The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent, Lehigh Portland Cement Company/Furniture Division ("Lehigh"), discriminated against the Petitioner on account of her race (white) by discharging her from employment following a verbal altercation with a black co- employee in which the Petitioner allegedly uttered racial slurs directed at or concerning that black co-employee and whether the Petitioner was discriminated against on account of her sex (female) and because of a perceived interracial, personal relationship with another co-employee, who is black.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a former employee of Lehigh. She was discharged by that concern on August 4, 1989 as a disciplinary measure in response to her utterance of racial slurs concerning a black co-worker in the vicinity of the factory floor on Lehigh's premises immediately before the workday began on the date in question. She ultimately filed a charge of discrimination raising the issues and commencing the proceedings referenced in the above Statement of Issues and Preliminary Statement. Lehigh is a furniture manufacturer located in Marianna, Florida. Its plant consists of several large buildings where employees assemble and finish furniture. Lehigh employs somewhat over 400 persons at that factory. On the morning of August 2, 1989, Dorothy Hall and Major Hallmon, both black co-workers of the Petitioner, were having a discussion concerning union business just before the workday commenced on or in the vicinity of the shop floor of Lehigh's factory. Ms. Hall was a shop steward for the union in the paint shop, where the Petitioner was employed. Mr. Hallmon was the chief union steward for Lehigh as a whole. Ms. Hall was expressing concern to Mr. Hallmon about employees in her department or "shop", including the Petitioner, avoiding her, in her capacity as shop steward, and presenting problems directly to Mr. Hallmon when issues or incidents arose which they felt involved the responsibility of their union representatives. Ms. Hall mentioned the Petitioner as one of the employees who had complained about her to Mr. Hallmon. While Ms. Hall was making these comments to Mr. Hallmon, the Petitioner approached them and interrupted their conversation, getting into a verbal altercation with Ms. Hall. Mr. Hallmon attempted to get the Petitioner to cease arguing and yelling. Lehigh's personnel management procedures require that if employees engage in a physical or verbal altercation in their work area, they must cease arguing or fighting and move the disagreement to their supervisor's office for their supervisor to handle with them in an adult manner. Ms. Hall retreated from the confrontation with the Petitioner and walked into the office of George Williams, the supervisor of both of them. The Petitioner then made loud comments which were overheard by a number of co-workers. During their argument, or about the time Ms. Hall walked away in the direction of the supervisor's office, she referred to the Petitioner as a "stupid, white fool" or a "white fool". When the Petitioner walked away from the site of their verbal altercation, a white co-worker, Annette White, told the Petitioner that "Dorothy said she is going to whip your tail" or words to that effect. At this point, the Petitioner responded "I am not afraid of no black ass nigger." The Petitioner's comments were made in a very loud voice and were overheard by a number of co-workers nearby although Ms. Hall, herself, did not hear them nor did Mr. Hallmon. Anne Hamlin, a white woman, who worked in the Petitioner's department, heard the Petitioner say the above-quoted comment. Ms. Hamlin admonished the Petitioner that she should not be calling people by that name. Wilford Pittman, a black man, observed Mr. Hallmon trying to calm the Petitioner during or shortly after her verbal altercation with Ms. Hall. He heard the Petitioner use the word "nigger" and state words to the effect that "I am not scared of that nigger". Odell Harrison, a white man, also heard the Petitioner state "I am not scared of that nigger". Ron Baker, a black man, heard the Petitioner reference Ms. Hall as "a black son of a bitch". The Petitioner, herself, admitted that she stated "I am not afraid of no black ass nigger". The Petitioner immediately joined Ms. Hall in the office of the supervisor after the above incident. Mr. Jack Toole, a crew leader, was also present in the office on that occasion. The argument was renewed once the Petitioner and Ms. Hall were together in the supervisor's office. During the course of their renewed argument, in one of the Petitioner's comments, she used the words "I am white" to which Ms. Hall retorted "No you ain't, your shorts is white". Mr. Toole, who was present during the argument in the supervisor's office, recalls Ms. Hall telling the Petitioner that she was "a white fool for fooling around with Major Hallmon and ruining his life". He also recalls Ms. Hall first coming into the office when he was already present and stating words to the effect that "if we didn't do something about that white woman out there, she would do something with her". Mr. Williams remembers Ms. Hall stating "you make an old fool out of Major". The Petitioner then made a comment to the effect that Ms. Hall should stay home and tend to her "thieving husband" and stay out of other people's business, whereupon Ms. Hall picked up an ashtray as though to strike the Petitioner. Mr. Toole grabbed her arm and took the ashtray from her hand, replacing the ashtray on the desk. The signal to begin work then sounded and Mr. Williams instructed both antagonists to leave his office and begin work. Lehigh has a very specific policy prohibiting racial slurs. That policy provides: Further, it is a stated policy of Lehigh to prevent and prohibit discriminatory conduct in the work environment including statements or actions which could be interpreted as, racially, sexually, religiously or ethnically based, sexual harassment or any other discriminatory harassment or conduct with respect to co-employees, subordinate employees, or supervisors. Any employee who is found to have violated this policy will be subject to discipline, up to and including discharge. This equal employment opportunity policy was posted on all of the company's bulletin boards in the work place in early 1987 and was so maintained and posted forward of that time. Lehigh's management had experienced two disciplinary incidents in the past where two employees, Mr. Cecil Sims and Mr. Coy Jackson, both white, had used the word "nigger", in a conversational context with two black co-employees or in a circumstance where those employees overheard the comment, although it was not uttered in the course of an argument or verbal altercation. Those employees were disciplined by Lehigh for uttering that word, which is found to constitute a "racial slur". Shortly thereafter, during contract negotiations with the union in November of 1988, union representatives informed Lehigh's management that they felt that Lehigh was not enforcing its anti-discrimination policy as vigorously as it should, with the Sims and Jackson incidents used as examples of the union's perception that management's disciplinary practices with regard to the use of this racial slur by employees was too lax. Although Lehigh's management took the view, and still does, that it had taken appropriate disciplinary action in those two prior incidents, Lehigh also agreed with union representatives that such racial slurs constituted a serious offense and agreed that the company would thenceforth enforce its discrimination policy more vigorously. Lehigh's policy, with regard to racial slurs, includes its view that the word "nigger" is one of the most severe or offensive words used to disparage or embarrass a person on account of that person's race. This interpretation of its anti-discrimination policy is a reasonable one because it was established in the record that that word, dating from the time of slavery in America forward to the present time, has been used essentially as a term of disparagement. It is one of the few words in the American vocabulary most likely to demean the person to whom it is directed, to arouse ill will between the person employing the word and the person or persons to whom it is directed, or about whom it is referenced, and even to incite violence between them. It is rational for Lehigh to consider that the use of that racial slur is one of the most severe offenses to which its anti-discrimination policy is directed and designed to prohibit and prevent. In carrying out its disciplinary policy and procedures, Lehigh investigates alleged violations of company rules or policies to find out what occurred and to determine if a rule or policy was, indeed, violated. That customary procedure was performed in the instant case situation. If the management of Lehigh determines that an employee has violated a rule or policy of the company, it evaluates the nature of the offense and views it against the past employment and disciplinary record of the employee to determine what discipline, if any, is appropriate. The management of the company considers the severity of the offense; whether the violation was a willful one; whether it was done with malice; whether the employee under investigation was the aggressor in the incident; the degree of provocation for that employee's behavior; whether the employee expresses or demonstrates any remorse for the occurrence; and the employee's past general work history and disciplinary record. All of these factors are weighed by the company's management in determining what discipline is appropriate. The company customarily has viewed the disciplinary history of an employee as a very significant factor in determining the appropriate discipline to be imposed for a violation of company rules or policies under review as to that employee. In imposing discipline for infractions of company rules or policies, Lehigh employs progressive discipline whenever possible in order to attempt to persuade the employee to change his or her behavior which has resulted in the violation. If an employee exhibits a pattern of rule infractions, especially infractions of the same rule or type of rules, the company imposes a progressively harsher discipline. When considering an employee's past disciplinary record, the company considers only disciplinary violations which have occurred within the past nine months, however. This is because the company's union contract, by which it is bound in terms of its personnel policies and procedures with regard to its union-member employees, contains a provision which requires this restriction. This provision has been applied to all hourly employees of Lehigh for the life of that contract or approximately the past 18 years. It is thus a regular and customary past practice of the company for purposes of the terms of its union contract. The disciplinary measures, which the company imposes for infractions of its rules and policies, range from an oral reprimand (the imposition of which is recorded in the employee's personnel record even if delivered verbally); a written reprimand; suspension from employment for a discreet time period; and permanent discharge from employment. Mr. Albert Berger is the Vice President of Operations for Lehigh. He is responsible for personnel management, among other duties. His personnel management duties include the investigation of alleged infractions of the company's personnel policies and rules, interpreting the company's disciplinary policies and procedures and arriving at decisions about how to discipline employees. Mr. Berger investigated the subject incident involving the Petitioner and Ms. Hall, ultimately determined how to discipline each employee and imposed that discipline. He followed the company's disciplinary policies and procedures in deciding how to discipline the Petitioner and Ms. Hall concerning the incident of August 2, 1989. Upon learning of the incident between those two employees on August 2, 1989, Mr. Berger commenced an investigation of the matter that same day. After making a preliminary inquiry into the matter, he elected to suspend the Petitioner from work sometime on the morning of August 2, 1989, such that she left the company premises under suspension shortly before Noon. He continued his investigation that afternoon, conducting taped interviews with employees and supervisors who had witnessed the altercation. Those witnesses later signed summaries of their statements to Mr. Berger. The Petitioner returned to the factory between 1:00 and 2:00 on the afternoon of August 2, 1989, while Mr. Berger was still concluding his interviews of other employees and supervisors. He gave the Petitioner an opportunity to relate her version of the incident to him. During her taped interview, the Petitioner was very loud and hostile in her demeanor and statements and responses to his questions. She repeatedly employed the term "nigger" with reference to Ms. Hall and her version of the occurrence in question. During the course of the hearing, the Petitioner attempted to explain her behavior during the taped interview with Mr. Berger by insinuating that she was under the influence of alcohol when she exhibited loud and hostile demeanor and comments during the interview, including the use of the term "nigger". She attempted to substantiate this claim by stating that she had consumed several six-packs of beer between the time she left the company premises under suspension shortly before Noon on August 2, 1989 and the time of her interview with Mr. Berger at approximately 2:00 that afternoon. She did not, however, appear drunk or under the influence of alcohol to Mr. Berger when he interviewed her nor did her verbal statements and responses depicted on the tape of that interview justify a finding that she was drunk or under the influence of alcohol at the time of the interview. Moreover, this explanation of her conduct during the interview is self-serving and is thus deemed not credible. Upon concluding his investigation and in the process of determining what, if any, discipline to impose on the two protagonists, Mr. Berger reviewed and considered the employment histories of both the Petitioner and Ms. Hall. Ms. Hall's disciplinary record was a good one. Her most recent disciplinary offense had occurred 13 years before the August 2, 1989 incident. She had been disciplined only one other time, approximately 16 years before the August 2, 1989 incident. Under its union contract, Lehigh was prohibited from considering those two disciplinary incidents in deciding whether and how to impose discipline for the current August 2, 1989 occurrence because those disciplinary infractions occurred more than nine months prior to the August 2, 1989 incident. In addition to the fact that her disciplinary record was a good one with no disciplinary infractions for more than a decade, Ms. Hall readily expressed remorse for her involvement in the incident, apologizing to Mr. Berger and promising to let no such occurrence happen in the future. Because of this and because Lehigh's management, through Mr. Berger, viewed the racial slur "nigger", loudly uttered by the Petitioner, as more egregious than the remark "white fool", "old fool", or "you're not white, your shorts are white", made by Ms. Hall, a lesser discipline was imposed upon Ms. Hall. Mr. Berger imposed a written warning upon Ms. Hall for picking up the ashtray as a threatening gesture directed to the Petitioner and a verbal warning upon her for the above- quoted name calling. This is not a minimal sanction. Written memoranda of both types of discipline are made a part of such an cmployee's personnel record. Concerning the discipline imposed upon the Petitioner, the record establishes that on June 23, 1989, less than two months prior to the incident concerning Ms. Hall, the Petitioner received a three-day suspension for interference with company operations through the use of abusive language directed at another employee. This incident involved the Petitioner painting the words "High Ass" on the door front of a piece of furniture and sending it down the assembly line so that it could be viewed by the co-worker to whom the words were directed. The Petitioner admitted that the words were directed at a black co-worker who was farther down the assembly line. In conjunction with her suspension, Mr. Berger warned her that if she continued to engage in name calling or racial slurs, the consequences for the next such incident would be more severe, including the potential loss of her employment. Mr. Berger concluded and the record establishes that the Petitioner's conduct on August 2, 1989 clearly violated the company's explicit policy against racially-discriminatory conduct in the work place, as that policy is quoted in the above Findings of Fact. The Petitioner's conduct on August 2, 1989, along with the incident leading to her earlier suspension for similar conduct, establishes a pattern of abusive, racially-discriminatory behavior towards her co-workers. Further, the Petitioner was shown to be the aggressor in the incident, interrupting the private conversation between Ms. Hall and Mr. Hallmon, and making statements or comments which incited the ensuing argument and name-calling episode. The Petitioner showed no remorse for her behavior. She was still hostile and inflammatory in her description and reaction to the occurrence concerning Ms. Hall in her interview with Mr. Berger hours later, when she had every reason to believe that her job was at stake with a strong resulting incentive to be conciliatory and remorseful in her reaction and relation of her version of the occurrence to Mr. Berger. Because of these differences in her conduct, her past record, and the severity of her infraction of company policy, as opposed to that of Ms. Hall, and because of Ms. Hall's relative demeanor and reaction to the occurrence and the subsequent summons by Mr. Berger to account for it, Mr. Berger decided, after considering all of the above factors, to convert the Petitioner's suspension to a termination. Discharging the Petitioner for the August 2, 1989 violation in consideration of the above factors related to her conduct, demeanor and past record, as opposed to that of Ms. Hall, was shown to be reasonable, pursuant to Lehigh's customarily-followed "progressive discipline" policy. The differences in severity between the actions of the Petitioner and Ms. Hall, the differences in their personnel histories, the differences in the circumstances of their actions and their demeanor and conduct after the occurrence with regard to it support the differences in the discipline imposed upon them. In attempting to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment and discrimination related to her termination, the Petitioner employed in her case the examples of Coy Jackson, a white employee and crew leader, being disciplined, but not terminated for using the term "nigger" directed at a black co-employee, Rudolph Townsend, and the similar example of Cecil Sims, a department supervisor, who is also a white man, using the term "nigger" in the presence of a black co-employee. Mr. Sims was also not terminated, but was given a lesser level of discipline. Concerning the Jackson and Sims incidents, the record establishes that in 1988, Coy Jackson spoke of Mr. Townsend, the black employee, who had complained of being cold, as follows: "Get that nigger a coat before he freezes to death." Mr. Sims, a supervisor in that same department, investigated that incident. During Mr. Sims' investigation, he questioned the employees involved about the name calling and the use of the words "black" and "nigger". Mr. Sims stated to Mr. Townsend that there were two names "you all" (meaning black people) could be called-"black" or "nigger"-and he then asked Mr. Townsend which he preferred to be called. Mr. Townsend responded that he simply wished to be called by his own name. Mr. Townsend complained about Mr. Sims' comment to him; and Mr. Berger investigated that incident, as well. He ultimately decided to give Mr. Sims a verbal warning concerning it and admonished him that he was never to use the word "nigger" again in any context and that the next incident, when it occurred, would result in his discharge. The discipline imposed on Mr. Sims was based upon the fact that Mr. Sims readily expressed remorse for the incident, that he had a long, unblemished career with Lehigh, and was then near retirement. He had had no prior history of uttering abusive language, name calling, or the use of racial slurs in the work place. Moreover, the incident occurred in Mr. Sims' office in a normal conversational tone; it was not shouted or uttered loudly on the factory floor in the presence of a number of other employees. Mr. Jackson, the crew leader who made the remark concerning the coat, was also given a verbal warning for use of the word "nigger". The imposition of a verbal warning as discipline for Mr. Jackson was directly related to the fact that Mr. Jackson had personally apologized to Mr. Townsend for making the remark even before the occurrence had been related to Mr. Berger and any investigation of the matter instituted. Moreover, he had made the comment quietly to one other employee and did not shout it in the work place before a number of other employees. Further, these two incidents occurred in February of 1988 before Lehigh elected, at the urging of the employees' union, to more vigorously enforce its policy against racial slurs, which vigorous enforcement policy it has uniformly pursued since that time. These incidents were thus not proven to be similar to the incidents involving the Petitioner and her employment and disciplinary record. Neither involved the disciplining of a black employee differently than a white employee. The Petitioner, Mr. Sims and Mr. Jackson are white. The less severe discipline imposed on Mr. Sims and Mr. Jackson was rationally related to the mitigating circumstances described above, rather than to their status as men or white men. It is also noteworthy that several years before the Petitioner's discharge, a white man employed in Lehigh's loading department, in the course of a conversation with a black employee, held up a piece of rope, apparently tied as a hangman's noose, and told the black employee that he would show him what use was made of rope in the white employee's home town. The black employee, at this juncture, hit the white employee with his fist. Mr. Berger investigated that incident, as well. Although it was alleged to him that the white employee had used the term "nigger", Mr. Berger was not able to identify a disinterested witness who would actually establish that the term had been used. In any event, however, Lehigh's management, through Mr. Berger, determined that this was a serious, malicious violation of the company's anti-discrimination policy. He promptly discharged the white employee for this conduct. The black employee, in turn, was also discharged for engaging in violence, which the company has uniformly considered to be one of the most severe violations of its disciplinary rules. Each of those employees was individually disciplined for their respective violations of company policy, based upon the circumstances peculiar to each. Neither of those incidents is similar to the incident for which Lehigh discharged the Petitioner. The discipline imposed on each of them was shown to be consistent with the company's customary anti-discrimination policy. None of the exemplary incidents described above serve to establish that white employees, male or female,(or, for that matter, black employees) have been subjected to a pattern of discriminatory disciplinary measures, including termination. They, likewise, do not show that any of those employee groups were accorded favored treatment. Rather, the facts regarding these incidents show that the company has pursued a pattern of non-discriminatory employee discipline. The employees who were disciplined in these three incidents were not shown to be similarly situated to the Petitioner, in terms of the infraction she committed, her past record, the circumstances surrounding her infraction and the investigation afterward, versus the underlying reasons for the various disciplinary measures imposed on these other employees, related above. During the hearing, the Petitioner first raised the issue of alleged discriminatory treatment because of a perceived close interracial relationship between her and Mr. Hallmon. Accordingly, she amended the Petition, ore tenus, without objection. Mr. Hallmon and the Petitioner had apparently become close friends at the point when he asked her to be his assistant in his position as chief union steward. She accepted the position. Mr. Hallmon indicated that this was because of his concerns about tensions between black and white employees. He wished a white employee to be his assistant to, as he termed it, "balance things out". That association began approximately three years ago. Mr. Hallmon and the Petitioner customarily would spend their lunch period together on frequent occasions to discuss union business. They sometimes met after work, in the parking lot next to the factory, to discuss union business because, as Mr. Hallmon put it, he maintained his union business office in the trunk of his car. The two also met many mornings prior to work for donuts and coffee. Their apparent friendship is corroborated by the fact that Mr. Hallmon elected to urge one of the witnesses to the Petitioner's behavior on August 2, 1989 to conceal her knowledge of it. He stopped Anne Hamlin in the parking lot on the day of the incident and told her that she should say nothing about it. The Petitioner has been engaged in contesting her discharge through the union grievance procedure or the administrative process before the Commission on Human Relations and the Division of Administrative Hearings for more than a year and one-half as of the time of hearing. However, she never had complained prior to the day of hearing that her friendship with Mr. Hallmon or any perceived close, personal interracial relationship between her and Mr. Hallmon had been involved in the reasons for her discharge or any discriminatory treatment she believed had been imposed upon her. Mr. Hallmon contended at the hearing that 80% of the approximately 400 workers at Lehigh had made comments about their relationship but, upon questioning about this testimony, was only able to relate two specific comments which had been made to him concerning his and the Petitioner's relationship. Neither of these comments were made by management-level personnel of Lehigh. Moreover, both the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon, as union representatives, were acquainted with procedures for bringing a grievance to the attention of management, concerning discriminatory treatment, or any other basis for a grievance and yet neither had complained concerning any perceived discriminatory treatment to management. The only instance in which management might have gained any knowledge of their alleged relationship, other than personal observation, was from a conversation between Mr. Hallmon and Mr. Berger on one occasion when Mr. Hallmon asked Mr. Berger whether there was any violation of company policy if two people, black and white, or male or female, have lunch together. Mr. Berger responded by stating, in effect, that it was not any of management's business or anyone else's business concerning which employees had lunch together. Mr. Berger, however, upon learning that Mr. Hallmon had an apparent concern about the perception which management or co-employees might have concerning his and the Petitioner's relationship, did advise him to remember that "...this is the deep south...and I wouldn't want any of these rednecks catching up with you". When asked if he could recall any discussions between management personnel concerning the amount of time Mr. Hallmon and the Petitioner spent together, Mr. Berger answered "no, it's none of our business". Although Mr. Berger had observed the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon together on several occasions, he felt that was none of his business as a manager of the company. Neither body of testimony, appearing at pages 49, 50 and 90 of the transcript nor any other testimony or evidence in this record, establishes that management had any knowledge of any pervasive discriminatory pattern of behavior in the work place by co-workers toward the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon, if such indeed existed, which was not proven. It was also not established that management had any concern with any real or perceived relationship between the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon and it was not demonstrated that it had any effect on the decision to discipline the Petitioner nor on the severity of the discipline imposed. After her termination, the Petitioner attempted to secure employment through the services of Job Services of Florida by application of August 28, 1989. Job Services referred her to Russell Corporation on September 8, 1989 and to Wal-Mart on September 21, 1989. She applied for employment unsuccessfully at both places. These were the only attempts the Petitioner made to obtain employment from the time of her August 2, 1989 termination until the hearing. Her listing, as available for employment, with Job Services of Florida became inactive on November 30, 1989. It was not established that she sought to reactivate that listing until just prior to the hearing. During the period of her unemployment, there were opportunities to seek employment which she did not avail herself of. On the date of the hearing, there were 22 jobs with private employers and 15 jobs with public employers listed with Job Services of Florida for which the Petitioner could have qualified to apply. She contended that she had looked in the help-wanted advertisements in a weekly newspaper for jobs, but there were none for which she was qualified. Local papers published in Jackson, Calhoun and Liberty counties, in the immediate vicinity of the Petitioner's residence in Altha, reveal that there were a number of advertisements for jobs during her unemployment period which she could have qualified to apply for and possibly to secure. The Petitioner's payroll records for 1988 reveal seven pay periods out of 52 when her total hours equaled or exceeded 50 hours. There were seven pay periods when she worked fewer than 40 hours per week. The average hours worked weekly during 1988 were 42.2. The highest gross pay received in 1988 was $375.76 per week, and the lowest weekly gross pay was $98.56. Her weekly gross pay on an average basis for 1988 was, thus, $273.24. The Petitioner worked 36 pay periods in 1989. She worked more than 40 hours in only eight of those weekly pay periods. The time in excess of 40 hours in these eight pay periods varied, with 5.5 hours being the largest number of hours in excess of 40 hours worked for a weekly pay period; and .3 hours was the lowest number of hours in excess of 40 hours worked for a weekly pay period. In 15 of these 36 pay periods, the Petitioner worked fewer than 40 hours. The average hours per pay period for 1989 were, thus, 33.98. She received overtime pay in eight pay periods. Her highest gross salary for any pay period in 1989 was $309.28. Her lowest gross salary for a pay period in 1989 was $51.28. Her average gross pay for 1989 was, thus, $220.72 per week. The average weekly gross pay for the entire period of her employment was $246.12. She earned $6.41 per hour at the time of her discharge. Had she remained employed, this would have increased to $6.63 per hour on December 16, 1989 and to $6.83 on December 16, 1990. She was eligible for two weeks of paid vacation per year since she had been employed for three years, and eight paid holidays per year. Federal income tax, social security, and union dues were withheld from her gross weekly pay. In 1988, income tax withholding totaled $1,022.80; social security totaled $1,066.98; and union dues totaled $110.00. In 1989, federal income tax totaled $513.97; social security totaled $596.76; and union dues totaled $96.00 for the 36 pay periods she worked in 1989. Lehigh was self- insured for health insurance and any amounts exceeding the employee contributions were to be paid by Lehigh. The employees, including the Petitioner, contributed $7.50 per week towards health insurance. Her payroll records reveal, however, that she ceased participating in the employer-provided group health insurance after the seventh pay period of 1989. In arriving at the above Findings of Fact, it has been necessary, to some extent, to reject the testimony of the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon. This is because the Hearing Officer finds the testimony of other witnesses to the argument between the Petitioner and Ms. Hall and the surrounding circumstances and events to be more credible. The testimony of the other witnesses to these events was accepted because of their basic agreement on the significant circumstances concerning the occurrences in question and the fact that these other witnesses were demonstrated to have no reason to shade the truth concerning the occurrences and the underlying circumstances, including the fact that these witnesses, whose testimony has been accepted as more credible, are of both races involved. The Petitioner, however, is interested in the litigation and admits using the words "black ass nigger" and her tape-recorded statements made the same day of the argument in question are corroborative of the statements, behavior and demeanor on the part of the Petitioner reported by the other witnesses who have been found to be more credible and who are named in the above Findings of Fact. It is found that Mr. Hallmon's close relationship with the Petitioner might have influenced his recollection of the events in question. More significantly, his effort to actually prevent Ms. Hamlin from relating her knowledge about the incident is evidence of a bias in favor of the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner's testimony about alleged recent job-search efforts was impeached because in her deposition taken approximately a week prior to hearing, she repeatedly asserted that the potential jobs at Russell and Wal-Mart were the only ones she had sought, although she maintained at hearing that she had also applied for work at Oglesby Nursery and McDonald's two or three weeks prior to hearing. She offered no explanation of why she did not mention job applications allegedly made less than a month prior to her deposition testimony. It is simply not credible that she would have forgotten those applications if, indeed, they had been made, especially since she was repeatedly asked about that subject matter at her deposition. Thus, her testimony about applying for employment with the two additional employers is deemed not credible.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations finding that the Petitioner, Donna J. Brown, was not discharged in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1989), and was not the victim of a discriminatory employment practice and, therefore, that her Petition be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-6596 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-3. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter after determination of the relative credibility of the witnesses. Accepted. 6-9. Accepted. 10-11. Accepted. Accepted, but not material based upon the issues actually pled even by ore tenus amendment at hearing in this proceeding. It has not been established that the employer had knowledge, constructive or otherwise, of any pattern of usage of racial slurs by multiple employees on such a frequent basis, or with any frequency. Thus, it could not have condoned such a pattern of utterance of racial slurs if it was not shown to have known about them, nor was it established that the use of the word "nigger" by fellow employees approximately once or twice a month, as apparently heard by Mr. Hallmon, was made only by white employees. Accepted. Accepted, but not to the extent that this finding establishes a pattern of discrimination against white employees by Mr. Berger or the management of Lehigh. 15-17. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. As delineated in the Hearing Officer's findings of fact, a number of factors were considered in the decision to terminate as opposed to imposing another type or degree of discipline; not consideration of the word "nigger" alone. 20-21. Accepted. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. This finding of fact is not, in itself, materially dispositive of the issues to be adjudicated. Accepted, but not material to resolution of the relevant issues presented for adjudication. Accepted, but not material in this de novo proceeding. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's more detailed findings of fact concerning this subject matter and issue. 26-30. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter, including finding that the Petitioner did not participate in the group health insurance program any longer than the period of time delineated in the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. It has not been established that employment available for purposes of mitigation of damages for lost wages and benefits has to be precisely comparable in circumstances, condition, quality, wages or benefits or any other element in order to be a relevantly considered available job. Rejected, as contrary to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. It has not been established that the Petitioner would work 50 hours, with 10 hours of overtime, for each week which she would have worked since August 2, 1989 had she not been discharged. Such a figure is therefore speculative, rendering the figures contained in this proposed finding, other than the actual wage figures for a 40-hour work week, speculative. The Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter are adhered to and those in this paragraph are rejected as not supported by the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Rejected, as not supported by the preponderant evidence of record in light of the Hearing Officer's findings of fact concerning the liability issue. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Accepted. 3. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by the record. 4-6. Accepted. 7. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by the evidence of record. 8-10. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, except as modified by the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 15-17. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. 20-25. Accepted. 26. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 27-98. Accepted, except as modified by the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and by the Hearing Officer's acceptance of the proposed findings of fact by the Petitioner concerning the hourly wage rates Petitioner would have received with her next scheduled pay raises had she remained employed. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Ben R. Patterson, Esq. PATTERSON & TRAYNHAM 1215 Thomasville Road P.O. Box 4289 Tallahassee, FL 32315-4289 George J. Little, Esq. 134A Constitution Lane P.O. Box 1612 Marianna, FL 32446 John D.C. Newton, III, Esq. AURELL, RADEY, ET AL. Suite 1000, Monroe-Park Tower 101 North Monroe Street P.O. Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent due to Petitioner's race in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent hired Petitioner on October 13, 1997, as a maintenance operator. Six months later he was promoted to the position of Maintenance Technician I. During his employment, Petitioner was one of six technicians. He was the only black technician. Petitioner was initially paid at a rate of $6.00 per hour. He received no pay increase with his first promotion. His yearly evaluation was delayed, but finally received by him on December 7, 1998. His evaluation for 1999 was received by December 23, 1999. His wages had climbed by this time to $8.40 per hour. His evaluations were satisfactory or above. Although Petitioner had been told he would be provided training on the job, he was relegated to the night shift, working by himself. As a consequence, he educated himself on maintenance of Respondent’s facility. In 1999, all technicians were to receive formal training. Another technician, who was white and lower in seniority than Petitioner, was selected for training before Petitioner. When Petitioner brought this to the attention of a supervisor, Petitioner was sent to other training provided by Siemen’s Corporation in Atlanta, Georgia. Petitioner stated he was treated unfairly because he was required to absorb the cost of lodging for the first night in Atlanta, prior to commencement of training. The five other technicians employed by Respondent were being paid a minimum of $11.00 per hour when Petitioner, on or about May 5, 2000, requested an increase from his current $8.40 per hour rate to $10.00 per hour. His supervisor responded that he could not grant the increase. An argument ensued and Petitioner left the office and returned to work. Later that day, Respondent’s human resource officer contacted Petitioner. He informed Petitioner that Petitioner’s employment was terminated due to “insubordination.” On Respondent’s termination form, the reason listed for Petitioner’s termination was insubordination and using “slanders to his senior manager.” The form also listed Petitioner’s absence from work on Saturday, April 29, 2000, as a reason for employment termination. In rebuttal, Petitioner produced a copy of an annual leave slip at final hearing requesting approval of his absence on the date in question. Petitioner had accumulated ample leave to cover the requested time. Respondent’s approving authority failed to approve Petitioner’s absence, but no notification was given to Petitioner. Respondent’s claim of unauthorized absence is effectively rebutted. According to a copy of a letter dated June 19, 2003, and received by DOAH on June 24, 2003, bearing the purported signature of David Anderson, registered agent for Respondent on June 20, 2002, Respondent was reputed to have ceased operation. According to statements contained in the letter, the Bank of America sold Respondent on March 10, 2002, in the “form of rights in collateral.” The letter additionally stated “unliquidated assets” in the bankruptcy were “sold in a Section 363 auction” on May 23, 2002. No direct evidence was presented on behalf of Respondent corroborating the contents of the letter and consequently the letter is not credited. Petitioner produced documentation at the final hearing, specifically a corporation reinstatement form issued by the Florida Department of State, documenting Respondent’s continued existence as of April 22, 2002.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered directing that Respondent to cease the discriminatory employment practice evidenced in this case and awarding Petitioner back pay at the rate of $10.00 per hour for each normal 40-hour work week between May 5, 2000, and the present. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael F. Coppins, Esquire Coppins & Monroe Post Office Box 14447 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4447 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dwight E. Mazion 1713 Calgary Drive Desoto, Texas 75115 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners, Shirley Arnold and Joannie Greer, are black females and were high school students at the time pertinent to this proceeding. They were employed by Burger Queen Systems, Inc. from the latter part of November, 1979 through January 8, 1980. Burger Queen Systems, Inc., at that time, operated a "fast food" restaurant at which the Petitioners were employed in Arcadia, Florida. The Petitioners complain that they were terminated from their positions because of their race. They assert in support of that position that they were not given as much training by their employer as white employees were given, nor that they were allowed to rotate through all job positions, with training in all job duties (especially operating the cash register and making sales) as were white employees. The Petitioners were enrolled in a vocational training program in their senior year of high school which allowed them to work up to 20 hours per week part-time and it was through this program that they received part-time jobs at the Respondent's restaurant in Arcadia. They were given training in food preparation and in preparing the various kinds of hamburgers and cheeseburgers sold by the restaurant. They were rotated through a number of different duties and given training in the performance of each one. In the case of Joannie Greer, however, it was established that in addition to receiving training in preparing the various kinds of sandwiches sold at the restaurant, she was given some training in operating the cash register; and indeed, was trained in most phases of the "fast food" restaurant's food preparation and sales, with the exception of operating the cooking grill and cooking hamburgers, cheeseburgers and the like. The Petitioners were informed by their Vocational teacher that they could work up to 20 hours per week, and in Joannie Greer's case, at least, she worked up to 16 hours per week, but both Petitioners worked varying numbers of hours according to a schedule provided them by their employer because they were part- time workers still attending high school. Both Petitioners knew they were part-time employees when they were hired and Joannie Greer admitted they were not excluded from any formal training course. Although the Petitioners did not rotate through and train for each duty involved in operating the restaurant, they were informed that they would be allowed to do so, but neither was employed for a sufficient period of time to train in all available duties. It was the restaurant's consistent business practice to train only management personnel in all duties required to operate the restaurant, including cooking and running the cash register, and that no part-time employees were given training in every field. It was not established by Petitioners that white part-time employees were given different or additional training than black part-time employees, including the Petitioners. All starting employees were paid the same rate. Both Petitioners knew they were part-time employees only and Joannie Greer acknowledged that they were not promised any definite length or hours of employment, but rather worked on a flexible, part-time schedule. During the time the Petitioners were employed at the restaurant, Burger Queen Systems, Inc. was in financial difficulties. It operated 19 stores at the time, but by July, 1982 was forced to close all stores due to insufficient revenue and excessive expenses. It was a regular management practice of Burger Queen Systems to send in a management person from its home office in order to attempt to make an unprofitable store profitable. The Arcadia store involved herein was operating at a loss at the time the Petitioners were employed. It was Burger Queen System's regular business practice in order to turn unprofitable stores into profitable operations, to change management and even change any or all personnel if that was required, in order to improve the profit and loss posture of a given restaurant. In any event, Ann West was dispatched from the home office to the Arcadia store to attempt to improve operations there so it would become profitable. As part of that process, both white and black employees were reduced in the number of hours they could work and employees who did not perform properly were dismissed. Satisfactory employees were dismissed as well for cost control-reasons. The Petitioners were dismissed because they performed their duties too slowly and in a substandard fashion. In this connection, Petitioner's witness Sonia Murphy, attributed an unsubstantiated statement as being made by Ann West to the effect that she had "to get rid of" some black employees. In other portions of her testimony however, Sonia Murphy acknowledged that Ms. West desired to keep some employees, including some black employees, and indeed, some black employees were retained after the Petitioners were terminated. Sonia Murphy was herself in charge of Joannie Greer's training and she, in conducting her training, was told by unspecified management personnel, to have the Petitioner do "other things," that is, rotate her through several jobs, training her in each. This testimony, coupled with that of Petitioner Joannie Greer herself, to the effect that she was well-treated by management personnel and was not excluded front any training programs as compared to other part-time employees, as well as Greer's testimony that a management employee by the name of "Dusty" actually informed her that she was terminated, coupled with Sonia Murphy's testimony that she could not remember the names of the store managers indicates no attempt by Ms. West or other management personnel to single out blacks, and particularly the Petitioners for dismissal, reduction in work hours or reduced training for racially discriminatory reasons. Thus, the totality of the testimony of these two witnesses, coupled with Witness Murphy's general demeanor on the stand, renders her testimony that this statement was made, unreliable and not direct, credible evidence of racially discriminatory practices. Even if the statement had been made by Ms. West, the evidence of record independently establishes that the statement did not represent the motivating factor for the termination of Petitioners. The Petitioners did not demonstrate that they were the only employees, black or white, terminated for the above reasons. Indeed, in the ensuing period of time prior to hearing, the Respondent ultimately closed all of its stores because of its financial difficulties, such that the Respondent corporation only retains one employee, Casey Richards, its accountant and home office manager, who established from contemporaneous personnel records the above reason for the termination of the two Petitioners. In short, the Respondent ultimately terminated all its restaurant employees due to its financial difficulties and in the case of the Petitioners, for the additional reasons of substandard job performance. There was no substantial prima facie evidence adduced to establish that the Petitioners were terminated solely for reasons of race, nor that, while they were employed, they were discriminated against through the provision of inferior training compared to other non-black employees, nor that the Petitioners got less desirable work than non-black employees. The Petitioners thus did not establish that the conditions of their employment, including training opportunities, nor the reasons for their termination, were due to their race and moreover, the Respondent employer established valid business reasons for their termination, and indeed ultimately for all its employees, that is, severe financial difficulties culminating in ultimate business failure, and in the case of these two Petitioners, substandard job performance. This last was the reason provided by the employer, in writing, to the Petitioners high school teacher in charge of their vocational training, part- time job program.
Conclusions For Petitioners: James F. Mensing, Esquire Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc. Post Office Drawer 1449 305 North Jackson Avenue Bartow, Florida 33830 For Respondent: Gilbert Bentley, Esquire Post Office Box 577 Maitland, Florida 32751 This cause arose when Petitioners Shirley Arnold and Joannie Greer filed complaints with the Florida Commission on Human Relations alleging that they were victims of an unlawful employment practice by the Respondent, Burger Queen Systems, Inc. The petitions generally allege that the Petitioners were discriminated against because of their race (black) and were unlawfully terminated from their jobs with the Respondent for this reason. The petitions were filed on May 14, 1984 and were, in due course, transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings for hearing. On August 21, 1984, some three months after the case had been opened at the Division of Administrative Hearings, the Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging that the statute of limitations had run on the cause of action and that the Division of Administrative Hearings had no jurisdiction in the matter. That motion was denied by the Hearing Officer. On August 31, 1984, the Hearing Officer noticed the hearing for Tuesday, November 27, 1984. On November 20, 1984, the Petitioner filed a Motion for Determination of Facts Not In Dispute, based upon the Respondent's failure to file an answer which the Petitioner maintains is mandatory pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 22T-9.08. That rule provides that each Respondent shall file an answer with the Commission within 20 days from service of the petition, and that if a Respondent fails to timely answer, the failure shall be deemed to constitute an admission of the material facts alleged in the petition. That motion should be denied inasmuch as it was not timely raised. The petitions were filed May 14, 1984, accordingly the motion attacking the failure of the Respondent to file an answer was not filed until almost six months after the issue concerning the Respondent's failure to answer became ripe for determination by appropriate motion. During this time discovery was conducted, all parties conducted preparation for trial and the motion was never raised until one week prior to hearing, after significant expense in time and preparation was incurred by the parties. Further, the Petitioners were-on notice, through pre-trial preparation and no later than the date of filing of Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, that the factual allegations of the petitions were genuinely disputed and showed no prejudice occasioned by the failure of Respondent to frame the disputed issues of fact in a formal answer. The hearing was held as scheduled on November 27, 1984 because the response time to the motion had-not elapsed prior to the time set for trial, thus, argument on the motion was heard at trial, at the conclusion of which, the Hearing Officer announced that his recommendation would be to deny the motion. Given the circumstances of this case, the motion clearly was not timely and to grant it would unduly prejudice the Respondent, thus it is denied. See Shepherd v. Board of Dentistry, 385 So. 2d 143 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). At the consolidated hearing, the Petitioners presented the testimony of Joannie Greer and Sonia Murphy and the Respondent presented the testimony of Harold Kite, the President and owner of Burger Queen Systems, Inc. and Casey Richards. Additionally, the Petitioners called Casey Richards as a rebuttal witness. Petitioner Shirley Arnold did not testify nor personally appear at the hearing. At the conclusion of the proceeding, Respondent moved to dismiss the petition on the authority of McWilliams v. Escambia County School Board, 658 Fed. 2d 326 (5th Cir. 1981), asserting in effect, that the Petitioners had not established a prima facie case of employment discrimination for reasons of race. That motion is dealt with by the Conclusions of Law below. Additionally, at the conclusion of the proceeding, the parties requested the right to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law after obtaining a transcript of the proceedings. No transcript was ever obtained and filed with the Hearing Officer however. All proposed findings of fact, conclusions of law, and supporting arguments have been considered. To the extent that they are in accordance with the findings, conclusions and views stated herein, they are accepted. To the extent that the proposed findings, conclusions and arguments asserted are inconsistent herewith, they are rejected. Certain proposed findings and conclusions are omitted as not relevant nor as necessary to a proper determination of the material issues presented. To the extent that the testimony of various witnesses c is not in accord with the findings herein, it is not credited. See, Sonny's Italian Restaurant v. Department of Business Regulation, 414 So. 2d 1156, 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Sierra Club v. Orlando Utilities Commission, 436 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). The issue concerns whether the Petitioners were the victims of unlawful employment practices inflicted upon them by the Respondent by virtue of their race.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Petitions for Relief filed by Shirley Arnold and Joannie Greer be DISMISSED with prejudice. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of June, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James F. Mensing, Esquire Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc. Post Office Drawer 1499 Bartow, Florida 33830 Gilbert Bentley, Esquire Post Office Box 577 Lakeland, Florida 32751 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F - Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Aurelio Durana, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F - Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes (2002), by forcing the termination of Petitioner's employment with Respondent because of his gender (male), and/or national origin (Venezuela), and/or his age (37); and because Petitioner alleged that younger, female lifeguards were given better work assignments.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent from November 26, 2002, until April 17 2003, in the position of deep water lifeguard at Respondent's facility at the Grand Floridian Hotel (Grand Floridian) located in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. He worked in that position until his resignation on April 17, 2003. Petitioner is a Hispanic male, aged 37, and a member of a protected class. Respondent is an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA). Petitioner was hired for a full-time position to work 40 hours per week. He normally worked a ten-hour shift, four days a week. Petitioner never applied for any other position or promotions during his employment. All full-time lifeguards at the Grand Floridian are covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Respondent and the Services Trades Council Union. A lifeguard working at the Grand Floridian does not have to be a member or pay dues to the union in order to be covered by the terms of the CBA. Petitioner is not a member of the union. At the time of his hire, Petitioner was provided with a packet of materials containing Respondent's employment policies. Respondent had a policy regarding harassment that covered all of its employees and prohibited all types of harassment in the workplace, including any such behavior based on age, national origin, and/or gender. Respondent also has an "equal opportunity" policy that applies to all of its employees. This policy provides that all employees should be treated equally in terms of hours, work location, and scheduling based on seniority. Operations at the Grand Floridian Of the class of lifeguards hired at the same time, Petitioner was the only one assigned to the Grand Floridian. At the time of being assigned to the Grand Floridian, there were approximately 25 lifeguards employed there. The lifeguards at the Grand Floridian are full-time, part-time casual, or part- time regular employees. There are also "college program" lifeguards who perform all of the same duties as the full-time and part-time employees. The starting times for employees are staggered, based on the needs of the area and the time of the year. The main duties of a lifeguard at the Grand Floridian are to ensure safety and guard the pools, clean the pool and beach areas, work the cash register, and operate the marina. The head supervisor of the Grand Floridian lifeguards during Petitioner's employment was Jerry Davis. Davis has been employed with Respondent for nine years. He has served in his current position as the recreation operations manager for six years. His duties in this position include supervising the outside recreation areas, including the pools, boats, and lifeguards at the Grand Floridian. Davis plays no role in hiring the employees that report to him, but rather Respondent's Employee Relations Department is responsible for hiring these employees. Davis has the authority to terminate lifeguards that report to him. Prior to terminating an employee, however, Davis seeks the input of the Employee Relations Department. The evidence is credible that Davis is accessible to his direct reports and makes sure that his office is always open to them. If a lifeguard wants to speak with Davis, he will make himself available to him or her. As a manager, Davis has undergone training from Respondent regarding its equal employment policies and anti- harassment policies. He has also been trained that employees may raise complaints about working conditions with either their manager or the Employee Relations Department. All employees are made aware of these policies and complaint procedures as a part of their orientation program. Under Davis, the next supervisor was Darin Bernhard. Bernhard has been employed with Respondent for eight years and is currently employed as a recreation guest service manager. Until October 2003, Bernhard was employed at the Grand Floridian. In that capacity, Bernhard directly supervised lifeguards, marina employees, and activities' employees. Bernhard had continuous interaction with lifeguards throughout the day while at the Grand Floridian. Bernhard had an open-door policy to all employees and made himself accessible to them. Under Davis and Bernhard, there were three coordinators who served as the immediate supervisors of the lifeguards. The weekly work schedule for lifeguards was posted on the wall every week. Bernhard, along with Respondent's Labor Office, was responsible for preparing this weekly schedule. The factors used in preparing this schedule were a scheduling bid submitted by each employee, scheduled vacations, and operational needs. As for operational needs, Bernhard would try to give a combination throughout the week based on full-time, part-time, and college program employees and avoid having all college program employees on duty at one time, thereby providing more experience on each shift. The CBA contains a provision stating as follows: "The principles of seniority shall be observed in establishing days off and work schedules by department, location, or scheduling pool." As a result, the schedule bids of all employees were considered based on the seniority of the employees. At the time of his hire, Petitioner spoke with Bernhard about special scheduling requests. Specifically, Petitioner asked to receive early shifts and weekends off. He wanted the weekends off due to child-care issues with his son. Bernhard informed Petitioner that he would attempt to work with Petitioner on this, but that he was limited in what he could do based on the seniority requirements set forth in the CBA, as well as the fact that most of the lifeguards preferred to have weekends off. At that point in time, Petitioner had the least amount of seniority of all the full-time lifeguards, since he was the most recently hired employee. Despite the CBA restrictions, Bernhard made every effort to provide Petitioner with at least one day each weekend off and tried to provide him with two, whenever possible. On a regular basis, Petitioner was scheduled to have Saturdays off. In addition, on numerous occasions, he was given Friday, Saturday, and Sunday off from work, in accordance with his special request. At no time during his employment did Petitioner ever complain to Bernhard about not getting enough days off on the weekend. Employees would occasionally complain to Bernhard about the weekly schedule. When he received such complaints, Bernhard would listen to their complaints and not take any adverse action against any employee for complaining to him about scheduling issues. On occasion, lifeguards would be sent home early due to slow business or inclement weather. This decision would be made either by the immediate supervisor on duty or one of the coordinators. The lifeguards would be allowed to volunteer to go home on a "first-come, first serve" basis. No lifeguard, however, was forced to go home early. Similarly, Bernhard did not receive complaints from any lifeguard about being forced to go home early. The coordinators at the Grand Floridian were responsible for making the daily rotation schedules. There were five primary positions that the lifeguards could be assigned to on a daily basis, consisting of two lifeguard positions at the pool, the slide, the marina, and cashier. The coordinators made these assignment decisions based on the people they had available that day. The primary focus was to make sure that all of the areas were properly covered. Such daily rotation assignments were also based on certain needs during particular periods of the day. In addition, certain assignments were given to certain employees if they are more capable of performing the task. It is also not uncommon for the daily rotation to be changed during the day based on unexpected factors, such as absent employees. In terms of shift assignments, an effort is made to make sure that regular employees and college program employees are working together so that the regular employees can provide guidance when needed. During a workday, most of the employees rotate positions every 30 minutes to an hour. The rotation of duties for the lifeguards changed on a daily basis. Petitioner enjoyed working as a lifeguard because he considered himself a stronger lifeguard than others in his department. He also described himself as the "leader of the lifeguards." All lifeguards are trained in the cashier duties, but very few individuals are chosen to actually work as a cashier. These cashiers undergo special training prior to performing these duties. The primary attributes for a cashier are good guest interaction and good phone skills because a cashier is required to interact with guests, both on the telephone and in person. This assignment also differs from the other assignments in that the employee assigned to this position normally does not rotate throughout the day to other assignments. It is not uncommon for the same employee to serve as a cashier for an entire day. Petitioner was sometimes assigned to work at the marina, but not as a cashier. Petitioner never spoke with any of his supervisors or coordinators about working more at the marina or as a cashier. Each lifeguard at the Grand Floridian was required to complete four hours of in-service training each month, either at his home resort or at another resort. Attendance at these training sessions were tracked on a daily sign-in sheet. If a lifeguard failed to complete his or her in-service training for the month, he would be reprimanded. Davis prepared a reprimand for Petitioner on April 1, 2003. This reprimand was the result of Petitioner's failing to complete his in-service training hours for the month of March 2003. As a result of failing to complete this training, Petitioner received a two-point reprimand for poor job performance. Petitioner did not know when Davis prepared the Poor Job Performance Memorandum dated April 1, 2003. Davis and Petitioner did not see each other between Petitioner's accident on March 30, 2003, and the date Petitioner signed the Poor Job Performance Memorandum on April 9, 2003. At the time that Davis prepared this memorandum, Petitioner had not made any complaints of discrimination or harassment to Davis. The attendance of the lifeguards on a daily basis was tracked by the use of an electronic swipe card. The daily schedule and attendance of the lifeguards was also tracked on a daily sheet completed by the coordinators. This sheet was kept in the managers' office and was forwarded to the Respondent's Labor Office when it was completed. Bernhard usually reviewed these sheets on a daily basis as well. The lifeguards did not have access to these sheets on a daily basis. Under the attendance policy in the CBA, three absences in a 30-day period warranted a one-point written reprimand. An employee had to receive three written reprimands within a 24- month period before he could be terminated for attendance issues. The reasons for an absence did not make a difference for purposes of accruing points under the policy. On March 24, 2003, Petitioner called in sick and did not appear for work. On his way home from work on March 31, 2003, Petitioner was in a car accident in a parking lot on Respondent's property. As a result of that accident, Petitioner's car had to be towed because it was not drivable. Petitioner did not, however, seek medical treatment as a result of the accident. Shortly after the accident occurred, Petitioner contacted Bernhard. He informed Bernhard of the accident and told him that he would not be available for work the next day because his car had been destroyed. He did not inform Bernhard that he had been injured in any way. Petitioner was absent from work on April 1, 2003, because he had no transportation. Petitioner called in his personal absence on April 1, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 16, 2003, and was a "no show" on April 2, 2003. As a result of these numerous absences, Davis made a decision to contact Petitioner by telephone and inquire about the reasons for these multiple absences. Petitioner informed Davis that he still did not have transportation. Petitioner expressed concern to Davis that he was afraid he was going to accrue too many points and get himself terminated. Davis responded to Petitioner that if he did not return to work, he would accrue points under the attendance policy. Petitioner asked Davis if it would be better if he terminated himself or if he was terminated by Respondent. Davis also informed Petitioner that if he terminated himself, at some point he might be able to return to his job at Respondent, though he did not guarantee him that he could simply return. Davis made it very clear to Petitioner that this was a decision he had to make. At the time of Davis' phone call to Petitioner, he had accrued sufficient points under the applicable "attendance policy" set forth under the CBA to warrant giving him a one- point written reprimand. Davis had not been able to give the reprimand to Petitioner, however, because he had not returned to work. At no time had Davis ever informed Petitioner that such a reprimand was waiting for him. In addition, such absences would not have provided a basis for terminating Petitioner at that point in time. Petitioner contacted Davis the following day and informed Davis that he was going to voluntarily resign his employment. Upon learning of this decision, Davis informed Petitioner that he needed to return his uniform and all other of Respondent's property prior to receiving his last paycheck. All employees are required to return their uniform and Respondent's property at the time of resignation. Davis never informed Petitioner that he was being terminated or that he had an intention of terminating him. Similarly, Davis never told Petitioner that he had no option but to resign. Davis had no problem with Petitioner returning to work, provided he could obtain proper transportation. After Petitioner's resignation, Davis completed the required paperwork and indicated that Petitioner should be classified as a "restricted rehire." Davis chose this restriction due to Petitioner's tardiness and attendance issues, as well as his failure to take responsibility to make it to work. This decision to categorize him as a "restricted rehire" was not based on Petitioner's age, national origin or his gender. Petitioner visited Respondent's casting center (human resource department) on June 17, 2003, approximately two months after his resignation, with the intent to reapply for his prior position. Petitioner wanted to return to his same position at the Grand Floridian, working for Davis and Bernhard, as well as working under the same coordinators. On June 17, 2003, Petitioner met with Fernanda Smith, who has served as a recruiter for Respondent for five years. Smith was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and is Hispanic. As a recruiter, Smith is responsible for interviewing, selecting, and hiring the strongest candidates for positions at Respondent. She is responsible for hiring employees for all hourly, entry- level positions. The hiring process used by Respondent is the same for both new applicants and former employees of Respondent. That process is set forth in the "Rehire Review" policy given to each recruiter. Once Smith is randomly assigned an applicant, she brings them to her office and reviews their personal data in the computer. She then reviews the application for accuracy and completeness. She also confirms that they are qualified to work in the United States and their criminal background. Smith reviews the conditions of employment with the applicant, including compensation, appearance, ability to attend work and transportation. If the applicant was previously employed by Respondent, Smith also reviews the application for the reasons the employee previously left employment and the applicant's rehire status. The different rehire statuses are "yes rehire," "restricted rehire," and "no rehire." If a former employee has been categorized as a "restricted rehire," Smith then must confirm that the person is currently employed and that he or she has been at that employment for a period of at least six months at the time of re-application. Assuming they can satisfy these requirements, the applicant is required to provide an employment verification letter from their current employer within one week of the interview. At that point, the information is forwarded to a rehire committee for consideration. On June 17, 2003, Smith interviewed Petitioner for potential rehire with Respondent. She recalls that when she met him in the lobby, he was very professionally dressed. Upon entering her office, Smith reviewed the information on Petitioner's application with him. At that point, she noticed that he had a recent date of termination from Respondent and asked him the reasons for his termination. Petitioner responded that he had left his employment because of transportation problems and that he had missed a number of days from work. In reviewing Petitioner's application, she realized that he did not meet the requirements for consideration as a "restricted rehire." First of all, Petitioner did not offer any evidence of current employment at the time of the interview. Secondly, Petitioner had only been gone from Respondent for a period of approximately two months, and thus, did not have the six months of continuous employment to be considered for rehire. Smith shared with Petitioner that he did not meet the minimum requirements for a "restricted rehire." Petitioner had no idea what that designation meant. At that point, Petitioner responded by getting very upset, yelling and screaming at Smith, standing up and pointing his finger at her. He then informed Smith that he was going to sue Respondent for discrimination and left her office. Petitioner did not allow Smith to make any other comments to him. Immediately after Petitioner had left the building, Smith prepared the standard evaluation that she prepares for all applicants she interviews, including the incident that occurred in the interview with Petitioner. If Petitioner had allowed Smith to explain the process and eventually provided the appropriate documentation, he might have been considered for rehire. Based on his behavior in the interview, however, Smith recommended that he not be considered for rehire, particularly for the position of lifeguard where he would be dealing with guests on a regular basis. Allegations of Discrimination Petitioner alleges that one of the coordinators referred to his national origin in a derogatory manner on one occasion. Other than this isolated alleged comment, he stated he never heard anyone else at Respondent make any derogatory comments about his being Hispanic or Venezuelan. Petitioner did not complain about this comment to anyone at Respondent and specifically did not complain to Davis, Bernhard, or employee relations about it. Other than this one comment by an unnamed coordinator, Petitioner offered no evidence that any actions or decisions were taken against him based on his national origin. In support of his age discrimination claim, Petitioner alleges that some of his co-workers referred to him once or twice as "old." Petitioner did not offer any evidence that any of his supervisors or coordinators ever used any of these terms in reference to him. Petitioner does not know whether or not he ever discussed his age with other workers. At the time of Petitioner's resignation, he was not the oldest lifeguard working at the Grand Floridian. Penny Ivey and Sherry Morris were both older than Petitioner, and Davis was born on February 5, 1951. At the time of Petitioner's resignation, Davis was 52 years old. Other than these alleged isolated comments, Petitioner offered no other evidence that any actions or decisions were taken against him based on his age. Petitioner claims that one example of gender discrimination was that the rotation schedule was not equal. In particular, he alleges that the "young and beautiful girls" were preferred in the rotation schedules because they were allowed to work in the marina and at the cash register more than males. Petitioner alleges that Jaimy Tully, a 23-year-old female lifeguard, was always late. For example, Petitioner alleges that Tully was late on March 2, 2003, based on the fact that she was supposed to be there at 10:00 a.m. The daily schedule indicates that she arrived for work at 9:30 a.m. In reviewing the document, however, it indicates "S/C" which means that a schedule change was made, and Tully showed up for work half an hour early, not late, and she still worked her scheduled day of ten hours. A schedule change would occur for several reasons, including the need to have certain employees come in early for an in-service session or the personal request of an employee. It sometimes required employees to come in for work early and other times required them to work later. Petitioner similarly alleges that Tully was late on March 22, 2003, and should have been fired for that. In reviewing the daily schedule for that date, however, it is evident that a schedule change was made, and Tully was scheduled to work from 9:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., a regular 10-hour day, and that she actually worked those hours. Petitioner admitted at the hearing that she was actually early to work and not late. Petitioner alleges that Tully was late again for work on April 7 and April 16, 2003. A review of those daily schedules, however, reveals that Tully had a schedule change on each of those days and that she worked the hours that she was assigned. Of all these allegations of Tully being late to work, Petitioner never complained to anyone about it. Petitioner then alleges that Tully arrived for work early on February 15, 2003, and that she was allowed to work extra hours and earn overtime. On that particular occasion, however, Tully was called in early because she needed to attend an in-service training session that was occurring that day. Petitioner conceded that Tully was not late on that day. Petitioner admitted that both males and females were called in to work additional hours as lifeguards. For instance, Michael Whitt, a male employee, was allowed to start work earlier based on a schedule change on March 4, 2003. Similarly, a schedule change was made involving Whitt on February 25, 2003, and he was required to report to work at 11:40 a.m., not 10:00 a.m., and as a result, was not given any breaks that day. Petitioner never received any discipline as a result of being late to work or for leaving work early. Petitioner claims that he suffered discrimination on January 12, 2003, because Tully was allowed to start work later than he and then was allowed to work as a cashier for the majority of the day. He claims that she should have been on a rotation like him and that she was given more hours than he was. Tully was trained as both a lifeguard and a cashier, but she had more cashier experience than the majority of the other lifeguards. She also had good guest-interaction and cash- handling skills, and thus, she was placed as a cashier more than most of the other lifeguards. The cashier assignment also differed from the other assignments in that the employee assigned to this position normally did not rotate throughout the day, and it was not uncommon for the same employee to serve as a cahier for an entire day. Petitioner never spoke with any of his supervisors or coordinators about serving as a cashier, nor did he ever complain to Bernhard about any of his daily assignments. He alleges that the woman and the "young girls" were always placed at the marina. When asked to identify "these girls," he stated he was referring to Mindy and Matt, a male employee. In particular, Petitioner testified that on December 25, 2002, Matt served in the marina for three consecutive rotations on that particular day. He also points out that Matt had a longer break than he did on that particular day. There was no pay differential between employees who were assigned to work at the marina and those who worked at the pool. Similarly, there was no pay differential between employees working as a cashier and those at the pool. Petitioner never made any complaints to Davis about his weekly schedule or his daily rotation assignments. Similarly, Petitioner never complained to Davis about any disparate treatment or harassment based on his age, national origin, or gender. Petitioner never raised any complaints about discrimination or any other working conditions with Bernhard. Bernhard never made any derogatory comments to him or about him. Bernhard does not give any preference to any employees based on age, national origin, or gender. Petitioner was aware that there was an Employee Relations Department located at the casting center, but never complained to them about his working conditions or alleged discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order which DENIES Petitioner's Petition for Relief and dismisses his complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Fernando J. Conde 4732 Olive Branch Road Apartment No. 1205 Orlando, Florida 32811-7118 Paul J. Scheck, Esquire Shutts & Bowen, LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 4956 Orlando, Florida 32802-4956 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was discriminated against by being terminated, allegedly on account of her race, and in retaliation for filing a claim concerning discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Tammy King, the Petitioner, became employed by the Respondent in June of 2000. She was employed as an operations manager, supervising the cleaning service work for various customer accounts as well as the people employed to perform the cleaning service work for those accounts. She was employed by the Respondent for approximately one year. The owners of the Respondent company are Linda and Daniel Coley. On October 18, 2000, Ms. King was evaluated by her evaluator and supervisor Christopher Stettner and received an excellent evaluation, which was apparently co-extensive with the end of her probationary period. Gene Janushanis also was in a supervisory capacity over the Petitioner. Mr. Janushanis, in his supervisory role, is the primary focus of the Peititoner's complaint of discriminatory conduct concerning his conduct and attitude toward her. The Petitioner contends, in essence, that Mr. Janushanis refused to allow the Petitioner to discipline black employees and treated her more harshly, with harassment, including cursing at her, and otherwise interfered with her performance of her job. She stated that he treated black employees, including black supervisors in similar positions to the Petitioner, more favorably, as to disciplinary or job performance issues, than he treated the Petitioner. The Petitioner maintains that she had no problems, disciplinary or otherwise, in the performance of her job before Mr. Janushanis was hired as her supervisor and that their numerous altercations commenced shortly thereafter. However, she also developed a difficult relationship with Christopher Stettner, the supervisor who gave her the excellent evaluation at the end of her probationary period. Apparently, their relationship deteriorated soon thereafter and became quite hostile. In fact, Mr. Stettner filed an internal complaint or grievance against the Petitioner concerning alleged harassment of him by the Petitioner. This resulted in the Respondent's scheduling additional "anti-harassment training" for the Petitioner and other employees thereafter. Thus, a hostile relationship with abrasive arguments ensued between the Petitioner and Mr. Stettner, as well as between the Petitioner and Mr. Janushanis, starting in the late part of 2000 and through the first half of the year 2001. Cassey Clark, the Human Relations Director for Respondent, witnessed a number of "very harsh arguments" between Tammy King and office employees or supervisors Dwayne Coley, Chris Stettner, and Gene Janushanis. Both owners and employees witnessed very hostile, violent arguments between Mr. Janushanis and the Petitioner on a number of occasions, sometimes in the presence of customers of the company and generally in the presence of other employees or owners. These altercations included instances where the Petitioner refused to perform directions of her supervisor. Additionally, a substantial number of employees had verbal altercations with the Petitioner concerning receiving credit for, and payment for, the hours they had worked. On a repetitive basis the Petitioner failed to submit correct hours for the payroll and in one case got into a verbal altercation with an employee, Sonya Ross, chased the employee out in the parking lot, and refused to give her her last paycheck, telling her that she would mail the check to her, which was against company policy. The Petitioner exhibited a hostile, threatening attitude and conduct toward employees concerning hours worked and other aspects of her opinion of the way they were performing their jobs, as well as concerning payroll issues. Such instances occurred with at least nine employees. This hostile, threatening attitude and failure to comply with the payroll policies of the Respondent, as well as the several instances of the Petitioner failing to perform as directed by her supervisors, constituted misconduct under the regular policies of the Respondent. These instances of misconduct occurred on a frequent basis through the first half of 2001, including an instance where an employee called to state that she had to be out for two days because her baby was sick with a high fever. The employee followed company policy and provided documentation from the physician involved concerning her need to be off from work. She then called Tammy King to say that she had to go back to the hospital with her child, and Ms. King told her that she would be terminated. The employee then called the owner, Linda Coley, to inform her of the problem because she was afraid of losing her job. Ms. Coley then spoke with Ms. King and reminded her that it was against company policy to terminate an employee if he or she brought proper documentation from the physician or hospital, which was the case. This also was a clear violation of company policy concerning employees and supervisors. These instances of misconduct and the very hostile verbal altercations between the Petitioner and Mr. Janushanis, her branch manager, continued until June of 2001. The Respondent counseled with both the Petitioner and Mr. Janushanis about their conduct and attitude between themselves and toward other employees. Ultimately the decision was made in mid-June 2001 to terminate the Petitioner and Mr. Janushanis as well. On June 22, 2001, the Petitioner was terminated, as was Mr. Janushanis, on the same date. On June 20, 2001, the Petitioner had filed a complaint with the EEOC, by letter, and informed the Respondent of that fact. The decision to terminate the Petitioner, however, had been made prior to the filing of the complaint with the EEOC. The Petitioner has failed to establish that any actions taken by the Respondent toward her were related to her race. The supervisor complained of by the Petitioner was of the same race, white, and there is no persuasive evidence that shows any intent by the owners or management of the company to treat similarly-situated members of another race more favorably. In fact, there was preponderant and substantial evidence of misconduct on behalf of the Petitioner which established a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for her termination. Although her initial performance was rated as excellent in the initial months of her employment, the Petitioner failed to continue that level of performance. In fact, her misconduct on the job, including the instances enumerated in the above findings of fact shows that the Petitioner's conduct and performance had deteriorated so that she was not properly performing the various requirements of her employment position, when viewed in the context of regularly- adopted company policy. Upon the Respondent's becoming aware of these conduct shortcomings, and failure to properly perform in her position, as well as the improper conduct by her supervisor, the Respondent did not condone the Petitioner's level of conduct nor that of her supervisor, Mr. Janushanias. Rather, the Respondent sought to assist them in improving their conduct and performance. When these efforts were not successful, the Respondent ultimately terminated both of them.
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 Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2003, 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 3rd day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: K. Jeffrey Reynolds, Esquire 924 N. Palafox Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Banks T. Smith, Esquire Hall, Smith & Jones Post Office Box 1748 Dothan, Alabama 36302 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 Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner was unlawfully terminated from her position with Respondent because of her race (Caucasian), in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (hereinafter "FCRA"), Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following relevant facts are determined: Respondent is a corporation, licensed to do business in Florida, that provides cleaning services to business clients; and is an employer, as that term is defined, under the FCRA. Petitioner began her employment with Respondent on January 1, 1997. Petitioner was hired as a restroom cleaner, and remained in that position until her termination from employment with Respondent on August 6, 1998. Throughout her employment with Respondent, Petitioner's supervisors were: Cecilia Haimes ("Haimes"), a Caucasian female; Danna Hewett ("Hewett"), a Caucasian Female; and Carlos Ramirez ("Ramirez"), an Hispanic male. Additionally, throughout her employment with Respondent, Petitioner was assigned to work at the Orange County Convention Center ("OCCC"). Hewett began her employment with Respondent as a restroom cleaner. Shortly thereafter, she was promoted by Ramirez to the position of lead restroom cleaner. Shortly after that, she was once again promoted by Ramirez, to the position of supervisor. As a supervisor, Hewett supervised Petitioner. Hewett became Petitioner's supervisor in or around August 1997. In her capacity as supervisor, Hewett was informed by other employees at OCCC that Petitioner was spreading rumors and gossiping about alleged affairs between certain employees and/or supervisors. Hewett and Ramirez discussed Petitioner's behavior, and they concluded that such behavior was extremely disruptive to the work environment. Specifically, such behavior by Petitioner affected employee morale and employees' respect for their supervisors. Based on these allegations, Ramirez contacted Ronald Jirik ("Jirik"), the Central Florida Regional Manager, to inform him of Petitioner's behavior. Upon meeting with Hewett and Ramirez, Jirik informed Ramirez to meet with Petitioner to try to get her to stop spreading such rumors. Ramirez met with Petitioner shortly thereafter. He attempted to resolve the problem and instructed her not to gossip or spread rumors. However, the problem persisted. Jirik contacted Ramirez to follow up on whether or not Ramirez was able to resolve the problem. Ramirez informed Jirik that he was unable to stop the rumors, and that he believed that Petitioner was continuing this improper behavior. Jirik then informed Ramirez that it would probably be best if Petitioner was transferred from the OCCC, and be given the option to transfer to another facility that was of equal distance from her home. Jirik is Caucasian. Jirik suggested that Petitioner be transferred to the Orlando Sentinel building due to the fact that, based on the information in Petitioner's personnel file, this location would have been of equal distance from her home. Additionally, such a transfer would not have changed any of the terms and conditions of Petitioner's employment, including but not limited to, pay, benefits, responsibilities, or shifts. Based on the foregoing, Ramirez met with Petitioner and she was offered a transfer to the Orlando Sentinel building location. However, Petitioner refused to accept the transfer. Thereafter, Petitioner's employment with Respondent was terminated on August 6, 1998. The evidence proved that Ramirez reprimanded Spanish- speaking and Caucasian employees in the same manner. Additionally, there was no credible evidence to show that Ramirez gave any form of favoritism to Spanish-speaking employees. Respondent's reason for terminating Petitioner was based on Respondent's perception that her conduct was disruptive to the work force. The allegation that Petitioner was terminated based on a discriminatory animus is unsubstantiated by the testimony and other evidence. There is no evidence that Respondent terminated Petitioner based on her race (Caucasian).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order which DENIES the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Attas-Kaplan, Esquire Fisher & Phillips, LLP 450 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Mary J. Hall 1821 Ernest Street Maitland, Florida 32794 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent, Milos, illegally terminated Petitioner based on her race (Black), in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act ("FCRA"), section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2018).
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of material and relevant fact: Petitioner is a Black female who worked for Milos as a line cook. Respondent is a Greek restaurant located in Miami, Florida. On January 12, 2016, Respondent hired Petitioner for a line cook position. Petitioner was interviewed and hired by Arsan. Arsan supervises all back-of-the-house staff and was Petitioner's supervisor throughout her entire 20-month period of employment. On May 30, 2016, approximately four and a half months after Petitioner's hire at Milos, Arsan gave Petitioner a raise in pay because he felt that she was performing well. Many of the employees Arsan supervises at Milos are Black. PETITIONER'S PERFORMANCE ISSUES AT MILOS On September 23, 2016, Petitioner was suspended for insubordination and violating company policies and procedures. Resp. Ex. 7 and 8. More specifically, Arsan was notified by the sous chef that there had been an argument between Petitioner and a coworker. Arsan attempted to investigate the dispute and found Petitioner to be very emotional and aggressive during the investigation. She was asked to leave but refused. Eventually, she left the premises. This incident came on the heels of another similar incident involving a verbal argument with a coworker, which occurred on September 17, 2016. Subsequently, on April 28, 2017, Petitioner was involved in another workplace argument with an employee named Rosa Salazar ("Salazar"). Resp. Ex. 10. The manager on duty intervened and attempted to resolve the dispute and calm the parties down. After he did so, Petitioner left work without permission and left early the following day as well. On June 27, 2017, a third employee named Ishay (a.k.a., Ayse Akbulut) complained that she could not work with Petitioner at their assigned station because Petitioner was "being rude and territorial." Resp. Ex. 11. Arsan spoke to Petitioner and resolved the matter between the two employees. However, he documented the incident as other employees had previously complained about Petitioner creating a hostile working environment. On June 30, 2017, Petitioner reportedly was involved in yet another workplace incident with Sonya Cabret ("Cabret"). Cabret complained that Petitioner made racially charged and demeaning comments to her based on Cabret's Haitian national origin. More specifically, Cabret complained that Petitioner called her an "ignorant Haitian," a "f ing Haitian," and stated that Cabret does not know how to speak English and that Cabret could not find a job anywhere else. Two months prior, Salazar had also complained that Petitioner made derogatory remarks to her based on Salazar's Latin ethnicity. Resp. Ex. 12 and 13. Salazar recounted that Petitioner had called her a "f ing Latino." Arsan disciplined Petitioner by counseling her and sending her home for the day. Each of the above incidents occurred prior to Hurricane Irma in September 2017. The undersigned finds that these incidents, and their related warnings and discipline, are relevant to the ultimate decision to discharge Petitioner and have some bearing on the propriety and necessity for termination. PETITIONER'S FAILURE TO RETURN TO WORK AFTER HURRICANE IRMA At some point in time on Wednesday, September 6, 2017, Arsan informed all employees that Milos would be closed at the end of the work day due to the approaching landfall of Hurricane Irma. Petitioner had been scheduled to report to work on September 6, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., but she did not do so. At 12:40 p.m. on September 6, 2017, Petitioner texted Arsan that she could not report to work because she was evacuating to Georgia due to Hurricane Irma. However, she hoped to return to work the following Tuesday (September 12, 2017). Resp. Ex. 14. After the hurricane had passed, on September 10, 2017, Arsan sent a group text message to all back-of-the-house staff alerting them that the restaurant was "closed for Monday" (September 11, 2017) and "we will be probably open for Tuesday" (September 12, 2017). Resp. Ex. 15. Petitioner received this text message. Petitioner never informed Arsan that she would not be back from Georgia by September 12, 2017, as she mentioned in her text message on September 6, 2017. Believing Petitioner would be back in Miami on September 12, 2017, Arsan scheduled Petitioner to work Wednesday, September 13, 2017. Resp. Ex. 16. On September 13, 2017, Petitioner did not call in or report for work. That same day, Arsan called Petitioner to find out why she did not report to work. Petitioner did not answer or return Arsan's call. On September 14, 2017, Petitioner again failed to call in or report for work. Arsan again attempted to reach Petitioner by telephone, but she did not answer. Arsan then sent Petitioner a text message notifying her that she was scheduled to be at work. Petitioner responded to Arsan's text messages on September 14, 2017, and the following discussion ensued: Arsan: "Denise you are scheduled to work today[.]" Petitioner: "Nobody called me and told me anything I cannot get out until Tuesday or Wednesday I'll [sic] area was hit bad and the bus is [sic] down here start running Wednesday[.]" Arsan: "Denise everybody is at work except you. How the bus starting [sic] on wednesday, [sic] half of staff is using the bus and they are here, The buses working [sic] fine." Petitioner: "When you come to my family I don't care about no job [sic] that's not my life we had an emergency down here we don't have any lights some of the buses is not running my house got water in it I am coming from Georgia so I might not be back until Thursday I have a lot of stuff to take care of in my house[.]" Arsan: "Please help let [sic] me understand your situation are you in Miami? or Georgia? Petitioner: I will be in Miami tonight I still have a lot of stuff to do at my. . . . Resp. Ex. 14. Arsan and Petitioner did not have any further communications after this text message exchange. Further, Petitioner did not initiate or attempt to send any more text messages to Arsan after the September 14, 2017, exchange. Petitioner did not report for work scheduled on September 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, or 20. Petitioner testified that she did not report to work from September 13, 2017, to September 20, 2017, because she was attending to damage to her home caused by the hurricane. Based on Petitioner's text message that she does not "care about no job [sic]," Arsan, after consulting with Milos' outside contracted human resource company, removed Petitioner from the schedule for the week of Monday, September 18, 2017, to Sunday, September 24, 2017. On September 21, 2017, Petitioner showed up at Milos to work. Arsan believed Petitioner had abandoned her job and did not expect her to report to work again. After she arrived, Arsan directed Petitioner to speak to Faundez, Milos' outside human resource representative at Eleva Solutions. Contrary to what Petitioner told Arsan (i.e., that she missed work because she was attending to damage in her home from the hurricane), Petitioner gave Faundez three different reasons for her failure to call in or show up for work the preceding week: she did not know that she was supposed to be at work; there was no bus transportation; and (c) Petitioner had to be evacuated. Faundez concluded that Petitioner's reasons for failing to appear for work were inconsistent and conflicted with each other. She also did not believe that Petitioner had provided a definitive or plausible answer explaining why she had not returned to work. After consultation, Faundez and Arsan decided together to terminate Petitioner's employment. Arsan was not the sole decision-maker with respect to Petitioner's termination. Prior to her termination and despite having received Respondent's antidiscrimination policy and complaint procedures, Petitioner never complained that Arsan was discriminating against her because of her race. During the course of the hearing, Petitioner was unable to identify any employee(s) outside of her protected class who engaged in the same conduct and were not terminated from employment. Specifically, on cross-examination, Petitioner admitted that she was unable to identify a single non-Black employee who failed to show up for work following the hurricane and who was not terminated from employment. The evidence Petitioner offered to support her race discrimination claim was vague, unpersuasive, and included only conclusory and general allegations by her that Arsan "was a racist" and is a "nasty human being." There were no emails, texts, documents, or other direct evidence from Petitioner or Arsan supporting her claim that she was fired by Milos because of her race. Likewise, Petitioner called no witnesses to offer any compelling facts or circumstances to support her claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Relief with prejudice and find in Respondent's favor. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 23rd day of October, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent, the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (Respondent or the Agency), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes,1/ by discriminating against Petitioner, Sharon Douse (Petitioner), during her employment with the Agency and then by terminating her employment, based upon her disability, marital status, sex, color, race, age, and the national origin of her spouse, and by illegally retaliating against her.
Findings Of Fact Sunland Center in Mariana, Florida, is operated by the Agency as an intermediate-care facility for developmentally- disabled individuals. Connally Manor is a residential setting within Sunland Center for 16 developmentally-disabled individuals with significant behavioral and medical involvement. Petitioner began her employment with the Agency on July 15, 2011, until her dismissal on January 5, 2012. During her employment, she was classified as career-service employee, Human Services Worker II, assigned to provide direct care for residents in Connally Manor. As a career-service employee, Petitioner was required to serve a one-year probationary period, during which she was subject to termination at will. While employed with the Agency, Petitioner had a number of performance deficiencies and conflicts with her co-workers and supervisors. On July 22, 2011, Petitioner attended training for the treatment and care of residents. Shortly thereafter, however, Petitioner mishandled residents on at least two occasions. As a result, Joe Grimsley, a senior human services support supervisor for the Agency, suspended Petitioner from working independently with residents, and asked Petitioner to work closely with her peers to learn appropriate care procedures. On August 25, 2011, because of excessive absences and failure to perform duties in a timely manner, Petitioner received counseling from Mr. Grimsley and Agency behavior program supervisor Scott Hewett. Petitioner was counseled for excessive absences because, from July 18 through August 22, 2011, Petitioner took a total of 48 hours of leave time, which was greater than the Agency's policy of no more than 32 hours in a 90-day period. Although Petitioner discussed most of those absences with her supervisor prior to taking the time off, as a result of her absences, Petitioner missed some of her initial training, including professional crisis management training. During the August 25, 2011, counseling session, Mr. Grimsley and Mr. Hewett also discussed other issues of concern with Petitioner, including resident care, following chain of command, team work, proper parking, and data collection sheets. As a follow-up, on the same day as the August 25th counseling, Petitioner received some in-service training regarding proper log book documenting, proper use of active treatment sheet, and unauthorized and excessive absences. Mr. Grimsley permitted Petitioner to go back to her duties of working directly with residents after she received additional training on August 27, 2011. On September 8, 2011, Petitioner's supervisors once again found it necessary to counsel Petitioner regarding resident care, chain of command, teamwork, parking, and data collection, as well as to address two incidences of unsafe handling of residents, and Agency policy regarding food in the bedrooms, and class and work schedules. Because of Petitioner's continued performance deficiencies, on October 5, 2011, Mr. Grimsley wrote an interoffice memorandum to his supervisor, Agency residential services supervisor, Julie Jackson, recommending Petitioner's termination. The memorandum stated: Mrs. Jackson: I am writing to you in regard to Mrs. Sharon Douse HSW II Second Shift Connally Manor Unit 3. Mrs. Douse came to us July 15, 2011, since then she has had three employee documented conferences, due to poor work habits, resulting in corrective action, including retraining. These deficiencies include and are not limited to data collection, excessive absences, and unsafe handling of residents. This past week she was insubordinate to her immediate supervisor by refusing to answer the phone after being requested to do so twice, and being directed that it is part of her job. [Mr. Hewett] as well as my self [sic] has made every effort to help Mrs. Douse achieve her performance expectation; however these attempts have been met with resistance as Mrs. Douse openly refuses to take direction from her supervisors and also to seek the assistance of her peers, who have many years of experience working with the Connally Manor population. Mrs. Douse has not met probationary period. Her continual resistance to positive mentoring and her confrontational attitude and demeanor towards her supervisors and coworkers is creating an increasingly difficult work environment, not only on Connally Manor, but also on the other houses within the unit. It is apparent that Mrs. Douse lacks the willingness to improve her overall poor work performance. I am formally requesting Mrs. Douse to be terminated from her employment here in Unit 3. Mr. Grimsley's testimony at the final hearing was consistent with the above-quoted October 5, 2011, interoffice memorandum, and both his testimony and memorandum are credited. Upon receiving Mr. Grimsley's memorandum, Ms. Jackson submitted a memo dated October 26, 2011, to the Agency's program operations administrator, Elizabeth Mitchell, concurring with the request for Petitioner's termination. In turn, Ms. Mitchell agreed and forwarded her recommendation for termination to Sunland's superintendent, Bryan Vaughan. Mr. Vaughan approved the recommendation for termination, and, following implementation of internal termination proceedings, Petitioner was terminated on January 5, 2012, for failure to satisfactorily complete her probationary period. Petitioner made no complaints to Mr. Grimsley or anyone else in the Agency's management until after Mr. Grimsley's October 5, 2011, memorandum recommending Petitioner's termination. Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination filed with the Commission on March 29, 2012, after her termination, charges that she was "discriminated against based on retaliation, disability, marital status, sex, color, race and age." The evidence adduced at the final hearing, however, failed to substantiate Petitioner's allegations. In particular, Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination2/ alleges that Mr. Grimsley discriminated against her because of her age by "not providing [her] with the same training as offered the other employees -- [professional crisis management training] was offered to the younger employees who were hired at or around the same time [as Petitioner]." The evidence at the final hearing, however, showed that Petitioner was scheduled for, but missed professional crisis management training, because of her absences early in her employment. The evidence also showed that professional crisis management training was not necessary for the position for which Petitioner was hired. Nevertheless, the evidence also demonstrated that, if Petitioner had not been terminated, the Agency intended to provide her with that training. Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination also asserts that Mr. Grimsley discriminated against her by "[n]ot allowing [her] to have . . . scheduled time off . . . [and taking away her] scheduled time off August 12th & 13th and [giving it to a] Caucasian female." The evidence did not substantiate this allegation. Rather, the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner had extraordinary time off during her first two months of employment. Next, Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination states that Mr. Grimsley did not follow up on her written concerns and verbal complaints to the "depart[ment] head" regarding the welfare of the disabled residents. Petitioner alleges that she was terminated as a result of her complaint that Mr. Grimsley "sat in the kitchen and baked cookies with the staff who were neglecting disabled residents." Petitioner, however, failed to present any evidence at the final hearing with regard to this allegation. Rather, the evidence showed that, while employed, Petitioner never reported any instances of abuse, neglect, or exploitation to the Florida Abuse Registry, as required by her training. And, there is no evidence that she reported any such concerns to any outside agency prior to her Charge of Discrimination. Petitioner otherwise presented no evidence suggesting that she was terminated in retaliation for engaging in any protected activity. Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination further states that she was discriminated against on the basis of her disability because Mr. Grimsley did not allow her to be properly monitored by her physician, and that when she would bring in her doctor's notes, Mr. Grimsley would refuse to put them in her personnel file. The only support for this claim were two medical reports on Petitioner, one prepared in April 2011, and one prepared in October 2011. According to Petitioner, she gave the reports to someone at the Agency's human resources office. She could not, however, identify the person to whom she gave the reports. Also, according to Petitioner, it was in November 2011, after she was recommended for termination, that she gave her medical reports to the Agency to be filed. Considering the circumstances, the undersigned finds that Petitioner's testimony regarding this allegation is not credible. In addition, the evidence did not show that Petitioner ever asked the Agency for an accommodation for her alleged disability. Rather, based upon the evidence, it is found that Petitioner never advised the Agency, and the Agency was unaware, that Petitioner had a disability. It is also found that Petitioner never asked the Agency for an accommodation for her alleged disability. Petitioner, in her Charge of Discrimination, further contends that part of the employee counseling session documented on employee-documented conference forms dated August 25, 2011, and all of the counseling session documented in a September 8, 2011, employee-documented conference form, were held without her, and that some of the concerns expressed on those documents were fabricated. There were two forms documenting discussions from the August 25th session that were submitted into evidence — - one was signed by Petitioner, the other was not. The employee-documented conference form from the September 8, 2011, session was signed by Petitioner's supervisors, but not Petitioner. Mr. Grimsley, who was present for all of the counseling discussions with Petitioner documented on the forms, testified that the documented discussions occurred, but that he just forgot to get Petitioner's signatures on all of the forms. During the final hearing, Petitioner acknowledged most of the documented discussions, including two incidents of mishandling residents and the resulting prohibition from working with residents imposed on her until she received additional training. Considering the evidence, it is found that all of the counseling discussions with Petitioner documented on the three forms actually took place, and that they accurately reflect those discussions and the fact that Petitioner was having job performance problems. Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination also alleges that a fellow employee discriminated against her because of her age and race based on an incident where, according to Petitioner, a co-worker screamed and yelled at her because Petitioner had not answered the house telephone. At the hearing, Petitioner submitted into evidence affidavits regarding the incident from the co-worker and another worker who observed the incident. Neither of the affidavits supports Petitioner's contention that she was discriminated against. Rather, they both support the finding that Petitioner had trouble getting along with co-workers and accepting directions from Agency staff. Further, according to Petitioner, after she talked to Mr. Grimsley about the incident, he spoke to both Petitioner and the co-worker, and their conflict was resolved. The incident occurred after Mr. Grimsley had already recommended that Petitioner be terminated. Finally, Petitioner alleges in her Charge of Discrimination that Mr. Hewett discriminated against her based upon her marital status, race, and the national origin of her spouse. In support, Petitioner contends that Mr. Hewett "made rude comments about art work on my locker that Scott knew my husband had drawn[,]" asked, "[do] blacks like classical music?" and, upon seeing Petitioner's apron that was embroidered with a Jamaican flag, Mr. Hewett said, "You can't trust things from overseas," when he knew that her husband was Jamaican. Petitioner also stated that Mr. Hewett "bullied her" about answering the telephone. While Petitioner testified that she wrote to Agency management regarding these comments and the alleged bullying by Mr. Hewett, she did not retain a copy. The Agency claims that Petitioner never complained about these alleged comments or Mr. Hewett's alleged bullying while she was an employee. Considering the evidence presented in this case, and Petitioner's demeanor during her testimony, it is found that Petitioner did not raise these allegations against Mr. Hewett until after her termination from the Agency. It is further found that if Mr. Hewett made the alleged comments, as described by Petitioner during her testimony, Mr. Hewett's comments were isolated and not pervasive. Further, Petitioner's testimonial description of Mr. Hewett's comments did not indicate that his comments were overtly intimidating, insulting, or made with ridicule, and the evidence was insufficient to show, or reasonably suggest, that Mr. Hewett's alleged comments made Petitioner's work environment at the Agency hostile or intolerable. In sum, Petitioner failed to show that the Agency discriminated against Petitioner by treating her differently, creating a hostile work environment, or terminating her because of her disability, marital status, sex, color, race, age, or her spouse's national origin. Petitioner also failed to show that the Agency retaliated against her because of any complaint that she raised or based upon Petitioner's engagement in any other protected activity.
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 7th day of February, 2013, 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 7th day of February, 2013.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was discriminated against by Respondent, based upon his race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. As such, he is a member of a protected class. Petitioner was employed as a co-manager at a Delchamps grocery store in Destin, Florida. The Destin store was a high- volume operation. In January 2001, Bruno's, Inc., acquired the Delchamps' Destin store and converted the store to a Bruno's supermarket. Petitioner was retained in the co-manager position while Bruno's conducted a full assessment of the staff and store. Under the Bruno's assessment, the company found several employees, including white employees, underperforming pursuant to Bruno's goals for high volume stores. Petitioner was one of the individuals found to be underperforming at the Destin store. On November 4, 2001, Bruno's moved Petitioner as a co- manager to a lower volume store in Niceville so that he would have a better opportunity to grasp management protocol under the Bruno's umbrella and develop professionally. During the same time period, another employee at the Destin store, Steve Aaron, who is Caucasian, was transferred to another store for the same reason. Petitioner’s duties and work conditions at the new store did not materially change. As before, all managers in the store, including himself, regardless of race, had the same hours, had the same working conditions in the store and closing the store, had the discretionary authority to hire additional staff as needed, and had an opportunity to use their discretionary authority in managing and operating the store. Petitioner’s pay and benefits at the new store, also, did not change. The transfer was abrupt since Petitioner was told to and did report to his new store immediately. The reason for the transfer was not fully explained to him. However, other than to inquire about the reason for the transfer, Petitioner did not complain about or object to the transfer even though he was aware of Bruno’s policy against racial discrimination and the various mechanisms to report such activity. There was no evidence that Petitioner’s transfer was based on Petitioner's race. Neither the abruptness nor the lack of explanation supports a finding that the transfer was based on Petitioner’s race since the transfer was part of Bruno’s review and adjustment process for the stores it had acquired, and other employees who were not members of Petitioner’s protected class were also transferred. Indeed, the evidence showed that employees of all races were and continue to be transferred from one store to another under Bruno's operations for business reasons, such as the reason that precipitated Petitioner’s transfer. Such employee development and training are legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the transfer of Petitioner to another store. Petitioner offered no evidence that demonstrated the reason for his transfer was pretextual. Moreover, Petitioner's first complaint based on race regarding his transfer was filed on January 14, 2003, more than a year after his transfer and is therefore time barred. In June 2002, Bruno's Supermarkets received separate complaints from four female employees at the Niceville store that Petitioner had subjected them to unwelcomed touching, rubbing, massaging and/or kissing. The complaining employees were Dawn Lawson, Christina Gore, Donna Ermilio, and Erin Epperson. None of the young women that placed complaints against Petitioner were at risk of losing their job nor did they have anything to gain in placing the complaints against Petitioner. Dawn Lawson was an assistant deli bakery manager and subordinate of Petitioner. She complained that while at work Petitioner would rub her arms, massage her shoulders, and kissed her once while she was on the phone. All the aforementioned was unwelcomed by Ms. Lawson and made her feel uncomfortable. Petitioner did not deny these actions, but thought he was making an effort to comfort Ms. Lawson who was experiencing some personal problems. Ms. Lawson also accused Petitioner of spending an inordinate amount of time in the deli area of the store. However, the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner had been instructed to closely monitor the deli operation because it was below the standards Bruno’s expected of its deli operations. Ms. Lawson also complained that while at work, Petitioner gave her several gifts of alcohol and a card in which Petitioner wrote, "Know you are a very special someone" and drew several ‘X’s and ‘O’s. Petitioner admitted to giving the alcohol and card to Ms. Lawson, but again thought he was being friendly and trying to comfort her. Petitioner denied drawing the ‘X’s and O’s on the card. However, Petitioner’s denial is not credible since the drawing is in the same type of ink as the writing and the letters are similar to the handwritten portions of the card. Additionally, on New Year's Eve, December 31, 2001, Petitioner gave Ms Lawson a miniature bottle of Southern Comfort. Later, Petitioner called Ms. Lawson twice at her home in the early morning between 1:30 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. Ms. Lawson felt very uncomfortable regarding these calls. Clearly, the kiss, the late night phone calls, and the note violated Bruno’s anti-harassment policy. More importantly, at the same time Petitioner gave Ms. Lawson the Southern Comfort, he gave Erin Epperson, a co- worker of Ms. Lawson, a miniature bottle of alcohol. Petitioner knew Ms. Epperson was 19 years old and under the age at which she could legally possess or drink alcohol. Petitioner denied giving Ms. Epperson any alcohol. However, given the demeanor and candor of the witnesses, Petitioner’s denial is not credible. Providing alcohol to a minor was in violation of state law, could have caused the store to lose its liquor license or incur other penalties, and violated the store's policy of not providing alcohol to minors. This act alone justified Petitioner’s termination. Donna Ermillio, a cashier, utility clerk, and a subordinate of Petitioner similarly complained that while she was at work Petitioner would rub her arms, massage her shoulders, compliment her arms, feet and hands and tell her she was beautiful and too much "of a woman to be as young" as she was. All the aforementioned was unwelcomed by Ms. Ermillio and made her feel uncomfortable. Again, Petitioner thought that he was trying to soothe Ms. Ermilio, who was clearly nervous around him. He noticed others’ hands and feet because he had a friend who was a hand and foot model. However, Ms. Ermilio’s complaints are consistent with the other complaints received by Bruno’s and show a pattern of intrusive behavior on Petitioner’s part. Christina Gore, a cashier, customer service representative, and subordinate of Petitioner complained that Petitioner rubbed her, massaged her, and kissed her while she was at work. All the aforementioned was unwelcomed by Ms. Gore and made her feel uncomfortable. Petitioner admitted kissing Ms. Gore because she had graduated from high school. The kiss occurred after her boyfriend had walked away and Petitioner, jokingly, told Ms. Gore that he couldn't have kissed her while her boyfriend was around. Again, Petitioner’s actions were overly intrusive. In response to these complaints, the company conducted a timely and thorough investigation. The investigation included interviews and statements from Petitioner, Ms. Ermillio, Ms. Lawson, Ms. Gore, and Ms. Epperson. The evidence did not demonstrate any deficiency in the investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator, the district manager, the store manager, a representative from the legal department, and the human resources director met and reviewed the investigation and evidence. After all the aforementioned parties assessed all the evidence, the team unanimously decided to terminate Petitioner’s employment. Bruno's terminated Petitioner because he violated the company's anti-harassment policy and gave alcohol to a minor employee. There was no evidence that Bruno’s did not consistently apply these policies to other employees in its organization. The only evidence Petitioner presented regarding the consistent application of these policies was that a Danny Johnson allegedly sexually harassed Dawn Lawson and was not terminated and that a Dan Gaston also allegedly sexually harassed "someone." However, Dawn Lawson never complained to the company regarding Danny Johnson and testified that Mr. Johnson had never harassed her. Petitioner had no personal knowledge about Mr. Gaston's alleged harassment and could not provide any details. The human resources director for the store testified that no one had ever made a sexual harassment complaint against Mr. Gaston. Therefore, Petitioner failed to present evidence showing a similarly situated employee that allegedly committed the same acts as Petitioner and was not terminated. Based on the evidence, Petitioner had legitimate, non- pretextual reasons for terminating Petitioner, and this action should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing this action. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert L. Young, Jr. 409 Elaine Avenue Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Dan Burchfield Bruno's Food World 800 Lakeshore Parkway Birmingham, Alabama 35211 Faye R. Rosenberg, Esquire Corporate Counsel Bruno's Food World 800 Lakeshore Parkway Birmingham, Alabama 35211 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on April 22, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male who was employed by Respondent from August 2008 until his termination on or about January 9, 2009. Respondent, Arena Sports Café (Arena), is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. Arena is a restaurant/night club which offers the viewing of televised sporting events, and is generally known as a sports bar. Arena is adjacent to The Coliseum, another establishment with the same owners, Trisha Lawrence and Randy Berner. The owners are Caucasian. The Coliseum is an entertainment venue with live and recorded music, dancing, and stage acts. The Coliseum does not serve food, and does not have a kitchen. When hired in August 2008, Petitioner worked as a prep cook as part of the kitchen staff. He performed various duties including preparation of meals in the kitchen as well as preparing food for Respondent’s large salad bar. Petitioner holds a Food Handling Certificate and a Safe Serve Certificate, which he attained through a local college. Petitioner was paid $12.00 per hour, and generally worked a 40-hour work week. At the time Petitioner was hired, the Arena was brand new and very popular. When the Arena opened in August 2008, it featured lunch and dinner seven days per week. Weekends were particularly busy because college and pro football games were televised in the fall. However, the Arena saw a drop in demand for weekday lunches. During the fall of 2008, Anthony Cyr, a Caucasian, was employed by Arena as its general manager. Petitioner was already employed by Respondent when Mr. Cyr began employment there. According to Petitioner, Mr. Cyr used the word “nigger” (the "N" word) in the context of telling a joke on three occasions in October and November 2008. Mr. Cyr used this word in the presence of the kitchen staff, including Petitioner. Petitioner informed Mr. Cyr that this was offensive and objected. Mr. Cyr did not use the "N" word other than these three occasions, and did not use it again after Petitioner objected. Petitioner did not report this incident to anyone, including the owners of Arena. As one of the owners of Arena, Ms. Lawrence would sometimes eat meals at Arena. At some point in January 2009, she voiced her displeasure to Mr. Cyr as to meals which she believed to have been prepared by Petitioner. She was never made aware of Petitioner’s allegations regarding the use of racial slurs by Mr. Cyr. According to Ms. Lawrence, she instructed Mr. Cyr to terminate Petitioner from employment because of his cooking abilities. Mr. Cyr informed Petitioner that his employment was terminated, and informed him that it was due to his job performance. Mr. Cyr also informed Petitioner that the decision to terminate Petitioner was Ms. Lawrence’s, not his. Mr. Cyr’s testimony regarding using the “N” word contradicts Petitioner’s testimony, and is somewhat inconsistent with Ms. Lawrence’s testimony regarding the reason Petitioner was fired. That is, Mr. Cyr denies using the “N” word in front of Petitioner. As for the reason he fired Petitioner, Mr. Cyr testified that it was due to a reduction in business following football season. There is no dispute, however, that Ms. Lawrence was the decisionmaker regarding the decision to fire Petitioner. Regarding the conflicting testimony as to whether Mr. Cyr used the “N” word, the undersigned finds Petitioner’s testimony in this regard to be credible and more persuasive. That is, the undersigned finds that Mr. Cyr did use the “N” word in front of Petitioner in the workplace. As for the reason Petitioner was fired, Ms. Lawrence did acknowledge that business slowed down at Arena around the time she instructed Mr. Cyr to fire Petitioner, and that the salad bar was phased out the month after Petitioner was terminated. However, she insists that she instructed Mr. Cyr to fire Petitioner because of the quality of his cooking. In any event, there does not appear to be a dispute that Mr. Cyr told Petitioner that he was being fired due to job performance issues. At some time after Petitioner was terminated, Mr. Cyr was terminated from Arena because, in Ms. Lawrence’s words, he “was not that great.” When Petitioner was terminated, two Caucasian cooks remained employed at Arena. While Petitioner was not actually replaced, his duties were assumed by the remaining Caucasian staff. Since his termination, Petitioner has worked for approximately three weeks at another eating establishment. Otherwise, he has been unsuccessful finding employment despite his efforts. Respondent employs minorities and non-minorities in positions with both Arena and The Coliseum. The undersigned has reviewed the evidence of record, oral and written, as to the number of minority and non-minority employees and as to whether Respondent hired primarily non-minority persons in the better paying positions. The evidence of record is insufficient to support a finding that Respondent engaged in racially motivated hiring practices. There is no evidence that Petitioner complained to Ms. Lawrence or the other owner of Arena that he was being discriminated against on the basis of race. When he complained to Mr. Cyr, the offending remarks stopped. There was no competent evidence presented that Ms. Lawrence knew of the racial slur used by Mr. Cyr in the workplace in Petitioner’s presence. There is no evidence that Ms. Lawrence’s decision to terminate Petitioner from employment was related in any way to any racial remark used by Mr. Cyr.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 31st day of March, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: David Glasser, Esquire Glasser & Handel 116 Orange Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Steven deLaroche, Esquire 1005 South Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 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
