The Issue Whether Petitioner was discriminated against by the Respondent based on race, and/or retaliated against due to the filing of a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Ronald Wilson, is an African-American male. Petitioner was employed with TMH on June 21, 1999, as an environmental services technician. On January 19, 2001, Petitioner received a disciplinary corrective action for discourtesy to a hospital visitor who had complained about Petitioner’s rude and overbearing behavior towards her in a visitor’s waiting area. After admitting the essential facts, Petitioner was suspended for two days for this infraction. On June 27, 2001, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with the FCHR, alleging he was wrongfully suspended because of his race. On September 5, 2001, Petitioner was told that his loan application with TMH Federal Credit Union had been denied. Petitioner told a credit union employee, Grace Chambers, that “God doesn’t appreciate people being treated this way” and “Someone is going to have some bad luck,” or words to that effect, when she advised him that his application had been denied. Although Petitioner was speaking metaphysically and did not intend to threaten Ms. Chambers, Ms. Chambers was upset by Petitioner’s comment, perceived Petitioner's comment as a threat and reported it to her supervisor, Marion McCaskey, President of the TMH Credit Union. McCaskey and Chambers, in turn reported Petitioner's threat to Charles Garner, Director of Security at TMH. Ms. McCaskey also reported that Petitioner was known for being unduly persistent in obtaining approval for a loan to the point she had become uncomfortable, albeit not physically threatened, in dealing with Petitioner. Mr. Garner reported Petitioner's conduct to his supervisor, Ron Dorsey. On September 6, 2001, Mr. Dorsey filled out a disciplinary action form recommending Petitioner's discharge because of his comment to Ms. Chambers. Because of Petitioner’s disciplinary history of insubordination and discourtesy, the recommendation was approved by TMH Human Resources, and Petitioner was given notice of his discharge on December 11, 2001. TMH's policy prohibits discourtesy to visitors and other employees, and threats to co-workers. Both of these violations are grounds for discharge. Petitioner produced no evidence that any other non- minority employee was charged with breaking these rules and was treated better. Without such evidence, Petitioner failed to establish any direct evidence that his suspension and discharge were racially motivated. Likewise, Petitioner failed to establish any circumstantial evidence of racial discrimination, since Petitioner’s statements to Ms. Chambers could arguably be considered a threat directed towards her, and there was no evidence that Ms. Chambers’ reaction was not genuine. Petitioner produced no evidence that Dorsey, Garner, Chambers, or McCaskey had notice or knowledge of his charge of discrimination when he was discharged. Therefore, Petitioner has failed to establish that he was discharged on September 11, 2001, in retaliation for filing the charge of discrimination on June 27, 2001. Petitioner produced no evidence that he suffered any past or future wage loss as a result of his discharge from TMH.
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 the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Brian A. Newman, Esquire Pennington, Moore, Wilkinson, Bell & Dunbar, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Second Floor Post Office Box 10095 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2095 Ronald Wilson 816 Cochran Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (Florida Civil Rights Act or the Act).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent at various times beginning in February 1999 and ending in her termination effective September 30, 2004. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. At all relevant times, Respondent is in the hotel business. Respondent provides related services and amenities to its guests and to the general public, including a restaurant and bar on the hotel premises. Petitioner commenced her employment with Respondent as a waitress and was eventually promoted to bartender. At all relevant times, she worked under the supervision of Kurt Pfister (Pfister). At no time prior to the commencement of her employment, nor at any time during her employment, did Petitioner advise Respondent that she was disabled in any way, or that she required any type of accommodation(s) for any medical condition or disability in order to perform her job. Likewise, Petitioner never advised Respondent that she had ever been diagnosed, treated, or hospitalized for any medical condition or disability. In fact, as Petitioner herself admits, she first claimed to be disabled approximately two weeks after she was terminated. Petitioner, as well as all of Respondent's employees, were trained in and required at all times to follow all of Respondent's policies and procedures generally applicable in its workplace. Additionally, every employee was trained in and expected to comply at all times with all policies and procedures applicable to his or her particular job. Violation of any of Respondent's policies or procedures subjected an employee to disciplinary action ranging from counseling to termination. As a bartender, Petitioner was trained and responsible for taking food and beverage orders; to present patrons with their bill(s); and to collect an approved form of payment, including cash. With regard to cash, Petitioner was trained in Respondent's policies and procedures known as "cash control policies." Cash control policies included a specific process for reconciliation of cash and tips at the end of each shift and a process for making cash drops and filling out deposit logs. Petitioner and all similarly situated employees were required to comply with cash control policies and were subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination if they failed to do so. Petitioner was qualified for her bartending position, and from the beginning of her employment through September 16, 2004, Respondent was well satisfied with Petitioner's work. Petitioner was often called upon to train new bartenders with regard to Respondent's policies, including cash control policies. She did so very well. For her efforts, Petitioner achieved the status of Respondent's most senior bartender, and as a reward was given the best shifts. Respondent enforced a policy against smoking on its grounds, except that smoking was permitted in a small, outside area at the south end of the premises. Petitioner was well familiar with the smoking policy and to Respondent's knowledge, complied with it until September 16, 2004. On that date, Petitioner was discovered smoking in a liquor storage room located inside the hotel building. She was given a written reprimand. Apart from the smoking infraction, Petitioner's September 16, 2004, shift was uneventful. She gave no indication to her customers or supervisors that she was in distress or could not perform her duties on account of disability or any other reason, nor that she required any type of accommodation(s) to perform her job. Yet, on that night, Petitioner failed to follow cash control policies at the end of her shift. Of most concern to Respondent was that Petitioner left work with her cash sales short for the evening in the amount of $97.64. On September 17, 2006, Pfister learned of the policy violations and the attendant cash shortage; he thereupon contacted Petitioner by telephone. Petitioner again did not indicate to Respondent that she could not perform her duties on account of disability or any other reason, nor that she required any type of accommodation(s) to perform her job and to comply with cash control policies. Petitioner conversed normally with Pfister and acknowledged that she had the $97.64 belonging to Respondent. Although she was not scheduled to work again until September 21st, she agreed to meet with Pfister and to return the money on September 19, 2004. Petitioner did not show up for the meeting. Neither did she return the money, or contact Pfister to advise when, or if, she would return the money. Respondent was entitled, at that point, to treat the matter as a theft; to terminate Petitioner's employment; and to seek law enforcement's assistance in recovering its money. Instead, Respondent exercised forbearance and gave Petitioner an indefinite suspension to afford her additional time to return the money and to explain to Pfister her reason(s) for failing to follow cash control policies on September 16, 2004. Respondent enforced a policy it called the no-call, no-show rule. Under the rule, employees are required to provide Respondent with four hours’ notice if for any reason they are unable to report on time for a scheduled shift. Absent extraordinary circumstances, which do not exist here, failure to provide the required notice is ground for disciplinary action. On September 21, 2004, and again the next day, Petitioner failed to report for her scheduled shift(s). She also failed to fulfill the four-hour notice requirement of the no call, no-show rule. For these two violations of the no-call, no-show policy, Petitioner was given a written warning. On September 23, 2004, Petitioner telephoned Pfister from an undisclosed location and advised she could not work previously scheduled shifts for the balance of the week. At first, Petitioner claimed she wanted time off on account of her “health.” Pfister offered her the opportunity to submit medical documentation in support of her request. At that point Petitioner stated that she was not seeing a doctor(s), and further stated that she was out of the state with her boyfriend. Petitioner added that she did not care about the hotel; that she was going to take care of herself first. Pfister responded that Petitioner should call him upon her return to town because the issue concerning the $97.64 could not remain unresolved. In the course of this conversation, Petitioner did not advise Respondent that she was disabled in any way, or that she required any type of accommodation(s) for any medical condition or disability in order to perform her job. Petitioner's next contact with Respondent was on September 29, 2004, when Petitioner called Pfister and said she was back in town and wanted to meet with him. It was agreed the meeting would take place the following day at 1:00 p.m. and would also be attended by Rick Reilly (Reilly), Respondent’s senior vice president. Petitioner did not arrive at the appointed time and did not call to explain her absence. Instead, she arrived at 2:10 P.M. Petitioner smelled of alcohol; she swayed, staggered, and slurred her speech. She was profane and belligerent. Petitioner again failed and refused to return Respondent's money or to explain why she took the money. As previously and repeatedly noted, Petitioner did not take this opportunity to advise Respondent that she was disabled in any way, or required any type of accommodation(s) for any medical condition or disability in order to perform her job. She did, however, state that she was "not coming back" and demanded a paycheck and vacation pay. Reilly asked her if she was resigning and she replied, "I guess so." Fearing that Petitioner would attempt to deny or to retract her ambiguous resignation when she sobered up, Pfister and Reilly made a reasonable determination, based upon legitimate non-discriminatory business reasons, to terminate her employment effective September 30, 2006. The termination was not pretextual. There was no evidence regarding who, if anyone, replaced Petitioner. There was no evidence Petitioner was, at any time, treated less favorably than any similarly situated co- worker on account of her membership in any protected class, or for any other reason. Petitioner did not dispute that Respondent had no reason, at any relevant time, to believe she needed accommodations of any sort to perform her job. On October 15, 2004, Pfister received a fax from Petitioner requesting a "leave of absence, medical reason." In apparent support thereof, Pfister also receive a fax purporting to be from a doctor and further purporting to provide a medical explanation for Petitioner's request for "leave of absence, medical reason." In the latter fax, a representation was made that Petitioner was presently hospitalized for "an undetermined amount of time" due to "depression symptoms for the last several month (sic) in context of stressors related to her job and impending hurricanes." This information, such as it was, was untimely and was insufficient to cast doubt upon the bona fides of Petitioner's termination. On November 1, 2004, Petitioner came to Pfister's office to pick up her check(s) and, at last, to return Respondent's money. She made no comment or complaint regarding any alleged disability; neither did she indicate in any way that she believed herself to be a victim of discrimination. In sum, Petitioner could have been terminated as early as September 16, 2004, for legitimate non-discriminatory business reasons. There is no persuasive evidence that disability played any role in Petitioner's termination. Indeed, there was no persuasive evidence that Petitioner was, at any time, disabled within the meaning of the Act, or within the meaning of any other state or federal law. There was no evidence that Petitioner was replaced by a non-disabled individual, nor that she was, at any time, treated less favorably than any similarly situated co-worker.
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 RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 9th day of November, 2006.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was the victim of an unlawful employment practice, by allegedly being subjected to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, based on her race.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Rosa Pearl McDonald is an African- American female. She was employed at times pertinent to this dispute as a driver, delivering meals to elderly clients of the Walton County Council on Aging. The Petitioner is also a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN). The Respondent, Walton County Council on Aging is a charitable social services agency, domiciled in Walton County. As pertinent to this case, it delivers and serves meals to elderly clients throughout the county, through the use of hired and volunteer drivers. The Petitioner was a recently-hired driver, of less than 30 days' employment, when the operative facts occurred. The Petitioner was still in probationary employment status. The Petitioner contends, in effect, that she was subjected to disparate terms and conditions of employment due to her race. She states she was the only black driver and that her supervisor, Kay Brady, is white. The Petitioner noticed after hiring, that the food delivery boxes had the assigned drivers' names on them. The box she was assigned had only the route name. She states she had asked Ms. Brady to place her name on the box, but the route name was placed on the box instead. The Petitioner acknowledged, upon cross-examination, that she did not know who placed the route label on the food box. She was still a probationary employee at this time. The probationary period was 90 days, and the Petitioner resigned only 30 days or less, after her hiring. Inferentially, it may be that the probationary status was the reason her name was not used, or it may have been an oversight. There is no evidence other than the Petitioner's stated opinion, that the labeling situation was due to racial animus. In fact, the Petitioner had been hired, and fired, by the Respondent twice in the past, and yet it still re-hired her shortly before the subject situation arose. Moreover, Ms. Brady gave the Petitioner extra hours of work when she requested them. These facts tend to negate the existence of racial bias in the imposition of any term or conditions of the Petitioner's employment. The Petitioner also contends that she was treated disparately, compared to other drivers. She maintains that a white driver, "Margaret," on occasion had guests ride along with her on her deliveries. The Petitioner states that she asked twice to be allowed to have friends ride with her on deliveries, but Ms. Brady would not allow it. Ms. Kay Brady was the Petitioner's supervisor. She established with her testimony, that the Respondent has a regularly-adopted policy of allowing no riders to accompany route drivers, other than trained volunteers or office personnel, who occasionally go along on deliveries to ascertain that client services are being provided appropriately. Occasionally spouses of regular drivers make deliveries when the driver is ill or must miss work for any reason. The Respondent also uses volunteer drivers, as well. In both situations, however, the spouses or volunteers are given training before being allowed to make deliveries to clients, chiefly because of the privacy requirements of the "Hippa Privacy Law" and the Respondent's client confidentiality policy. The point is, the Petitioner sought to have friends ride with her on deliveries (for reasons which are unclear) and her friends were not trained and oriented to the Respondent's job requirements. The Respondent had a policy of not allowing friends or family to simply accompany drivers without such training, and for reasons which did not relate to job requirements, except in unusual circumstances. One such circumstance involved a driver who needed to be allowed to take her grandchildren with her on a delivery or deliveries, when she was unable to engage a baby sitter. This was an isolated and unusual occurrence, during a time when the children were out of school for Christmas break. On such rare occasions, the Respondent has allowed children to accompany drivers on short trips, on routes near their homes and where children can safely remain in vehicles during deliveries. The above circumstance was probably the one involving driver "Margaret" which the Petitioner described in her testimony. In any event, however, the Respondent had a regular written policy regarding requirements and qualification for persons making deliveries to clients and it followed it, with the above rare exceptions. The employee handbook, Council on Aging Handbook and the Employee Handbook receipt, in evidence as Respondent's Exhibits 5, 6, and 4, respectively, show this policy and the fact that the Petitioner was informed of it. The Petitioner's friends, whom she sought to have accompany her, were not shown to be qualified under the Respondent's requirements. Because the reasons for requesting the accompaniment of proposed "riders" were different for employees other than the Petitioner, referenced in the above examples of policy exceptions, these other drivers were not shown to be similarly-situated exemplar employees, who received more favorable treatment. In fact, the Petitioner was favored in a different way. The Respondent was able to give the Petitioner extra hours of work "sitting" with elderly clients when their caregivers were absent. The Respondent and Ms. Brady would learn about such needs through its normal service contacts with clients and their families. Because the Petitioner is an LPN, the Respondent would refer her for extra work, to her benefit. In summary, the preponderant evidence and above facts show that no adverse employment action occurred. There were no verbal or other acts or adverse employment directives toward the Petitioner at all, much less any that evidence racial animus, by supervisors or employees. Therefore, there was no racially hostile environment, so there could not be one in which her terms and conditions of employment were altered. Moreover, since there were no disciplinary actions toward the Petitioner, nor adverse employment directives or conditions (in fact she was favored with extra hours), there could be no constructive termination. There certainly was no actual termination. The Petitioner, in fact, resigned her position, telling both Ms. Brady and Mr. Moore that it was for health reasons. She admitted as much in her testimony.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2009, 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 24th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Rosa Pearl McDonald 1961 McLeod Road DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Kay Brady Walton County Council on Aging Post Office Box 648 DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32435 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner was discriminated against based on his race or in retaliation for participation in a protected activity in violation of Chapters 760.10(1)(a) and (7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Charles Rogers, is a Caucasian male. At all times relevant to this Petition, Petitioner was employed by the Florida Department of Corrections as a correctional probation officer. He was supervised by Susan Bissett-Dotson, a Caucasian female. In late August, Petitioner had a person he supervised come into his office to discuss pending warrants for the person's arrest. When advised of these warrants, the probationer ran, causing Petitioner to have to pursue him through the office. On September 6, 2001, as a result of the foregoing incident, Petitioner received a written reprimand for violation of office policies and improper use of force. Petitioner failed to follow a policy requiring notice to others in the office when an offender might be arrested in the office. Adam Thomas, the circuit administrator, reviewed the use of force and determined Petitioner had used force appropriately. Nevertheless, the reprimand from Susan Bissett-Dotson contained reference to improper use of force in addition to failure to follow office procedures. Petitioner filed an internal grievance contesting that portion of the reprimand referencing improper use of force. His grievance was heard and the reprimand was reduced to a record of counseling, deleting any reference to an improper use of force. Petitioner's pay, benefits, ability to be promoted, as well as all other aspects of his employment were not affected either by the original reprimand or the subsequent record of counseling. Petitioner's caseload was reassigned four times within a 14-month period. These reassignments occurred between August 29, 2000, and October 2, 2001. Only one of them took place after his grievance. The reassignments did not involve a physical move to a different office; rather, Petitioner received a new set of offenders to supervise whose files were in various stages of development. The reassignments did not involve any material changes in his duties or responsibilities. There was no amount of greater or less prestige associated with any of the caseloads he received. The reassignments did require him to become familiar with a new area and a new group of persons. Petitioner was required to do extensive work to re-develop these files, which task was onerous. The decision to reassign Petitioner's caseloads was taken in relation to the reassignment of other personnel based upon several factors, including but not limited to: assignments from the judiciary; the geographic location of the various officers vis-à-vis supervised offenders; the officers' expressed willingness to accept a new caseload; the officers' qualifications to handle specialized caseloads; and the equitable distribution of the cases. One of the reassignments was caused when Petitioner was out for more than two weeks, which requires a mandatory reassignment of cases. The desires of Petitioner were not considered, although Ms. Bissett-Dotson gave full consideration to the wants and desires of the others who were moved. Petitioner alleges that he was yelled at in a meeting for having an overdue assignment; he produced an e-mail berating him for a late case; and records were introduced that showed the case was not overdue. Records were introduced about the redistribution of another officer's caseload. Of the 31 cases reassigned, 20 were assigned to Petitioner. This occurred on November 14, 2001. Petitioner complained that he was not allowed to work before 8:00 a.m. Ms. Bissett-Dotson was questioned as to whether she allowed Petitioner to work prior to 8:00 a.m. She stated that she had denied his request to work before 8:00 a.m. because 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. was the standard work day for the office, and it was necessary to have coverage during those hours. Because of various requirements, such as working during court, some officers had to be off during normal hours. Other officers had to be out of the office more than others. All of this affected when and whether one could deviate from standard office hours. On three occasions, Petitioner's firearms locker was accidentally used by other officers. On at least one of these occasions, a camera was locked in the locker along with Petitioner's lock. Petitioner was not subject to any discipline as a result of these incidents and Susan Bissett-Dotson was approached by other probation officers on each of the occasions and informed that each had been a mistake. Ms. Bissett-Dotson was satisfied with these explanations. While only one of the reassignments took place after the grievance, clearly Ms. Susan Bissett-Dotson was not fair and equitable in her treatment of Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order indicating clearly that exercise of career service and other employment rights guaranteed by statute are subject to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, protection, and that the Petition herein is dismissed not because it was not proved, but because it was not properly pled. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Grant, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of November, 2002. Charles Rogers Post Office Box 331 Worthington Springs, Florida 32597 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
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent from May, 1981 until January, 1985. On January 17, 1985, Petitioner arrived at work at approximately 7:00 A.M. and began preparation for her day's work. At approximately 7:30 A.M. her supervisor, James A. Spencer, called her into his office to inform her about complaints he had received concerning Petitioner. Spencer did not intend to, and in fact did not, discipline Petitioner, but simply wanted to counsel her about the complaints. Spencer informed Petitioner that other employees had complained about her discussing religion while on the job, and also her offensive body odor and personal hygiene. Spencer simply felt Petitioner should know about these complaints so she could take corrective action concerning personal hygiene and discontinue discussing religion with other employees while on the job. Petitioner asked Spencer to tell her which employees had complained about her. When Spencer refused, Petitioner became very upset, angry and loud, saying she could not continue to work while co-workers were talking about her like this. Spencer asked her to settle down, relax, go to the ladies' room to regain her composure, and then return to work. Instead of following Spencer's directions, Petitioner returned to her work station, gathered her personal items and left without punching out. She left because she was upset and did not ask for, or receive, permission to leave work. When Petitioner was employed she received a copy of Respondent's rules and regulations. Rule 8 is as follows: To leave the plant before the end of your shift, you must have the approval of your supervisor. In case of an emergency, be sure to notify your assistant production manager prior to leaving if you cannot locate your supervisor. Petitioner did not inform either her supervisor or assistant production manager when she left the plant on January 17, 1985. Approximately two or three hours after leaving her job, Petitioner returned to work. Petitioner was not allowed to resume her job because Respondent's policy is to treat employees who walk off their job in violation of Rule 8 as having quit. Further, Respondent's policies do not allow rehiring employees who quit without proper notice. Arthur Wallace, Vice President, testified about the policy which precludes rehiring of Petitioner, and it does appear that Respondent's written company policies expressly deal with the situation of rehiring former employees. Respondent's rule provides: Former employees who left the Company voluntarily or through no fault of their own may be considered for re-employment. This rule is applicable because although Petitioner left her job while extremely upset and without notice, she was not asked to leave by her supervisor. She was deemed to have quit her job due to actions which were her own fault. Spencer told her to go back to work after going to the ladies' room to regain her composure. To the contrary Petitioner left work on her own, without permission, and was therefore considered to have quit her job. Thus, the above cited company rule precludes her re-employment. Respondent has rehired other employees when those employees gave proper notice and voluntarily quit, but no evidence was produced to show other employees who had violated Rule 8 had been rehired by Respondent. Respondent's company rules also allow for immediate termination, without notice, for flagrant insubordination. Petitioner left her job without informing her supervisor, or seeking his permission. She disregarded directions and acted inappropriately while he was counseling with her by becoming loud, angry and upset. Her failure to inform Spencer that she was leaving gave him no opportunity to transfer someone else to her job for the day. Instead, she impaired the operations of the company since her work was not completed during her absence. Petitioner's actions in violation of Rule 8 therefore constituted flagrant insubordination for which termination would have been appropriate, had she not been deemed to have quit. Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employement Opportunity Commission and the Florida Commission on Human Relations on February 7, 1985 alleging discrimination based on sex and religion. The case was deferred to the Clearwater Office of Community Relations on February 11, 1985, which thereafter conducted an investigation and attempted conciliation.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment on the basis of her race, or retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity; and whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. ("CSK"), is a law firm having offices throughout the state of Florida. Petitioner Latasha McCleary ("McCleary"), an African-American woman, worked for CSK in its Orlando office as a legal assistant from August 7, 2017, through July 31, 2018. However, because McCleary began taking medical leave on June 6, 2018, and never returned to work, her last day in the office was June 5, 2018. Thus, the period of time in which McCleary actually functioned as a regular CSK employee was ten months. During her tenure with the firm, McCleary provided secretarial and administrative support to several attorneys, including partner Bartley Vickers and associates Jeremy Beasley and Shawn Gibbons. McCleary's direct supervisor was the then office manager, Lilliam Hernandez. CSK regarded McCleary as a valued and high-performing employee. Although, as will be discussed, McCleary complains that she was subjected to unfair criticism during the last weeks of her time in CSK's Orlando office, she was never reprimanded, disciplined, or subjected to an adverse employment action. For the first nine months of her employment, McCleary got along well with the attorneys for whom she worked, including Mr. Vickers, and she has no complaints about their treatment of her during this period. The only noteworthy incident or incidents of relevance to have occurred in this time frame are a secretary's use, on one or perhaps more occasions, of the "n- word" in McCleary's presence. An employee's use of this racial epithet in the workplace is, of course, extremely offensive and inflammatory, to say the least, and, if unchecked, could create a hostile work environment. That did not happen here, however. The legal assistant who made the offensive remark (apparently in the presence of peers only, not supervisors or managers) apologized to McCleary when the latter expressed her discomfort. McCleary never reported the incident(s) in writing to the firm's management, as the Employee Handbook required——a fact from which the undersigned infers that she accepted her co-worker's apology——and the bad behavior stopped. The upshot is that this upsetting incident was resolved informally among the affected employees without initiating an investigation by the firm, and a nascent problem was nipped in the bud. The watershed moment in this case occurred on May 7, 2018, at the beginning of McCleary's tenth month with CSK. An expert witness retained by CSK was scheduled to conduct an on- site inspection that day but failed to appear, forcing a last- minute cancelation which caused opposing counsel to incur travel expenses that CSK had to reimburse. McCleary mistakenly had failed, on the previous business day, to confirm the expert's availability, as the firm's routine required, and thus, she bore some responsibility for the unwanted results. That said, there is no evidence that this situation was other than a relatively minor inconvenience that could be fixed, learned from, and forgotten. When the problem came to light on May 7, 2018, Ms. Hernandez, the office manager, sent an email to McCleary reminding her that the inspection "should have been confirmed" beforehand to avoid a "waste[] [of] time and money." McCleary apologized for making a "human error" and promised it would not happen again. On May 9, 2018, Mr. Vickers, the partner, sent an email to McCleary and Mr. Gibbons, the associate, telling them that "some form of confirmation is needed" "for confirming inspection dates." He added: "This is a mistake that I imagine will not happen again, and I am glad we can move past it and look to the future without these types of issues again." The only thing remarkable about these emails is how unremarkable they are. Two points of interest will be mentioned. First, as just suggested, the tone of each message was neither derogatory nor personal, but measured and professional. There was a touch of criticism, to be sure, as would be expected, but the criticism was constructive in nature, not harsh or angry in tone. Second, McCleary was not the only one called to account. Mr. Vickers's email was directed as much to the associate attorney as to McCleary. The next day, Thursday, May 10, 2018, Mr. Vickers conducted a training meeting for the legal assistants in his group, which McCleary attended. There were a number of topics on the agenda, covering a range of administrative tasks that CSK expected its litigation support staff to carry out. Although Mr. Vickers brought up that week's scheduling snafu as an example of miscommunication-driven consequences, no evidence suggests that McCleary's mistake had prompted the meeting. Further, McCleary was not identified in the meeting as having been at fault or involved in the incident. McCleary, however, complains that she was "singled out" during the meeting, "80% [of which, she maintains,] covered what happened with [her] in regards to the May 7th re-inspection." The greater weight of the evidence does not support her characterization of the training session. According to McCleary, Mr. Vickers, who had been a good boss for the previous nine months, suddenly turned into a tyrant around May 10, 2018. McCleary alleged in an email written a few weeks later, on June 1, 2018, that soon after the canceled inspection, Mr. Vickers had begun asking her "idiotic questions to be sure [she knew] her job," and been constantly micromanaging [her] with multiple emails" accusing her of making numerous mistakes. Yet, although this entire period spans just 18 business days, McCleary produced none of Mr. Vickers's alleged, accusatory emails. The greater weight of the evidence does not support McCleary's allegations concerning Mr. Vickers's treatment of her during the month of May 2018. Sometime near the end of May, McCleary sent out notices of taking deposition duces tecum that did not have the document requests attached. McCleary was not solely to blame for this oversight; the attorney handling the case should have reviewed the papers to make sure that everything was in order before service. Still, as the legal assistant, McCleary should have spotted the omission and brought it to the attorney's attention. On the morning of May 31, 2018, after the problem had been discovered, Mr. Vickers sent an email to McCleary and Mr. Beasley, the associate, admonishing them to "stay focused" when preparing deposition notices for service. Similar to the canceled inspection earlier in the month, the incomplete deposition notices were a problem that CSK obviously would rather have avoided; inattention to detail, moreover, is something any reasonable employer should want to correct. There is no evidence, however, that CSK generally, or Mr. Vickers in particular, made a big deal about this incident. Mr. Vickers told McCleary and the associate that he hoped "it would not happen again"——and that, it seems, would be that. Except it wasn't. Later that day, May 31, 2018, McCleary spoke to the office administrator, Johnson Thomas. During this conversation, McCleary complained about working for Mr. Vickers and asked to be transferred to a different group of attorneys. On Friday, June 1, 2018, McCleary again contacted Mr. Thomas, sending him the email mentioned above. This email was the first written notice that CSK received from McCleary concerning her complaints about Mr. Vickers. In the email, McCleary did not allege racial discrimination, per se, but she did include some language which clearly indicated that such a charge might be forthcoming: "I refuse to subject myself to further retaliation, oppression and disrespect from Mr. Vickers. He is creating a hostile working relationship between us. I cannot concentrate on work and am in need of immediate transfer." (emphasis added). The following Tuesday, June 5, 2018, CSK approved McCleary's request to be transferred, assigning her to the work group headed by partner Melissa Crowley. When the announcement was made, Ms. Crowley sent an email to McCleary stating, "Welcome Latasha! I look forward to working with you." McCleary never reported for duty under Ms. Crowley. Instead, she took a sick day on June 6, 2018, and applied for unpaid medical leave. Despite McCleary's having presented somewhat nonspecific reasons, such as heart palpitations and anxiety, the firm granted McCleary's application and placed her on medical leave through July 11, 2018. In mid-July, McCleary provided CSK with a note from her mental health counselor in support of a request to extend the unpaid medical leave until September 5, 2018. On July 12, 2018, the firm informed McCleary that it would not be able to keep her position open that long without hiring a replacement, but agreed to let her remain on leave until July 31, 2018. CSK made it clear to McCleary that she needed to return to work on August 1, 2018, or face dismissal on grounds of abandonment. McCleary did not return to work on August 1, 2018, and the firm terminated her employment. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no persuasive evidence that CSK took any actions against McCleary motivated by discriminatory animus, or created (or acquiesced to the creation of) a hostile work environment. Indeed, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of unlawful racial discrimination could be made. There is no persuasive evidence that CSK took any retaliatory action against McCleary for having opposed or sought redress for an unlawful employment practice. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that CSK did not discriminate unlawfully against McCleary on any basis.
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 CSK not liable for race discrimination, retaliation, or creating a hostile work environment. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 20th day of December, 2019. COPIES FURNISHED: Reshad Favors, Esquire Mosaic Law Firm Tenth Floor 1875 Connecticut Avenue Northwest Washington, DC 20009 (eServed) Robert Alden Swift, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Tower Place, Suite 750 1900 Summit Tower Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32810 (eServed) Barry A. Postman, Esquire Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. Second Floor 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (eServed) Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Cheyanne M. Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Samuel J. Marshall, was born on November 19, 1936. In March 1986 he began employment as a truck driver hauling sand for Taylor Concrete and Supply, Inc. (Taylor) at its Palatka, Florida plant. When he began his employment with Taylor, Marshall advised his supervisor that because of his religious beliefs, he could not work on Saturdays. The name of the religion is not of record. Marshall says that after giving such notification to his employer, he was never required to work on Saturdays during his tenure with Taylor. This was not contradicted. In 1989, Taylor sold the plant to respondent, Tarmac Florida, Inc. (Tarmac). As an employer with more than fifteen full-time employees, Tarmac is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission). Shortly after the sale, petitioner was advised that his position as a sand truck driver was being eliminated but he could transfer to a position as a ready-mix driver in the ready-mix division at the same plant. Petitioner accepted this offer effective November 28, 1989. Because the new position required the driver to work every other Saturday, petitioner advised the new plant manager, Byron White, that he could not work on Saturdays because of his religious beliefs. After Marshall produced evidence to verify his claim, White excused Marshall from working on Saturdays. Tarmac employee timecards confirm that Marshall was never required to work on a Saturday. Petitioner was required to undergo a brief period of training by riding for several weeks with a senior driver, James Bolt. During petitioner's training period, Bolt was engaged in the illicit practice of selling any concrete left in his truck at the end of the day to third parties and then pocketing the money. This was obviously contrary to company policy. Petitioner was aware of this activity but said nothing. On occasion, Bolt would give petitioner some of the illicit proceeds, which he accepted. In the first week of February 1990, or after he had completed his training with Bolt, petitioner went to White and told him that there was "illicit" activity being conducted at the plant, but he refused to disclose the nature of the activity or the name of the individual engaged in that enterprise. He also failed to tell White that Bolt had given him money. White communicated this conversation to the regional manager, Jack Stegall, but because they had no specific information on which to proceed, they were unable to investigate the allegations. Tarmac has a number of plants within each division. It is not uncommon for drivers to be transferred from one location to another, based on the varying demands of the different plants. In June 1990 Stegall decided to transfer two drivers from the Palatka plant to the Green Cove Springs plant due to increased business at the latter facility. Petitioner and another driver, Dennis Folmer, then approximately thirty years of age, were selected for transfer since they had the least seniority in the Palatka ready-mix division. After learning of Stegall's decision, petitioner contacted Stegall and advised him that he believed the company policy required that transfer decisions be made based on seniority with the company, rather than seniority in a particular position. Stegall then checked with the human resources department and learned petitioner was correct. Petitioner's name was thereafter removed from the transfer list and James Bolt, who had less seniority than petitioner, was placed on the list. During his meeting with Stegall, petitioner informed him about the illegal concrete sales that had occurred during his training period. After petitioner was told to inform White about this matter, he took White to the locations where he was with Bolt when the concrete was illegally sold. He also turned over to White the $30 he had received from Bolt. Based on Marshall's revelation, on June 25, 1990, Bolt was terminated as an employee for the unauthorized sale of concrete. Because he had come forward and disclosed the illegal activity, petitioner was only given a one-week suspension without pay. Petitioner did not question nor challenge the suspension and admitted to White that he was involved in the sales. Also, on July 11, 1990, he was given a warning notice prepared by White and which read in part as follows: Sam confessed to selling unauthorized concrete on three separate occasions. Sam also reported others involved. For this reason only Sam was given one week off. If for any reason this happens again or attempt (sic) to, Sam will be terminated. Although petitioner was handed a copy of the notice, he refused to sign it, threw it back at White and walked away. At the same time petitioner notified Stegall of the illegal concrete sales, he also asked Stegall about the possibility of transferring to Tarmac's Deland facility, which was closer to his home. Stegall indicated he would try to assist petitioner with a transfer, if possible. The next day, petitioner drive to the Deland facility and spoke with the Deland plant manager who indicated there was a ready-mix driving position available. The plant manager also agreed to contact White on petitioner's behalf. Even so, because the Palatka facility was short two drivers due to the transfer of Bolt and Folmer to Green Cove Springs, White could not afford to allow petitioner to transfer to Deland. He did promise petitioner that he would arrange for a transfer as soon as an opportunity arose which would not adversely impact the Palatka facility. After petitioner's suspension for his participation in the illegal sale of concrete, Tarmac received complaints from other Tarmac employees regarding petitioner. Believing this conduct to be detrimental to the integrity of the company and a disruption of the harmony of the work unit, Minor Turrentine, then the Tarmac area production manager, advised petitioner that if he continued to talk about the illegal sale of concrete with other drivers and customers, he would be terminated for breaching company policy, that is, disclosing confidential information that was contrary to the company's best interests. He was also given a written warning on July 16, 1990, which read as follows: You were recently suspended for your admitted involvement in certain activities that are against company policy. It has been reported that you have openly discussed these matters with employees at various locations. Be advised that any further discussion concerning your suspension and the circum- stances surrounding it will be considered breach of confidentiality, which is a violation of company policy. Any further violation of company policy will subject you to severe disciplinary action, up to and including discharge. After White received further complaints regarding petitioner, Tarmac terminated petitioner's employment effective August 21, 1990, for breaching company policy. The separation notice, which was dated the same date, gave the following reason for his termination: Employee was formally warned on July 16 to discuss no further his recent suspension. Discharged for further discussion on or about 8/20/90. There is no evidence as to whether petitioner was replaced by another driver, and if so, the age of that driver. When terminating petitioner, Tarmac did not do so because of petitioner's age or religious beliefs. Indeed, Marshall conceded at hearing that he had no direct proof of discrimination but merely believed he was improperly terminated for those reasons. As evidence of age discrimination, petitioner speculated that Tarmac may have been attempting to lower its insurance rates by removing an older person from its payroll, a belief based solely on a conversation he had with an insurance agent a few weeks prior to hearing. However, at least three other ready mix drivers at the Palatka plant are older than Marshall. He also speculated that because he was not required to work on Saturdays, this caused ill-will among his co-workers, and Tarmac terminated him for his religious beliefs. Again, there was no proof, either circumstantial or direct, to support this assertion. Regarding the claim that Tarmac's decision to transfer petitioner to Green Cove Springs in June 1990 was in retaliation for him telling White that working Saturdays was against his religion, the evidence shows that petitioner was removed from the transfer list once his seniority was brought to the company's attention. Petitioner also suggests that he was denied a transfer to the Deland facility in June 1990 as retaliation for his religious beliefs. However, the evidence shows that it was not feasible for Tarmac to transfer him at that time due to a shortage of drivers but Tarmac promised that an effort would be made to comply with his request when it was feasible. Petitioner did not state whether he desires reinstatement to his former position. In his petition for relief, petitioner did request "70 percent of (his) average yearly base pay since August 20 on". However, petitioner's salary at the time of discharge is not of record. Further, there was no evidence presented to establish his salary nor the monetary losses, if any, petitioner has suffered by virtue of his termination. He is currently employed with another company.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the petition for relief. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 29th day of April, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5927 Respondent: Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 3. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 6. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 7-8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. 10-11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 12-13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. 14-15. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 16-17. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 18. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 19. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 20-23. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 24. Rejected as being unnecessary. Note - Where a finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being unnecessary, irrelevant, subordinate, a conclusion of law, or not supported by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Samuel J. Marshall S. R. Box 1075 Georgetown, Florida 32139 Grant D. Petersen, Esquire Donna M. Griffin, Esquire 1408 North Westshore Boulevard Suite 1000 Tampa, Florida 33607
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice based on his age.
Findings Of Fact Currently, Petitioner is a retired, 68-year-old male. He retired from Respondent at the age of 66. Petitioner began his employment with Respondent as a truck driver. The position of truck driver, involves many long hours of driving (sometimes over 56 hours) various interstate and intrastate truck routes, along with some lifting and exposure to diesel fumes. Petitioner attributed a variety of illnesses and health problems to his work as a truck driver. Some of the illnesses and health problems are hypertension and heart blockage and failure, which resulted in the implantation of a pacemaker, carpal tunnel syndrome, polyneuropathy, muscular and autonomic system problems and pathological hyper-insomnia. Petitioner offered no evidence that any of these conditions resulted from his employment with Respondent. Prior to September 9 or 10, 2000, at the age of 64, Petitioner was hospitalized for heart problems. Around September 9 or 10, 2000, Petitioner was released from the hospital. Upon his return to work, he gave his employer a physician’s note indicating that his work duties be limited to 40 hours a week. Petitioner met with Respondent’s transportation manager regarding whether less lengthy routes were available or whether his schedule or work duties could be adjusted. The employer did not have the ability to adjust the length of the routes, but added a second driver to ride and help with the driving on any route that Petitioner drove. Petitioner inquired about office work and was told that if he was interested in such work he needed to apply at the main office to see what was available. In part, because Petitioner liked driving and in part because the lesser number of hours involved in office work would cause Petitioner to earn less, Petitioner elected not to pursue and did not apply for such office work. No adverse employment action was taken against Petitioner, and Petitioner continued to work for Respondent. At some point during this meeting, Petitioner alleges that the transportation manager said, “Why don’t you just retire.” Petitioner offered no specific context for this statement other than it was a general conversation about his health and closeness to retirement age relative to the adjustments that could be made to his driving duties. One isolated statement such as the one above does not demonstrate any intent to discriminate on Respondent’s part based on Petitioner’s age, especially since no adverse employment action was taken against Petitioner and Petitioner continued to work for Respondent. Around January 1, 2001, for medical reasons, Respondent approved a Leave of Absence with pay for Petitioner. In June or July, 2002, Petitioner filed his first workers compensation claim with Respondent. Petitioner’s claim was turned over to Respondent’s workers' compensation insurer, Kemper Insurance Company. Petitioner did not offer any evidence that Kemper was under the direction or control of Respondent in any decisions Kemper made regarding paying or litigating Petitioner’s claim. In any event, Petitioner’s claim was contested. The main reason the claim was contested was that Kemper alleged that Petitioner’s “injuries” were not work-related. Over the years, Petitioner has amended his claim to include, among other health claims, the health problems listed above. Kemper has maintained its defense. During a mediation session on December 11, 2002, at which the employer was not present and in response to an inquiry regarding Kemper’s defense, Kemper’s representative stated that except for the carpal tunnel claim, all of Petitioner’s medical conditions were due to the natural aging process. Petitioner claims this statement demonstrates an intent on his employer’s part to discriminate against him based on his age. Such an isolated statement does not demonstrate such an intent especially since such conditions can be age related, there was no expert medical evidence demonstrating the cause of Petitioner’s health problems, the statement did not come from the employer, and there was no evidence that the insurer was under the direction or control of the employer regarding decisions to litigate or the factual basis for the defenses that the insurer would raise. The workers' compensation litigation continues to date. In the interim, Petitioner remained on a leave of absence with pay until January 1, 2003. He retired thereafter. There was no evidence that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner or that Petitioner suffered any adverse employment action based on his age. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relation 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Glynda Copeland Qualified Representative Tree of Life, Inc. Post Office Box 410 St. Augustine, Florida 32095-0410 Robert C. Johnson 560 Florida Club Boulevard, Suite 112 St. Augustine, Florida 32084
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 in this case is whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At some time prior to August of 2013, the Petitioner and Respondent discussed the Petitioner’s potential employment as a “Pharmacy Sales Representative” for the Respondent. The Respondent eventually offered such employment to the Petitioner, the terms of which were set forth in a letter (hereinafter “agreement”) from the Respondent (identified therein as “SCP, LLC” or “company”) to the Petitioner. The agreement stated as follows: Your job title will be Pharmacy Sales Representative and your duties include all aspects of sales and marketing to physicians and patients SCP, LLC can provide for. You will be responsible for producing leads and establishing new pharmacy sales as well as maintaining all existing accounts. You will report to members of SCP, LLC. You may be assigned other duties as needed and your duties may also change on reasonable notice, based on the needs of the company and your skills, as determined by the company. The agreement provided that the Petitioner would be paid an annual base salary of $45,000, and a commission “based on the total sales of compounded products sold to all accounts you are managing.” The salary was to be paid bi-weekly. The commission was to be paid quarterly. The agreement stated that the Petitioner would receive an additional $250 per month for the purposes of obtaining private health insurance, and that the additional payment would cease if a company health insurance plan became available to employees. The agreement stated that the Petitioner would also have access to an expense account, including a company credit card, and receive either a car or a paid car allowance from the Respondent. The agreement specifically provided as follows: YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE COMPANY IS AT-WILL. IN OTHER WORDS, EITHER YOU OR THE COMPANY CAN TERMINATE YOUR EMPLOYMENT AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE AND WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE. According to the agreement, the Petitioner’s employment was to commence on September 3, 2013. Although the Petitioner was dissatisfied with the salary structure offered by the Respondent and believed that the offer was below her market value, the Petitioner signed the agreement on August 1, 2013, and accepted the employment terms set forth therein. The Petitioner’s dissatisfaction with her income was a continuing issue during her employment. The Petitioner repeatedly requested that her base salary be increased, but the Respondent was unprofitable and was unwilling to agree to the Petitioner’s request. Although the Petitioner initially developed some marketing materials for the Respondent, the Respondent was not satisfied with the Petitioner’s overall job performance. Additionally, there appears to have been disagreement between the Petitioner and the Respondent as to the responsibilities of her employment, including continuing friction between the Petitioner and her supervisor. On several occasions, the supervisor requested that the Petitioner come into the office during working hours to meet with him. The Petitioner apparently believed that her time was better utilized meeting with prospective clients; however, some of the prospective clients sought products that, for a variety of reasons, the Respondent could not supply. In any event, rather than come into the office as requested by her supervisor, the Petitioner chose to communicate with him by “after hours” email or by telephone. The supervisor was dissatisfied by the Petitioner’s failure to comply with his request. At some point in December of 2013, the Respondent determined that the Petitioner’s performance was not satisfactory and that a change needed to occur. The Petitioner was advised of the Respondent’s dissatisfaction in a meeting on December 5, 2013, between the Petitioner and a representative of the Respondent. After being advised that some type of change was going to occur, the Petitioner raised a number of complaints about her supervisor. The Petitioner complained that the supervisor used profanity, that he had hung up on her during a telephone call, and that, on one occasion, he had patted her on the head in an apparently demeaning manner. The Respondent had a written “zero tolerance” policy prohibiting all forms of harassment, including sexual harassment. The policy prohibited any form of retaliation against an employee who complained that he or she was a target of harassment. The Respondent also had a written “open door” policy that provided a specific procedure for resolving employment-related disputes. The Petitioner was specifically advised of such policies during an orientation process that occurred at the commencement of her employment with the Respondent. Additionally, the Petitioner received written copies of all relevant policies from the Respondent’s human resource director. There is no evidence that, prior to learning on December 5, 2013, that her employment was in jeopardy, the Petitioner advised any representative or employee of the Respondent that she objected to the supervisor’s alleged behavior. After the meeting on December 5, the Petitioner wrote an email to company officials dated December 17, 2013, wherein she asserted that she had “closed” a number of accounts on behalf of the Respondent, and suggested that her contribution to the company was being undervalued. She also requested reevaluation of her compensation because she believed the commission structure was inadequate. The Respondent apparently disagreed with the Petitioner because few actual sales resulted from the Petitioner’s “closed” accounts. Accordingly, during a meeting with Respondent’s representatives on December 20, 2013, the Petitioner was advised that her employment was officially being terminated. Central to the Respondent’s decision was the lack of revenue generated by the Petitioner’s sales and the unprofitability of the company. The Petitioner’s failure to comply with the requests of her supervisor also provided a basis for her termination from employment. During the meeting on December 20, the Petitioner restated the complaints she had first addressed during the meeting on December 5, and raised a number of additional complaints, including allegations of harassment or sexual harassment by her supervisor or another employee. There is no evidence that, prior to learning on December 20, 2013, that her employment was being terminated, the Petitioner had advised any representative or employee of the Respondent that she had been harassed in any manner by her supervisor or by any other employee of the Respondent. The alleged perpetrators of the harassment dispute the Petitioner’s assertions. The evidence fails to establish that any of the alleged acts of harassment or sexual harassment actually occurred. In a memorandum to the Petitioner dated December 20, 2013, the Respondent advised the Petitioner that her termination package would include salary payments for three weeks (one week of “final” pay and two weeks of severance pay), additional payment for 27 hours of accrued paid time off and unused comp time, and a total commission payment of $31.97. By letter to the Respondent dated December 27, 2013, the Petitioner restated the alleged harassment referenced herein and requested that she receive an additional two weeks of severance pay. The Respondent ultimately paid the Petitioner a total of four weeks of severance pay. The evidence fails to establish that the termination of the Petitioner’s employment by the Respondent was related to any complaint of harassment or sexual harassment, or was retaliatory in any manner.
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 the Petitioner's complaint against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2015, 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 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, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Cheyanne Michelle Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Christina Harris Schwinn, Esquire Pavese Law Firm 1833 Hendry Street Post Office Drawer 1507 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 (eServed) Antonios Poulos, Esquire Poulos Law Firm 1502 West Busch Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33612 (eServed)
