after the end of her break to return to work. After returning from lunch, Petitioner began working on the UPS shipment. It was a busy day in the Receiving Department, as the UPS shipment had arrived with approximately 72 packages stacked on one pallet that was taller than Petitioner. Because Petitioner felt unable to stand, she could not check in the entire UPS shipment. As a result, Petitioner took it upon herself to take the UPS invoices and input the invoices into Respondent’s computer system, which is one of the Receiving Secretary’s job responsibilities. At some point thereafter, Ms. Lenox asked Petitioner why she was logging in items into Respondent’s computer system, rather than receiving the UPS shipment. Petitioner told Ms. Lenox that her foot was hurting and that she could not stand. Ms. Lenox told Petitioner to take her break and, when she returned from break, they would see how Petitioner’s foot was feeling. Petitioner walked to the front of the warehouse, where she took her second 15-minute break in the break room. Petitioner was able to sit with her foot up during her break. After returning from her break, Petitioner reported to the Receiving Department and told Ms. Lenox that she did not feel she could not stand any longer that day. Petitioner asked if there was something she could do other than her receiving duties. Ms. Lenox told Petitioner that if she could not stand, then Ms. Lenox did not have any more work for her and told her that she should go home. Accordingly, Petitioner went home approximately one hour before her shift ended. Petitioner reported to work the following day, Tuesday, August 28, 2007, at 5:00 a.m. and worked her entire shift. At some point after her shift started that day, Petitioner told Mr. Sinanian that Ms. Lenox would not allow her to take a break during post-audit. Petitioner also told Mr. Sinanian that her foot was swollen and hurting. She took off her shoe to show him her foot. Mr. Sinanian did not see anything unusual about Petitioner’s foot. He did not see any swelling, graying, or a red bump. From the conversation with Petitioner, Mr. Sinanian did not understand that her foot was hurting due to a new injury. Therefore, Mr. Sinanian did not fill out an incident report. Petitioner’s and Mr. Sinanian’s conversation lasted approximately two minutes. At some point after speaking with Petitioner, Mr. Sinanian asked Ms. Lenox if, at any point during post-audit, she told Petitioner that Petitioner could not take a break. Ms. Lenox denied Petitioner’s allegation. Mr. Sinanian had no reason to doubt Ms. Lenox. Petitioner continued to work her job as Receiving Clerk after August 28, 2007. She continued to use her discretion to rest her foot on an as-needed basis. When possible she would sit in a chair to work. She used the electric pallet, letting her foot hang off the platform. Petitioner waited three weeks to seek medical treatment from her podiatrist in West Palm Beach, Florida. She finally saw her doctor on Monday, September 17, 2007. At her appointment, Petitioner’s podiatrist gave her a note that stated, “DUE TO ARTHRITIC CONDITION, CYNTHIA IS UNABLE TO STAND FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME AND IT IS MEDICALLY NECESSARY FOR HER TO BE OFF HER FOOT FOR 3 WEEKS. DUE TO THE FLARE UP.” Petitioner understood that her podiatrist wanted her to stay off her foot for a few weeks and to be in a sedentary position during that time. Petitioner also understood that these temporary restrictions were more limiting than her prior permanent restrictions. Petitioner reported to work on September 18, 2007, and told Ms. Lenox that her doctor did not want her standing. Ms. Lenox told Petitioner that they would need to speak with Mr. Zook about her restrictions when he arrived at work that day. In the meantime, Ms. Lenox permitted Petitioner to sit down and work on summary sheets. After returning from lunch, Petitioner met with Mr. Zook about her new temporary restrictions. The meeting lasted about an hour or more. Based on Mr. Zook’s prior experience working as a Receiving Clerk, his understanding of the essential job functions of that position, and Petitioner’s podiatrist’s statement that she needed to be off her foot for three weeks, he did not believe that Petitioner could perform the essential functions of that position without violating her doctor’s restrictions. Mr. Zook, nevertheless, asked Petitioner how she thought she could do her job from a seated position. Petitioner did not have any suggestions. There were no available sedentary positions in the warehouse at that time that could have accommodated Petitioner’s no-standing restrictions. As a result, Mr. Zook explained to Petitioner that based on her doctor’s restrictions, which required her to be in a sedentary position, he did not have any work for her at that time. Mr. Zook did not believe that Petitioner’s temporary no-standing restrictions prevented her from working in any capacity. Mr. Zook explained to Petitioner that she could take a leave of absence and return to work after her temporary restrictions expired. Because Petitioner’s restrictions were temporary, Mr. Zook did not contact Respondent’s Human Resources Department to schedule a job accommodation meeting. Despite Mr. Zook’s statement, Petitioner returned to work the following day and performed some work for a period of time. After Mr. Zook arrived at the warehouse, he went back to the Receiving Department and asked Petitioner why she was at work. Mr. Zook reminded Petitioner that he did not have any work for her to do at that time and that he could not allow her to work in violation of her doctor’s restrictions. After speaking with Mr. Zook, Petitioner clocked out, signed some paperwork, and left the building. Petitioner did not return to work after September 19, 2007. On October 15, 2007, Petitioner saw her podiatrist again. Petitioner’s podiatrist extended her temporary no- standing restriction for another six weeks. Petitioner understood, however, that her no-standing restrictions remained temporary at that time. Petitioner applied for and received short-term disability (“STD”) benefits beginning around the end of September 2007. Petitioner used paid time off until the STD period benefits began.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter an order dismissing the Petitions for Relief in these consolidated cases. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Hnin N. Khaing, Esquire Henrichsen Siegel, PLLC 1648 Osceola Street Jacksonville, Florida 32204 Kathleen Mones, Esquire Seyfarth Shaw LLP 1545 Peachtree Street Northeast, Suite 700 Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
