Findings Of Fact Jacqueline A. Irby was employed as an Allstate Insurance Agent from April 25, 1983 until her dismissal July 17, 1987. Respondent has a company policy prohibiting employees from bringing firearms into company offices or carrying them while on company business. Violation of this policy can result in termination. (Exhibit 6). Petitioner was aware of this policy when employed in 1983 (Exhibit 1). She was unsure the policy applied to her office which she rented in the building not otherwise used by Respondent. On April 14, 1987, Petitioner wrote a memo to her supervising sales manager, Randy Rouse, stating that she had witnessed Judith Gill walk into her office with a handgun and point it directly at Petitioner's client. Both Gill and Petitioner were Allstate Agents sharing office spaces if not actually partners. During the subsequent investigation of this incident, Petitioner acknowledged to Rouse that she kept a .357 Magnum in her office for her protection when she worked late at night. Both Gill and Petitioner were fired by Respondent as Allstate Agents on or about July 17, 1987. Petitioner presented Exhibits 2 through 5 representing disciplinary action taken by Respondent against male Allstate Agents. Although the maximum penalty authorized by Respondent's Policy Statements Manual (Exhibit 6) for their offenses was dismissal, each of these Agents received a lesser punishment. None of the offenses noted in Exhibits 2 through 5 involved a firearm violation. No evidence was presented regarding the Agent hired to replace Petitioner, if any, or the sex of such replacement.
The Issue Whether Respondent unlawfully terminated the employment of Petitioner, because of his age in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner by terminating him on October 3, 2005, after Petitioner filed a complaint with human resources alleging a hostile work environment.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Leviton Manufacturing Corporation manufactures electrical equipment and components. It is a New York corporation licensed to do business in the State of Florida. Inter allia, Respondent employs a sales force that covers the entire State of Florida. Respondent is an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA"). Respondent has implemented an employee handbook aimed at fostering a work environment that is free from harassment, discrimination and retaliation. Respondent's policies contain reporting and investigation procedures that encourage employees to report any and all incidents of perceived discrimination or harassment, and ensure that all reported incidents are investigated. Petitioner was employed with Respondent from June 1995 until November 2003, and from July 2004 through October 3, 2005. At the time of his termination, Petitioner was 49 years old. Petitioner first began working for Leviton in 1995 as a Service Representative. He received merit pay raises and promotions until November 2003, when Respondent laid-off 150 people in the retail division, including Petitioner. Petitioner was rehired in July 2004, as a Sales Representative. Upon rehire, Petitioner was supervised by District Manager Scott Robbins ("Robbins"). Petitioner presented the testimony of three of Respondent's managers, one retired, who supervised Petitioner for various periods of Petitioner's nine and one-half year career with Respondent. Each of them testified that Petitioner was dedicated and professional in which ever position he was assigned, including two assignments as a manager. Scott Robbins, Petitioner's supervisor immediately prior to Goodman, recommended Petitioner for re-hire as a Sales Representative following a lay-off, and was satisfied with his work in that position. Petitioner also presented the testimony of 12 customers of Respondent, in the territory that he covered between July 2004 and October 2005. Each of them expressed their opinion that Petitioner was an honest, diligent, and professional sales representative for his employer. Respondent presented the testimony of one customer who was not satisfied with Petitioner's performance as a sales representative. In January 2005, District Manager Warren Goodman ("Goodman") replaced Robbins and assumed his territories as well as his role as Petitioner's supervisor. At the time Petitioner was terminated, Goodman was 48 years old. Goodman supervised, and currently supervises, at least, 12 Sales Representatives, the majority of whom are over the age of 40, to wit: Name Age Name Age Roy Boykin 59 Mickey Ferrell 49 Don Yeager 59 Jose Monzon 40 Michael O'Reilly 56 Duane Bishop 38 Dave Lenoir 37 Kevin Bouton 34 Ken Davis 54 Paul Dube 41 Brad Taylor 10. When Goodman 52 took over as District Manager, it became readily apparent that Goodman's management style was distinctly different from Robbins. Goodman is demanding, blunt and aggressive, and closely manages his sales representatives. He expected prompt and accurate responses to his requests from his sales representatives. Petitioner was required to fulfill the same job expectations that were demanded of all other Sales Representatives. It included, but was not limited to, the timely submission of complete and accurate paperwork, client follow up, and travel to specific areas within his designated territory. Petitioner's area extended from Lakeland, Florida, to Thomasville, Georgia. Goodman expected Petitioner to visit customers in his territory at least every three weeks, staying at least two to three days on each trip at each location. Goodman's job as District Manager is to oversee his sales force and to enforce Leviton's guidelines, as he interprets them. Moreover, Goodman is charged with measuring his employees' compliance with Leviton's policies and procedures. Over the course of his tenure, Petitioner failed to abide by company rules and policies, as well as the terms of his employment, as understood by Goodman. On more than one occasion, Petitioner failed to provide expense reimbursements in an appropriate and timely manner. He also failed to travel with the frequency required by his sales position. Additionally, on numerous occasions, Petitioner failed to verify the accuracy of orders he placed for customers. On May 2, 2005, Goodman sent Petitioner an email addressing the importance of administrative responsibility and consistency. Goodman had just reviewed Petitioner's expense reports and noted that they covered a ten-week period, clearly in violation of the requirement that they be submitted within 30 days. Goodman also noted that the expense reports reflected no travel over a two-month period to the Thomasville/Tallahassee area, which composed a large portion of Petitioner's territory. Goodman requested that, thereafter, Petitioner forward his itinerary weekly, attaching as an example a copy of itineraries submitted by Petitioner's colleagues. Petitioner responded, apologizing for the late expenses. He attributed his tardiness in part to a change in his cellular telephone carrier. Petitioner set forth all his travel dates within the northern portion of his territory since his re-hire. The dates provided demonstrated that he was not in compliance with the travel requirements established for all Sales Representatives. Goodman responded and reminded Petitioner of the importance of adhering to guidelines for travel and paperwork submission. He encouraged Petitioner to improve his performance and to do what was necessary to satisfy Goodman's expectations of the proper skills necessary to do his job effectively. On May 9, 2005, Petitioner sent Goodman an email indicating his car was being repaired. The repair estimates attached to the email evidenced that Petitioner had been driving a 12-year-old vehicle, which was not within Respondent's car policy guidelines. Petitioner had reviewed and signed the car policy guidelines on January 12, 2005, and began receiving monthly payments (including retroactive payments), effective February 11, 2005. On May 18, 2005, Petitioner received and signed an Employee Warning. Significantly, Petitioner signed the Employee Warning indicating that he read and understood it. The Employee Warning cited violations for substandard job performance and violations of company policies or procedures, with specific reprimands for: (1) failure to timely submit expense reports; (2) failure to travel as specified and agreed to; (3) sloppy submission of paperwork; (4) lack of involvement with customer; and (5) failure to maintain a proper company vehicle in accordance with company policy. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner purchased a new truck for the purpose of meeting the company vehicle policy. On May 31, 2005, Goodman reviewed numerous quotes submitted by Petitioner for review and renewal. Goodman informed Petitioner that upon review, the quotes prepared by Petitioner were inaccurate and required various revisions and corrections. Some quotes were priced higher than stock; different prices were entered for the same item in a different color (when there should have been no price difference); there were items on quotes that were never purchased; and there was no increase in items ordered/quoted. In August 2005, Goodman advised Petitioner that his sales goals were not ambitious enough and that Petitioner needed to re-evaluate and re-consider his year-end goals. Petitioner indicated that he would do as instructed. In mid-August 2005, Petitioner once again submitted an incomplete quote to Goodman for approval. When brought to Petitioner's attention, he added the items missing from the quote, offering no explanation for this oversight. On August 30, 2005, Petitioner submitted order adjustments to Goodman's administrative assistant for completion. When the request was forwarded to Goodman, he immediately reminded Petitioner that all changes were required to be submitted to him, not his assistant. Moreover, the requested changes contained errors. Goodman requested that Petitioner review the complete order and re-submit it when it was accurate. Three days later, Petitioner still had not acknowledged or responded to Goodman's request. Goodman completed and submitted Petitioner's performance review on July 25, 2005. Due to the fact that no prior goals or skills development were accomplished by Petitioner, his review was deferred until the end of 2005. Based upon his seven-month assessment of Petitioner, Goodman felt that Petitioner only partially met expectations. Rather than precluding a merit increase in salary, Goodman gave Petitioner an opportunity to improve his performance by deferring his review for several months. Petitioner signed this July review, indicating that Goodman discussed the review and appraisal with him. On September 5, 2005, (Labor Day, a holiday) Goodman sent an email to all of his Sale Representatives, which required a response to specific inquiries no later than 5:00 p.m. Petitioner did not respond until September 7, 2005, at 4:15 p.m. This was clearly past the deadline. Goodman reprimanded Petitioner in his responsive email, specifically advising Petitioner that his continued employment was in jeopardy. He invited Petitioner to call Goodman the next day to discuss Petitioner's lack of diligence and timeliness. Only after a telephone call on the morning of September 9, 2005, did Petitioner, for the first time raise the issue of unfair treatment, but he did not raise age as a factor. Petitioner requested, via email, that Goodman assist Petitioner in filing a complaint against Goodman with Leviton's Human Resource Department for creating a hostile work environment. In this same email, Petitioner informed Goodman that Petitioner had involved clients in his grievance by requesting that the clients evaluate Petitioner's performance and provide their input to Respondent. Based upon the preceding client involvement, Goodman advised Petitioner on September 12, 2005, that he was suspended immediately, with pay, pending the outcome of Respondent's investigation regarding Petitioner's inappropriate conduct. Petitioner was therefore instructed to maintain contact with only the Human Resources Department (HR) until further notice. Thereafter, Petitioner corresponded, via email, with Shephard. On September 13, 2005, Petitioner forwarded his May 5, 2005, email exchange with Goodman to Kimberly Shephard, Respondent's Corporate Human Resource Manager. On that same day, Petitioner sent another email to Shephard containing a list of items that were still incomplete and required follow up. In forwarding this lengthy "to do" list, Petitioner demonstrated his inattention to detail and inability to complete administrative tasks. On September 16, 2005, Shephard drafted Petitioner's allegations in memorandum format, the accuracy of which Petitioner verified and signed on September 20, 2005. Goodman was given a copy of the allegations and provided a written response on September 19, 2005, refuting each of Petitioner's allegations. Meanwhile, HR conducted interviews with a random selection of Goodman's employees in the district and noted each employee's assessment of Goodman. Goodman was determined by each of the interviewed employees to provide equal treatment to all employees. The employees interviewed ranged in age from 35 to 58. On or about September 20, 2005, Shephard completed her investigation of Petitioner's complaint and determined that there was no basis that Goodman created an unlawful hostile work environment. Rather, it was determined that Goodman set the same standards for all of his employees; treated them all the same; and that accordingly, there was no basis to conclude Petitioner was singled out. Petitioner was ultimately terminated on October 3, 2005. The reasons cited by Respondent were based on Petitioner's unsatisfactory job performance. The specific reasons given for Petitioner's termination were: (1) his inability to perform the tasks associated with the Sales Representative position; (2) his failure to develop end-users sufficiently; (3) his administrative inadequacies; (4) his failure to meet deadlines and failure to follow instructions; and (5) his choosing to enlist customers in an internal company matter pertaining to Petitioner's poor job performance. Although Respondent determined that Petitioner's involvement of customer's in an internal dispute was grounds for immediate termination, Respondent determined it would investigate Petitioner's complaint prior to taking other action, since it occurred at the same time as the allegations of improper conduct by Goodman. At no time was Petitioner's age raised as a factor in any of the terms and conditions of his employment by Respondent. Nor was it a factor in any work related complaints regarding his deficiencies. Petitioner never informed any member of Respondent's management that he believed he was treated differently during his employment because of his age, or that he had been terminated due to his age. After Petitioner was terminated, Respondent did not hire anyone to replace him. Rather, Respondent re-assigned Petitioner's territory to existing salesmen. Paul Dube ("Dube"), aged 41, inherited the majority of Petitioner's territory. Goodman did not require that Dube travel to, or invest time in customers that only did a nominal amount of business with Respondent. Petitioner attempted to establish that he was unable to respond to several of Goodman's inquiries in a timely manner, or at all, because Petitioner's computer was being repaired by Respondent's IT department. Nevertheless, Petitioner had access to his work email via Respondent's webmail program during this period. Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was terminated by Respondent because of his age. Respondent failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was subject to retaliation after he filed a hostile work environment complaint with Respondent's HR department.
Recommendation Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying Petitioner's Petition for Relief and dismissing his charge with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2007, 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 13th day of August, 2007.
Findings Of Fact James A. Bitting, Petitioner, was first employed by Crawford and Company in its Tampa office as a property appraiser in October 1973, and remained so employed until he was terminated in July 1988. Petitioner was involved in an automobile accident in 1983 while on company business and sustained back injuries which thereafter was the source of lower back pain if he remained in one position (either standing or sitting) for an extended period. However, he made no claim and submitted no medical evidence of this handicap until after his termination from employment by Respondent. In 1987 and 1988, claims cases at Crawford decreased, and the regional office began telling the Tampa office that they should look to a reduction of personnel. Satellite offices at Brooksville and Plant City were closed and the adjustors in charge of those offices were brought in to the Tampa office. At the time of his termination there were four outside adjusters at the Tampa office with Respondent being the only designated property adjuster. The others dealt primarily with casualty claims. Property claims had declined to a point there were insufficient claims to occupy one adjuster full-time and Petitioner was being given a few simple casualty claims. The regional office and the Tampa office generally agreed that one appraiser should be terminated. At the time this determination was made Respondent had the lowest evaluations of the four adjusters. Further, he had received the second phase of a progressive discipline notice (Ex. 2) stating his work performance was unsatisfactory due to non-compliance with work standards. Petitioner presented no evidence to support his contention that his age was a proximate cause of his termination, other than his bare allegation that during this period no employee under 40 was terminated. Substantial evidence was presented that Respondent continues to have numerous people in it's work force older than 50 and 60 years of age. During the presentation of his case, Petitioner referred repeatedly to the failure of Respondent to provide him with a comfortable office chair in which he could sit without hurting his back. Although several employees of Respondent were aware that Petitioner had a back problem, Petitioner, prior to his dismissal, never presented any medical evidence that he needed special equipment, or was physically unable to perform any tasks. He had continued to climb ladders to the roofs of houses when necessary in his job as property adjuster. Following Petitioner's termination, his job was not filled. Respondent, as part of their reorganization, moved another adjuster into the department vacated by Petitioner, but this employee brought with her workers compensation claims which consumed 75-80% of her time. Later Respondent also transferred into the Tampa office a property general adjuster to drum up more casualty business. Upon his arrival he did the property claims formerly done by Petitioner using about 10% of his work time, and spent 80-90% of his time soliciting new business. A property general adjuster is qualified to handle complex claims involving industrial losses while a property adjuster like Petitioner is limited to handling less complex residential claims.
Recommendation It is recommended that a Final Order be entered finding Petitioner has failed to prove that his termination from employment by Crawford and Company was influenced by Petitioner's age or handicap, and that his Petition for Relief be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: G. G. Harvey Manager, CFE Post Office Box 5047 Atlanta, GA 30302 James A. Bitting 11730 Marjorie Avenue Tampa, FL 33612 Louis P. DiLorenzo, Esquire One Lincoln Center Syracuse, New York 13202-1355 Dana Baird General Counsel and Acting Executive Director Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Suite 240, Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Suite 240, Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 K. N. AYERS 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 18th day of December, 1990.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Darryl Royster, was subjected to employment discrimination, by allegedly being terminated on the basis of his race or disability/handicap, by denial of a promotion and training, being subjected to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, and by retaliation.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was employed by Pate Steveodore Company, Inc., (Pate) at times pertinent hereto. The Petitioner is an African-American male. Pate is a licensed Stevodore Company operating at the Port of Pensacola. Pate typically handles loading or unloading of various types of cargo, including soy beans, frozen food products, and other materials from railroad cars located in the port or onto ships berthed at the port. Pate has a staff of six permanent employees, including a president, vice-president, office manager, accounting clerk, and pier superintendent, as well as a part-time payroll clerk. Depending on the amount of work available at any particular time, Pate employs from 0 to 60 longshoremen, the majority of whom are African-American. The Petitioner was first employed by Pate in September 2005, as a longshoreman, responsible for loading and unloading box cars. Scott Miller is the former supervisor of the Petitioner. In his testimony he established that, typically, two teams of three longshoremen each would be assigned to load or unload each box car. The members of such teams work together to load or unload cargo from pallets, typically completing the unloading of two cars in a morning and two cars in the afternoon. The employees typically take breaks from the work in between pallets or box cars, but are allowed to take breaks whenever they feel the need. They arrange the schedule for taking breaks among themselves and without direction from supervisors. The Petitioner was working on August 2, 2006. On that date he contends that he suffered a back injury while lifting a 110 pound sack of beans. He states that he attempted to inform his supervisor, Mr. Miller, of the alleged injury, but was instructed to either return to work that day, or to leave if he was unable to do so. Mr. Miller was apparently frustrated with the Petitioner on that day because the Petitioner had left the work area on two occasions that morning for prolonged periods of time. The first time was when he went to the main office of Pate to discuss the fact that his child support payments were being withheld from his checks and to demand that the money be returned to him. The Petitioner wanted Pate to reimburse him for the withheld amounts and Pate explained to the Petitioner that they were legally required to make the deductions from his payroll. The second time that day he went to the main office to inform Mr. Pate that he had a job interview with an insurance company and would not be returning to work that afternoon after lunch. The Petitioner told Mr. Pate that he had already informed Mr. Miller that he would not be working that afternoon. Actually, he had never told Mr. Miller he was going to be absent in the afternoon. Because Mr. Miller did not have a replacement for the unexpected absence of the Petitioner, Mr. Miller had to perform the Petitioner's job loading and unloading cargo, during both the morning and afternoon absences. Mr. Miller told Mr. Pate of his dissatisfaction with the unexcused absences and having to perform the Petitioner's work himself. Pate did not hear from the Petitioner again until August 8, 2006, when Michael Pate, the company president, and Rosalee Garrett, the office manager, received a fax from the Petitioner requesting that they pass along certain information to the company's workers' compensation carrier, so that the Petitioner could be paid for the time he had been off work. The Petitioner informed Pate that he would be retuning to work the following week and attached a note from a medical clinic asking that he be excused from work until August 14, 2006. Ms. Garrett responded to the request and forwarded the requested information to the company's workers' compensation carrier. She also requested that the Petitioner report to the office so that he could complete an accident report form so that his workers' compensation claim could be properly processed. Pate's workers' compensation carrier's coverage policy and the workers' compensation law requires that an accident report be submitted by the claimant.1/ On August 11, 2006, the Petitioner wrote to Mr. Pate and Ms. Garrett informing them that he would not be able to return to work until October 20, 2006, because he was still experiencing back pain and rectal bleeding. The Petitioner wanted to wait until he could be seen by a doctor so that he could determine the source of those two problems. The Petitioner informed Mr. Pate and Ms. Garrett that he could perform light-duty work that did not involve bending or heavy lifting, such as running errands for the company, supervising other employees, and that he could also do work on the computer. Thereafter, on August 28, 2006, the Petitioner came to Pate's main office, again requesting light-duty work. There was no such work available, however, and Mr. Pate so informed the Petitioner. At that point the Petitioner became very upset and belligerent and began cursing Mr. Pate. Mr. Pate regarded that as threatening behavior and insubordination and was unwilling to tolerate such conduct. Mr. Pate escorted the Petitioner out of the office to converse with him outside, away from the other employees, because of his behavior, but was unsuccessful and thereupon terminated him. He told him to leave the premises, but ultimately had to call the port security office to have the port security personnel escort the Petitioner off the premises and outside the secure area of the Port of Pensacola. The testimony of Ms. Garrett corroborates that of Mr. Pate in establishing that the Petitioner was terminated because he became threatening, argumentative, and insubordinate toward Mr. Pate. In terms of his claim regarding racial discrimination, based upon allegedly different terms and conditions of employment imposed upon him, the Petitioner claims that he and other African-American employees were not allowed to take breaks or to train for and become forklift operators. The testimony of three witnesses, however, established that African-American employees are granted the same breaks as white employees and are otherwise treated the same with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment. The Petitioner was allowed to, and did take breaks during his employment with Pate. Moreover, contrary to the Petitioner's position, it was established, by persuasive, credible testimony, that in terms of the alleged issue concerning African-American employees not being allowed to become forklift drivers, that Pate conducted training so that such employees could become forklift drivers. Some employees took advantage of that training and became forklift drivers. In fact, the majority of Pate's forklift drivers are African-American. The Petitioner also contended that he was discriminated against in terms of his race for failure of Pate to promote or train him or other African-American employees. According to the preponderant, persuasive testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, however, there was no open position available at Pate, during the Petitioner's employment time there, to which he could have been promoted, nor had he ever applied for a promotion position. There was no denial of training opportunities because there was no training offered to any employee during the period of time of the Petitioner's employment with Pate and there was no evidence to show that the Petitioner ever requested training for any position at Pate. As found above, before the Petitioner became employed there, Pate did offer training for forklift drivers and trained some employees as forklift drivers, the majority of whom were African-American.
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 the arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2008, 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 19th day of March, 2008.
The Issue Whether or not an unlawful employment practice pursuant to the Human Rights Act of 1977, Section 760.10 F.S. (1989) has occurred.
Findings Of Fact On the Thursday and Friday preceding formal hearing the undersigned attempted to contact Petitioner to determine if he was prepared for formal hearing on March 4, 1991. His phone was in working order, but no one answered at any of several times the call was placed. At the date and time of formal hearing, Petitioner did not appear, although the hearing was convened after waiting five minutes. A recess was taken for 15 minutes to permit Petitioner additional time to arrive at the place of formal hearing in the event that he had been unavoidably delayed. After waiting those 15 minutes, the undersigned searched the waiting area outside the hearing room for any black male, and none was found. The undersigned also called her DOAH office to determine if Petitioner had attempted to telephone there with any excuse for his nonappearance; the secretary to the undersigned reported that he had not telephoned. At 25 minutes after the appointed hour for commencement of the hearing, Respondent moved for default and/or judgment on the pleadings, and the undersigned indicated that the Recommended Order would reflect, to the same effect, that Petitioner's nonappearance would be deemed withdrawal of his petition.
Recommendation Accordingly, upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition herein. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Robert Duggan, Esquire Howell, Taylor & Duggan, P.A. Post Office Box 490208 Leesburg, FL 34749-0208 Willie Ray Wright 2311 Griffin Road, Apt. A-4 Leesburg, FL 32748 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Ronald M. McElrath Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
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 : The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Division of Administrative Hearings and the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) have subject matter jurisdiction of this dispute and, aside from the jurisdictional questions, whether the City of Cottondale has engaged in a discriminatory employment action against the Petitioner based upon her race (African-American).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an unsuccessful applicant for a job vacancy for a position of secretary with the City. The Respondent is the City of Cottondale, Florida, an incorporated municipality under relevant Florida Law. As established by the testimony of Judy Powell, the City Clerk for the City, the City, at all times pertinent hereto, had fewer than 15 employees. City counsel members other than James Elmore, were paid less than $600.00 per year and did not receive forms 1099 for their compensation from the City. They do not meet the relevant criteria to be considered employees. The City's Exhibit One, in evidence, shows that the City had fewer than 15 employees. The Petitioner offered no evidence to contradict the evidence from the City, the Respondent, that it had fewer than 15 employees at all relevant times. On January 30, 2007, the City placed an advertisement in the Graceville News, a newspaper, advertising a job vacancy for the position of secretary. The job description for the position included duties involving collecting utility bills, water deposits, issuing receipts for monies, helping to maintain and record cash journals of all business transactions, preparing billing for utilities, posting ledgers, assisting with daily collections, setting-up accounts, performing customer transfers, maintaining records of water deposits paid and refunded, and preparing of payroll and all related tax reports. Pursuant to that job description, general qualifications which applicants must have included bookkeeping skills and experience. In selecting applicants who would actually be interviewed, Ms. Powell and Willie Cook, who were doing the interviews, looked for individuals who had specific job skills related to the above-referenced duties contained in the job description for that position. Nineteen individuals submitted applications for the position, including the Petitioner. Four individuals were selected to be interviewed out of the 19 individuals who had applied for the position. Those were Melissa Davis, Linda Krauser, Gail Woodham, and Denise White. There was no requirement in City policy that all applicants for a job position be interviewed. There is no evidence to show that race was a factor in determining which applicants were selected to be interviewed for the secretarial position and which were not selected. Rather, the interview selection process involved selecting persons whose application documents appeared to show evidence of some specific job skills which related to accounting, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and the other duties detailed in the job description for the position in question. A white female, Melissa Davis, was selected to be interviewed because her application and cover letter indicated that she was familiar with accounts receivable, accounts payable, payroll, job costing, personnel, handling line telephones, customer service, preparing quarterly reports, and billing purchase orders and had experience in working with 401(k) issues and health and dental insurance. In addition, she had experience as a bank teller handling cash transactions. Another white female, Linda Krauser, was selected to be interviewed as well because her application indicated that she had previously supervised a staff of 40 people and had experience in customer service, maintaining staff records, and experience in accounting and billing. Another white female, Gail Woodham, was selected for interview because her job application and attached documents showed 20 years of experience in payroll, excel, powerpoint, computer skills, veritable spread sheets, and spread sheet tracking. An Hispanic female, Denise White, was also selected to be interviewed because her job application indicated that she had experience as a head bank teller with 17 years in a fast- paced environment and as a supervisor of tellers. She had worked in a doctor's office and had experience with record keeping. She had secretarial and billing experience working with patients for an optometry group, prepared correspondence for doctors and assisted with patient check-out. In her employment with Indian River National Bank, she had gained experience in customer service in handling accounts, and was a supervisor. Prior to that job, while working for another bank, she was a lead teller, supervisor, and handled cash flow. She had also received a prior certification regarding medical billing. The other 15 individuals who applied for the position, including Ms. Russ, were not interviewed. This decision was based upon Ms. Powell and Mr. Cook's review of the applications, and related to the relevant skills, experience, or education shown, or not shown, on those applications. There was no evidence that there was any racially discriminatory animus involved in the selection of individuals for interviews or the rejection of the other individuals who were not interviewed. The job application and resume submitted by the Petitioner indicated that her expertise and experience was primarily in caring for the elderly. There was no indication that she had any experience in bookkeeping, handling invoices, or billing. The decision not to interview the Petitioner was not based upon racial motivation, but rather, as with the case with the other applicants who were not interviewed, was based upon a review of application documents. A decision was made to select the four whose past experience, education, and job skills noted in those documents showed them most likely to be candidates with the appropriate skills and experience for the job in question. During the interviews of the four selected applicants, questions were asked them regarding accounting and bookkeeping issues. Ms. Powell, the City Clerk, finished the interview process and made the selection of the individual to be offered the position of secretary. Ultimately, Ms. White, a Hispanic female, was selected for the secretarial position and accepted the salary range offered, in the amount of $8.00 to $8.25 per hour. The applicants who were not interviewed did not have skills appropriate to the job and did not have skills substantially similar to those of the four individuals who were selected for interviews. They were particularly dissimilar in skills, experience, and education to the person ultimately hired, Ms. White.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is granted. It is further recommended, aside from the finding of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, that, alternatively, a final order be entered determining that the Petitioner has not established her claim of racial discrimination in the hiring decision at issue, and that the Petition be dismissed in its entirety for this reason as well. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2008, 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 5th day of December, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eulinda M. Russ Post Office Box 767 Cottondale, Florida 32431 Timothy W. Warner, Esquire Warner & Wintrode, P.A. Post Office Box 1820 Panama City, Florida 32402 Larry Kranert, 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 Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on November 2, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is 74-year-old male who was employed by Respondent as Human Resources Director from July 1994 until January 30, 2009. His job was an office job that required him to sit at a desk, attend meetings, and occasionally visit people in other parts of the plant to discuss business. Respondent, Daws Manufacturing Company (Daws), is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. Daws is a Florida corporation with its principal office in Pensacola, Florida. Daws is a manufacturer that builds aluminum toolboxes for trucks, and other truck accessories. James Nowak is Daws' Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. According to Mr. Nowak, a decision to cut overhead was made in the summer of 2008, as a result of three years of significant economic losses. The decision was made to close the manufacturing component of its Pensacola facility so that the company could survive. To accomplish this, Daws implemented a reduction in force which involved two layoffs in 2008. As Human Resources Director, Petitioner played a significant role in the layoff process. Mr. Nowak described Petitioner's role as "orchestrating" the layoffs, meaning that Petitioner was the person "who managed it, who disseminated the information, and who was at the center point of getting the project completed." Harold Clinton "Clint" Daws is Respondent's President and Chief Executive Officer. While Petitioner and Mr. Nowak played significant roles in the reduction in force process, Mr. Daws was ultimately responsible for deciding which employees were to be laid off. Forty-seven employees were laid off in August 2008. Thirty-one employees were laid off on December 5, 2008. Only six employees remained in the Pensacola plant following the December 2008 layoff. Petitioner was one of the employees slated to be laid off in December 2008. However, Petitioner suffered a heart attack in mid-November 2008 and underwent open heart surgery. This happened prior to the December 2008 layoff. Because of Petitioner's medical situation, Mr. Daws agreed that Petitioner would not be laid off as scheduled in December 2008, but could remain employed through January 2009. Petitioner was the only employee scheduled to be laid off in December 2008 whose termination was deferred. Petitioner returned to work on January 19, 2009, and was scheduled to be laid off January 30, 2009, the last working day of that month. He requested to stay on longer than scheduled, but that request was denied by Mr. Daws. Petitioner remained covered under the company's health insurance through January. From January 19 through his last day of employment, Petitioner spent time cleaning his office and tending to other matters. During January 2009, Petitioner underwent cardiac rehabilitation. He left the office for a couple of hours during the work day to participate in his rehabilitation. This was handled the same as for any employee who had to go to a medical appointment. However, Petitioner did not request any accommodation regarding any disability during this time. Petitioner acknowledged at hearing that he never made a complaint of discrimination to Mr. Daws based on his age, gender, or perceived disability. Before leaving on his last day of employment, Petitioner wrote a letter to Workforce Escarosa, a local agency that handles unemployment claims, advising that he was "laid off today due to a reduction in force-job elimination." He again made this assertion to Workforce Escarosa in a February 27, 2009 letter in which he reiterated that he was "laid off due to a reduction in force, job elimination, and I am not to be considered a retiree." Upon termination, Petitioner was offered and accepted insurance under COBRA. The COBRA coverage was later rescinded by the insurance company, not by Daws, apparently because it discovered Petitioner was on Medicare and was not eligible. Mr. Nowak never discussed Petitioner's medical expenses from his heart attack or previous medical problems with the company's insurance agent or the company's president. Following Petitioner's termination from employment, the position of Human Resources Director was eliminated as part of its reduction in force. The remaining duties of the Human Resources Director position were apportioned between Mr. Nowak and Ms. Violeta Gordon, Petitioner's assistant. Daws did not hire anyone to serve as the Human Resources Director. At hearing, Petitioner alleged that he was discriminated against earlier in his employment. Specifically, he asserted that he did not receive a pay raise from 1995 until 2002 and that he was asked in 2006 when he was going to retire. While Mr. Daws testified as to legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Petitioner not receiving a pay raise and denied asking Petitioner when he was going to retire or encouraging him to retire, these allegations are untimely as will be more fully addressed in the Conclusions of Law. At the time of his layoff, Petitioner was 72. Petitioner alleged in his Employment Complaint of Discrimination that his assistant, Ms. Gordon, was 65. There is nothing in the record to indicate otherwise and, based upon observations of her while testifying at hearing, 65 is a reasonable approximation of her age.
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 finding that Daws Manufacturing Company is not guilty of the unlawful employment practice alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of January, 2011, 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 7th day of January, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner as stated in the Petition for Relief in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following facts were established by clear and convincing evidence: Respondent, Atria Windsor Woods, provides retirement and assisted living facilities and employs more than 15 persons. Petitioner, Judith Monteiro, was hired as a housekeeper in 2002 at the age of 57. On or about November 29, 2006, Petitioner was discharged from her employment with Respondent. She was advised that she was discharged for violating company policy regarding entering an apartment while the occupant was absent due to hospitalization. Petitioner testified that she entered an apartment of an absent occupant when she smelled spoiled food, disposed of the spoiled food, and reported the matter to her supervisor. On the following day, a theft of approximately $150.00 was reported from the apartment. Petitioner appears to be the victim of disgruntled relatives of the apartment's occupant who, apparently, complained about the purported theft to Respondent and confusing rules about when to enter an unoccupied apartment and who was authorized to enter an unoccupied apartment. Petitioner presented no direct or circumstantial evidence that her discharge was based on age, sex, or any other right actionable under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, the Florida Civil Rights Act.
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 finding that Respondent, Atria Windsor Woods, did not discriminate against Petitioner, Judith Monteiro, and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 18th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas J. Birchfield, Esquire Fisher and Phillips, LLP 220 West Main Street, Suite 2000 Louisville, Kentucky 40202 Judith Monteiro 13738 Lavender Avenue Hudson, Florida 34667
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent Community Education Partners, d/b/a Emerald Bay Academy, engaged in an unlawful employment practice as to Petitioner Adam Killick, and, if so, what relief should be granted to Petitioner, if any.
Findings Of Fact On October 3, 2005, the Commission filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings Petitioner's Petition for Relief. On that same date, an Initial Order was entered by the assigned Administrative Law Judge requesting certain information for the scheduling of the final hearing in this cause. Due to the parties' failure to comply with that Order, venue rights were deemed waived. On October 14, 2005, a Notice of Hearing was entered scheduling this cause for final hearing on December 19, 2005. An Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions was entered that same day requiring the parties to disclose to each other no later than seven days before the final hearing the names of their witnesses and further requiring them to exchange copies of their exhibits by that same deadline. That Order further provided that failure to timely disclose could result in exclusion of that evidence at the final hearing. On December 12 Respondent filed its Motion for Continuance of the final hearing. On December 13 Respondent filed correspondence advising that Petitioner had agreed to the continuance, that Petitioner would be out of the country the entire month of January 2006, and that Petitioner and Respondent had agreed to certain dates for re-scheduling the final hearing. One of those dates was February 17, 2006. On December 14, 2005, an Order Granting Continuance and Re-Scheduling Hearing was entered, scheduling this cause for final hearing on February 17, 2006, validating any served subpoenas for the new date, and incorporating the provisions of the first Notice of Hearing and the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions. On January 26, 2006, Respondent filed its Agreed Motion for Leave to Present Testimony Telephonically, requesting that a witness who lives in New Mexico be allowed to testify telephonically at the final hearing on February 17, 2006. The Agreed Motion clearly set forth Petitioner's agreement to allow the telephonic testimony of that witness at the final hearing. On January 27, 2006, that Agreed Motion was granted, subject to Respondent making the necessary arrangements and subject to compliance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.213(5), which, inter alia, requires a notary public to be physically present with the witness to administer the oath. On February 3, 2006, Respondent filed its Notice of No Opposition advising that it did not oppose Petitioner's request for a continuance of the February 17, 2006, final hearing date. Petitioner's Motion for Continuance was filed on February 9, 2006. By Order Granting Continuance entered February 9, 2006, Petitioner's motion was granted, the final hearing scheduled for February 17, 2006, was cancelled, and the parties were afforded up to and including February 28, 2006, to advise the undersigned as to the status of this matter, as to the length of time required for the final hearing, and as to several mutually- agreeable dates for re-scheduling the final hearing. That Order further provided that failure to timely comply would result in the conclusion that this matter had been amicably resolved and the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings would be closed. Neither party filed any document or pleading on or before February 28, 2006. On March 3, 2006, Petitioner filed his first Request for Discovery and sent a letter to the Clerk of the Division requesting subpoenas and indicating that he would accommodate a hearing date convenient to the undersigned and to Respondent. The letter also advised that after he had received all materials, he needed time to prepare. The letter did not provide dates for re-scheduling the final hearing in compliance with the February 9, 2006, Order. Subpoenas were issued to Petitioner pursuant to his request in that letter. The Order Re-Scheduling Hearing entered March 6, 2006, recited the provisions of the prior Order giving a deadline for providing mutually-agreeable dates for re-scheduling the final hearing and the failure of the parties to comply with that Order. It also recited that despite the earlier Order providing for the automatic closure of the Division's file if the parties failed to timely provide dates, since Petitioner had filed documents subsequent to the deadline, it was assumed that the case had not been amicably resolved. The Order re-scheduled the final hearing in this matter to be held on March 24, 2006, validated any served subpoenas for the new date, and incorporated the provisions of the first Notice of Hearing and the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions. On March 14, 2006, Petitioner filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and a Motion for Rehearing. The Motion for Rehearing is confusing: it asks for reconsideration of his discovery request (no ruling had previously been requested or made); it complains about the December 2005 hearing date having been continued; it withdraws Petitioner's prior agreement to allow a witness to testify by telephone (which agreement had been subsequently ordered); it specifically states that Petitioner is not requesting another continuance but then speaks of requiring time to prepare that would extend well beyond the scheduled final hearing date. On March 16, 2006, Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Rehearing was filed, opposing the granting of Petitioner's pending motions. Petitioner's motions were heard telephonically on March 20, 2006. The manual he wanted produced, which Respondent agreed to give him, was ordered produced, but the remainder of Petitioner's requests were denied. An Order on Pending Motions was entered that same day to memorialize the rulings announced during the telephonic hearing. The Order specifically provided that Petitioner's request for a postponement of the final hearing was denied, a ruling made and discussed during the telephonic hearing. On March 17, 2006, Respondent filed its witness list, together with a cover letter advising that Respondent had provided Petitioner with its witness and exhibits lists in December. Petitioner has not filed any witness list in accordance with the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions entered October 14, 2005. On March 22, 2006, Respondent filed a Motion to Quash Subpoenas, together with a request that a hearing be held on the Motion that same day. A telephonic hearing was conducted on March 22, 2006, and an Order Granting Respondent's Motion to Quash Subpoenas was entered. During the course of that telephonic hearing, Petitioner indicated that he might not come to the hearing. In response to that statement, the undersigned explained to Petitioner that it was up to him whether he attended the hearing, dismissed his petition for relief, or withdrew his request for a hearing. The undersigned explained to the parties that the hearing would go forward as scheduled, that Petitioner had the burden of proof in this proceeding, and that not appearing or presenting evidence would prevent him from meeting his burden of proof. After normal business hours on March 22, 2006, and therefore on March 23, 2006, Petitioner filed a Facsimile Letter to Judge Rigot. Although somewhat confusing, the Letter appears to re-argue points previously argued and memorialize Petitioner's understanding (and misunderstandings) of what transpired during the telephonic hearing on March 22, 2006. At 9:30 a.m., on March 24, 2006, Respondent's attorney and its witnesses were present for the scheduled final hearing. The undersigned waited for 35 minutes before opening the record and almost 10 minutes more before closing the record, with no appearance by Petitioner or anyone on his behalf.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and dismissing his Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Adam Killick Post Office Box 18331 Panama City, Florida 32417 M. Brenk Johnson Winstead Sechrest & Minick, P.C. 1201 Elm Street, Suite 5400 Dallas, Texas 75270
