The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on October 5, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female who was hired by Respondent as a temporary employee on January 17, 2005. She continued to be employed by Respondent until she resigned her position on November 7, 2007. Respondent, PPS World Medical (PPS), is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. PPS is a distributor of medical supplies from manufacturers to physicians’ offices. Crystal Marx interviewed Petitioner and hired her as a temporary employee in January 2005. Petitioner worked for several months as a temporary employee, and her performance was very good. Ms. Marx recommended to Renee Placette that Petitioner be hired as a regular, full-time employee. Ms. Placette had an opportunity to observe Petitioner’s performance as a temporary employee. Ms. Placette made the final decision to hire Petitioner in a full-time position in May 2006 as a supply chain expediter. Ms. Marx and Ms. Placette are Caucasian females. After three months of employment, Ms. Marx decided to conduct a 90-day performance review of Petitioner. It was not standard procedure in the department where Petitioner worked to receive a 90-day review. However, Ms. Marx made the decision to conduct the review to let Petitioner know about some concerns so Petitioner would have an opportunity to make improvements before her annual review. In a meeting to discuss the 90-day review, Ms. Marx addressed the following issues with Petitioner: work that was not being completed correctly which resulted in Ms. Marx's receiving e-mails concerning mistakes Petitioner was making; issues Petitioner was having with her coworkers; and Petitioner’s practice of skipping lunch and leaving an hour early without prior approval. The score received by Petitioner on her 90-day review did not affect Petitioner’s compensation in any way. When initially hired, Ms. Marx was Petitioner’s direct supervisor. At some point in time, Patricia Barnard was brought in as another layer of supervision. Ms. Barnard worked for Ms. Marx. For a period of time, Petitioner e-mailed Ms. Barnard when she went to, and returned from, her 15-minute break. This issue initially arose when several people asked Ms. Barnard where Petitioner was when she was away on her break. Ms. Barnard discussed this with Petitioner. Petitioner then suggested that she e-mail Ms. Barnard when she left on her break and upon her return. Ms. Barnard did not require Petitioner to do this. When Petitioner stopped sending these e-mails, Ms. Barnard did not instruct Petitioner to resume sending the e-mails or take any action regarding the e-mails. During a period of time when Petitioner was on medical leave, two accounts were reassigned to other employees while she was away. One of the accounts was assigned to another employee, Tracy Hundley, who is African-American. After that, Ms. Barnard and Ms. Marx took over the account for a while, later assigning it to Tara Nelson, another African-American employee. In any event, Petitioner did not receive any extra pay when she handled those accounts, and did not receive any cut in pay when these accounts were reassigned to others. On November 17, 2006, Petitioner received a Documented Verbal Warning for failure to properly notify management of her absence. On August 15, 2007, Petitioner received a Final Written Warning for unprofessional and inappropriate behavior towards an employee relations representative. On May 8, 2007, Ms. Barnard completed a job performance annual review of Petitioner. On her annual review, Petitioner received a score of 80, which is an average score. Ms. Marx approved the review as prepared by Ms. Barnard. Allegations of failure to promote Petitioner applied for the position of “WM Supply Chain Procurement Specialist” in November 2006. Petitioner again applied for the Procurement Specialist position in May 2007. Petitioner received an e-mail from Ms. Placette advising her that three people were hired with “a lot of buying experience.” In July 2007, Petitioner applied for the position of IT Governance Process Analyst. She received a letter from the IT Governance Process Manager of PSS which informed her that she was not selected for the position. There is nothing in the record establishing the qualifications required for these positions, whether Petitioner met these qualifications, or even whether these positions could be considered as promotions. Further, no competent evidence was presented as to the identity, qualifications, or race of the persons who were hired into these positions. Other allegations Petitioner also alleged that she was paid less then what had been promised, $11.54 an hour, in her letter offering employment. Petitioner contends that she was instead paid one cent an hour less, i.e., $11.53 per hour. The official pay stub reflects her rate of pay to have been $11.54 per hour. Further, Petitioner alleged that she was, at some point, given a new wireless headset which was replaced by a used one that she described as “yucky.” Employees who work in “confirmation” received wireless headsets because those employees needed to be able to go to the fax machine and the printer while on the telephone with a vendor. Petitioner was an “expediter” not a “confirmation” person, and did not need to be able to go to the fax machine or the printer as often while on the telephone. Petitioner resigned her position on November 2, 2007. At the time she resigned, she informed her co-workers that she owned her own t-shirt business and resigned to run her own company full time. At hearing, Petitioner asserted that she resigned because there was a “different atmosphere,” that she was stressed, and could not work there anymore. There was no competent evidence presented that establishes or even suggests that any employment action taken by Respondent toward Petitioner was based on race.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2008, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of August, 2008.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to attorneys' fees.
Findings Of Fact On June 4, 1992, Respondent transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings file materials containing allegations that Petitioner was guilty of child abuse and Petitioner's demand for a hearing. The file was assigned DOAH Case No. 92-3396C. After several continunaces, DOAH Case No. 92-3396C was set for final hearing March 30, 1993, in Tampa. By letter dated March 23, 1993, Respondent, through the District Administrator of District 7, stated to Petitioner: [Respondent], during the trial preparation phase of this case, has voluntarily decided to reclassify your role in the incident in question. As a result of this reclassification, you are no longer identified as having committed abuse or neglect with respect to the alleged incident and the [abuse] report will be changed accordingly. On March 26, 1992, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the case. On April 15, 1993, an Order Closing File was entered. On May 3, 1993, Petitioner commenced the above-styled proceeding by filing a Motion for Award of Attorney's Fees and Court Costs together with an affidavit of fees and costs. On May 7, 1993, Respondent filed a response demanding that the motion be dismissed. DOAH Case No. 92-3396C was initiated based on the complaints of a minor who charged that Petitioner, her uncle, had sexually abused her for six years on a weekly basis. Respondent's protective investigator spoke with the alleged victim, who repeated these charges, as well as to her parents, who believed her, and to a mental health counsellor, who either said she believed the alleged victim or at least did not say that she did not believe alleged victim. Petitioner steadfastly denied the charges. However, the protective investigator did not contact him prior to closing the case as proposed confirmed. Nor did the protective investigator contact the alleged victim's physician, who would have informed the protective investigator that physical examination of the vagina of the alleged victim disclosed no abnormal findings. The physician would have stated that the alleged victim evidently had not previously engaged in sexual intercourse, which would have contradicted the alleged victim's charges against Petitioner. The record does not disclose that the alleged victim ever recanted. The record contains no direct evidence of an improper purpose on the part of Respondent. In effect, Petitioner urges that such a purpose be inferred from the circumstances. As long as the alleged victim stood by her earlier statements, there remained a genuine issue of fact. Under all of the circumstances, her statement may not have been entitled to much weight. Perhaps evaluating the evidence in like manner, Respondent wisely concluded that its resources could be better directed than litigating DOAH Case No. 92-3396C. But the persistence of the alleged victim in charging Petitioner with sexual abuse undermines the inference that Respondent pursued the prosecution of Petitioner for an improper purpose. In the absence of stronger evidence contradicting the alleged victim's charges, Petitioner fails to show that Respondent maintained the prosecution for an improper purpose.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was discriminated against through an adverse employment decision by the Respondent, because of the Petitioner's age.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was hired by the Respondent on or about April 27, 1998, as a salesperson. When the Petitioner was hired he was 77 years of age. He is currently 84 years of age. Apparently the principal reason the Petitioner was hired was because of his substantial business contacts and principal client, which was Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. The Petitioner had sold food, principally seafood, to Winn Dixie for a substantial period of time. The Petitioner worked for a division of the Respondent known as the Great Fish Company. The Great Fish Company began operations in October of 1998. Mr. Carter, the president of Great Fish Company was the Petitioner's supervisor. During his employment with the Respondent, the Petitioner worked from his home. He sold seafood to customers, principally Winn Dixie, for which he was primarily paid on a commission basis. During his term of employment his compensation plan was periodically changed by the Respondent. Some of those changes financially benefited the Petitioner in some years and other changes served to reduce his commission or compensation. During the term of the Petitioner's employment with the Respondent, the Respondent also periodically changed the compensation plans of other employees of the Respondent; some of those changes involved reductions of their compensation plans and some involved increases. This depended upon the sales volume of those individual employees or the revenue situation of the company overall. In or about June of 2003, the Respondent changed the Petitioner's compensation plan. This change did not benefit the Petitioner but represented a reduction in compensation. This change to his compensation plan, however, was based upon legitimate business and financial reasons and was non- discriminatory, because it was based upon a down-turn in business, sales, and revenue for the company. Around the same period of time, the Petitioner advised the Respondent that he believed he was underpaid on earned commissions. Because of this the Respondent performed an audit of the Petitioner's commissions to determine if indeed he had been underpaid. The results of that audit did not establish that the Petitioner had been underpaid but rather that he had been overpaid by approximately $9,000.00 dollars. The audit results were provided to the Petitioner and the Petitioner disputed the results. The Petitioner never complained during his employment to any employees of the Respondent or supervisors suggesting that any employees or supervisors had discriminated against him or retaliated against him because of his age or because of his dispute concerning compensation, during his term of employment. There is no evidence that the Petitioner was singled-out or treated less favorably than other employees, including other employees of different ages, in terms of his compensation or other employment conditions. Indeed, there was no persuasive evidence presented at hearing that the Petitioner was treated less favorably in any way than other employees of the Respondent, regardless of their ages. There apparently came a time after June of 2003 and during 2004 when the Petitioner earned very little or no commissions from the Respondent. His employment was never actually terminated by the Respondent. The Petitioner rather either voluntarily quit his employment sometime prior to the final hearing or his sales opportunities dropped off so that, essentially, he was earning little or no compensation from the Respondent, while working out of his home in accordance with their arrangement. This down-turn in business apparently had a great deal to do with the severe financial circumstances his principal customer, Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., found itself in during this same period of time. In any event, the reduction in the Petitioner's commissions and compensation was not shown to be due to any effort or intent by the Respondent to single him out because of his age and reduce his compensation in some effort to force him to resign or retire. The reduction in his compensation was for the business reason of a decrease in revenues generated by the Petitioner himself or being experienced by the company as a whole, necessitating reduction of not only the Petitioner's but other employee's compensation, as a matter of a prudent business practice by the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and argument of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2004, 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 11th day of August, 2004. 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 Wyn Samuel 130 Willow Pond Lane Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida 32082 J. Scott Hudson, Esquire 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1220 Orlando, Florida 32801 Robert J. Stovash, Esquire Stovash, Case and Tingley, P.A. SunTrust Center 200 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1220 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact On January 16, 1987, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services notified J. S. By letter that it had received a report of neglect regarding him and advised him of his right to request the report be amended or expunged. J. S. did so but on February 26, 1987, the Department advised him his request for expungement had been denied. Thereafter, J. S. requested a formal hearing which was held by the undersigned on October 27, 1987. After a full, formal hearing on the merits, at which both testimony and documentary exhibits were presented by both parties, the undersigned, on December 1, 1987, entered a Recommended Order in which it was found, as a matter of fact, that while the alleged victim of the neglect was incapable of totally caring for himself, the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that the relationship between the victim and J. S. was a care-giving one or that J. S. had the responsibility to look out for the victim so as to bring him within the purview of the statute. The Department thereafter entered a Final Order consistent with the Recommended Order, amending the classification of the report to "unfounded" and expunging it from the Department records. Evidence introduced at the original formal hearing held herein established that J. S. was an employee, (resident manager) at the Royal Palm Retirement Home in Ft. Myers, Florida. He was not the owner of the facility nor was any evidence introduced to indicate he had any financial interest, other than as an employee, in the facility. Further, he was not engaging in the professional practice of a licensed profession. His relationship with the alleged victim was found to be no more than that of landlord-tenant. The Department's investigation of the alleged neglect, while not completely comprehensive, nonetheless was sufficiently thorough to meet the test of reasonableness.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment act by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of age and retaliating against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Meikle is an African-American male. At hearing, Mr. Meikle withdrew his claim of age discrimination. Mr. Meikle is only pursuing the claim of retaliation. Mr. Meikle was employed with the Radisson Hotel (Radisson), which was owned by Hotels Unlimited. Mr. Meikle’s supervisor at the Radisson was Harland McPhun, who was the Assistant General Manager. Mr. McPhun’s supervisor at the Radisson was Diane Gray, who was the General Manager. During his employment at the Radisson, Mr. Meikle was promoted from a cook to the Kitchen Director. He was very proud of being in the position of Kitchen Director. Mr. McPhun had not encountered any problems with Mr. Meikle being on time for work or being a “no-show” for work as scheduled. However, Mr. McPhun had encountered problems with Mr. Meikle in other areas, such as Mr. Meikle's providing his sister, who was employed at the front desk of the Radisson, with larger portions of food than the other employees; and being in places other than the kitchen area talking, i.e., at or near the front desk. Mr. McPhun gave Mr. Meikle verbal warnings, regarding the incidents, but never documented any of the verbal warnings. At some point in time, Hotels Unlimited decided to convert the Radisson to a Double Tree Hotel (Double Tree). The Double Tree’s structure required the position of a Food and Beverage Manager, who would supervise the food and beverage personnel, kitchen staff, and restaurant servers. Gerald Brown was hired as the Food and Beverage Manager in January 2008. Mr. Brown began his employment before the completion of the conversion from the Radisson to the Double Tree. On February 14, 2008, Mr. Brown held his first staff meeting with the entire staff over whom he had supervision. Mr. Meikle was late for the staff meeting. On February 16, 2008, Mr. Brown issued a “Disciplinary Document” indicating that he was giving Mr. Meikle his first written warning for being late at the meeting. Mr. Meikle admits that he was late for the meeting. The Disciplinary Document was signed by Mr. Meikle (the date of the signature was not completed), by Mr. Brown, as the Manager (the date of the signature was not completed), and by Ms. Gray, as the General Manager, on February 18, 2008. Additionally, on February 16, 2008, Mr. Brown issued another Disciplinary Document indicating that he was giving Mr. Meikle his first written warning for failing to follow rules and direction involving four different matters about which Mr. Brown had repeatedly counseled Mr. Meikle on several occasions, but were not being adhered to by Mr. Meikle. The Disciplinary Document was signed by Mr. Meikle (the date of the signature was not completed), by Mr. Brown, as the Manager, on February 16, 2008, and by Ms. Gray, as the General Manager, on February 18, 2008. On February 25, 2008, Mr. Brown issued a Disciplinary Document for an incident that occurred on February 23, 2008, a Saturday night. Mr. Meikle was scheduled to work, but he departed the kitchen and the hotel property without informing and obtaining permission from the manager. Hotels Unlimited’s policy required the informing of the manager in order for the manager to take appropriate steps to make adjustments to accommodate the absence. Mr. Meikle was entitled to a break, but he failed to notify the manager of his absence in accordance with the policy. The Disciplinary Document included a statement that “Disciplinary Action to be decided by the General Manager.” The Disciplinary Document was signed by Mr. Meikle on February 26, 2008, by Mr. Brown, as the Manager, on February 25, 2008, and by Ms. Gray, as the General Manager, on February 26, 2008. Regarding Mr. Meikle’s absence from work on Saturday evening, February 23, 2008, he was working an 18-hour shift, without anyone to relieve him, which meant that he was unable to take a break. He was exhausted and needed to take a break. Before Mr. Brown was hired, Mr. Meikle was working the 18-hour shift, and after Mr. Brown was hired, Mr. Meikle agreed to continue working the 18-hour shift. Mr. Brown did not wish to disrupt what was already in place, so he agreed to allow Mr. Meikle to keep the 18-hour shift. It was not unreasonable for Mr. Brown to maintain Mr. Meikle on the 18-hour shift, as Mr. Meikle requested. On that same day, February 25, 2008, Mr. Brown issued a Disciplinary Document for an incident that occurred on February 25, 2008. Mr. Meikle raised his voice and became very loud, resulting in guests being disturbed. As Mr. Meikle had been absent from work on Saturday evening, February 23, 2008, Mr. Brown was inquiring of Mr. Meikle the reason for his (Mr. Meikle’s) absence. Further, during the conversation, Mr. Brown raised several other concerns. Mr. Meikle raised his voice and became very loud, which Mr. Brown determined was disturbing the guests. Mr. Brown requested Mr. Meikle to remove himself from the dining area. The Disciplinary Document was signed by Mr. Brown on February 26, 2008. Mr. Meikle refused to sign the Disciplinary Document where the employee’s signature is indicated; but, he (Mr. Meikle) noted on it, “Refuse to sign because I did what I was told,” and signed his name under the statement. Each Disciplinary Document indicated that Mr. Meikle’s termination was effective “2/29/08.” Mr. Brown did not indicate a date for termination on any Disciplinary Document and could offer no explanation as to why or how each Disciplinary Document contained such information. Furthermore, no testimony was presented as to why or how each Disciplinary Document contained such notation. Mr. Brown contacted Ms. Gray, recommending the termination of Mr. Meikle. Ms. Gray did not approve the recommendation; she wanted to continue to work with Mr. Meikle. On February 25, 2008, a letter, bearing the same date, from Mr. Meikle was faxed to Hotels Unlimited’s Human Resources. Among other things, Mr. Meikle notified Human Resources that he was working in a hostile work environment created by Mr. McPhun, providing examples of what he considered inappropriate action and conduct by Mr. McPhun; that Mr. McPhun “strongly dislike[s]” him “for whatever the reason”; that Mr. McPhun was taking food from the hotel and that he (Mr. Meikle) had reported it to the general manager; that all of his (Mr. Meikle’s) current problems at work stemmed from Mr. McPhun, providing examples of the problems that he (Mr. Meikle) had encountered2; that Mr. McPhun was the cause of all of his problems at work; that he (Mr. Meikle) had no one to ask for help; that Mr. McPhun was out to get him (Mr. Meikle) fired; that everyone was biased against him (Mr. Meikle) because of Mr. McPhun; and that a copy of the letter would be forwarded to the EEOC and the FCHR. Ms. Gray was notified by her superior that Human Resources had received a letter from Mr. Meikle, but she was not notified of the content of the letter nor did she receive or view a copy of the letter. Her superior told her to talk with Mr. Meikle and resolve the problem. Hotels Unlimited’s Employee Handbook, Employment Policies & Practices section, provides in pertinent part: Equal Employment * * * If you suspect discriminatory or harassing actions on the part of the Company or any other employee, you should immediately notify your General Manager or Corporate Department Head, as applicable, or, if you prefer, a Company Officer. Such notification will be held in confidence to the extent possible. Discriminatory behavior or action by any employee is cause for discharge. * * * Sexual and Other Forms of Harassment Policy Statement: Hotels Unlimited, Inc. is committed to a work environment in which all employees are treated with respect and dignity. It is the policy of Hotels Unlimited, Inc. to provide a work environment that is free from discrimination and harassment. Action, words or comments based on an individual’s sex, race, color, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, age, disability, marital status, citizenship or any other characteristic protected by law – either overt or subtle – are demeaning to another person and undermine the integrity of the employment relationship. . . . * * * Harassment on the basis of any other protected characteristic is also strictly prohibited. Such harassment is defined as verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility toward an individual because of his/her race, color religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, disability, marital status, citizenship or any other characteristic protected by law, and that has the purpose or effect of creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment; has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance; or otherwise adversely affects an individual’s employment opportunity. * * * Administration of Policy: * * * It is unlawful to retaliate in any way against anyone who has complained about harassment. Any incident of retaliation should be reported in the same manner as an incident of harassment. Any employee who engages in such retaliation will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including discharge. All allegations of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation will be subject to prompt, thorough and confidential investigation. All investigations will be designed to protect the privacy of, and minimize suspicion toward, all parties involved. . . . The Employee Handbook provided protection against employment practices for statuses beyond those set forth by law.3 In the early morning hours of February 29, 2008, Mr. Meikle was awoken by a telephone call from a co-worker inquiring as to why he (Mr. Meikle) was not at work. Mr. Meikle informed his co-worker that he was off that day, but his co- worker advised that he (Mr. Meikle) was scheduled to work. Mr. Meikle telephoned Mr. Brown, who informed Mr. Meikle to be at work. Mr. Meikle reported to work, but failed to report for his shift as scheduled. Regarding Mr. Meikle’s failure to report to work on time for his scheduled shift, all work schedules for Food and Beverage, during Mr. Brown’s tenure, were typed and posted, one week in advance. The work week for Food and Beverage was Monday through Sunday. The posted work schedule for the week of February 25, 2008, was prepared, typed, and posted by Mr. Brown and indicated that Mr. Meikle was required to work on Monday, February 25, 2008, and Tuesday, February 26, 2008; was not required to work on Wednesday, February 27, 2008, and Thursday, February 28, 2008; but, was required to work on Friday, February 29, 2008, specifically, from 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Mr. Meikle reviewed a work schedule for the week of February 25, 2008, that was typed and hand-written. The work schedule indicated that it was prepared by Mr. McPhun and that he (Mr. Meikle) was not required to work on Friday, February 29, 2008. Based on that work schedule, Mr. Meikle did not believe that he had to report to work on February 29, 2008. However, Mr. Meikle was required to report to work on February 29, 2008, and work from 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. He failed to report to work for his shift as scheduled.4 No dispute exists that, at no time previously, had Mr. Meikle failed to report to work for his shift as scheduled. On February 29, 2008, Mr. Meikle was terminated for failing “to be at work on time for [his] schedule [sic] shift.” A Termination Report dated February 29, 2008, was signed by Mr. Brown, by Mr. Meikle, and Ms. Gray. Mr. Brown made the determination to terminate the employment of Mr. Meikle, and Ms. Gray agreed. Mr. McPhun did not participate with Mr. Brown and Ms. Gray in the determination to terminate the employment of Mr. Meikle. At the time of Mr. Meikle’s termination, Mr. Brown was not aware of Mr. Meikle’s letter to Hotels Unlimited’s Human Resources.
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 Hotels Unlimited/Double Tree did not retaliate against Marshall Meikle in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended and dismissing his petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 23rd day of November, 2009.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice as a result of retaliation.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner D'Angelo A. Sullivan is a black male who worked for Respondent from January 14, 1999, until November 2002 as a blooming onion cook at Respondent's restaurant in Pensacola, Florida. Respondent Aussie Restaurant Management is a company that operates an Outback Steakhouse in Pensacola, Florida. Respondent employs more than 15 people. In a letter dated September 6, 2002, Petitioner requested a paid vacation. Petitioner believed he was entitled to a paid vacation. He departed on vacation on September 23, 2002. Upon returning on September 30, 2002, he was told that he would not be paid during the time he was on vacation. Respondent has a policy that provides paid vacations to employees who have worked 32 hours per week for the six weeks prior to the time requested for a vacation. Petitioner averaged 30.20 hours per week for the six weeks prior to his request for a vacation. He was, therefore, not entitled to a paid vacation. On October 11, 2002, Petitioner filed a Complaint Form with the Escambia-Pensacola Human Relations Commission. In the "Nature of the Complaint" section the blocks "race" and "color" were checked. The "other" block was completed with the words "promotion, pay raise." In this complaint, Petitioner recited that he was not given paid leave, that his work schedule had been reduced, and that he had been given a $.25 per hour pay raise instead of the annual $.50 per hour pay raise that he had received in prior years. The complaint also asserted that only one black had been employed "out front" among the customers. In the complaint he alleged mistreatment by a manager identified as "Donnie." Petitioner suggested as a remedy, that Respondent cease discrimination, that Petitioner be given a pay raise, a paid vacation, and a W-4 tax form. He also suggested that he should be trained so that he could get a promotion. No evidence was offered demonstrating that Respondent was aware of the existence of the complaint. Petitioner testified that he was advised by the person who took his complaint to refrain from telling Respondent he had complained, and that he followed that advice. In November 2002, subsequent to an automobile accident, and upon the advice of the attorney representing Petitioner as plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit arising from the accident, Petitioner determined that he should not continue to work. This decision was based in part upon his belief that working might lessen his chances of prevailing in the ongoing lawsuit. In June 2003 Petitioner approached the manager of Respondent's restaurant, Nicholas Loizos, on at least four occasions and asked to be hired as a "take away" person in the "front of the house." Although his former position of blooming onion cook was offered to him, Petitioner insisted that he wanted the "take away" position. Mr. Loizos told Petitioner that in order to be a "take away" person, he would have to take the "Front-of-the House Selection Test." Petitioner was provided the opportunity to take this test. Petitioner did not avail himself of this opportunity. No evidence was adduced that would indicate that Respondent engaged in racial discrimination against Petitioner, or any of Respondent's employees. No evidence was adduced that would prove that Respondent was aware that Petitioner had filed a discrimination complaint. Because Respondent was unaware of the discrimination complaint, Respondent could not have engaged in retaliation against Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Petition be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 D'Angelo A. Sullivan 1006 West Hayes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Maria A. Santoro, Esquire George, Hartz, Lundeen, Fulmer, Johnstone, King & Stevens 863 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Respondent has committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and if so, what remedy should be ordered.
Findings Of Fact Petitioners Diana Sexton and Freddie Sexton were carriage drivers for Gam-San, Inc., which was known by the fictitious name of St. Augustine Transfer Company. They conducted ghost tours and history tours in the historic district of St. Augustine. No evidence was presented regarding Mr. Sexton's race or either Petitioners' age. At the time of the incident giving rise to this proceeding, Diana Sexton had worked for Respondent for approximately one and a half years. Freddie Sexton has worked for the company in the same type of position for a shorter period of time. Petitioners are married to each other. Petitioners drove carriages pulled by horses, and gave tours to the public. They sometimes stayed overnight at the barn owned by Respondent in order to water the horses. They did not have permission to stay at the barn, but Ms. Sexton considered it to be a benefit in exchange for watering the horses at night. Diana Sexton acknowledged that Petitioners had been informed that they were expected to find another place to stay before the end of the "Nights of Lights" (although no explanation was provided regarding what time frame this entailed), but denied that Petitioners were ever told to leave or not to stay at the barn. Employees hired by St. Augustine Transfer were usually hired as carriage drivers, stall people, or barn managers. Both stall people and barn managers were paid minimum wage. Carriage drivers, like waitresses, receive tips from customers as part of their pay. Generally, with tips, drivers are the highest paid employees of the business. It would not be considered a promotion to go from a position as driver to either stall person or barn manager. Petitioners did not work on December 25, 2007. They apparently spent the night at the barn the night before and left the work premises in the morning. At some time in the evening, Petitioners returned to the business premises, ostensibly to retrieve some of their belongings that were in the barn. While they were present on the property, the police came, indicating that they had received a call complaining of a disturbance. Petitioners were believed to be the cause of the disturbance and were asked to leave. Petitioners refused to leave without speaking to Stuart Gamsey, and denied creating any type of disturbance. Eventually they left the premises at the insistence of the police. They claim they were not allowed to return to retrieve their belongings for several days, and were discharged from their jobs. The evidence is in conflict over what, if anything, was occurring on the premises of the business the evening of December 25, 2007. However, the more credible admissible evidence indicates that at least two calls were made to Stuart Gamsey, the then owner of St. Augustine Transfer Co. The calls involved complaints about Petitioners' drinking, yelling, and generally creating a disturbance on the property. One call was made by police officers on the scene. Mr. Gamsey had not given Petitioners, or any other employees, permission to stay on the premises when not working. He could not say whether there was actually a disturbance on the premises, but confirmed that in response to the calls he received, he asked the police to do "whatever it took" to get Petitioners to leave the property. His goal was simply to end whatever disturbance might be occurring. Petitioners' employment was terminated by St. Augustine Transfer. It is not entirely clear from the evidence presented whether the December 25, 2007, incident formed the basis for the termination or whether other factors were involved. It is clear, however, that Petitioners resisted leaving the premises at a time when they did not have permission to be there. Stuart Gamsey sold the business in the summer of 2008. He currently has no responsibility for the hiring practices of St. Augustine Transfer Co. or its successor. No competent, credible evidence was presented indicating that any other employee was allowed to stay on the premises outside of work hours. Petitioners also claim that Mr. Sexton was discriminated against based upon his marital status because someone, presumably another employee, left K-Y jelly in his carriage, and on one occasion, a patron tipped another employee to make sure she could ride in his carriage and engage in inappropriate behavior designed to seduce him. However, no competent, credible evidence was presented to show who placed the K-Y jelly in Mr. Sexton's carriage or for what purpose, if any, it was left. Likewise, no competent, credible evidence was presented to support the allegation that placing the patron in Mr. Sexton's carriage was for any discriminatory purpose. No evidence was presented regarding any other proceedings of any type involving Petitioners and Respondent.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing Petitioners' Petitions for Relief and denying Respondent's Motion for Attorney's Fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 20th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Freddie J. Sexton Diana J. Sexton Post Office Box 105 St. Augustine, Florida 32084 Regina Sargeant, Esquire 2820 US 1 South, Suite F St. Augustine, Florida 32086 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Union Trucking is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of trucking. Its net worth is less than $2,000,000.00 In DOAH Case NO. 87-4007, the Department sent Petitioner a letter dated August 6, 1987, denying Petitioner's request for certification as a minority business enterprise pursuant to the Department's Rule 14-78.005, Florida Administrative Code. The reason stated in the letter was that Petitioner was not actually under the control of a minority person. On August 25, 1987, Petitioner timely requested a hearing and the case was sent to the Division Of Administrative Hearings on September 11, 1987. By Notice of Hearing dated September 23, 1987, hearing was scheduled for November 16, 1987 and later continued until February 10, 1988. Rule 14-78.002, Florida Administrative Code, was amended on September 21, 1987. The amendment effectively removed DOT's reason-for denial of Petitioner's certification. However, on February 11, 1988, well after the rule change came into effect, DOT formally decided to certify Petitioner. Petitioner was therefore forced to proceed for several months in preparation for an action which Respondent admits it had no basis for after the rule change took effect. Respondent's initial decision occurred on August 6, 1987, when Respondent notified Petitioner of its denial of minority business status. At some point in time, Respondent had filed its proposed rule change. Petitioner failed to demonstrate the time of the proposed change. Depending on the facts surrounding the rule change as to its likelihood of adoption at the time Respondent initiated this action, no findings regarding substantial justification can be made at the time of the agency's initial action on August Most certainly after September 21, 1987, the date the MBE rule was amended, Respondent lacked any substantial justification to continue to litigate this matter. The Final Order of the Department recognized the earlier certification of Petitioner and dismissed the action. However, the Final Order of Respondent did not dispose of the attorney's fees issue which had also been raised during the principal action. The order, therefore, did not dispose of substantially all the issues raised in the principal action. Additionally, there was no settlement of this case since a written settlement agreement was drafted and signed by Petitioner, but refused by Respondent. Respondent's unilateral certification is not enough to force a settlement on Petitioner, especially since Respondent elected to enter a Final Order in this case. Petitioner, therefore, became a prevailing party when Respondent entered its Final Order on April 18, 1988. Section 57.111(4)(b)(2) , Florida Statutes. The application and affidavit which initiated this action were filed on May 23, 1988. The application substantially meets the requirements of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 22I-6.035, Florida Administrative Code, in that it fairly put Respondent on notice of Petitioner's claim. The application and affidavit were timely, having been filed within 60 days after the date on which Petitioner became a prevailing small business party. According to the affidavit of Frank M. Gafford, Petitioner incurred legal fees of $3,572.86. These fees and costs are found to be reasonable. The Department does not dispute the reasonableness of the fees in this case.
