The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mike Ostrom, was employed by Respondent, Beachers Lodge Condo Association, Inc., as a maintenance man for approximately seven years until his termination on March 23, 2012. Respondent is a Florida condominium association, located at 6970 A1A South, St. Augustine, Florida 32080. James W. Gilliam is the licensed community association manager for Respondent, is 78 years old, and has many years of property management experience. Petitioner filed a Complaint of Discrimination on the grounds of his age (55) and disability (eye surgery) with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) on March 23, 2012. Following an investigation, the Commission issued a Notice of Determination: No Cause on September 27, 2012. Petitioner filed a timely appeal of the Commission's determination on October 19, 2012. The petition was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, and a final hearing was conducted on December 11, 2012, in St. Augustine, Florida. Petitioner's work as a maintenance man involved numerous duties, including general maintenance to the grounds and buildings, painting, repairing balconies and other structures not requiring a general contractor, electrical work, and maintaining the pool. Petitioner worked alone much of the time. Prior to the arrival of Mr. Gilliam as the association manager, Petitioner had a good working relationship with the former manager, Steve Burdick. Under Mr. Burdick's supervision, Petitioner had more freedom to perform his maintenance work without what he calls "interference." Mr. Gilliam is more of a "hands on" supervisor than the previous manager had been. Petitioner was resistant to the constant checking on his work by Mr. Gilliam. He believed Mr. Burdick recognized his experience and left him alone to perform his daily tasks with passive supervision. Mr. Gilliam, as a new manager with Respondent, was given instruction by the association president, Joanne Dice, on behalf of the board of directors, to more closely supervise the maintenance staff. In Petitioner, Mr. Gilliam saw a good employee who "liked to do things his way." Mr. Gilliam estimates that Petitioner would do about 90 percent of the assigned tasks differently from how he would prefer them done. Mr. Gilliam tried to get Petitioner to come around to his way of doing things because he was responsible to the board of directors for properly maintaining the property. Mr. Gilliam believes he did not harass Petitioner, but does remember upsetting him on one occasion when he called him "Michael" rather than his given name of "Mike." After Petitioner made clear the fact that he preferred to be called "Mike," Mr. Gilliam never called him "Michael" again. Mr. Gilliam gave clear instructions as to how he expected the tasks assigned to Petitioner be performed, yet Petitioner continued to do things his way. Mr. Gilliam often had a certain order or priority for performing required maintenance tasks which Petitioner regularly failed to follow. After Petitioner had eye surgery and was placed on limited duty by his physician, Dr. Oktavec, Mr. Gilliam confirmed the light detail in a letter dated March 19, 2013, so that Petitioner would not suffer further injury to his eye through over exertion. Ms. Dice was elected president of the board of the condo association in 2010. She lives in Gainesville, Florida. On three separate occasions (July 26, October 27, and November 3, 2011), she drove from Gainesville to St. Augustine to discuss Petitioner's complaints of alleged harassment by Mr. Gilliam. She believed that Mr. Gilliam's job was to establish priorities and assign tasks to be completed. Sometimes, due to inclement weather and other factors, priorities would have to shift. Ms. Dice observed that Petitioner complained that he did not need anyone to tell him how to perform his job. She noted that Beachers Lodge Condominiums is a large property that requires the cooperation of all employees along with the board of directors to maintain it to the standards expected by the owners and their guests. For a year, Ms. Dice and Mr. Gilliam tried to help Petitioner improve his performance, eliminate any deficiencies, and brighten his attitude, all to no avail. A few months after the final meeting Ms. Dice held with Petitioner, she agreed with Mr. Gilliam that Petitioner's behavior could no longer be tolerated and that he should be terminated for cause. The March 23, 2012, letter from Mr. Gilliam terminating Petitioner's employment was explicit in its reasons for termination. The letter offered 13 reasons for the termination and addressed all charges made by Petitioner against Mr. Gilliam. The reasons may be summarized as follows: On October 11, 2011, Mr. Gilliam gave Petitioner a list of daily and weekly duties which he acknowledged having received. Petitioner complained about receiving such a list. On October 25, 2011, Mr. Gilliam gave Petitioner a disciplinary letter for having falsified his timecard on October 19, when Mr. Gilliam observed Petitioner driving down A1A at a time he said he was still at work. Petitioner requested owners send letters to Mr. Gilliam that he was giving Petitioner too much direction and that Petitioner was doing a good job, another indicator of not taking direction. On October 14, 2011, Petitioner did not complete a washing task he was assigned, but went on to perform another task he deemed more important. Again, on March 13, 2012, Mr. Gilliam issued Petitioner a letter addressing corrective action for not following instructions. Petitioner accused Mr. Gilliam of jerking him by the coat in front of witnesses. No witnesses came forward to support this claim. Mr. Gilliam listed issues with Petitioner's work ethic in the March 13, 2012 letter. Petitioner had broken a floor during cleaning which was cited in the March 13 letter. Another refusal to take guidance was listed in the March 13 letter. Mr. Gilliam advised Petitioner that that the failure to correct his behavior concerning following direction would lead to "additional correction." Petitioner refused to sign this letter. Petitioner had been previously advised that he was to engage in light activity based upon his physician's prescription, and as set forth in a March 19 letter from Mr. Gilliam. On March 23, 2012, a St. Johns County deputy came to the office of the association and advised Mr. Gilliam that Petitioner had filed a complaint for assault against him, which the deputy determined not to be a criminal matter. Petitioner applied for unemployment compensation after receiving the March 23 letter terminating his employment. His claim was denied by the Department of Economic Opportunity, since he had been terminated for misconduct. He is currently in the process of losing his home and has only found work with his church for 7-8 hours a week. Petitioner admits that he stood up for himself when he disagreed with Mr. Gilliam by cursing him, calling him names, and writing complaint letters to condo owners and board members. Petitioner claims he was discriminated against by his 78-year-old boss, Mr. Gilliam, who allegedly said, "if you were 30 and not 50, you could do this job better." This alleged statement was not corroborated by any witnesses and was denied by Mr. Gilliam. Petitioner alleges that Mr. Gilliam discriminated against him by making fun of him after he had eye surgery. The letter dated March 19 shows that Respondent recognized the eye injury and surgery and warned Petitioner to engage in only light duty as ordered by his doctor. No witnesses testified to the alleged derogatory comments concerning Petitioner's vision. Respondent was never made aware of any claim of discrimination against Petitioner based upon his alleged disability. Their understanding was that Petitioner needed surgery on his eyes which was performed successfully by his physician and corrected the problem. Petitioner was not replaced by a younger employee when he was terminated. Respondent continued with just one full-time maintenance man and two part-timers. The roster of employees for Respondent shows that the remaining maintenance men are ages 56, 45, and 23. Petitioner is seeking $800,000 in lost wages, yet provided no evidence to support an award of that magnitude should he be successful in his discrimination claim.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding Respondent did not commit the "unlawful employment practice" alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner's employment discrimination charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 9th day of January, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James W. Gilliam Beachers Lodge Condo Association, Inc. 6970 A1A South St. Augustine, Florida 32080 Mike Ostrom 900 South Rodriguez Street St. Augustine, Florida 32095 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Porky's Barbeque Restaurant, engaged in an unlawful employment practice by terminating Petitioner, Susan Coffy, from her position.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female and, at all times relevant to this proceeding, was over the age of 40. From March 1, 2003, until October 28, 2003, Petitioner was employed as a waitress at Porky's, a barbecue restaurant. On October 28, 2003, Petitioner was terminated from her job as a waitress. Prior to March 1, 2003, Petitioner had worked as a waitress at another restaurant, Fat Boy's Restaurant (Fat Boy's), that had been operating at the same location as Porky's. Fat Boy's closed after the building in which that restaurant was located was purchased by Walter Milton. After Mr. Milton purchased the building, he opened his own business, Porky's, at that location. After Mr. Milton opened his restaurant, he employed many of the individuals who had been employed by Fat Boy's, but told them that their employment with Porky's was for a "trial period." Immediately after Porky's opened for business, Mr. Milton initiated operational directives that he believed were essential business needs for operating a barbecue business. He introduced these new directives to the employees of Porky's, many of whom had previously worked for Fat Boy's. While some of these employees were successful in making the transition to the new operation, there were employees, including Petitioner, who were resistant to the operational directives initiated by Mr. Milton. Even though Petitioner was resistant to the new operational directives that were implemented at Porky's, Mr. Milton continued to try to work with Petitioner. In fact, Petitioner worked as a waitress at Porky's the first eight months the restaurant was open. During the course of her employment, Mr. Milton found that Petitioner was an employee who failed to follow simple instructions. For example, Mr. Milton directed employees to knock on his office door when the door was closed. Notwithstanding this very simple directive, Petitioner refused to comply. One day Petitioner went to Mr. Milton's office and found the door to the office was closed. Instead of knocking as she had been previously directed, Petitioner simply barged into the office and stated that she needed a band-aid. After Petitioner barged into the office without knocking, Mr. Milton reminded her that she should knock on the door and wait for a response before coming into his office. About three minutes after this admonition, Petitioner returned to Mr. Milton's office. Although the office door was closed, Petitioner, again, did not knock on the door, but simply opened the door and went into the office. Mr. Milton was not pleased with Petitioner's failure to embrace the directives he initiated and implemented for Porky's. However, the "final straw" that resulted in Mr. Milton's terminating Petitioner's employment was an incident about a menu item. On October 28, 2003, Petitioner was very upset that Mr. Milton had included an item on the Porky's menu that also had been on the Fat Boy's menu. That menu item was referred to as "Jim's Special Burger." Mr. Milton included that item on Respondent's menu to honor Jim Kenaston, who had been the owner of Fat Boy's. On October 28, 2003, Petitioner "flew off the handle" and confronted Mr. Milton about his decision to include the item, "Jim's Special Burger," on the Porky's menu. Petitioner, who admits she was upset about this matter, confronted Mr. Milton and argued to him that he had no right to put the "Jim's Special Burger" on Respondent's menu. The confrontation started in the kitchen of the restaurant, but continued after Petitioner left the kitchen and proceeded into the restaurant's dining room. Although there were customers in the dining room, Petitioner continued to argue with Mr. Milton about the menu item. Petitioner's verbal criticism and objection to Mr. Milton's decision to include "Jim's Special Burger" on Respondent's menu created such a commotion in the restaurant that Respondent's bookkeeper heard Petitioner's outbursts from her office located behind the cashier's counter. After the bookkeeper heard Petitioner arguing with Mr. Milton, the bookkeeper left her office and in an effort to de-escalate the situation, escorted Petitioner out of the dining room to a back hall of the restaurant where there were no customers. On October 28, 2003, as a result of Petitioner's inappropriate and unprofessional conduct described in paragraphs 10 through 13, Mr. Milton terminated Petitioner's employment at Porky's. The same day that he terminated Petitioner's employment, Mr. Milton completed a "Separation Notice" on which he indicated that Petitioner was laid off due to lack of work. The reason Mr. Milton wrote this on the form was so that Petitioner could receive unemployment compensation. Petitioner presented no competent and substantial evidence that she was terminated from employment because of her age. Likewise, Petitioner presented no evidence that after she was terminated, she was replaced by a younger worker. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent had four or five employees who were over 40 years of age. Petitioner presented several witnesses who testified that she was an excellent waitress when she was employed at Fat Boy's. However, Petitioner's job performance while working for her previous employer is not at issue or relevant in this proceeding. Even if that testimony is accepted as true, no inference can be drawn that Petitioner's performance remained the same or was viewed as such by her new employer. Notwithstanding the opinions expressed by her previous employers and co-workers, Petitioner was terminated from her employment at Porky's as a result of her unacceptable and unprofessional conduct on October 28, 2003.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent, Porky's Barbeque Restaurant, did not commit any unlawful employment practice and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Walter Milton Porky's Barbeque Restaurant 4280 South Washington Avenue Titusville, Florida 32780 Susan Coffy 2966 Temple Lane Mims, Florida 32754 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Barbara Jerrel, became employed by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the Respondent, in May, 1987. She worked as a sales trainee in the field of life and health insurance sales and servicing. She was interviewed and hired by Doreen Blake in the "Gator Branch" office located in Gainesville, Florida. The manager of that office was Jerry Cummings, who was the Petitioner's supervisor. Mr. Cummings initially worked with the Petitioner in training her to solicit life and health insurance business and in making and closing sales of insurance policies both over the telephone and in person. When she initially became employed he accompanied her and supervised her in making sales solicitation calls on potential clients. On one occasion, soon after she was initially hired, the Petitioner maintains that she was working at her computer station in the office when Mr. Cummings sat beside her and began rubbing her arm. She states that she remonstrated with him about this conduct and told him to stop, whereupon he became angry and thenceforth instructed her to call him "Mr. Cummings." Soon after this alleged incident she was sent to a training school for approximately a month to learn the skills and requirements necessary to be a sales representative of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. She received above average scores on graded work during her school period of instruction and received favorable reports on her leadership and sales ability from her instructors. After her school training was completed, she returned to the Gainesville office to work. On approximately June 23, 1988, she testified that she and Mr. Cummings were riding in her car to an appointment with a client. He was traveling with her in order to assist with her training in meeting and discussing insurance matters with clients and in closing sales. She maintains he began talking about things other than insurance and said "I hope you don't tell your husband what we talk about . . . because it's really making me hot." She also contends that he made a statement to the effect that he "wondered how long it would take before she got him to a motel room." The Petitioner testified that she went home that day and tried to decide whether to quit her job or not. She decided to seek a transfer to the Ocala office, where Mr. Wine was the manager. She conferred with Mr. Wine by phone and he allegedly told her that she could come to his office as a new applicant. In reality, as revealed by Mr. Wine in his own testimony, he did not want her to come to work in his office and did not encourage her to do so. In the meantime, Ms. Jerrel was appointed as a Sales Representative of Metropolitan at the "Gator" branch office in Gainesville, effective June 8, 1987, following her "pre-appointment training." That pre-appointment training provides job applicants with an opportunity to get acquainted with the company's business, to obtain necessary licenses, and enables the management to determine the aptitude of the applicant for the sale of the company's product. She was provided the same training accorded all such individuals after initial hiring. Following her appointment as a Sales Representative in the Gainesville office she continued to receive training and assistance as was provided all those newly appointed. Ms. Jerrel met the initial production requirement so that she could be appointed Sales Representative. However, her performance began to deteriorate in July, 1987. She had written 11 applications for insurance (with Mr. Cummings' assistance) by the time of her appointment as a Sales Representative and wrote five by July 10, 1987. Thereafter, she wrote no business at all for two of the next four weeks. She wrote one application for insurance in the week of August 3, 1987 and none for the next three consecutive weeks. She wrote one application in the week of August 31, and had none thereafter during her employment with the company. The Petitioner alleges that on or about August 28, 1987, Mr. Cummings made a suggestion that the Petitioner and Cummings and another couple "play golf, smoke pot, and go to the beach and make love." Petitioner apparently took offense at that, as it was one of the bases for the subject action. Upon her commenting about it to another female employee however, that employee, who knew Cummings for a longer period of time than the Petitioner, advised her to disregard it because it was her belief that he was "just joking." The Petitioner also alleged that several days after this incident on or about August 31, 1987, that Cummings was engaged in a conversation with her while kneeling beside her chair where she was working at her computer terminal. She alleges that he put his arm around her shoulder while conversing with her, let his hand rest on her breast and massaged her breast whereupon she states that she stabbed him with her "ink pen." These allegations are of somewhat dubious credibility. The Petitioner herself testified that after the August 31 date, at which the last of the above incidents allegedly occurred, Mr. Cummings still praised her as an employee and predicted that she would get the "Eagle Award." It is also established, by Petitioner's own testimony, that during this period of time in August, 1987, she was undergoing treatment for depression. There is some indication that she was having marital discord with her husband and, indeed, an incident occurred shortly after, on September 10, 1987, which indicates that her relationship with her husband might have interfered somewhat with her job performance. On that date she met agent Michael Ray from the company's Jacksonville office, whom she had known in insurance school. They went to a local establishment where, according to her own testimony, they had a "couple of drinks" whereupon she got sick and went home. Her husband apparently became upset by this episode and shortly thereafter went to the company's Jacksonville office in an attempt to confront agent Ray about apparently interfering with his relationship with his wife, the Petitioner. Later that day, the Petitioner called her own office in Gainesville to warn them that her husband might be coming there armed with a gun. While this is commendable on the Petitioner's part, it does indicate that there was some marital discord which may have interfered with her job performance and together with the fact of her depression and treatment for it, may have influenced her thinking and her perception of what was actually occurring in her encounters with Mr. Cummings. He was described by another employee as a "touchy person" who frequently touched people in an innocent manner while engaged in a conversation with them. These factors, considered together, coupled with Cummings' denial that the incidents occurred, in the case of his allegedly touching the Petitioner's breast, and his testimony that if he touched someone, it was without any wrongful intent, lead the Hearing Officer to find that the incidents either did not occur, that they did not happen in the manner perceived by the Petitioner, or that the motive behind them was misconstrued by the Petitioner. On September 16, 1987, Mr. Cummings offered to try to obtain a transfer for Ms. Jerrel to another office if she would like and offered to give her two weeks in which to decide whether she wanted a transfer and to "tie up loose ends." The Petitioner later refused his offer of a transfer to another office. The offer of transfer, according to the Petitioner, was because of her husband's influence on her performance in her work place, as evidenced, in part, by the incident referenced above. On September 20, a Sunday evening, Ms. Jerrel called manager Cummings at his home. She asked him to meet her at the office. Manager Cummings declined to go to the office, suggesting that they discuss whatever her problem was over the telephone. Ms. Jerrel refused to do that so then Cummings suggested that she come to his home (where his wife would be present) to discuss the matter with him and she declined. Ms. Jerrel then hung up but called back a few minutes later and said that if Manager Cummings refused to meet her at the office then she would file a sexual harassment charge against him. He was taken aback by this statement but then advised her to do what she chose but he was still not going to meet her at the office that evening. Mr. Cummings met with Ms. Jerrel in the branch office the next morning and telephoned his Regional Manager, in Ms. Jerrel's presence, to relay to him the information regarding her claim of sexual harassment. Arrangements were then made, in accordance with established company procedures, in evidence, for Agency Vice President, James Higgins, to meet with Ms. Jerrel on September 24, regarding her claim of sexual harassment. When Mr. Higgins met with her and heard her allegations, he advised her of the company's policy against sexual harassment, and assured her that if the incidents had occurred as alleged, he would correct the situation and there would be no recurrence. He also took that opportunity to discuss with Ms. Jerrel her performance as a sales representative. He advised her that upon review of her performance, he had noted that she had been "blank"; that is, without any sales or production for several weeks. He informed her that that was not a satisfactory performance level. He told her that she would have to produce a satisfactory record of sales accomplishments or her employment would be terminated. As a result of this discussion she agreed to submit an "action plan", delineating in detail what steps she proposed to take to correct her unsatisfactory production level. That action plan included her assurance that she would participate in "telephone prospecting classes" with her supervisor. Mr. Higgins also interviewed Manager Cummings with respect to Ms. Jerrel's allegations of sexual harassment. Mr. Cummings denied them. Mr. Higgins then warned Manager Cummings that if he were found to have engaged in such conduct, his employment would be terminated. Respondent's exhibit 14 is a letter from Mr. Higgins to Manager Cummings delineating the problems with the Petitioner's lack of sales performance. The exhibit contains a detailed discussion of her action plan goals designed to try to correct her lack of production of insurance sales. The letter admonishes Manager Cummings to monitor her performance, particularly her telephone prospecting time and methods, as well as her other prospecting and sales efforts and methods. The letter emphasizes, on the second page, the monitoring and establishment of a schedule of in-office telephone prospecting time, to be monitored by Mr. Cummings. In that letter is a handwritten memorandum of a telephone conversation which Mr. Higgins later had with Mr. Cummings, on the same day the letter went out to Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cummings informed Mr. Higgins that Ms. Jerrel had already missed two scheduled telephone prospecting classes which she had agreed to attend in her "action plan", designed to correct poor sales performance. Since she did not report to the scheduled telephone prospecting class sessions on September 25th and September 28th, Mr. Higgins ordered Manager Cummings to terminate her effective October 1, 1988. The reason for her termination was established to be her low- performance record and her failure to comply with the action plan which she, herself, prepared and submitted, designed to correct her poor sales performance. The termination did not result from the altercation that the Petitioner was involved in with her husband and agent Michael Ray of the Jacksonville branch office. In fact, the Branch Manager, Mr. Cummings' superior, had a discussion of that issue with Mr. Cummings and informed him that the New York home office had indicated that the Petitioner's husband's interference with her job or office operations was not a sufficient reason to terminate her. The company's policies and procedures regarding sexual harassment claims, equal employment opportunity, affirmative action and prevention of unlawful discrimination are in evidence. The record does not reflect that those policies were departed from in the situation at bar.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the petition of Barbara Jerrel be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, Esq. Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Suite 240 Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Rodney W. Smith, Esq. P.O. Box 628 Alachua, FL 32615 Wi1liam G. Pappas, Esq. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company One Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010-3690
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Jo Nees, is a 52 year old caucasian woman who appears to be her age. Ms. Nees first moved to Destin, Florida in or about April, 1982, and upon arrival in the area, submitted an application for employment to the Delchamps store which was accepted, but about which she never heard anything from store personnel. Ms. Nees lives in the Destin East Mobile Home Park with Mr. Emerson, a gentleman with whom she has shared the mobile home for several years. In January or February, 1985, Ms. Nees went to the Delchamps store in Destin, where, she alleges, she spoke with the store manager, Mr. Owens, and asked him for an application for employment. At this point, according to Ms. Nees, he refused, indicating he preferred people younger than Petitioner. She concluded from their discussion that he felt that due to the large number of customers during the crowded summer tourist season, she would not be able to keep up and used the term, she contends, "older people." As a result she became quite upset with Mr. Owens and after this colloquy, she paid for her groceries and left. Ms. Nees contends that the conversation referenced above was overheard by the assistant manager, Mr. Few, and the cashier, Kathy Richardson. Though the cashier did not say anything at the time, she was present at the check-out counter where the conversation took place and must have heard it. The assistant manager, Mr. Few, in Ms. Nees' recollection, tried to smooth things over and calm her down. At approximately 4:30 a.m. in November, 1985, just before Thanksgiving, Ms. Nees was again in the Delchamps store. Mr. Few, she contends, came up to her and spoke to her by name. However, as she was checking out a few moments later, and he was manning the cash register, he advised her that if she filed any sort of complaint against the company, he would not know her. Ms. Nees continued to patronize the Delchamps store after the conversations with Mr. Owens because it is the only major supermarket in the area and she prefers to use it because of the quality of the product and the price. At no time has she been offered an application for employment by the store, nor has she been offered employment. As of the hearing, Ms. Nees had a job at a convenience and package store in Destin where she has worked since May, 1985. At the time she applied for a position with Delchamps she had been unemployed since December, 1984, when she left her prior job as manager of a local motel because of poor wages. In May, 1985, she was earning $4.20 an hour on a 40-hour week. Though complaining about the fact that she was not offered employment or even given an application in January, 1985, Petitioner is nonetheless satisfied that at that time, no employment was available at the Delchamps store. She contends, however, that they could have accepted her application and hired her even though she was not needed so that she would be available later on when the busy season came. At the time of the application, the period was one of low employment in the area. Ms. Nees has also filed a discrimination complaint against the neighboring Eckerd's Drug Store for failure to hire her, also on the basis of age. At the hearing, Petitioner testified that she had applied to Delchamps only once, yet on cross examination it appears she applied once and requested an application a second time. The EEOC form 5 filed in April, 1985, reflects that she applied three times for a position at Delchamps. Ms. Nees explains that the information contained on the form 5, though it bears her signature, was given over the telephone to the clerk at the Commission office and that she only applied once and requested an application form a second time. Inasmuch as Ms. Nees' testimony indicates that she applied in January or February, it is quite possible that in recounting the story over the telephone, the clerk misunderstood her comment and put down that she applied in both January and February, 1985, and that Ms. Nees failed to catch the mistake when she signed the form. This is, however, de minimus. What is more significant is the fact that none of the other parties involved identified by Ms. Nees, have any recollection of the situation being as she describes it. According to Mr. Owens, Ms. Nees at no time ever asked for an application, nor did he ever make to her the comments that she attributes to him. When he saw her at the investigation conducted by CHR, he recalled having seen her previously as a customer in the store, but at no time did she ever discuss employment with him, either alone or in the presence of Mr. Emerson, who, she claims, was a witness to the entire situation. Delchamps' policy is to accept an application form from anyone who asks for it and keep it on file. When employees are needed, people from the filed applications are called and interviewed, and selections are made. It is not company policy to take on as full-time employees, people who have not worked within the company before. Instead, people are hired on a part- time basis and then promoted to full-time positions from part- time status when openings occur. During the winter months, Mr. Owens has a staff of between 70 and 75 people. During the tourist season, that figure increases up to 120. Mr. Few, present at the discussion with Mr. Owens, does not recall any meeting between Nees and Owens and denies age discrimination. He agrees he saw her at the delicatessen counter early one morning as she alleges and greeted her. She seemed to be complaining to the counter clerk about Delchamps employment policy. When she got to the check-out counter he was manning, he offered her an application form in the hope it would put an end to the matter. She refused to accept it, however, and left after paying for her purchases. Kathryn Guidas, the cashier at the time of the alleged conversation between Ms. Nees and Mr. Owens, recalls seeing Petitioner in the store numerous times as a customer, but did not hear any conversation between Petitioner and Mr. Owens regarding employment. In fact, she has never seen Petitioner and Mr. Owens together. She has been asked for application forms by customers from time to time. When this happens, she refers them to either the manager or his assistant. Petitioner has not, to the best of her knowledge, ever asked her for an application form. On one occasion, Mr. Emerson mentioned that he had filed an employment discrimination complaint against the company and expected to hear something soon, but made no mention of any discrimination complaint by Petitioner. In her testimony at the prior inquiry, Ms. Nees identified Vicky White as an employee who was present at the conversation she claims to have had with Mr. Owens. Ms. White has worked in the Destin store as a clerk in the bakery and deli for approximately 10 years, but denies having ever seen Petitioner prior to the hearing. Neither does she know Mr. Emerson and she denies she has ever discussed company hiring policy with either Petitioner or Emerson. She has never been present at any conversation between Owens and Nees. In light of the above, it is most likely that Ms. Nees did not ask for an application at all. It would have been unnecessary for Owens to deny her one in light of the policy when, if she was not wanted, she need not have been called in for an interview. Ms. Nees would like to be compensated for the time she was improperly denied employment by Delchamps and would like to be offered a permanent job at the store. She is concerned, however, that if offered a job as a result of a settlement, she would be discharged shortly thereafter: a result that she does not desire. If she is to be hired, she would like to be assured that she can keep the job and not face layoff as retribution for her actions here. In her post hearing submission, she reiterates her desire for a settlement and a job because she is, apparently, no longer working at the convenience store and the Delchamps store is only two blocks from-her residence. Based on all the evidence, considering the inherent probabilities and improbabilities of the testimony, it is obvious that Ms. Nees is anxious to be employed by Delchamps and/or to receive compensation from them. She has, however, scant evidence to establish that she was discriminated against because of her age. She admits that there were no openings at the time of her alleged conversation with Mr. Owens, and that she also filed a discrimination complaint against Eckerd' s, again knowing that no vacancies existed. When Ms. Nees was not hired, it was clearly for undisclosed reasons other than her age and there is no evidence of any discrimination by Respondent
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief filed by Jo Nees be denied. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 9 day of May, 1986. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 9th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Jo Nees Box 89 Destin East Mobile Home Park Destin, Florida 32541 William C. Tidwell, Esquire Post Office Box 123 Mobile, AL 36601 - Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner has been subjected to discrimination within the meaning of the relevant provisions of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, based upon alleged sexual harassment in the course of her employment and retaliation for her complaints concerning the alleged sexual harassment.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee of the Respondent at times pertinent hereto. It is undisputed that that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and that timeliness and jurisdictional requirements have been met. The Respondent obtained a contract with the United States Navy for a project to be performed at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida. It became the contractor for the project in approximately December of 1991. The contract, in pertinent part, provided that the Respondent would provide local cartage trucking services for the Navy on and in the environs of the Pensacola Naval Air Station. The project involved loading and transportation of aircraft parts and related supplies and equipment. The Petitioner was hired as a truck driver, delivering aircraft parts for the naval aviation depot (NADEP). During the course of that employment, there came a time when the Petitioner contended that she had been discriminated against because of her gender. The Petitioner contends that in a meeting in December of 1991, she was told by Terry Meyers, an employee of the Respondent and the Petitioner's supervisor, that she "didn't look like a truck driver" and that she had three weeks to look for another job. The meeting in which the statements were allegedly made was a meeting called by the Petitioner's supervisor and the project manager, Mr. Danny Francis, to address certain deficiencies in the Petitioner's performance. Another employee, Mr. Braughton, was also counseled at the meeting concerning his performance as a truck driver. His was the same type of employment position as that occupied by the Petitioner. Mr. Braughton is a white male. The Petitioner maintains that she informed a white male employee, Mike Morris, of the statements allegedly made at the meeting and that he immediately made a telephone call to Mr. Frank Moody, the president of the corporation, to put the president and the corporation on notice of sexual discrimination against the Petitioner. The Petitioner, however, was not present when Mr. Morris made that telephone call to Mr. Moody. Even had he made reference to alleged sexual discrimination in his telephone call to Mr. Moody, Mr. Morris only learned of the purported sexually-discriminatory statements from the Petitioner. The Petitioner maintained that Mr. Morris informed her that he had heard the statements made while standing at the door of the room in which the meeting occurred and that Mr. Morris initiated the telephone call on his own volition to Mr. Moody, based upon hearing those statements. Mr. Morris, however, testified to the contrary, stating that the Petitioner approached him and claimed that she was on probation and was fearful of being laid off from employment and that the Petitioner told him of the alleged sexually-discriminatory statements and that he did not hear them himself. He further testified that the Petitioner instructed him to contact Mr. Moody concerning her fears about her job and the alleged discriminatory statements or she would contact "HRO and EEO and have the contract shut down". Mr. Morris, indeed, called Mr. Moody but never mentioned the statements alleged by the Petitioner to have been made to her by Mr. Meyers during the performance evaluation meeting. In fact, it has been demonstrated by Mr. Morris' testimony, which the Hearing Officer accepts as more credible, that the Petitioner never complained to Mr. Morris about a sexually-discriminatory statement or purported sexual discrimination. Mr. Morris, instead, spoke to Mr. Moody about problems he saw occurring in the operation in Pensacola which he attributed to the project manager, Mr. Danny Francis. He told Mr. Moody that Mr. Francis was allowing employees to leave work early without Mr.. Moody's knowledge and still crediting them with working a full day on such occasions which, in effect, cost the corporation additional salary monies which were unearned. The meeting in which the Petitioner was allegedly confronted with the statement that she did not look like a truck driver and had three weeks to look for another job was called and conducted by Mr. Francis and Mr. Meyers was present. It is undisputed that Mr. Moody terminated Mr. Francis shortly after the telephone conversation with Mr. Morris. He replaced Mr. Francis with the current project manager, John Jacobs. Mr. Moody testified that in a telephone conversation with the Petitioner that she never mentioned to him the alleged sexually-discriminatory statements referenced above. Instead, he was told by both Mr. Morris and the Petitioner that she was concerned that she might lose her job because of the results of the meeting with Mr. Francis, in which he told her that she needed to improve her job performance. In fact, the management of the Respondent perceived a genuine job performance problem involving the Petitioner's conduct of her job duties. This was disclosed in the testimony of both Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Morris, where it was revealed that the Petitioner had had a continuing problem performing her job correctly and that Mr. Morris and the management personnel had worked with her constantly during the course of her employment term with the Respondent, taking more time and personal attention with her than with other employees. This was done in order to repetitively explain her job duties and give her additional chances to improve her work performance, in comparison to the lesser degree of attention and remedial help that they accorded other employees. Prior to February 3, 1993, the Petitioner had been employed with the Respondent for over a year. The testimony of Mr. Jacobs established, however, that even though her probationary period had long since elapsed, he still considered the Petitioner to be, in effect, an employee in training because she was deficient in correctly accomplishing all of the duties of her job. She was slow in performing her job duties, including preventive maintenance inspections of her vehicle and in making the "pickups and deliveries" of freight she was required to transport on her truck in the performance of her duties. The counseling session concerning her work performance occurring in December of 1991, referenced above, was during her probationary period. The white male employee, Mr. Rick Braughton, who was also counseled about deficient work performance on that occasion, was informed that he might not remain employed past his probationary period unless his performance improved. The Respondent had a regular practice and procedure, as part of its truck safety and preventive maintenance program, that employees, who were drivers, were required to give a preventive maintenance and safety inspection of their vehicles each day prior to leaving the company facility or terminal to transport aviation parts or other freight. This was regarded as crucial to proper job performance by the employer because of the concern about safety of the drivers and avoidance of damage, and liability for damage, to the expensive equipment and parts which the Respondent was required by its contract to transport, such as expensive military aircraft parts and related equipment. Among these preventive maintenance inspection duties that driver/employees, such as the Petitioner, were required to perform daily was the requirement to check the air in the truck tires and "top off" the tires with the required air pressure, if necessary. 10 Mr. Jacobs established that there came a time when the Petitioner was noted to have failed on multiple occasions, in the same week, to check and air her tires. Finally, upon this deficiency coming to his attention again on February 3, 1993, Mr. Jacobs suspended the Petitioner for a day without pay, for failing to check and air her tires. The Petitioner claims that she was the only employee singled out for this treatment concerning failure to inspect and air her tires. The testimony of Mr. Jacobs is deemed more credible, having observed the candor and demeanor of all of the witnesses, and it is determined that the employer had a good-faith belief that the Petitioner was deficient in this regard and that the reprimand, consisting of the one-day suspension, was justified. It was not demonstrated that, even if the Petitioner's version of events is true and that other driver/employees were not disciplined for failure to air their tires, that such a circumstance occurred as a result of the employer's knowledge of other driver/employees failing to air their tires and arbitrarily choosing not to discipline them. In fact, it was not demonstrated by preponderant, non-self-serving evidence that other employees had not been disciplined for failure to air their tires. In fact, it was not shown, other than by the self-serving testimony of the Petitioner, that other employees had failed to air their tires when required. The other drivers are mostly male, but one is a female. There was no showing that she was treated any differently than the male drivers. In summary, it has been established that the employer accorded the reprimand to the Petitioner because of a good-faith belief that her performance had been deficient, on repeated occasions, in this respect. It is undisputed that prior to the date the Petitioner received the reprimand, consisting of one-day suspension without pay, that the Petitioner had a generally good attitude about her job insofar as management was able to observe. Even though management had had some concerns about her performance and the slow manner in which she was learning certain aspects of her job, with resulting deficient effects upon her performance, management forbore from using these concerns to reduce her performance rating. She received good evaluations of her performance, insofar as her personnel record is concerned, prior to the time she was suspended for one day on February 3, 1993. After the Petitioner received the suspension she developed a "bad attitude" insofar as her perception of management was concerned. She began to complain frequently about vehicle safety or purported concerns she had about the condition of her vehicle related to safety, particularly the truck brakes. Prior to her suspension, she had never complained in this regard. Management also perceived that she appeared to show down her work performance and management came to believe that it was an intentional delay of her work performance on an ongoing basis. Prior to receiving the reprimand, she was never known to complain to management concerning discrimination on account of her gender. She had never informed the project manager or any other supervisory personnel concerning her purported belief that employee Meyers was "following her". Only after she received the reprimand on February 3, 1993 did she elect to file a sexual discrimination charge with the Commission. Mr. Meyers had some supervisory authority over the Petitioner. His job duties also required that he drive his truck around the Naval Air Station and the immediate vicinity in the normal performance of his duties. This circumstance resulted in his being in close proximity to the Petitioner during the course of their respective work days. He contends that he was not purposely following her for the purpose of harassing her. The overall evidence of record reveals, however, that he, indeed, did follow or stop in her vicinity on a number of occasions to observe her work performance. This was not shown to be out of the ordinary scope of his supervisory duties, especially because of management's concern that the Petitioner was not progressing in the learning and performance of her job duties as well as other employees, including the other female driver. The project manager, Mr. Jacobs, felt that the Petitioner's attitude continued to decline after the February 3, 1993 reprimand. He felt that her attitude and performance reached its lowest level on the date she was observed to be loading "unauthorized equipment" (apparently a portion of a helicopter assembly weighing approximately 4,000 pounds) on the flatbed trailer of her assigned work truck. She was not authorized to load that equipment and apparently, according to her testimony, she did so in order to provide a substantial amount of weight on her trailer for the purpose of having her brakes inspected by the quality assurance official for the project. She went to an unauthorized area for approximately one hour to have this inspection performed without the approval of the Respondent's management. Further, it was not necessary, in order to evaluate the brakes on the vehicle for proper function and safety, to have the weight of the unauthorized load placed on the trailer. If, indeed, the brakes had been defective, it would have been entirely possible that the expensive aircraft parts she had placed on the trailer without authorization could have been substantially damaged, the truck or other property could have been damaged, and, indeed, the Petitioner or other persons could have been injured. Additionally, the Petitioner misrepresented the reason she was in the unauthorized area where she had her brakes inspected by Mr. Lett, the quality assurance officer. In this connection, because she had begun to complain repeatedly about the condition of her brakes and her vehicle (after her reprimand), the project manager, Mr. Jacobs, had had certain other employees come in on several occasions at approximately 6:00 a.m., before normal working hours, and before the Petitioner arrived on the job site, to inspect the Petitioner's truck for safety and appropriate preventive maintenance purposes. These employees were not informed that it was the Petitioner's truck they were inspecting at the time they were told to do the inspections. The Respondent was attempting to ascertain the true condition of the Petitioner's truck and determine whether her reports concerning safety problems, particularly with her brakes, were accurate or not. In fact, on the morning of the day when the unauthorized load was placed on the truck and the Petitioner had Mr. Lett perform the inspection of her brakes at the unauthorized area, one of the Petitioner's co-employees had inspected her brakes before she arrived to take custody of her truck that morning. He had determined that the brakes were operating properly. The Petitioner and Mr. Lett apparently felt that the brakes were deficient when they were inspected early in the afternoon of that day. The record does not reveal whether the brakes were deficient when Mr. Lett inspected them or that some change in the adjustment of the brakes or other problem had arisen since the employee inspected them early that morning and found them to be in proper operating order. Be that as it may, management was of the belief on that day and prior thereto that the Petitioner, although reporting brake deficiency problems, did not truly experience such brake deficiency problems with her truck. This belief was based upon management perceptions concerning the Petitioner's attitude after her reprimand and upon the independent, confidential inspections management had other employees do on the Petitioner's truck. Accordingly, whether its belief was accurate or not, management was of the good-faith belief, on the date she was observed loading unauthorized, expensive equipment onto the flatbed truck, in an unnecessary fashion, for the purpose of having her brakes inspected, while being absent from her work assignment for one hour in an unauthorized area, that it had performance-related reasons to terminate her, which it did. This decision was made against the background of the increasingly poor attitude displayed by the Petitioner since her reprimand and because of the continuing problems management had experienced with the Petitioner's job performance since her initial employment one and one- half years previously. Although the Petitioner testified that as early as December of 1991, the management of the Respondent had spoken with her regarding her work performance and she interpreted that meeting as an attack on her gender and not upon her poor work habits, this contention was not verified by any other testimony. Having observed the candor and demeanor of the Petitioner versus that of the other witnesses, it is determined that her testimony is less creditable because of its self-serving nature. Although the Petitioner testified that a comment was made that "she did not look like a truck driver" and that she had three weeks to find another job, this was not verified through testimony of any other witness. To the extent that any other witnesses testified concerning these statements being made in a belief that discrimination had been exhibited toward the Petitioner, the evidence reveals that this information only came to these people through self-serving reports by the Petitioner herself. Meyers directly contradicts that these statements were made to the Petitioner and he states that he never heard anyone tell her that she had three weeks to look for a job or that she "didn't look like a truck driver". The petitioner provided no testimony or evidence which could show how these alleged statements constituted "sexual discrimination" or how the statements related to her sexual discrimination claim. It was not shown that any member of management, with employment-decision authority, made or condoned such statements even if it had been established that they evidenced gender-based discrimination, which was not done. The Petitioner did not complain of sexual discrimination per se until after she had received a reprimand from management. Likewise, she began to repetitively claim that her equipment was unsafe after the reprimand. The Petitioner may have been overly sensitive to management's concern for safety inspections of her truck because of being reprimanded for safety violations and was afraid she would "get into trouble" with management if she did not constantly report feared safety problems. The fact was established, however, that management had a genuine, good-faith belief that it was being harassed by these repetitive, unsafe equipment reports by the Petitioner, given the then- prevailing atmosphere surrounding the Petitioner's employment, characterized by her less than satisfactory attitude, as perceived by management, and the fact that management's confidential inspections of her equipment did not reveal any safety problems of the type reported by the Petitioner. Finally, it is especially noteworthy that during this period of time when the Petitioner made the claim of sexual discrimination and retaliation based upon her claim, that the Respondent had in its employ, in an identical job position, a female truck driver who had had no unsatisfactory experience by management with her performance, was not subjected to investigative or disciplinary measures, and who is still satisfactorily employed with the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the petition herein in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1459 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact which are not in separately-numbered, discrete paragraphs. The paragraphs contain some proposed findings of fact which the Hearing Officer accepts and some which are rejected as being not supported by preponderant evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the same subject matter. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are intertwined with argument and discussions of the weight of the evidence or testimony. Because the paragraphs in the proposed findings of fact contain both findings of fact which the Hearing Officer accepts and which the Hearing Officer rejects, discrete, specific rulings thereon are not practicable. It suffices to say that all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are subordinate to, but have been considered and addressed in the findings of fact portion of this Recommended Order and have been in that fashion completely ruled upon. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The same considerations are true of the Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Some portions of the findings of fact proposed by the Respondent consist of merely discussions and argument concerning the weight of the evidence and some are acceptable to the Hearing Officer based upon the Hearing Officer's determination of the weight and credibility of the testimony and evidence. Some are rejected as being unnecessary or subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact made on the same subject matter. Here, again, this Recommended Order completely and adequately addresses the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, and the Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted to the extent they are not inconsistent with those made by the Hearing Officer and to the extent they are inconsistent therewith, they are rejected as being not supported by preponderant evidence or as being immaterial, unnecessary, or subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry W. McCleary, Esquire 3 West Garden Street Suite 380 Pensacola, FL 32501 Donna Gardner, Esquire 213 South Alcaniz Street Pensacola, FL 32501 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent, Coastal Properties (“Respondent” or “Coastal Properties”), discriminated against Petitioner, Harry (Hal) Hingson (“Petitioner”), based upon his age and race in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01-760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Caucasian male who was 60 years old in May of 2014, when Respondent allegedly discriminated against him by terminating his employment because of his age. Respondent is a management company for third-party owners of apartment communities, home owners associations, and condominium associations. Respondent employed Petitioner as a maintenance worker at the Twin Oaks apartment complex, a 242-unit apartment complex in Tallahassee, Florida. On May 6, 2014, after work, Petitioner and his supervisor, Clint Creel, were involved in a physical altercation off the job site, while fishing together on a boat. After the boat returned to the dock, Petitioner went inside his home. Rather than securing himself in his residence and calling law enforcement, Petitioner retrieved a gun from his residence, exited his residence, and fired the gun multiple times at Mr. Creel. Mr. Creel was struck in the back of the leg by a bullet and received medical treatment for his gunshot wound. Although he was shot, Mr. Creel returned to work the next day. Petitioner did not return to work the day after the incident as he was seeking medical treatment for the injuries he sustained during the physical altercation. Two days after the shooting, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment. The decision to terminate Petitioner was made by the Respondent's Vice-President, Ray Allen, in consultation with the President, Dennis Fuller, after Mr. Allen spoke to both Mr. Creel, and Petitioner, about the shooting. Respondent presented the undisputed testimony of Mr. Allen and Mr. Ray that Petitioner's employment was terminated to protect the safety of the other employees and the residents at the Twin Oaks property. Mr. Creel expressed concern about his safety to Mr. Allen if he had to continue working with Petitioner. Mr. Allen and Mr. Fuller also were concerned about the safety of Mr. Creel, as well as the other employees and residents, if Petitioner and Mr. Creel continued to work together. Petitioner's Discrimination Complaint alleges that Petitioner was discriminated against based on race and age. In particular, Petitioner alleges that he was discriminated against because he was terminated after the off-the-job altercation, but his younger supervisor was not. The evidence adduced at the final hearing, however, failed to substantiate Petitioner's claim of discrimination. Other than testifying that he at one time, prior to the incident, was told that he was moving slow and at another time was told he was acting feeble, Petitioner did not present any direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to reasonably suggest that Respondent discriminated against him in employment because of his age. Even if Petitioner had presented evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, Respondent provided a legitimate non- discriminatory reason for terminating Petitioner's employment. Petitioner admitted that Mr. Allen advised him that he was being terminated because he no longer wanted Petitioner and Mr. Creel to work together. Petitioner admitted Mr. Allen told him that he would have continued to employ Petitioner by moving him to another property, but there were no other openings. Respondent’s evidence demonstrated that the day after Petitioner was terminated, of its 59 employees, 25 were over the age of 40, 11 were over the age of 50, and one employee was older than Petitioner. The evidence also showed that 54 days after Petitioner was terminated, of Respondent’s 64 employees, 25 were over the age of 40, 10 were over the age of 50, and one employee was older than Petitioner. Petitioner failed to establish Respondent's reason for terminating his employment was a pretext for age discrimination. Petitioner's Discrimination Complaint further alleges he was discriminated against based on his race because another employee, a younger African-American, was arrested for DUI but was not terminated. Petitioner presented no evidence at the final hearing to substantiate that allegation, and Petitioner failed to present any evidence whatsoever to show that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner because of his race. In sum, Petitioner failed to show that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner by treating him differently, or terminating his employment because of his race or age.
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 Discrimination Complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida32399-3060 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 2015.
Findings Of Fact On January 2, 1992, Petitioner commenced an action in federal district court pursuant to the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Action ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. 621, et seq. The summons and complaint were not served upon Respondent until May, 1992. By statute, the filing of said federal action stayed the matter pending before the Florida Commission on Human Relations. 29 U.S.C. Section 633(a). Petitioner could have but did not bring an age discrimination claim under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, in his federal court case. On February 23, 1993, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida entered an order granting summary judgment for Respondent, Grumman Aerospace Corporation against Petitioner George E. Stolworthy. The district court held that "there is simply no evidence that Plaintiff's termination was motivated by a discriminatory intent on the part of the Defendant. Petitioner appealed the decision of the District Court to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal. On or about February 14, 1994, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's order of summary judgment. Mr. Stolworthy's claim of age discrimination before the Florida Commission on Human Relations arises out of the same common nucleus of operative facts as his age discrimination claim in federal court. Both cases allege age discrimination in the termination of Petitioner's employment. All of the issues in this case were decided in favor of Respondent by the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, on February 23, 1993. The district court held that Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner. The district court's decision was affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeal on February 14, 1994. That decision effectively resolves this matter either through the doctrine of res Judicata or collateral estoppel. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed and jurisdiction relinquished to the commission for entry of the appropriate final order. Finally, Petitioner was aware that he commenced an action against the Respondent herein in federal district court alleging violations of the ADEA and involving the same set of operative facts before the administrative hearing was held in February 13, 1992. At the time of the hearing, Respondent's counsel was unaware that Petitioner had commenced the aforementioned lawsuit. Additionally, neither Petitioner nor his counsel advised the Florida Commission on Human Relations or the Hearing Officer of the initiation of the federal lawsuit. Rather, Petitioner, through his counsel, continued to file documents with the Division in violation of Section 120.57(1)(b), Florida Statutes. Specifically, Petitioner pursued the instant action for an improper purpose knowing full well that the agency's jurisdiction should have been suspended, and could only have intended to improperly harass Respondent; to improperly utilize the Divisions hearing process for either discovery for the federal case or a trial run for the federal case; to improperly cause needless increase in the cost of the litigation to Respondent; and to improperly waste this agency's time. Respondent incurred attorney's fees and costs and expenses in the amount of $13,506.39 dollars. Moreover, after review of the transcript and evidence in this case it is clear that this action had no basis in fact or law and was therefore frivolous in nature. Therefore Respondent is entitled to an award of attorneys fees and costs in the amount of $13,506.39.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the termination of Petitioner's employment by Respondent constituted discrimination against Petitioner on the basis of gender.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female, a member of a protected group under applicable law, and was at all times material to this case, employed by Respondent until the termination of employment that is the subject of this dispute. Respondent is an employer as the term is defined by relevant sections of the St. Petersburg Municipal Code and the applicable Pinellas County Ordinance. During the period of time relevant to this dispute, Sam Obinwa owned Respondent. During the period of Mr. Obinwa's ownership, Respondent was a business engaged in providing health care supplies, including pharmaceuticals to customers. Beginning in July 1996, Petitioner was employed as a courier by Respondent. Petitioner was primarily assigned to make deliveries of supplies to Respondent's customers. Respondent also employed a second courier, a male, during this period. At some point during Petitioner's employment, Mr. Obinwa hired an office manager, Kim Henderson. Ms. Henderson became Petitioner's supervisor. Ms. Henderson was responsible for the operation of the office, including receiving customer complaints and resolving employee disputes. Mr. Obinwa testified that he received information related to the office operations from Ms. Henderson and relied upon it in making the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment. According to Mr. Obinwa's testimony, he received complaints regarding Petitioner's job performance and behavior from both customers and Ms. Henderson. Mr. Obinwa testified that he discussed the complaints with Petitioner during her employment. On December 14, 2003, Mr. Obinwa met with Petitioner and explained that her employment was being terminated. As grounds for the termination, Mr. Obinwa, in a termination letter provided to Petitioner, cited complaints about her behavior from both customers and work associates. The complaints included lack of cooperation, abusiveness, failure to follow instructions or to adhere to the delivery schedule, and missed or late medication deliveries. Petitioner asserts that she was terminated on account of gender. There is no credible evidence, direct or indirect, that Respondent's termination of Petitioner's employment was on account of gender. At the time of Petitioner's termination, Respondent employed eight to nine persons, including six to seven females. The employee most similarly situated to Petitioner (the male courier) was not terminated; however, there is no evidence that there were complaints regarding his behavior from either customers or work associates. At the hearing, Petitioner asserted that the male courier generally received the same treatment as did she. The evidence establishes that Petitioner received an additional benefit that was not provided to the male courier. Petitioner was permitted to use a company delivery vehicle for occasional personal transportation. There is no evidence that the male courier was permitted to take the company vehicle for personal use. Petitioner testified that another male employee identified as Herman Jones was hostile towards her and towards other women working for Respondent. Petitioner claimed that Mr. Jones was somehow responsible for her termination. Mr. Jones was a pharmacy technician. Mr. Jones was responsible for imputing prescription information into the computer system and for preparing the medications according to the prescriptions. Prior to being delivered to the customers by the couriers, the medications were checked by a pharmacist. There is no credible evidence that Mr. Jones had any supervisory duties related to Petitioner. There was testimony suggesting that there were personality conflicts between Petitioner and Mr. Jones. There is no evidence that Mr. Jones was involved in Mr. Obinwa's decision to terminate Petitioner's employment, other than the general consideration Mr. Obinwa gave to the complaints from Petitioner's co-workers related to her behavior in the office. At the hearing, Petitioner presented supportive letters from five customers who were apparently pleased with Petitioner's performance. Petitioner made between 100-200 deliveries each week to Respondent's customers. Mr. Obinwa testified that some of the customers to whom Petitioner made deliveries were happy and that others were not. No evidence related to damages to Petitioner was presented during the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's complaint be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie N. Rugg City of St. Petersburg Post Office Box 2842 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-2842 Suzanne M. Mucklow, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street, Sixth Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 Willie Mae Curry 2702 4th Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33705-3641 Donna J. Buchholz, Esquire D. J. Buchholz, P.A. 4320 El Prado Boulevard, 15 Tampa, Florida 33629
The Issue Whether the Respondent’s predecessor engaged in discriminatory employment practices by retaliation against Petitioner by discharging him, and giving him poor employment references thereafter because of a claim of discrimination Petitioner had filed with the Human Relations Commission alleging racial discrimination in denying Petitioner a promotion.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is Fitzgerald Wesley, a black male. The E-Z Serve is a corporation employing more than 15 employees which purchased Sunshine Jr. Food Stores, which was a corporation also employing more than 15 employees. E-Z Serve admits having assumed liability for Sunshine’s actions. Petitioner was employed by Respondent at Store 322 as an Assistant Manager, and was discharged by the Respondent on or about September 23, 1993. Petitioner performed a range of services for Respondent in store number 322 and was being trained to handle the responsibilities of managing this store. When the store’s manager left, Petitioner thought he would be considered for the promotional opportunity; however, he was not promoted to the opening which was filled by a white male. Feeling he had been discriminated against, the Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Commission on Human Relations raising the issue of racial discrimination in denying him the promotion. This case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings, Case No. 93-5059, and was ultimately closed for failure to prosecute. On or about September 23, 1993, the new manager of Store 322, Greg Grubbs, discharged the Petitioner without stating a reason for the action.1 The Petitioner applied for a similar position at a Suwannee Swifty convenience store down the street from Store 322. This store was managed by Kimberly Littman. Ms. Littman testified at the hearing. She was manager of the Suwannee Swifty store at which Petitioner applied for employment. Because of his prior experience, Ms. Littman was interested in hiring him. She contacted Greg Grubbs, who was the manager of Store 322 and the person who had discharged Petitioner. Ms. Littman asked Mr. Grubbs about the Petitioner’s work history. Mr. Grubbs advised Ms. Littman that Petitioner was a hard worker and did his job well, but Mr. Grubbs stated that Petitioner was prejudiced against customers. Ms. Littman concluded that Mr. Grubbs meant the Petitioner was prejudiced against White customers because the Petitioner was Black. Mr. Grubbs said he would not re-hire the Petitioner because he was prejudiced against customers. Notwithstanding the negative comment of Mr. Grubbs, Ms. Littman hired the Petitioner who went to work for her within three days of his discharge by Respondent. Petitioner’s wage was slightly lower; however, Petitioner did not have exact information regarding his wage loss. Petitioner represented himself and presented no evidence regarding his costs in presenting his case. Petitioner presented no evidence of mental anguish. Petitioner referenced other positions for which he applied; however, he did not present evidence that other potential employers had spoken with Mr. Grubbs. Petitioner eventually left the employment of Suwannee Swifty after being robbed two times. The Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Commission of Human Relations on March 28, 1994, based upon retaliation. In was investigated and a “no cause” determination was made.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that the Respondent engaged in retaliation against the Petitioner and direct the Respondent to take action to prevent any re-occurrence of this conduct with other employees; however, in the absence of any demonstrated injury or costs of litigation, the Petitioner not be awarded any damages or costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1998.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's termination from employment by Respondent on June 15, 2005, was discriminatory in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2005), due to Petitioner's race (African American).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a Black female, was employed by Respondent from November 23, 1998, until her termination on June 14, 2005. Petitioner had performed her duties as a housekeeper adequately during her employment period and had no major disciplinary reports in her record. Her annual reviews indicate she was a fair employee. She had a history of tardiness, but seemed to be getting better in her last years of employment. Petitioner had received a verbal warning notice on March 8, 2005, relating to an altercation with another employee, Katrina Stevens. It appears Petitioner did not instigate the confrontation nor did she actively participate in the argument between Stevens and another employee. She simply happened to be standing nearby when it occurred. A verbal warning notice is preliminary to a reprimand. The other employee, Martine Lane, received a reprimand for the incident. On June 8, 2005, Petitioner received another verbal warning notice, this time for instigating negative remarks toward her supervisor. The gravamen of her complaint about the supervisor was that a certain co-worker had been named Employee of the Month instead of Petitioner. Petitioner became more defiant towards her supervisors and management toward the end of her employment. She would not help out other employees when asked, preferring to tend to her own work area, even when her work was completed. She also made derogatory comments to the co-worker who had won Employee of the Month. When Petitioner's behavior did not change, a decision was made to terminate her employment. It was a difficult decision because good housekeepers were hard to find and Petitioner's work product had always been acceptable. Petitioner had always been well-liked and respected by fellow employees. Both co-workers and management had encouraged Petitioner to apply for supervisory positions when they opened. Her supervisors indicated that, with some training, she could handle a supervisory position. The decision to terminate Petitioner from employment was made by the Executive Housekeeper, Steve Jensen. He relied upon input from other management. On June 18, 2005, Petitioner was stopped from clocking in when she came to work. She was told to report to Jensen's office, which she did. At that time Jensen asked her whether she was still happy with her job, then told her she was being terminated. The reasons given were that she was not supportive, not a team player, and had become more belligerent to management. No mention of race was made as a basis for her termination and none seems to have existed. Petitioner was advised she would be entitled to vacation pay, but it was later discovered she had already used up her available vacation time. Respondent subsequently called Petitioner to offer her a different job, but Petitioner had no interest in returning to work for the company. Respondent has anti-discrimination policies in place, is an equal opportunity employer, and employs minorities in supervisory positions. Interestingly, however, there were no other Black housekeepers employed while Petitioner was working. When a supervisory position opened, Respondent would attempt to fill the position from within its existing employee pool. Two such positions opened when Petitioner was employed. Seven then-current employees applied for those positions, including Petitioner. Of the seven, four had prior supervisory experience; Petitioner did not. Two of the applicants had been with the company longer than Petitioner. Five of the seven applicants had computer knowledge and skills; Petitioner did not. Petitioner is the only candidate who admitted a fear of heights, a minor consideration for the position. Petitioner is the only candidate who stated she could not work on weekends. Petitioner was clearly not the best applicant for the job based on comparison to other candidates. Petitioner did not provide any evidence that her race was a basis for her termination from employment. None of her witnesses provided credible statements concerning discrimination. In fact, her witnesses by and large did not see any discrimination by management.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 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 January, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Hawkins 1556 University Lane, Number 407 Cocoa, Florida 32922 Theodore L. Shinkle, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 1800 West Hibiscus Boulevard, Suite 138 Melbourne, Florida 32901 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
