The Issue Whether respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice as alleged by petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: This discrimination case involves an allegation by petitioner, David Coleman, that he was denied employment by respondent, City of Jacksonville (City), because of his handicap. The City denies this allegation. A preliminary investigation by the Commission on Human Relations (Commission) found no probable cause that an unlawful employment practice had occurred. By way of background, petitioner has been employed by the City on four separate occasions, the last time as an employee in the mosquito control department in 1984. He was "released" the same year for "unacceptable leave." Since 1990, he has applied for at least twenty separate positions with the City. In conjunction with those and earlier efforts to obtain a job with the City, he has filed several job applications, including one in December 1987 and another in June 1992. Such applications are valid for a period of two years after they are signed and filed with the City. Therefore, if petitioner applied for a position with the City in March 1991, he did not have a valid job application on file. The petition for relief filed by Coleman describes the unlawful employment practice allegedly committed by the City as follows: unlawful hired or employment practice: with veteran preference that I have, and a handicap, which is alleged. The petition for relief does not describe the handicap. At hearing, however, petitioner contended he suffers from paranoia schizophrenia. Petitioner says that he applied for a job as a "traffic checker" with the City's engineering department in March 1991. City records reveal, however, that it has no such position called "traffic checker," and thus it hired no one for that job in 1991. It does have a position called "parking enforcement specialist," but since no description of the functions of that job is of record, it is unknown if the two positions are the same. Even so, City records do not show that petitioner made application for that position in March 1991. Notwithstanding this shortcoming, petitioner says that he interviewed for the position with an unidentified "supervisor," and he was told to prepare a resume, which he later gave to the interviewer's secretary. Thereafter, he made inquiry with the City's affirmative action office and learned that a veteran, not disabled, had been hired to fill the slot. Petitioner then brought this action charging the City with an unlawful employment practice. It is noted he has subsequently filed a second discrimination claim pertaining to another job application with the City. At hearing, petitioner contended that he suffers from paranoia schizophrenia. Other than his own assertion, however, no evidence was produced to confirm this disability, and as to this issue it is found that insufficient credible evidence exists to support a finding in petitioner's favor. The City admits that in one of petitioner's job applications filed with the City, petitioner attached a copy of a DD214 form reflecting that he was honorably discharged from the military. Also, the City acknowledges that in one of the applications is found a statement that petitioner had a 30 percent service related disability but the type of disability is not described. Whether the service related disability was still valid in March 1991 is not of record. Finally, petitioner's exhibit 1 is a copy of what purports to be a "statement of patient's treatment" from a VA outpatient clinic prepared in February 1985, but this document is hearsay, and in any event, is so dated as to have no probative value in this case. The more credible evidence shows that petitioner did not apply for the position of "traffic checker" or parking enforcement specialist in 1991. Moreover, petitioner had no valid application on file at that time, and there is no credible evidence as to who, if anyone, was hired to fill the position or what were the qualifications of the person hired. Even if one assumes an application was filed, the record is silent as to why petitioner's application may have been denied or, assuming he had a handicap, whether he could adequately perform the essential functions of the job. Given these considerations, and the lack of evidence to establish that petitioner is disabled with a handicap, it is found that the City did not commit an unlawful employment practice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order denying the petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of May, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5926 Respondent: Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 5. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Note - Where a proposed finding of fact has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being irrelevant, unnecessary, subordinate, not supported by the evidence, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commissioin Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Mr. David Coleman 1071 Ontario Street Jacksonville, FL 32205 Brian M. Flaherty, Esquire 600 City Hall 220 East Bay Street Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed discriminatory employment practices against Petitioner in violation of Chapter 70 of the Pinellas County Code as alleged in the Complaint, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner is a 44-year-old African-American male. FMS is a package delivery company that does business in Pinellas County. According to Petitioner, FMS has more than 100 employees. FMS was provided due notice of the date, time, and location of the final hearing in this case, but no appearance was made on its behalf. Petitioner’s Job Duties and Salary at FMS Petitioner started working for FMS in late 1999 or early 2000 as a “driver.” Petitioner’s primary job responsibility was to drive a delivery truck along a designated route to deliver and pick up packages. Petitioner was also responsible for loading the to- be-delivered packages on his truck in the morning and then unloading any picked-up packages from his truck in the evening. Petitioner worked Monday through Friday. His shift started at 7:00 a.m. each day. Petitioner’s gross pay was initially $650 every two weeks, but at some point Petitioner's salary was increased to $750 every two weeks.1 Petitioner did not receive health or dental insurance or other benefits. Failure to Switch Trucks as Directed (Complaint, Count III) Chronologically, the first event alleged in the Complaint as a basis of Petitioner’s discrimination claim started on the morning of Friday, February 8, 2002, when Petitioner’s boss, Tom Aliotti, directed Petitioner to switch trucks with another driver named Eddie. Later that day, Mr. Aliotti told Petitioner that he would switch the trucks over the weekend. As a result, Petitioner and Eddie did not switch the trucks on Friday. The trucks were not switched over the weekend, and on the morning of Monday, February 11, 2002, Mr. Aliotti again directed Petitioner to switch trucks with Eddie. Petitioner did not switch the trucks on Monday morning as directed by Mr. Aliotti because he was too busy preparing to run his delivery route. Petitioner testified that Eddie was equally responsible for the trucks not getting switched because he could not switch trucks with Eddie without Eddie’s participation; however, it is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony what specifically Eddie did or did not do in regard to switching the trucks. After Petitioner failed to switch the trucks on Monday as directed, he was given a written reprimand for insubordination by Mr. Aliotti. The written reprimand, which is referred to as a Counseling Sheet (see Exhibit P4), stated: “[Petitioner] will switch trucks tonite [sic] 2/11/02 or [he] will not be working 2/12/02. Day off without pay.” Petitioner testified that he did not switch the trucks even after the directive on the Counseling Sheet. It is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony whether he was suspended without pay on February 12, 2002. According to Petitioner, Eddie was not reprimanded for the incident. It is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony whether a reprimand was appropriate for Eddie because it is unknown whether Mr. Aliotti also told Eddie to switch the trucks and, as stated above, it is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony what specifically Eddie did or did not do to frustrate the truck switching. Eddie, like Petitioner, is an African-American male. Attendance Issues in March 2002 (Complaint, Counts I and II) The other allegations of discrimination in the Complaint relate to discipline imposed on Petitioner for his unexcused absences from work on several occasions in March 2002. Petitioner submitted a written request for a half-day of leave on Friday, March 1, 2002, in which he stated that he needed to “go out of town to attend a funeral” because of a “death in [his] family.” See Exhibit P1, at page 3. That request was approved, and Petitioner was expected to be back at work on Monday, March 4, 2002. Petitioner attended the funeral of his brother in Largo, Florida, on Saturday, March 2, 2002. Later that same day, he traveled to Madison, Florida, to attend funeral services for his uncle. See Exhibits P2 and P3. For reasons that are unclear in the record, Petitioner did not return to work on Monday, March 4, 2002, as he was expected to do. If a driver was going to be unexpectedly absent from work, he or she was required to let the boss know before 7:00 a.m. so that a substitute or “on-call” driver could be contacted to take over the absent driver’s route. Getting another driver to take over the absent driver's route was important to FMS because some of the packages that the company delivers have to get to the customer by 10:30 a.m. Petitioner understood the importance of this requirement. According to Petitioner, he tried to call his boss before 7:00 a.m. on Monday to let him know that he would not be coming into work, but he was not able to reach his boss until several hours after 7:00 a.m. Petitioner did not produce any credible evidence to corroborate his testimony that he attempted to call his boss prior to 7:00 a.m. on Monday, and the documents introduced by Petitioner include conflicting statements as to whether Petitioner ever called on that date.2 Nevertheless, Petitioner’s testimony on this issue is accepted. When Petitioner returned to work on Tuesday, March 5, 2002, he was suspended for the day and, according to Petitioner, his delivery route was taken away. The Warning Letter that was received into evidence (Exhibit P1, at page 1) references the suspension, but not Petitioner’s route being taken away. According to Petitioner, his delivery route was given to a white female, whose identity Petitioner did not know. Thereafter, Petitioner was given menial tasks such as sweeping the floor and taking out the trash, although he also helped load packages onto the delivery trucks in the morning. Petitioner submitted a written request for leave on March 19 and 20, 2002, because he planned to be in Kentucky on those dates. Petitioner stated in the request that “I will be back to work on the [sic] 3-21.” See Exhibit P1, at page 2. The leave requested by Petitioner was approved, and he was expected to be back at work on March 21, 2002. Petitioner got a “late start” on his drive back from Kentucky, which caused him to miss work on March 21, 2002. According to Petitioner, he used his cellular phone to call his boss before 7:00 a.m. on March 21, 2002, to let him know that he would not be coming into work, but he was not able to reach his boss until 7:30 a.m. Petitioner did not present any credible evidence, such as his cellular phone records, to corroborate his claim that he attempted to call prior to 7:00 a.m. Petitioner’s testimony on this issue was not persuasive. The record does not reflect what, if any, discipline Petitioner received for not calling prior to the start of his shift to report that he would not be coming into work on March 21, 2002. Petitioner’s pay was not reduced at any point during his employment with FMS even though, according to Petitioner, his primary job duties were changed from driving a delivery truck to sweeping the floors and taking out the trash. Petitioner continued to work at FMS until April or May 2002 when he was injured on the job while lifting a box. Petitioner’s Post-FMS Activities and Employment After his injury, Petitioner could not and did not work for approximately one year. During that period, Petitioner collected workers' compensation at the rate of $500 every two weeks.3 Approximately one year after his injury, Petitioner’s doctor allowed him to return to work on “light duty.” Thereafter, in April or May 2003, Petitioner tried to return to work with FMS but, according to Petitioner, he was told that there were no available “light duty” positions. That effectively ended Petitioner’s employment relationship with FMS. The Complaint does not allege that FMS’s failure to re-hire Petitioner was a discriminatory employment practice, nor is there any credible evidence in the record that would support such a claim. From April/May 2003 to approximately March 2004, Petitioner held only one job. He worked for approximately one week cleaning floors at a nursing home, but he left that position because of his back problems. After leaving the floor cleaning job, Petitioner did not actively look for other employment. He briefly attended a training class to become a security guard, but he did not complete the class after learning that he would not be able to be licensed as a security guard “because of his prior record.” In approximately March 2004, Petitioner was hired by a former acquaintance to work as a driver for a mortgage company. In that position, Petitioner is paid $11 per hour and he typically works 40 hours per week, which equates to gross pay of $880 every two weeks. As of the date of the hearing, Petitioner was still employed by the mortgage company. Lack of Evidence Regarding Similarly Situated Employees Petitioner presented no credible evidence regarding any “similarly situated” employees, i.e., employees who engaged in conduct that was the same as or similar to that for which Petitioner was disciplined.4 Although Petitioner testified that he “had heard” of situations where other employees had “put a manager off,” rather than immediately doing what the manager told them to do, he was not able to offer any specific examples of such insubordination. Petitioner also presented no credible evidence regarding how other employees (of any race) were disciplined for conduct that was the same as or similar to that for which Petitioner was disciplined.5
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint against FMS. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 27th day of October, 2004.
The Issue Whether Respondent Employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner Employee.
Findings Of Fact On or about November 17, 2006, Petitioner filed an Employment Complaint of Discrimination (formerly known as a "Charge of Discrimination") on the basis of disability/handicap and national origin with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. On June 15, 2007, the Commission entered a Determination: No Cause. On or about July 2, 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief with the Commission. On or about July 5, 2007, this case was referred by the Commission to the Division of Administrative Hearings. On July 18, 2007, a telephonic conference was held to schedule a final disputed-fact hearing date. The hearing date agreed upon was October 1, 2007, and a Notice of Hearing and Order of Pre-hearing Instructions issued on July 18, 2007. Neither party complied with the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions. At the time noticed for October 1, 2007, Respondent appeared for hearing. In the Joint Response to Initial Order, filed July 16, 2007, and in a subsequent Motion filed September 26, 2007, Respondent referred to itself as "Wal-Mart Stores, East L.P. (incorrectly referred-to in the caption as Wal-Mart Stores)," but made no motion to correct the style of this cause. Respondent acknowledged in its pleadings, and its counsel acknowledged orally at hearing, that it was the appropriate Respondent in this cause, regardless of the case's style. After waiting 30 minutes, Petitioner still had not appeared for hearing. The undersigned made diligent inquiry to ensure that Respondent had done nothing to discourage Petitioner from appearing, and closed the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Employment Complaint of Discrimination and a Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___ ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of October, 2007. 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 Amy Harrison, Esquire Lindsay A. Connor, Esquire Ford & Harrison 225 Water Street, Suite 710 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Catrina Soriano 1826 Nekoma Court Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, on the basis of Petitioner's age, Respondent (a staffing agency) unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by having him terminated from his position with Respondent's client, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Respondent inSync Staffing, Inc. ("inSync"), is a company that recruits for, and supplies employees to, its clients, including, as relevant here, NBTY, Inc. ("NBTY"). inSync is an "employment agency" as that term is used in the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA"). See ¶ 13, infra. inSync does not meet face-to-face with most of the candidates it places with clients. On or around August 19, 2015, a recruiter at inSync forwarded the résumé of Petitioner Adalberto Lopez ("Lopez"), then 75 years old, to NBTY in hopes that NBTY might hire Lopez to fill the position of "QA Floor Inspector – Shift 1," a job that paid $13.50 per hour. About a week later, NBTY interviewed Lopez, and, on September 2, 2015, inSync informed Lopez that NBTY was offering him the job. Lopez accepted the offer. NBTY, not inSync, made the decision to hire Lopez. At all times, inSync acted essentially as a go-between, introducing Lopez to NBTY and helping him apply for the job, informing Lopez of NBTY's training and drug test requirements for new employees, and providing him with documents that NBTY wanted completed and returned in the ordinary course of new-hire onboarding. One of the documents that Lopez was required to sign and submit was the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9), which is used by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, administrator of the federal E-Verify program, to determine whether an employee is authorized to work in the United States. The E-Verify program provided NBTY with a result of Tentative Nonconfirmation ("TNC"), meaning that there was, at a minimum, some discrepancy between the information provided in Lopez's Form I-9 and that available in other public records. A TNC does not necessarily disqualify an employee from continuing to work, but it does need to be resolved to avoid the possibility of termination. In this instance, there is no persuasive evidence that the TNC led NBTY to take any adverse action against Lopez. There is, moreover, no evidence that inSync took any adverse action against Lopez as a result of the TNC. Lopez's first day of work at NBTY was September 14, 2015. The next day, NBTY terminated Lopez's employment. Nevertheless, Lopez showed up for work on September 16 and was told, again, that he no longer had a job. There is no persuasive evidence that inSync played any role in NBTY's decision to fire Lopez. inSync did, however, communicate this decision to Lopez, telling him that he had "been terminated due to not catching on fast enough." This was the reason for the termination given to inSync by NBTY. There is no persuasive evidence that this was not, in fact, NBTY's reason for firing Lopez. There is no persuasive evidence that NBTY eliminated Lopez's job, but there is, likewise, no evidence that NBTY filled the vacant position after Lopez's termination, nor (it obviously follows) any proof regarding the age of Lopez's successor (assuming NBTY hired someone to replace Lopez). There is no evidence concerning the candidates, if any, that inSync referred to NBTY after Lopez had been fired. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no persuasive evidence that any of inSync's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Lopez, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by age-based discriminatory animus. Indeed, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of unlawful age discrimination could be made. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that inSync did not discriminate unlawfully against Lopez on the basis of his age.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding inSync not liable for age discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2017, 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 26th day of October, 2017.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice as alleged in the Petition For Relief.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer for the purposes of this proceeding. Respondent's principal place of business is in Orlando, Florida. In 1982, Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a houseman at one of Respondent's hotels located at Marco Island, Florida. Respondent worked continuously in that location until he requested a transfer to the Orlando World hotel in 1986 and received his transfer in the same year. While employed at the Orlando World hotel, Petitioner refused to follow instructions, had excessive absences and was late to work repeatedly. Petitioner received the following disciplinary warnings which finally resulted in his termination on or about October 7, 1991: March 8, 1991 - Written Warning (refused to follow a reasonable job order) March 17, 1991 - Verbal Warning (reporting to work later on 3 occasions within a 90 day period), 2/27/91, 3/3/91, 3/17/91 May 15, 1991 - Written Warning (failure to follow Respondent's work policies) July 30, 1991 - Termination Recommendation (changed to a written warning) August 2, 1991 - Written document (explaining to Petitioner his problems with respect to attendance and tardiness) October 7, 1991 - Suspension and Termination Recommendation. Respondent's rules require employees to call in at least two hours in advance of their shift starting time to report a planned absence from work. Petitioner failed to comply with Respondent's rules by failing to give Respondent timely notice of his planned absence for October 7, 1991. On October 7, 1991, Petitioner called in to report his absence 15 minutes before 8:00 a.m. when his shift started. Petitioner failed to provide credible and persuasive evidence that the Respondent's disciplinary warnings were fraudulent or untruthful. Petitioner was replaced by Mr. Martin Gamey, an Hispanic male. Respondent did not conduct an unlawful employment practice in terminating Petitioner. Respondent did not act with any bias or animus against Petitioner. Petitioner's termination was based upon Petitioner's failure to satisfy his job requirements, failure to follow instructions, excessive absences, and failure to give timely notice for planned absences.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued denying Petitioner's claim of unlawful discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of December, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1302 Respondent's paragraphs 3, 4 and 7 were rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Respondent's paragraph 1, 2, 5 and 6-10 were accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Carlton J. Trosclair, Esquire Marriott Corporation One Marriott Drive, Department 923 Washington, D.C. 20058 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Nicolas Polanco 88-05 71st Street Apartment 1-K Jamaica, New York 11432
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black female. At all times material, Petitioner was employed by Respondent corporation in one of its general retail merchandise stores in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner was hired by Respondent's white male store manager, Mr. John Sasse, on October 20, 1992, as a stock clerk in the shoe department. Petitioner was terminated on January 10, 1993, within the ninety day probationary period published in Respondent's employee handbook. In making the foregoing finding of fact, it is recognized that Petitioner attempted to show that the probationary period for new employees was only sixty days. However, she only showed that the sixty day period was applicable in a different time frame than is material here. On October 31, 1992, while working in a stock room, Petitioner's back and neck were injured when a box fell on her. Supervisors called an ambulance, and Petitioner was transported to the emergency room of a local hospital. She was treated but not hospitalized. Respondent duly filed the "Notice of Injury" as mandated by Chapter 440 F.S., "The Florida Workers' Compensation Act," and began to pay Petitioner's medical expenses. Prior to her injury, Mr. Sasse considered Petitioner to be only a marginal employee. Petitioner was released by hospital doctors for return to work as of November 6, 1992. At that time, she had no work restrictions imposed by a doctor, so Mr. Sasse reassigned Petitioner to her usual duties. Petitioner worked at the tasks she felt she could do until November 11, 1992, when she returned to the hospital. She was examined and medicated. Later that same day, as is standard procedure with workers' compensation injuries wherein the employer pays for an injured worker's medical care and as a result has the legal right to specify which doctors attend the employee, Mr. Sasse ordered Petitioner to go to "Care One," a "walk-in" medical facility specializing in occupational medicine. Petitioner went to Care One, where she was again examined and medicated. Petitioner was released for work the same day with written work restrictions from the Care One doctor. Petitioner's resentment against Respondent that she had been injured in the first place apparently was a motivating force in her actions after she returned to work the second time. Petitioner's candor and demeanor while testifying, as well as her persistence in returning her testimony to the circumstances surrounding the box falling upon her in the storeroom, made it very clear that she considered it discriminatory, or at least unfair, that Respondent had "forced" her or anyone to work under the cluttered stock room conditions that had resulted in her initial accident or injury. In Petitioner's mind, at least, the fact that an accident or injury had occurred in the first place was sufficient to establish "dangerous working conditions" and "an unlawful employment practice." After November 11, 1992, she persisted with these complaints to the employer. However, no competent evidence established a nexus between Petitioner's race and her pre-injury job assignments, and no evidence demonstrated that after her accident, the Respondent-employer handled her workers' compensation medical care any differently because she was black. On November 11, 1992, Care One's written restrictions provided: Restricted Employee should avoid movements of the upper body and neck that would place undue stress on the neck, such as strenuous pushing and pulling, heavy lifting, and working above the shoulders. Employee should avoid lifting > 20 pounds, avoid frequent bending and twisting of the back, and avoid strenuous pushing and pulling. Mr. Sasse and his subordinate supervisors assigned Petitioner tasks consistent with Mr. Sasse's interpretation of Petitioner's written restrictions, as modified over time by subsequent information. On November 11, 1992, a position was created for Petitioner in the soft goods department. At this time, Petitioner became the only black clerk in the soft goods department. Initially, Mr. Sasse told her she was not to reach above her shoulders or bend to pick up anything below her knees. Petitioner complained that these tasks constituted too much physical exertion for her due to her physical condition. Petitioner continued to complain about the accident and her pain. The employer and insurance carrier continued to refer her back to Care One. There was a short delay with regard to some medical services requested by Petitioner or by referring and consulting doctors under the workers' compensation medical care delivery system, but the employer/insurance carrier in due course authorized physical therapy, a consultation with an orthopedic specialist, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for further diagnosis. Derrick Proctor, a black male employee and Petitioner's friend, presented as a credible witness, even though he claimed to have been fired by Mr. Sasse under what Mr. Proctor termed "suspicious circumstances" and at the time of formal hearing had some type of action pending against this employer. Mr. Proctor described Petitioner as "embittered" against the employer because of the employer's refusal or delay in dealing with Petitioner's medical concerns and stress. However, it appears that Petitioner's problems, if any, were common disputes and communication delays inherent in the workers' compensation medical care delivery system. For instance, when asked, the doctors reported directly to the employer, insurance carrier, and store manager concerning the Petitioner- employee's medical condition, consultant treatment, and recovery progress. On December 10, 1992, Mr. Sasse told Petitioner that he had received an oral report on her December 9, 1992 MRI results and that they were negative. This conversation occurred before any of the doctors had reported the MRI results to the Petitioner, and Petitioner inferred therefrom that information was being withheld from her. Later, on December 22, 1992, Petitioner learned, during a reprimand and counselling session for insubordination and failure to work up to her capacities, that the employer had been informed much earlier that she could return to work with no restrictions. (See Findings of Fact 32-36) Although Mr. Sassy and others had told her this before December 22, 1992, the events of December 22, 1992 triggered a belief in Petitioner that the employer was "out to get" her. Notwithstanding the extreme light duty assigned her, Petitioner complained about the work assigned and was uncooperative about helping supervisors find a job description she felt she could perform. Although Petitioner may not have known about it until November 25, 1992, on November 20, 1992 Care One deleted the prior restrictions on lifting items over 20 pounds, bending, and strenuous pushing and pulling, and narrowed her restrictions to the following: Restricted. Employee should avoid movements of the upper body and neck that would place undue stress on the neck, such as strenuous pushing and pulling, heavy lifting, and work above the shoulders. In December 1992, Mr. Proctor was required to close his department, hardware, every night, and Petitioner closed the soft goods department some nights. Petitioner considered being required to close some nights to be discrimination against her since she was the only black employee in the soft goods department at that time and the white female employee in soft goods had been switched to the day shift in Petitioner's place. The greater weight of the evidence shows that the whole store's evening hours increased from midnight to 1:00 a.m. due to the Christmas season, and on December 6, 1992, Petitioner was assigned to work nights so that she could go to daytime medical and physical therapy appointments. The employer's accommodation of Petitioner's situation in this respect was comparable to the accommodation given a white female employee in soft goods. Beginning November 23, 1992, that white female employee, Ms. Audrey, had been assigned to a daylight shift so that her husband, who had bad night vision, could drive her to and from work. Race was not a factor in the accommodation rendered Ms. Audrey or Petitioner. Who closed the store during December 1992 depended upon who worked the evening shift, not race. It is not entirely clear on the record whether, on December 3, 1992, Petitioner withdrew from physical therapy because she could not do the weight training assigned her or was rejected by the physical therapist as a client because she would not cooperate in weight training. Petitioner testified that she returned to physical therapy thereafter for ultrasound treatment. It is clear that Petitioner believed she was rejected by the therapist because she could not lift the heavy weights assigned her by the therapist as part of Petitioner's planned recovery. It is also clear that the decision to end the weight phase of Petitioner's treatment did not have employer input. By December 5, 1992, Petitioner's personally professed physical limitations and complaints about Mr. Sasse's treatment of her had resulted in Mr. Sasse accommodating her by creating a "make-work" job description. Under it, she was asked to push a cart that other employees had hung clothes on; she was not required to load the car with clothes. She was required only to pick up single articles of clothing that were left in the women's dressing rooms and return them to the racks. She was told only to bend if an occasional article of clothing was found on the floor. She was also told to open dressing room doors for customers and, if requested, fetch more clothes for them to try on while they remained in the dressing room. Petitioner was permitted to wear her softly padded neckbrace at all times, even though she presented no written doctor's instructions to do so. Petitioner described it as an "agony" imposed on her by the employer when, on December 5, 1992, Mr. Sasse ordered her not to sit continuously on the sales floor in a chair she had removed from the women's dressing room. Petitioner had previously complained because she had been required to sit for long hours on a very hard chair Mr. Sasse had provided for her, and this time she had gotten a different chair herself. On December 5, 1992, Mr. Sasse told her she must leave the dressing room chair in the dressing room for the customers, that she was not permitted to sit all the time on the sales floor where customers could see her, and she must not just sit without doing any work, until all her work was done. He told her to do a variety of the tasks of which she was capable, including but not limited to sitting while pricing goods. Petitioner considered these orders to be contrary to her doctor's limitations and to constitute "physical abuse." Petitioner repeatedly requested time off with pay so that she could recover completely through bed rest. Mr. Sasse would not allow her time off for medical reasons without a doctor's written approval. Petitioner considered this condition imposed by management to be "abusive." Petitioner described Mr. Sasse as being rude to her on December 6, 1992, when he refused to discuss her accusations of "physical abuse" and her request for time off in the presence of other employees and customers in the public buffet area of the store, and walked off, leaving her there. Petitioner referred to this incident as at least part of her "opposition to unlawful employment practices" which she believed resulted in her termination. Petitioner presented no evidence that a doctor had ever recommended that she stay at home and do nothing so that she could heal. From all the evidence, it is inferred that as a probationary employee, Petitioner had no accrued sick leave to expend for this purpose. Ms. Gardner was a long-time white female employee who had her doctor's approval for knee surgery and who required a month of bed rest at home afterwards. The employer allowed Ms. Gardner to use earned compensatory time as sick leave for that purpose during the month of December 1992. By mid-December, 1992, Mr. Sasse was frustrated because Petitioner refused to do every job he devised, even the "make work" ones, and he believed that she only pretended to be busy when he was watching her. Mr. Sasse had told Petitioner that she could do normal work again and she would not accept this from him without hearing it also from her doctor. Mr. Sasse decided to discipline Petitioner for not working up to her limitations as he understood them and for insubordination. He directed the soft goods manager trainee, Ms. Lynn Tyler, a white female, to "write up" Petitioner. Ms. Tyler and the assistant store manager, Ray Harding, a white male, met with Petitioner on December 22, 1992 to discuss the contents of the prepared memo. One of the supervisors' concerns at the time Petitioner was "written up" was that they could not get Petitioner to do anything at all without an argument, even after pointing out various light work job duties on a walk around the whole store. They were also concerned that without Petitioner doing some tasks, the employer had to pay other employees overtime to accomplish what Petitioner was not accomplishing in her regular shift hours. It was stipulated that Petitioner was never asked to work overtime. Petitioner refused to sign the December 22, 1992 memorandum of reprimand because she did not agree with it and because Tyler and Harding were, in her opinion, "grudgeful." Petitioner was informed later on December 22, 1992 by her Care One doctor that he had, indeed, released her for normal work activities effective December 16, 1992. His December 16, 1992 report which had been previously received by the employer read: Please note employee's current duty status is as follows: Regular May return to normal work activities full time. After her accident, Petitioner was observed by Derrick Proctor doing some of the same types of physical exertion the employer had required that she do before the accident, including reaching above her head to put clothes on and take them off clothes racks and picking clothes up from the floor, but he never knew her medical restrictions other than what she told him. He also observed her in agitated conversations with Ms. Tyler and Mr. Sasse while she was wearing a neck brace. On January 7, 1993, he saw Ms. Tyler "very out of sorts" when talking to the Petitioner. At first, he stated that he did not consider Petitioner to be rude or insubordinate on these occasions because the topic was working conditions, but later he admitted that he could not overhear what was actually said on all these occasions. Mr. Proctor also observed that, "Mr. Sasse rode everybody pretty hard," including white workers. It was "his way of getting things done." Mr. Proctor once observed Petitioner hiding in another department, behind racks, to avoid management. Petitioner acknowledged and described her "hiding out" at that time to Mr. Proctor as due to her "feeling mistreated" and "avoiding management." In her formal hearing testimony, Petitioner described it as "opposing unlawful work practices and abusive treatment." After learning on December 22, 1992 of her release from all medical restrictions, Petitioner continued to be uncooperative with management. Petitioner's testimony conceded that she had understood that all doctors had released her with no restrictions as of December 28, 1992 and that she had still refused to reach and bend in the stock room when ordered to do so by Mr. Sasse and Ms. Tyler on January 7, 1993. After evaluating Petitioner's continued failure or refusal to perform even the lightest of duties, Mr. Sasse decided to terminate Petitioner before her ninety days' probationary period ended. Mr. Sasse, who was terminated by Respondent-employer sometime later in 1993 and who, at the time of formal hearing, was litigating an unemployment compensation claim against Respondent, had no reason to fabricate information or testify favorably for the Respondent-employer. He was credible to the effect that the decision to terminate Petitioner in January 1993 was his unilateral decision and that he made his decision without reference to, or motivation by, Petitioner's race. Specifically, it was Mr. Sasse's foundational assessment that Petitioner could physically do the light work he assigned her after reasonable accommodation for a temporary disability but that she would not do the work assigned by him that caused him to terminate her. Petitioner testified that she was replaced by a white female. In fact, a white female was hired approximately one or two weeks prior to Petitioner's January 10, 1993 termination, with a due date to report to work on January 11, 1993, which subsequently turned out to be the day immediately following Petitioner's termination. The employer did not hire this white female with the intent of replacing Petitioner, but she was ultimately placed into the soft goods department. Mr. Proctor testified that other blacks worked in soft goods after Petitioner's termination. Within four weeks of Petitioner's termination, three new employees were hired. None of these were assigned to the soft goods department. Mr. Standley Gillings, a black male, was originally employed in another of Respondent's Ocala stores. In October 1993, Mr. Gillings was demoted with a loss of pay and transferred to the store from which Petitioner had been fired ten months earlier. His new immediate supervisor in that store was also black. Respondent continued to employ Mr. Gillings under the black supervisor until Mr. Gillings found another job and quit.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of August, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 1994.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of sexual harassment and retaliated against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying Benjamin Bullard's Petition for Relief. S DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2012, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Benjamin Bullard 12211 Park Drive Hollywood, Florida 33026 Spencer D. West, Esquire Stephen N. Montalto, Esquire Mitchell & West, LLC 3191 Coral Way, Suite 406 Miami, Florida 33145 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Limited Edition Interiors, Inc. (Respondent), committed an act of unlawful employment discrimination and an act of retaliation against an employee, Arlene Matvey (Petitioner), in violation of Pinellas County Code sections 70-53(a) and 70-54(1).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was an interior furnishings retailer located in Largo, Florida, and owned by William S. Miller (Mr. Miller) and Judith L. Miller (Mrs. Miller), a married couple. Mrs. Miller was the president of the company. Mr. Miller was the secretary/treasurer of the company. Both Mr. and Mrs. Miller were generally present at the business. The Respondent was an "employer" pursuant to the definition of the term set forth within the applicable Pinellas County Code provision. On October 31, 2005, the Respondent hired the Petitioner to work as the office manager and bookkeeper in a full-time, salaried position. The Petitioner's duties included tracking various accounts, preparing sales invoices, preparing the payroll, preparing certain tax records, and general office filing. The Petitioner, a single mother, had been unemployed for an extended period prior to being hired by the Respondent. Both Mr. and Mrs. Miller knew that the Petitioner needed the financial support provided by her job. Mr. Miller was the Petitioner's supervisor. Their work areas were in relatively close proximity, with Mr. Miller occupying an office space with a door and the Petitioner occupying a workstation immediately outside Mr. Miller's office. There was a second workstation also located outside Mr. Miller's office, and, on occasion, a third employee was present in the area. A few months after the Petitioner began employment at the Respondent, Mr. Miller began to make remarks about the Petitioner's physical appearance, particularly her "derriere." The remarks were frequent and were heard by other employees. The Petitioner was offended by the remarks and routinely told Mr. Miller to stop. On more than one occasion, Mr. Miller asked the Petitioner to sit on his lap. The Petitioner objected to Mr. Miller's requests and told him so. On at least one occasion, the exchange between Mr. Miller and the Petitioner was overheard by another employee. At various times, Mr. Miller called male employees and the Petitioner into his office to view sexually-suggestive photographs on his computer, some of which were described as pornographic. The Petitioner and other employees objected to the display of photographs and told him that they objected to his showing them the photos. At other times, Mr. Miller called the Petitioner into his office and showed her pornographic images on his computer screen. She felt disturbed by his behavior and told him of her objection. At times during the Petitioner's employment by the Respondent, Mr. Miller made purposeful and inappropriate physical contact with the Petitioner's body. Such contact included attempts to grab the Petitioner by her waist and to rub his clothed genital area against the Petitioner's clothed buttocks. The Petitioner consistently objected to Mr. Miller's behavior and told him of her objections. Other employees observed Mr. Miller's conduct and the Petitioner's objections to his behavior. On one occasion, Mr. Miller called the Petitioner into his office and told her a joke that included his displaying the outline of his penis through his pants, at which time the Petitioner voiced her objection to Mr. Miller. In September 2007, Mr. Miller appeared at the Petitioner's home, and, while there, he exposed his penis to the Petitioner and attempted to entice the Petitioner into sexual activity. He had not been invited to come to her home, and he left the premises when she directed him to do so. At various times during her employment, Mr. Miller asked the Petitioner to expose her breasts to him, and she objected and declined to do so. She eventually complied with the request on one occasion, because she feared losing her job if she refused. Subsequently, Mr. Miller told a male employee that the Petitioner had acceded to his request to see her breasts. The male employee relayed the conversation to the Petitioner, who felt humiliated by the incident. There was no evidence presented at the hearing to suggest that the Petitioner invited or encouraged Mr. Miller's inappropriate behavior. To the contrary, the evidence establishes that the Petitioner routinely told Mr. Miller of her objections to his conduct at the time it occurred. Because the Petitioner had been unemployed prior to being hired by the Respondent and was afraid of losing her job, she did not complain to Mrs. Miller about Mr. Miller's conduct. At the beginning of 2008, the Petitioner advised Mr. Miller that she felt he was "sexually harassing" her. Mr. Miller thereafter began to engage in a pattern of verbal harassment directed towards the Petitioner's job performance. He began to assign tasks to the Petitioner unrelated to her prior bookkeeping or office manager duties. She was assigned to monitor the store inventory, prepare sales tags and attach them to floor samples, dust the store, and clean the kitchen. Mr. Miller routinely criticized the Petitioner's work skills, argued with her about the performance of her duties, and called her "stupid." Prior to January 2008, neither Mr. nor Mrs. Miller had expressed any significant dissatisfaction with the quality of the Petitioner's work as office manager or bookkeeper. There was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that the Petitioner was unable or unwilling to perform the office manager and bookkeeper tasks for which she was hired. Indicative of Mr. Miller's general attitude towards the Petitioner, he used a parrot that was kept at the store to intimidate the Petitioner, who was afraid (perhaps irrationally) of the bird. Mr. Miller clearly knew that the Petitioner was fearful of the bird, yet he would stand behind the Petitioner while she was working and hold the bird near the Petitioner's head, terrifying her. In early 2009, Mr. Miller again called the Petitioner into his office and showed her pornographic images on his computer screen. She again advised him of her objection to his conduct. Prior to 2009, the Petitioner had not talked with Mrs. Miller about her husband's conduct, because the Petitioner remained concerned about losing the job. However, in February 2009, while the two women were both in the store's lunchroom area, the Petitioner advised Mrs. Miller of Mr. Miller's conduct and asked Mrs. Miller to intervene. Mr. Miller had been out of the store for much of February 2009. He returned to work on February 23, 2009, and the Petitioner testified that he left her alone for a few days after his return. However, on March 2, 2009, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner's employment as a salaried, full-time employee, transferred her into an hourly wage position, and reduced her employment hours. She was partially relieved of her bookkeeping responsibilities and was assigned additional store tasks such as moving old boxes and cataloging their contents. The Respondent asserted that the March 2, 2009, action was the result of deteriorating business conditions. The Respondent asserted that the store revenues had declined and that they were required to reduce payroll costs by reducing personnel. The Respondent failed to provide any credible evidence supporting the assertion that deteriorating sales and income were the rationale behind the alteration of the Petitioner's work responsibilities. After March 2, 2009, Mr. Miller routinely continued to criticize the Petitioner's work performance. On July 23, 2009, Mr. Miller and the Petitioner became engaged in a heated discussion in the office area, during which he referred to her as a "fucking c-nt." Although Mr. Miller testified that he did not intend for the Petitioner to hear his insult, he said it loudly enough to be overheard by another employee who was also in the office area. Mr. Miller had previously used the same phrase to refer to other women, including Mrs. Miller. The Petitioner immediately reacted, screaming at Mr. Miller that he could not use the phrase and stating that she would be filing "a complaint" against him. The Petitioner left the office area and went into the store area, loudly protesting Mr. Miller's insult and intending to advise Mrs. Miller of the incident. Because there were customers in the store at the time, Mrs. Miller focused more on calming the Petitioner and not disrupting the store. After speaking briefly with Mrs. Miller, the Petitioner returned to the office area to collect her possessions. Mr. Miller approached the Petitioner and placed his hands in the area of her neck, which caused the Petitioner to feel physically threatened. The Petitioner took her possessions and left the store. The Petitioner next returned to work on July 27, 2009, at which time she was told that she was no longer the office manager and bookkeeper. At the hearing, Mr. Miller testified that the Petitioner was removed from the office because the situation had become volatile. Mrs. Miller testified that, because the Petitioner was argumentative, a decision had been made to remove her from the office. On July 27, 2009, when the Petitioner asked Mrs. Miller why she was no longer the office manager, Mrs. Miller said the Petitioner's job had been changed "because of Bill," meaning Mr. Miller. As of July 27, 2009, the Petitioner had no further office management responsibilities and retained only janitorial and store tasks. The Petitioner was also directed to call the store before coming in to see if she was needed on that day. On some days, the Petitioner was told there was no work for her. On August 14, 2009, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner's employment. There was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that the termination of the Petitioner's employment was related to dissatisfaction with her performance as the Respondent's office manager and bookkeeper, or to the performance of the other tasks that were subsequently assigned. The Respondent asserted that economic conditions caused them to terminate some employees, including the Petitioner, but there was no credible evidence presented to support the assertion. The evidence presented during the hearing established that employees who were terminated were fired for non-performance of their job duties. There was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that the Petitioner's termination or the reduction in her work hours was related to the Respondent's economic condition. At the hearing, employees (both current and former) described Mr. Miller's treatment of women as degrading and humiliating. Employees who worked for the Respondent concurrently with the Petitioner were aware that she was being humiliated by Mr. Miller's behavior. In addition to the Petitioner, Mr. Miller previously assigned janitorial duties to an employee whom he disfavored when he wanted the employee to quit. After the Petitioner's employment was terminated by the Respondent, the Petitioner attempted to obtain another job. During the period of unemployment, the Petitioner received $300.00 per week in unemployment compensation benefits. As of November 9, 2006, the Petitioner earned a bi- weekly salary of $1,600.00 from the Respondent. As of February 1, 2006, the Respondent provided health insurance coverage for the Petitioner as a benefit of her employment and continued such coverage after her termination and through December 31, 2009. As of April 29, 2010, the Petitioner became employed by Gentry Printing Company as a full-time bookkeeper earning $15.00 per hour and working a 40-hour week. On July 17, 2010, the Petitioner received a raise from Gentry Printing Company to $16.00 per hour for the 40-hour week. Gentry Printing Company withholds $22.50 from the Petitioner's weekly income as her contribution to the medical insurance program. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented testimony related to damages. The evidence established that the Petitioner was entitled to an award of $32,745.00 in back pay. The Respondent presented no corresponding evidence or testimony related to damages.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that the Respondent violated Pinellas County Code sections 70-53 and 70-54 and ordering the Respondent to pay the sum of $32,745.00 plus interest at the prevailing statutory rate to the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2011, 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 22nd day of September, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Falkner, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street, Sixth Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 Robert G. Walker, Jr., Esquire Robert G. Walker, P.A. 1421 Court Street, Suite F Clearwater, Florida 33756 Sherri K. Adelkoff, Esquire 1159 South Negley Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15217 Leon W. Russell, Director/EEO Officer Pinellas County Office of Human Rights 400 South Fort Harrison Avenue, 5th Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 Peter J. Genova, Jr., EEO Coordinator Pinellas County Office of Human Rights 400 South Fort Harrison Avenue, 5th Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756
The Issue Whether Respondent, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store (Respondent), committed the unlawful employment practice, as alleged, in the Petition for Relief filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner, Reza Mahallaty (Petitioner), be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner did not testify in this case. Based upon the undisputed testimony of the witnesses, Petitioner was employed by Respondent and served as a senior assistant manager (SAM). At all times material to the allegations of the case, Respondent employed Petitioner. As a nationally recognized purveyor of food and goods to the public, Respondent presumably employs more than 15 employees. At all times material to this matter, Respondent used a management structure at its stores that included managers in training, assistant managers, senior assistant managers, and general managers. Persons seeking to become general managers typically work their way through the ranks and serve as a SAM before promotion to general manager of a store. On or before August 2010, Petitioner sought a position with Respondent as a general manager. He did not get the promotion. Thereafter, he filed the underlying complaint with FCHR. The complaint stated: I have been employed by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store since June 26, 2006. My most recent position is Senior Associate Manager. I hereby allege that I have been discriminated against due to my race and national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964. The foregoing allegations were made under penalty of perjury and for purposes of this case have been accepted as to the facts alleged, but not as to the legal conclusion of discrimination. Petitioner presented no evidence as to his race or national origin. Petitioner’s Petition for Relief reiterated his conclusion that he had been discriminated against based upon his claim of being Iranian and of Persian origin. In addition to not having received promotions, Petitioner included complaints about retaliation that were not addressed by the FCHR. As previously indicated, retaliation issues are not part of the determination that was presented for administrative review. With regard to Petitioner’s attempt(s) to be promoted prior to August 2010, Petitioner did not present evidence that he was more qualified than the applicant Respondent chose. Respondent uses an interview process that rates the candidates for general manager by a selection team. The selection team looks at the candidates’ credentials, history with the company, and responses to the interview questions to rate each applicant for the position sought. Petitioner did not present evidence that he had achieved a higher score in the rating process than the applicant chosen. Petitioner did not present evidence that Respondent knew or should have known Petitioner was the best qualified candidate for the position of general manager. Petitioner did not present evidence that Respondent selected a candidate for general manager that had fewer years of employment with the company than Petitioner. Petitioner did not present evidence that any general manager Respondent selected in preference to Petitioner was of a race or national origin that received special deference over Petitioner. Other than Petitioner’s assertion that he must have been denied promotional opportunities due to his race and national origin, Petitioner failed to establish bias on Respondent’s part. To the contrary, Respondent asserted that Petitioner was not qualified to be a general manager because he was unwilling to master and fully support the company’s core operating systems, the company’s philosophies, and the company’s initiatives. Petitioner presented no credible evidence to refute Respondent’s assertion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding no cause for an unlawful employment practice as alleged by Petitioner, and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 10th day of April, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Shane T. Munoz, Esquire Ford and Harrison, LLP 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 900 Tampa, Florida 33602 Reza Mahallaty 656 English Lake Drive Winter Garden, Florida 34787 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, Sanford Housing Authority (Respondent), committed an unlawful employment practice as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner, Jimitre Smith (Petitioner), be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female who was pregnant during a portion of the time events occurred related to her employment with Respondent. At the time of Petitioner’s initial employment with Respondent, the Sanford Housing Authority operated public housing complexes within its geographical area pursuant to a HUD program to provide housing assistant to low income, qualified residents. At some point, the Orlando Housing Authority stepped in to take over the management of Respondent’s properties. Due to the deteriorating condition of Respondent’s properties, residents were provided Section 8 vouchers so that they could obtain private rental opportunities. In the midst of the transition period, Petitioner’s employment with Respondent ended. Petitioner was initially hired by Respondent to replace a receptionist who was out on maternity leave. The assignment was part-time and temporary. It began on or about March 31, 2010. When the receptionist returned to work, Petitioner was offered a second part-time job as leasing clerk. Although the record is not clear when this second job started, it is undisputed that Petitioner sought and was granted maternity leave due to her own pregnancy on September 27, 2010. It was during this time period that the Orlando Housing Authority stepped in to take over Respondent’s responsibilities. Mr. Fleming, an employee of the Orlando Housing Authority, served as the Interim Executive Director for Respondent. In November 2010 residents were advised of the plan to demolish the substandard housing units. Since the units would not be leased, a leasing clerk was no longer required. Although Petitioner had been told she could return to work after her maternity leave, there was no position available for her at that time. Once the Orlando Housing Authority took over management, all of the day-to-day work was assigned to its employees. Respondent kept a handful of maintenance workers, but there is no evidence Petitioner sought and/or was denied that type of job. Petitioner claimed she should have been offered or allowed to apply for a job with the Orlando Housing Authority. There is no evidence that entity was required to hire her or that it refused to hire her because of her gender or pregnancy or that Respondent refused to recommend Petitioner for employment due to her gender or pregnancy. When Petitioner was cleared for return to work in December 2010, there was not a job to return to as Respondent did not have a position for her. There is no evidence that Respondent hired anyone during or after Petitioner’s pregnancy or that Petitioner was refused a job that she was qualified to perform. Had a suitable job been available, it most likely would have come through the Orlando Housing Authority. In January of 2011, Respondent formally eliminated Respondent’s part-time position through a reduction in workforce decision. At that time, Petitioner received a severance payment from Respondent and an offer for other job training opportunities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding no cause for an unlawful employment practice as alleged by Petitioner, and dismissing her employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 3rd day of January, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jimitre Rochelle Smith 804 South Bay Avenue Sanford, Florida 32771 Ricardo L. Gilmore, Esquire Saxon, Gilmore, Carraway and Gibbons, P.A. Suite 600 201 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
