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 The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was the victim of a discriminatory employment practice perpetrated by the Respondent by the alleged discharge of the Petitioner on account of her handicap.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Sunshine Jr. Stores, Inc., is a Florida corporation, with the principal offices located in Panama City, Florida. The Respondent operates convenience stores in Marianna and Alford, Florida, along with numerous other locations. On December 14, 1990, the Petitioner, Jo-Ann Duffy, was hired as a sales associate and placed in the Marianna store. She indicated in her job application that she was willing to work in Chipley, Bonifay, Marianna and Panama City, Florida. The Petitioner received her employee training in the policies and procedures under which the Respondent operates. She received training in policy no. 030-040, the robbery/theft policy. She signed a "statement of understanding" to that effect, acknowledging that she had received such training. That statement of understanding acknowledges that if the Petitioner violated company policies, such as the robbery and theft policy, her employment was subject to termination by the Respondent. The Petitioner was described as a good worker, initially; and she had a good working relationship with her supervisor, Mr. George Susanka. Mr. Susanka was the store manager and ultimately received some complaints regarding the Petitioner's attitude toward customers. He verbally counselled her regarding this matter. On April 25, 1991, the Petitioner received a written reprimand for failure to perform assigned duties, specifically, noncompliance with policies and procedures, including with regard to inventory shortages. The reprimand was placed in her personnel file. All of the employees at that store, Store No. 190, were also given written reprimands concerning these matters. On May 2, 1991, the Petitioner suffered an injury due to slipping and falling on a wet floor at the Alford Store No. 190. The Petitioner was taken to the emergency room and treated for her injuries. The physicians determined that the Petitioner had suffered a cervical spondylosis, with no evidence of acute injury. After a two-week leave of absence, the Petitioner received permission to return to work from her doctor, Dr. Laubauah, an orthopedist. On June 14, 1991, he released her to return to work with restrictions on her bending and lifting of weight. The Respondent was aware of the Petitioner's work restrictions and that she was receiving worker's compensation benefits from the Respondent as a result of her injury. The Petitioner returned to work at Store No. 190 in Alford, Florida, under the supervision of Renate Ovaldson, who was then store manager. The Petitioner was placed on light duty which is generally defined as merely operating the cash register. She was allowed to sit on a stool behind the counter while she worked, in view of her condition. The Petitioner was later transferred to Store No. 226 in Marianna, Florida. That store was under the supervision of George Susanka, the Marianna store manager. The basis for transferring the Petitioner to that store was that Mr. Susanka was shorthanded and needed another sales associate. Mr. Susanka had previously maintained a positive working relationship with the Petitioner at Store No. 190, and the decision to transfer the Petitioner to Store No. 226 was deemed to be beneficial to the store and to Mr. Susanka. The Petitioner was given light duty at Store No. 226, also, and was given a stool to sit on while she worked. Mr. Susanka was aware that she was taking medication for her back injury. Mr. Susanka's supervisor, Keith Shipman, was not aware that the Petitioner was taking medication. Store No. 226 was considered a less busy store in terms of sales volume; however, the neighborhood was considered to be less desirable. Mr. Susanka soon began receiving verbal complaints regarding the Petitioner's attitude toward customers at Store No. 226. He received a verbal complaint from a Ms. Virginia Smith stating that the Petitioner had been flirting with several men one evening at the counter and had permitted them to go into the store cooler and leave the store with beer without paying for it. A written statement signed by Virginia Smith regarding this incident was later received by the Respondent and placed in the Petitioner's personnel file. Mr. Susanka confronted the Petitioner concerning this incident and asked her if she had been afraid to report the theft, and she indicated that she was not. Mr. Susanka and the assistant store manager, Mr. Coley, conducted a "night ride", whereby they parked their car across the street from the store to observe activities at the store while the Petitioner was on duty. Mr. Susanka witnessed a customer walk in the store and walk out with a small item without paying for it. The only door in which to enter and exit the store was a few feet directly in front of the cash register counter. Mr. Susanka submitted a written statement on the incident, which was placed in the Petitioner's personnel file by the Respondent. Mr. Susanka discussed the various complaints he had received concerning the Petitioner's attitude, performance, and the incident he observed with Mr. Coley with his district manager, Keith Shipman. Mr. Shipman had been aware of prior complaints which the Respondent had received about the Petitioner's attitude with customers, as well. Based upon the documents contained in the personnel file, customer complaints and the fact of customers leaving the store without paying for merchandise while the Petitioner was on duty, and Mr. Susanka's relation of the various incidents, Mr. Susanka and Mr. Shipman made a decision to terminate the Petitioner. The stated reason for Petitioner's termination was violation of company policy and poor customer relations. Mr. Susanka completed an employee status report terminating the Petitioner on July 24, 1991. That report stated that the reason for termination was "on Saturday, July 20, 1991, the clerk, Jo- Ann Duffy, was talking and laughing with six guys at the counter and at that time there was three to four guys in the cooler and walked out with beer and did pay for it and also has a bad attitude with customers". Mr. Susanka testified that the statement had been written in error and it should have read "did not pay for it". The employee status report was signed by Mr. Susanka and Mr. Shipman and placed in the Petitioner's personnel file. Mr. Shipman stated that due to the fact that inventory control was so important in the convenience store business, the Respondent simply could not afford to keep in its employee a sales associate who allowed merchandise to leave the store unpaid for. The Respondent's disciplinary and termination policy no. 040-003 generally states the procedures for discipline and termination. The robbery/theft Policy No. 030-040 states that an employee who violates the guidelines of the robbery and theft policy (as the Petitioner did) is subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5313 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fac A-C. Accepted. D. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. E-F. Accepted. G-H. Accepted, but not in itself materially dispositive. I-J. Accepted, but not in themselves materially dispositive. Rejected, as not in accord with the greater weight of this witness' testimony which was that some violations, such as allowing theft to occur, are the proper subjects of first occurrence terminations. Accepted, but not itself material. Rejected, as immaterial. Rejected, as immaterial given the greater weight of the testimony and evidence, which the Hearing Officer has accepted and embodied in the above Findings of Fact. Rejected, as immaterial. Accepted. Accepted, but not materially dispositive. Accepted, but not materially dispositive in itself. S-T. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. The Respondent's position in this case does not depend upon all low inventory being the fault of the Petitioner. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-24. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Ms. Jo-Ann Duffy Route One, Box 221-X Chipley, FL 32428 Kelly Brewton Plante, Esq. TAYLOR, BRION, BUKER & GREENE 225 South Adams Street Suite 250 Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by discharging Petitioner because of his age.
Findings Of Fact Respondent produces flexible packaging, develops technology to fill that packaging with liquids, and provides services to incorporate its flexible packaging systems into its customers' facilities. Respondent primarily produces "bag-in- box" products and manufacturing systems for customers such as Pepsi-Cola and Wendy's, as well as various customers in the milk, juice, and chemical business. Respondent operates two manufacturing facilities, one located at its headquarters in Romeville, Illinois, and another located in Union City, California. Petitioner was born on April 24, 1946. In 1996, Respondent hired Petitioner as a sales representative, and he served in that position until he was discharged on April 19, 2004. Petitioner initially was assigned to service the Upper Midwest Region and was based in Chicago, Illinois. In 1999, Respondent reassigned Petitioner to the Southeast Region. After his reassignment to the Southeast Region, Petitioner continued to live in the Chicago area for several years. However, in December 2002 or January 2003, Petitioner and Respondent mutually agreed that Petitioner would relocate to Florida. Because the move resulted from a mutual decision between Petitioner and one of Respondent's founders, Respondent paid $25,000 towards Petitioner's moving expenses. After the move, Petitioner continued to be responsible for the same geographical territory and the same customers as before the move. Joe Pranckus is Respondent's vice president of sales. At the time of Petitioner's discharge, the sales department consisted of a customer service department and four geographical sales territories: the Central, Western, Eastern and Mexico Regions. The Central and Western Regions (where Respondent's manufacturing facilities are located) each were overseen by a regional manager. The Eastern and Mexico Regions did not have regional managers. As Petitioner was located in the Eastern Region, Mr. Pranckus served as his direct supervisor. From 1999 until his dismissal, Petitioner was Respondent’s only sales representative in the Southeast. His primary responsibility was to maintain and increase Respondent’s business in that region of the country. The Rapak sales department as a whole is generally responsible for maintaining and increasing Respondent’s overall sales. This involves not only selling products and services, but also following up with customers to help them solve problems and otherwise to ensure their happiness. Because his primary responsibility was maintaining and increasing sales, Mr. Pranckus judged Petitioner almost exclusively by his year-to-date sales numbers as compared to the same period in the previous year. These numbers were calculated by Mr. Pranckus on a fiscal-year basis, from May 1st through April 30th. For the 2003-2004 fiscal year, Mr. Pranckus established a goal for Petitioner of 15 percent growth in sales. The minimum expectation was that Petitioner maintain at least the same amount of sales he had the previous year. During the 2003-2004 fiscal year, Mr. Pranckus e- mailed Petitioner his sales-versus-last-year figures on almost a monthly basis. By the end of June 2003, Petitioner had sold only 84 percent as much as he had sold through June 2002; by the end of July, only 87 percent as much as he had sold through July 2002; by the end of August, 91 percent; September, 81 percent; October, 90 percent; November, 85 percent; December, 87 percent; and by the end of March 2004 (eleven months into the fiscal year), he had sold only 88 percent as much as he had sold through the first eleven months of the 2002-2003 fiscal year. In short, as the fiscal year drew to a close, it was clear that Petitioner was going to suffer a net loss of business for the year. In late October 2003, Petitioner suffered a heart attack and underwent triple bypass surgery. Petitioner was unable to work for approximately two months while recovering from surgery. However, Petitioner returned to work in January 2004, initially working on a limited basis. Petitioner's sales numbers suffered because he lost some certain accounts owing to factors beyond his control (such as product quality and price issues). Nonetheless, Petitioner concedes that it was his job to replace his lost sales, no matter what caused his customers to switch suppliers. Mr. Pranckus typically holds one sales meeting each year for his entire staff. In February 2004, Mr. Pranckus held one of those meetings. At that meeting, Mr. Pranckus informed Petitioner that "changes would be made if [his] numbers didn't improve." In his application for unemployment compensation, Petitioner stated that Mr. Pranckus also warned him on March 10, 2004, that he needed to improve his sales numbers. Finally, Mr. Pranckus sent an e-mail to Petitioner on March 27, 2004. In that e-mail, Mr. Pranckus delivered the following written warning: Your territory is at a critical state. We can not continue along this path. Sales must be improved immediately or we will need to change. We agreed at our sales meeting to get this back on track. It is not showing up in the numbers and activity. Call me and let me know how we can help. On April 19, 2004, Mr. Pranckus discharged Petitioner because of his poor performance. His year-to-date sales figures were unacceptably low, as compared to the previous year, and Mr. Pranckus saw no evidence of plans or activity designed to improve matters. After Petitioner was discharged, he filed an application for unemployment compensation. On the application, Petitioner stated that he was discharged “for failure to achieve sales goals.” Later in that same application, in response to a request to “briefly summarize your reason for separation from this employer,” Petitioner wrote: “I did not achieve my sales goals.” Petitioner did not assert anywhere in his application for unemployment benefits that he was discharged because of his age. At the time of his discharge, Petitioner was 57 years old (almost 58). Mr. Pranckus did not know Petitioner’s exact age, but he would have guessed (based on physical appearance) that Petitioner was in his mid-50s at the time. Mr. Pranckus did not consider this to be “old.” In fact, Petitioner is not much older than Mr. Pranckus. Mr. Pranckus interviewed three individuals to fill Petitioner’s position. He ultimately selected Jim Wulff. Mr. Pranckus did not know their ages at the time of the interviews, but he would have guessed (again, by appearance) that Mr. Wulff was in his mid-50s and that the other two interviewees were in their mid- to late 40s and mid- to late 50s, respectively. In fact, Mr. Wulff was born on May 26, 1948, so he was 55 years old (nearly 56) when Mr. Pranckus hired him. Sales analysis from June 2003 showed that eight Rapak employees or representatives did not meet the 100 percent sales goal. Those listed were either Rapak non-supervising employees with direct responsibility for sales, supervising employees, or non-employee independent brokers. However, none of these employees, whether younger or older, was similarly situated to Petitioner at the time of his discharge. As an initial matter, there were four other non- supervisory employees with direct responsibility for sales: Dennis Hayes, Marvin Groom, Donald Young, and Keith Martinez. The other individuals responsible for sales were either supervisory employees or non-employee independent brokers. Because the two supervisors have management responsibilities and are responsible for their entire regions and the individuals who report to them, they are not judged primarily by whether they personally meet the 100 percent or 115 percent sales-versus- last-year objectives. Brokers, meanwhile, are not employees. Rather, they are independent contractors paid on a straight commission, so Respondent receives value from their services regardless of how much they sell. Mr. Hayes was the only other employee who performed the exact same job as Petitioner, but he reported to Regional Manager Dan Petriekis in the Central Region, not directly to Mr. Pranckus. Moreover, as of March 2004, Mr. Hayes had sold 127 percent as much as he had during the same period the previous year.1 Mr. Hayes is almost ten years older than Petitioner. Mr. Young was also responsible for sales, but he was semi-retired, serviced only one customer and received a base salary for his work. As of March 2004, however, Mr. Young had sold 115 percent as much as he had during the same period the previous year. Mr. Young is more than twelve years older than Petitioner. Finally, while Keith Martinez and Marvin Groom had some responsibility for sales, their positions were “radically different” from Petitioner’s. Whereas Petitioner could identify certain problems with Respondent’s machinery and products and would refer those problems to a service technician to assist his customers, Mr. Groom and Mr. Martinez were both originally hired as service technicians. Based on this experience, they could and did not only identify technical problems, but also performed the necessary maintenance and repair work on the spot, in addition to performing preventative maintenance. Petitioner, by contrast, has spent his entire working life as salesman. Accordingly, he was neither capable of, nor expected to, perform these additional maintenance and repair functions. As a result, Mr. Groom and Mr. Martinez received more leeway on their sales performance than Petitioner because they brought additional value to Respondent’s business that Petitioner could not offer. Nonetheless, as of March 2004, Mr. Groom was running at 100 percent versus the prior year and Mr. Martinez was running at 87 percent. Mr. Groom is roughly three years younger than Petitioner, and Mr. Martinez is 15 and one-half years younger than Petitioner. Respondent paid Petitioner $113,000 in salary and commissions during his last full calendar year of employment with Rapak. Petitioner was out of work for ten months after his dismissal. During that time, he received $8,000 in unemployment compensation from the State of Florida and $8,942.33 in severance pay from Respondent. In his new job, Petitioner projects that he will earn $100,000 in his first year but admits that he could make at least $113,000 because his compensation is once again dependent upon sales commissions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent committed no unlawful employment practice and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of July, 2006.
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
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 is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice pursuant to chapter 760, Florida Statutes, against Petitioner due to her age.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Sandra Minnie, is a 62-year-old female. Ms. Minnie had been working as an assistant manager at a Wal-Mart store in Marion, Ohio, but in late 2008, applied for a transfer to Store 5300 in Gibsonton, Florida. Store manager Vicki Tillman interviewed Ms. Minnie and in November 2008, hired her as an assistant manager at Store 5300. Ms. Tillman is currently 61 years old. While in Ohio, Ms. Minnie had worked as the front-end assistant manager1/ for Wal-Mart, and accordingly, was hired to work in the same capacity at Store 5300. Wal-Mart assistant managers are routinely scheduled to work between 52 and 56 hours per week. Ms. Minnie's scheduling would have been dictated by the position that she held, to wit, front-end manager. Ms. Minnie received a copy of, and was familiar with, Wal-Mart's Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy. The Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy instructs employees who experience harassment or discrimination to report the violation to a salaried member of management, or to call the Wal-Mart Ethics Hotline. Ms. Minnie was also familiar with Wal-Mart's Open Door Policy, which allows associates to report any concerns they have up the chain of command, all the way to the CEO. Despite being aware of both of these policies, Ms. Minnie never utilized either policy, and never reported that she believed that Vicki Tillman, or anyone else with Wal-Mart, was discriminating against her or harassing her because of her age. Although Ms. Minnie made several handwritten notes of occasions on which she felt her superiors had mistreated her, she never approached a member of Wal-Mart management to discuss her complaints. Soon after Ms. Minnie began as an assistant manager at Store 5300, it became apparent that she did not perform many of her job responsibilities properly, and that there were many assistant manager duties that she did not know how to perform, and often performed incorrectly. After several informal conversations between Ms. Minnie and both Co-Manager Maness and Store Manager Tillman regarding Ms. Minnie's performance deficiencies, and after seeing no improvement, Ms. Minnie was given a verbal “coaching”2/ on January 8, 2009, for failure to adequately perform her duties as an assistant manager. Several of the issues covered during this verbal coaching had been informally discussed with Ms. Minnie on prior occasions. Ms. Minnie did not challenge this coaching. On the same day as her coaching, Ms. Minnie's niece was caught shoplifting at Store 5300. While Ms. Minnie was not held responsible for the actions of her niece, she felt that management "seemed to distrust [her] integrity after that point." Despite continued informal conversations and counseling by members of management, Ms. Minnie's performance did not improve. Furthermore, Store Manager Tillman began to receive complaints from other assistant managers about having to take on too many of Ms. Minnie's responsibilities because she was not pulling her own weight. On April 9, 2009, Ms. Minnie received a written coaching for giving manager's keys to an hourly associate, and for failing to accurately verify a cash deposit before approving it, resulting in the bank deposit being $1,000.00 short. Again, Ms. Minnie did not challenge this coaching. On another occasion, Ms. Minnie violated Wal-Mart policy by cashing her own check personally in the cash office instead of having the next level of management above her cash it. Ms. Tillman instructed Co-Manager Maness to have a conversation with Ms. Minnie about the correct procedure for check cashing, and instructed Ms. Maness not to formally coach Ms. Minnie at that time. In the weeks prior to Father's Day, all managers received an e-mail notifying them that a specific model of television was due into the stores, in limited quantities, for the Father's Day sale. The e-mail specifically stated that there would be a “sale-block” placed on the television, and that the televisions could not be sold prior to the sales event. As the assistant manager in charge of the front end and back room, Ms. Minnie would have received this e-mail. On the evening of June 9, 2009, prior to the Father's Day sale, Ms. Minnie took one of the Father's Day sale televisions from the back stockroom (which had never been on the sales floor) and brought it to the electronics department cash register to purchase. When the television was rung up, the cash register prompted: "sale not allowed." Despite this clear instruction, Ms. Minnie permitted the cashier to call over another assistant manager (Terry), who overrode the sale block and allowed the sale to be completed. Associates are not permitted to bring merchandise that has never been on the sales floor directly from the back room to a cash register for purchase. Moreover, associates are not permitted to override "sale not allowed" register prompts. When Co-Manager Maness arrived at work on June 10, 2009, she was informed by the electronics department manager that a sale block override had been performed on a television that was being held for the Father's Day sale. Ms. Maness investigated the sale and discovered that Ms. Minnie had violated Wal-Mart policy by removing the television, which was being held for a future sales event, from the back room, and purchasing it, despite the register prompt, "sale not allowed." Ms. Maness further concluded that the assistant manager who had overridden the sale block had also violated Wal-Mart policy. Even though overriding a sale block was potentially a terminable offense, Ms. Maness consulted with Store Manager Tillman, who instructed Ms. Maness to just coach both Ms. Minnie and the assistant manager to the next level. Because Ms. Minnie had already received a verbal and a written coaching, Ms. Maness drafted a Decision-Day Coaching for Ms. Minnie.3/ Ms. Minnie never returned to work at Store 5300 after purchasing the television on June 9, 2009. Although Ms. Minnie was scheduled to work on June 12, 2009, she called in sick. She then took her previously scheduled vacation from June 13-19, 2009. At the end of her vacation, instead of returning to work, Ms. Minnie submitted leave of absence paperwork indicating that she needed to be out until October 23, 2009. Ms. Minnie's leave of absence paperwork was approved by Store Manager Tillman. Under Wal-Mart's leave of absence policy, Ms. Minnie technically remained an active employee of Wal-Mart until June 6, 2012. As such, she could have returned to Store 5300 at any time prior to that date as an assistant manager. Ms. Minnie felt that Ms. Tillman was a very demanding store manager. This opinion was shared by other assistant managers at Store 5300. At least three other assistant managers (all of whom were significantly younger than Ms. Minnie) confided in Ms. Minnie that they believed that Ms. Tillman was a difficult store manager to work with.4/ Although it is undisputed that Ms. Tillman was a demanding and difficult store manager to work for, the evidence of record does not support the conclusion that Ms. Minnie was treated differently than other employees because of her age. Nor does the evidence establish that the series of "coachings" leading up to Ms. Minnie's departure from Wal-Mart had anything to do with her age. Ms. Minnie testified that she felt "disrespected" by Ms. Tillman, and had been referred to by her as a "wet rag mop," while younger assistants were referred to as "perky new brooms." Petitioner also alleged that Ms. Tillman made disparaging remarks about her hairstyle and dress. The result of this mental harassment, according to Petitioner, was that Petitioner suffered a severe mental breakdown that made it impossible for her to return to work. However, no corroborating witnesses provided any evidence that Ms. Tillman, who is less than a year younger than Ms. Minnie, made any disparaging comments about Ms. Minnie's age, and Ms. Tillman vehemently denied making such remarks.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 5th day of October, 2012.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner was not hired for a position with the Respondent in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: On or about November 2, 1989, Petitioner executed a pre-employment application with the Respondent and sought full-time work as a cashier. That application indicated Petitioner was over 18 years of age but did not otherwise state her age. In late November, 1989, Deanna Clements telephoned the Petitioner's home to arrange for an employment interview. Since Petitioner was unavailable, Ms. Clements left a message for Petitioner to telephone the store to schedule an appointment. The next day, Petitioner went to the store (without having scheduled an appointment) and asked to see Ms. Clements who was not available. Ms. Chan, the store attendant, advised Petitioner that she could come back to see when she could be scheduled. Whereupon Petitioner left the store. Approximately thirty minutes later, Petitioner returned to the store and again asked to see Ms. Clements. Again, Ms. Chan advised Petitioner that Ms. Clements was not available at that time. Petitioner then elected to wait for an opportunity to see Ms. Clements and began to circulate among the store's customers. It was then that Petitioner claimed she observed a male customer attempting to shoplift a key chain. Petitioner confronted the customer who was upset by the accusation. The customer went to the counter where Ms. Chan was located and emptied his pockets to verify that he had taken nothing. When Petitioner came into the store a third time and Ms. Chan again informed her that Ms. Clements was not available to interview her, Petitioner became upset, made several derogatory comments to Ms. Chan, tore up an application and threw it at Ms. Chan. Some days later, Pamela Smith (then employed as a personnel assistant) telephoned Petitioner to arrange a job interview. Ms. Smith was unaware of the activities that are described in paragraphs 2 through 6 and scheduled an appointment for the next day to interview Petitioner. Ms. Smith interviewed Petitioner and found her less than attentive to the requirements of the job. For her part, Petitioner was anxious to have full- time employment and did not consider the demands of the position beyond her capabilities. Following the interview, Ms. Chan observed Petitioner leaving the premises and advised Ms. Clements and Mr. Wright of the incidents that had occurred earlier. Upon being advised of those matters, Mr. Wright told Ms. Smith to remove Petitioner's application from those to be considered. When those directions were given Mr. Wright did not know Petitioner's age. Petitioner was not hired by the Respondent because she exhibited poor judgment in challenging the store's customer and in berating Ms. Chan. Respondent is an employer within the statutory definition set forth in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's claim of discrimination against the Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-2762 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: None submitted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 18 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Olga Hughes 106 Orienta Drive Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701 J. Mark Johnston HOGG, ALLEN, NORTON & BLUE, P.A. 201 South Orange Avenue Barnett Plaza Suite 740 Orlando, Florida 32801 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Margaret Jones, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
