The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates the Best Western Admiral’s Inn and Conference Center in Winter Haven. Petitioner worked as a waitress in the hotel’s first floor restaurant from March 8, 2005, through March 18, 2006. Petitioner testified that she was sexually harassed “for months” by Marcus Owens, a cook who worked with her in the restaurant. According to Petitioner, Mr. Owens made vulgar and sexually-explicit comments to her on a number of occasions while they were working together. Petitioner could not recall precisely when the harassment started, but she estimated that it started approximately two weeks after Mr. Owens started working at the restaurant. Mr. Owens started working in the restaurant on July 28, 2005, which means that the harassment would have started in mid- August 2005. Petitioner did not complain about the harassment until November 9, 2005, when she reported it to her supervisor, Cory Meeks. This was the first notice that Respondent had about the alleged harassment. Petitioner’s testimony that she complained to the hotel’s general manager, Jeffrey Vandiver, about the harassment several weeks prior to her complaint to Mr. Meeks was not persuasive. Petitioner and Mr. Meeks met with the hotel’s human resources manager, Lin Whitaker, on the same day that the complaint was made, November 9, 2005. Ms. Whitaker told Petitioner that she needed to put her complaint in writing for the hotel to take formal action. Petitioner refused to do so because she was scared of retribution by Mr. Owens, even though Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whittaker assured her that she would be protected from Mr. Owens. Petitioner asked Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker to address the situation with Mr. Owens without using her name, which they did. Mr. Owens denied sexually harassing anyone when confronted by Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker. On December 2, 2005, Petitioner again complained to Mr. Meeks about Mr. Owens. She told Mr. Meeks that the harassment had not stopped and that it had gotten worse through even more vulgar comments. Petitioner again did not want a formal investigation into the allegations, but Ms. Whitaker told her that an investigation was required by company policy since this was the second complaint. Mr. Owens was immediately suspended without pay pending the completion of the investigation. The investigation was conducted by Mr. Vandiver, Mr. Meeks, and Ms. Whitaker on December 7, 2005. They first met with Petitioner to get her side of the story. Then, they met separately with Mr. Owens to get his side of the story. Finally, they interviewed all of the employees who worked with Petitioner and Mr. Owens. This was the first time that Petitioner went into detail about what Mr. Owens had said and done. She stated that, among other things, Mr. Owens asked her whether she had “ever had a black man” and whether her boyfriend “is able to get it up or does he require Viagra.” She also stated that there were no witnesses to the harassment because Mr. Owens was "discreet" about making the comments to her when no one else was around. Mr. Owens again denied sexually harassing anyone. He acknowledged asking Petitioner whether she had ever dated a black man, but he stated that the question was in response to Petitioner asking him whether he had ever dated a white woman. (Mr. Owens is black, and Petitioner is white.) The other employees who were interviewed as part of the investigation stated that they had not witnessed any sexual harassment or overheard any sexually explicit conversations in the restaurant. Mr. Vandiver, Mr. Meeks, and Ms. Owens concluded based upon their investigation that “there is not enough evidence of sexual harassment to terminate Marcus Owens.” They decided to let Mr. Owens continue working at the hotel, provided that he agreed to be moved to the hotel’s second floor restaurant and that he agreed to attend a sexual harassment training program. On December 8, 2005, Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker conveyed the results of their investigation and their proposed solution to Petitioner. She was “fine” with the decision to move Mr. Owens to the second floor restaurant where she would not have contact with him. On that same day, Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker conveyed their proposed solution to Mr. Owens. He too was “fine” with the decision, and he agreed that he would not go near Petitioner. Mr. Owens came back to work the following day, on December 9, 2005. On December 14, 2005, Mr. Owens was involved in an altercation with Stephen Zulinski, a dishwasher at the hotel and a close friend of Petitioner’s. The altercation occurred at the hotel during working hours. Mr. Zulinski testified that the incident started when Mr. Owens made vulgar and sexually explicit comments and gestures about Mr. Zulinski’s relationship with Petitioner. Mr. Zulinski was offended and angered by the comments, and he cursed and yelled at Mr. Owens. Mr. Zulinski denied pushing Mr. Owens (as reflected on Mr. Zulinski’s Notice of Termination), but he admitted to putting his finger on Mr. Owens’ shoulder during the altercation. Mr. Owens and Mr. Zulinski were immediately fired as a result of the altercation. Petitioner continued to work as a waitress at the hotel’s first floor restaurant after Mr. Owens was fired. Petitioner received awards from Respondent for having the most positive customer comment cards for the months of October and November 2005, even though according to her testimony she was being sexually harassed by Mr. Owens during those months. She testified that her problems with Mr. Owens affected her job performance only to a “very small degree.” Petitioner had no major problems with her job performance prior to December 2005, notwithstanding the sexual harassment by Mr. Owens that had been occurring “for months” according to Petitioner’s testimony. Petitioner was “written up” on a number of occasions between December 2005 and February 2006 because of problems with her job performance. The problems included Petitioner being rude to the on-duty manager in front of hotel guests; taking too many breaks and not having the restaurant ready for service when her shift started; failing to check the messages left for room service orders; and generating a guest complaint to the hotel’s corporate headquarters. Petitioner was fired after an incident on March 11, 2006, when she left the restaurant unattended on several occasions and the manager-on-duty received complaints from several hotel guests about the quality of service that they received from Petitioner that night. Petitioner ended up being sent home from work that night because, according to her supervisor, “she was in a crying state,” unable to work, and running off the restaurant’s business. Petitioner’s employment with Respondent was formally terminated on March 18, 2006. The stated reason for the termination was “unsatisfactory work performance” and “too many customer complaints.” None of the supervisors who wrote up Petitioner were aware of her sexual harassment complaints against Mr. Owens. Petitioner claimed that the allegations of customer complaints and poor job performance detailed in the write-ups were “ludicrous,” “insane,” “almost a complete fabrication,” and “a joke.” The evidence does not support Petitioner’s claims. Petitioner admitted to having “severe” bi-polar disorder, and she acknowledged at the hearing and to her supervisor that she was having trouble with her medications over the period that she was having problems with her job performance. For example, the comment written by Petitioner on the January 27, 2006, write-up stated that she was “at a loss” to explain her job performance and that she “hope[d] to have [her] mental stability restored to what everyone else but [her] seems normalcy.” Petitioner worked 25 to 30 hours per week while employed by Respondent. She was paid $5.15 per hour, plus tips, and she testified that her biweekly take-home pay was between $200 and $250. Petitioner applied for unemployment compensation after she was fired. Respondent did not dispute the claim, and Petitioner was awarded unemployment compensation of $106 per week, which she received for a period of six months ending in September 2006. Petitioner has not worked since she was fired by Respondent in March 2006. She has not even attempted to find another job since that time. Petitioner does not believe that she is capable of working because of her bi-polar disorder. She applied for Social Security disability benefits based upon that condition, but her application was denied. Petitioner’s appeal of the denial is pending. Petitioner testified that one of the reasons that she has not looked for another job is her concern that doing so would undermine her efforts to obtain Social Security disability benefits. Respondent has a general “non-harassment” policy, which prohibits “harassment of one employee by another employee . . . for any reason.” Respondent also has a specific sexual harassment policy, which states that “sexual harassment of any kind will not be tolerated.” The policy defines sexual harassment to include verbal sexual conduct that “has the purpose or effect of interfering with the individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” The general non-harassment policy and the specific sexual harassment policy require the employee to immediately report the harassment to his or her supervisor or a member of the management staff. The Standards of Conduct and the Work Rules adopted by Respondent authorize immediate dismissal of an employee who is disrespectful or discourteous to guests of the hotel. The Standards of Conduct also authorize discipline ranging from a written reprimand to dismissal for an employee’s “[f]ailure to perform work or job assignments satisfactorily and efficiently.”
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2007, 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 8th day of June, 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 Donald T. Ryce, Esquire 908 Coquina Lane Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Nora E. Bartolone 119 Alachua Drive Southeast Winter Haven, Florida 33884
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on her sex and/or in retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's business provides consulting and technical-services management on a contract basis. Specifically, the business involves performing environmental consulting, engineering, remediation/construction, and information technology services to both private and public entities throughout the country. Petitioner began working for Respondent in February 1998 as a receptionist and administrative assistant in Respondent's Jacksonville, Florida, office. Her duties included answering the phones, processing mail, filing, creating, and revising reports. Petitioner's job description also included providing administrative support to the engineers, scientists, project managers, and geologists in the office. Initially, Petitioner worked under the direction of Sam Patterson, Respondent's division director. After Mr. Patterson resigned, Sam Pratt became Respondent's manager and Petitioner's supervisor in the Jacksonville office. On or about March 24, 1998, Respondent evaluated Petitioner's work performance. The evaluation indicates that Petitioner was outstanding in the following expected behavior and performance areas: (a) knowledge; (b) initiative/problem solving; and (c) relations with others. Petitioner received an excellent rating in all other performance areas, including the following: (a) communication/marketing ability; (b) quality of work; (c) dependability; and (d) adaptability/professional development. Respondent paid for Petitioner to attend computer courses. Petitioner completed the following courses on the following dates: (a) April 29, 1998, Beginning Power Point; (b) September 19, 1998, Beginning Excel; (c) January 7, 1999, Beginning Word; (d) March 25, 1999, Intermediate Excel; (e) April 9, 1999, Intermediate Word 97; and (f) April 27, 1999, Advanced Excel. Mr. Pratt evaluated Petitioner's job performance on March 11, 1999. He found that Petitioner met the expected behavior and performance requirements in all areas. Mr. Pratt listed her strengths as follows: (a) has good relationship with clients; (b) works long hours to meet deadlines; (c) has excellent knowledge of company resources and corporate information; and (d) has detailed filing system that allows for tracking data. Mr. Pratt listed her weaknesses as follows: (a) has failed to contact office when unavailable to work due to family illness; (b) lacks computer skills necessary for a project assistant; (c) fails to perform a complete review of her own work; and (d) takes constructive criticism too personally. There were no areas in which Petitioner failed or exceeded her job requirements. In July 1999, Gregg Roof became Respondent's manager and Petitioner's supervisor in the Jacksonville office. Mr. Roof experienced problems with Petitioner's job performance, finding that she had difficulty completing simple tasks, such as copying, without making errors. Merve Dale was a geologist who worked for Respondent. Mr. Dale worked part-time in the field and part-time in Respondent's Jacksonville office. Petitioner found Mr. Dale's behavior offensive on several occasions. In June 1999, Mr. Dale told Petitioner that he could not smell the toxic odor in the warehouse but he could smell her perfume, which made him want to jump her. Petitioner ignored Mr. Dale and did not immediately report this statement to Mr. Roof. Mr. Dale sent Petitioner an e-mail from his home on August 19, 1999. The message stated, "I have sent myself a test message and I thought of you, so here is another test to see if my e-mail works from home. Have a wonderful day." Petitioner responded electronically that she had received the message. Petitioner then called Richard May, Respondent's senior regional manager in the Tallahassee, Florida, office. Petitioner told Mr. May that she was not happy about the content of the e-mail message or the fact that it was sent from Mr. Dale's home at 6:00 a.m. She also informed Mr. May about Mr. Dale's prior comment about smelling her perfume. However, Petitioner did not want Mr. May to take any action against Mr. Dale. She specifically stated that she did not want to file a formal complaint pursuant to Respondent's anti-discrimination or anti-harassment policy. She wanted to deal with the situation herself. Later that same day, Mr. Dale called the office from the field to ask Petitioner to have lunch with him. Petitioner declined the offer, stating that she usually worked through the lunch hour. Petitioner did not report this incident to Mr. Roof or Mr. May immediately. In the afternoon, Mr. Dale asked Petitioner what he was going to get in return for giving her charge numbers for her timecard. Petitioner responded that the question was what he would not get, which was a hard time. When Mr. Dale indicated that it was not a fair exchange, Petitioner replied, "That's the way it is." Mr. Dale then gave Petitioner the information she needed for her timecard. Petitioner did not immediately report this incident to Mr. Roof or Mr. May. On August 20, 1999, Mr. Dale was with Petitioner when another geologist asked her if she was wearing a new outfit because she really looked sharp. Petitioner laughed and responded negatively, stating that she was finally losing weight and able to wear some old clothes. At that point, Mr. Dale stated, "I told her she was really looking hot and she better watch out." Mr. Dale then reached out with a roll of drawings, five feet in length, and slapped Petitioner on her backside. Petitioner immediately told Mr. Dale to behave himself. In a letter to Mr. Dale dated August 24, 1999, Petitioner recounted the above-referenced incidents and demanded an apology. The letter specifically informed Mr. Dale that his actions were unwanted and offensive. Petitioner furnished Mr. Roof with a copy of the letter. Mr. Roof and Petitioner also shared her concerns with Mr. May. Mr. Roof subsequently counseled with Mr. Dale and Petitioner. During the meeting with Mr. Roof on August 25, 2000, Petitioner rejected Mr. Dale's apology. Mr. Roof then proceeded to admonish Mr. Dale, warning him that his behavior towards Petitioner was inappropriate. Petitioner did not request Mr. Roof or Mr. May to take any further action against Mr. Dale even though she knew she could have filed a formal complaint pursuant to Respondent's policies and procedures. On February 18, 2000, Petitioner happened to be alone in the office with Mr. Dale. She was helping him label samples for shipment to a laboratory when Mr. Dale handed Petitioner a doctor's business card. Mr. Dale stated that he found the card on the sidewalk in front of the office entrance and wondered if it might belong to Petitioner. Other than giving Petitioner the business card, Mr. Dale did not say or do anything to Petitioner. Petitioner concedes that it was customary for staff to give found items to her as the office receptionist. However, the business card made Petitioner feel uncomfortable because it listed the name of a gynecologist who specialized in reproductive endocrinology, infertility, pelvic reconstructive surgery, and gynecology. Petitioner kept the business card and faxed a copy of it to Mr. May in Tallahassee. When she called Mr. May, he said he would talk to Mr. Dale. Mr. May was extremely supportive of Petitioner and took her complaints regarding the card seriously. Petitioner requested Mr. May to report the incident to Faye Thompson, Respondent's director of Human Resources. This was the first time that Petitioner had made such a request. During the telephone conversation, Mr. May asked Petitioner if she wanted to transfer to the Tallahassee office so that he could protect her. Mr. May and Petitioner had previously discussed such a transfer because some of her duties were regional in nature. Petitioner responded that she would think about it. In an e-mail dated February 22, 2000, Mr. May asked Petitioner to plan a luncheon for Ms. Thompson and other employees who would attend a project manager's seminar at the Jacksonville office. Petitioner responded that she would be happy to prepare the meal and other refreshments for the seminar. On February 23, 2000, in anticipation of the seminar, Petitioner asked Mr. Roof if he was going to have the warehouse cleaned over the weekend. He responded negatively because the staff had already worked long hours. Petitioner then stated that she would work on the weekend to organize the files and certain areas of the warehouse. Mr. Roof again responded negatively, explaining that he did not want to pay overtime. When Petitioner continued to insist on cleaning the office for the dignitaries, she and Mr. Roof had a verbal exchange in front of other staff. Petitioner followed Mr. Roof into his office. She then asked him what she should do with the extra electronic equipment stored in the cubicles. When Mr. Roof told her to throw it in the dumpster, Petitioner refused and began to question him about the company's policy for disposing of excess equipment. Next, Mr. Roof closed his office door and began to explain that he was tired of having to tell Petitioner things multiple times and that he did not want her to clean the office. Although Mr. Roof inappropriately raised his voice in talking to Petitioner, there is no persuasive evidence that he blocked her exit from the office after Petitioner requested him to move. Mr. Roof lost his temper with Petitioner, but he was not retaliating against her because she accused Mr. Dale of sexual harassment. Instead, Mr. Roof was frustrated because Petitioner would not follow his directions. Before the day was over, Mr. Roof and Petitioner had a civil discussion about the incident. Petitioner was upset about Mr. Roof's behavior. She subsequently expressed her feelings to Mr. May in a telephone call. On February 29, 2000, Ms. Thompson was in the Jacksonville office for the project manager's meeting. After the meeting, Ms. Thompson spoke to Petitioner about her sexual discrimination claim. During the conversation, Petitioner gave Ms. Thompson a copy of the August 24, 1999, letter to Mr. Dale and a copy of the business card. On or about March 1, 2000, Mr. May met with Mr. Roof and Petitioner to complete Petitioner's work evaluation. During the meeting, Mr. May counseled Petitioner and Mr. Roof. Mr. Roof again apologized to Petitioner for his losing his temper on February 23, 2000. The written evaluation indicates that Petitioner did not meet her job requirements in the following areas: (a) decision making; (b) reliability; and (c) quality and quantity of work. According to the evaluation, Petitioner met her job requirements in the following areas: (a) knowledge of job; (b) interpersonal and communication skills; and (c) professional development. The only area that Petitioner exceeded job requirements was in safety. The performance evaluation correctly reflected several areas in which Petitioner had a positive influence in the office. Some examples of her contributions include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Petitioner successfully coordinated health and safety training for Respondent's offices in Florida; (b) Petitioner was an excellent person to represent Respondent when performing telephone reception duties; (c) Petitioner performed successfully as the regional human resources representative; and (d) Petitioner successfully coordinated partner meetings, including making hotel reservations and arranging for meeting rooms. The evaluation also correctly reflected Petitioner's job performance skills that required improvement. These skills included the following: (a) Petitioner had a poor attitude toward her supervisor as indicated by her failure to follow directions and her failure to understand office hierarchy; Petitioner had difficulty prioritizing her work; Petitioner often seemed overwhelmed by a minimal amount of work resulting in a disorganized desk and poorly maintained files; (d) Petitioner spent too much time in personal telephone conversations; (e) Petitioner rarely made an effort to determine when assigned work was due so that it could be completed in a timely fashion; and (f) Petitioner's word processing and spreadsheet manipulation skills were below standards required for a person in her position. Mr. May wanted all administrative personnel to work more as "project assistants," helping the professionals with the administrative tasks of particular projects. Petitioner assured Mr. Roof and Mr. May that she would make an effort to improve her performance. Soon thereafter, Ms. Thompson called to thank Petitioner for the luncheon and snacks during the project manager's meeting. Ms. Thompson also inquired whether Petitioner had thought more about transferring to the Tallahassee office. Petitioner said she would make the move if the company paid her expenses. Some time after the March 2000 evaluation, Petitioner informed Mr. May that she did not believe she could sufficiently demonstrate her skills to receive the promotion and pay raise she wanted while she worked in the Jacksonville office. Mr. May again offered Petitioner an opportunity for a fresh start in the Tallahassee office working directly for him. However, Mr. May cautioned Petitioner that her work performance had to improve if she were going to accept the offer. Mr. May agreed that Respondent would reimburse Petitioner for her relocation expenses. Petitioner moved to Tallahassee, Florida, and began working in the Tallahassee on or about May 1, 2000. In her new position, Petitioner worked as receptionist and administrative assistant. Once again her duties included providing administrative support to the professionals in the office. At all times material here, Petitioner enjoyed working for Mr. May. She does not attribute any discriminatory or harassing behavior to him. However, immediately after her transfer, Petitioner again demonstrated deficiencies in her job performance. Mr. May had hoped that Petitioner would become a "resource" for him. Instead, the opposite was true despite the additional training provided to Petitioner. Petitioner often went to Mr. May with questions regarding simple tasks that were part of her regular job duties. It did not take Mr. May long to confirm Mr. Pratt's and Mr. Roof's earlier complaints regarding deficiencies in Petitioner's performance. Mr. May began to document his observations about Petitioner's job performance. On May 8, 2000, Petitioner did not get to work until 9:00 a.m. Additionally, another employee had to take the regular FedEx to the kiosk because Petitioner did not get it out on time. On May 9, 2000, Petitioner again failed to get the regular FedEx out on time. This failure was more serious because the package contained checks in the amount of $32,000. On May 10, 2000, Petitioner did not get to work until after 9:00 a.m. Other staff members had to interrupt their work to sign for deliveries. Later that day, Mr. May told Petitioner that she did not have to put cover sheets on all her work. Petitioner then complained that she had to do "regional stuff" all the time. On May 19, 2000, Petitioner did not get the FedEx delivery out on time. The package had several checks in it, as well as an important communication regarding an offer of employment for a new employee. On May 22, 2000, Petitioner was not in the office by 9:15 a.m. In the meantime, Petitioner began to experience interpersonal relationship problems with members of the staff. For example, problems with Karen Harnett, Respondent's systems administrator, began soon after Petitioner made the move. The evidence indicates that Ms. Harnett was a bully who routinely picked on people. Ms. Harnett's attitude caused one employee to quit her job and caused another employee to seek help from Respondent's employee assistance program. However, there is no persuasive evidence that Respondent ever condoned Ms. Harnett's behavior in retaliation for Petitioner's filing of the sexual harassment complaint. In June 2000, Ms. Harnett and two other staff members found it amusing to harass an employee who worked for VALIC, an investment firm located in Respondent's office building. The harassment resulted in a feud over parking spaces in the building's parking lot. Petitioner was aware of Ms. Harnett's inappropriate actions but did not participate in the harassment. Petitioner did not know that it was customary for Respondent's receptionist to accept deliveries for VALIC when its office was closed. One day, Petitioner refused to accept a delivery of a UPS or FedEx package for VALIC. Later, the VALIC employee stormed into Respondent's office demanding to know why Petitioner had refused the delivery. Howard Engle, one of Respondent's project managers, heard the encounter between the VALIC employee and Petitioner. He went to the front of the office to see what was going on. Jimmy Hatcher, the building's owner, later complained to Mr. May about Petitioner's refusal to accept the package. Mr. May was not in the office with the VALIC incident took place. When he returned to the office, he heard several versions about the dispute. He concluded that Petitioner's poor decision-making and reaction to the angry VALIC employee had contributed, at least in part, to undermine Respondent's positive working relationship with Respondent's neighbor. On or about June 14, 2000, Mr. May discussed the VALIC incident with Petitioner. During that conversation, Mr. May also counseled Petitioner regarding her working relationship with other employees. He advised her to pay more attention to details and to improve her technical skills. Mr. May explained to Petitioner that several of the professionals in the office avoided giving her work because they lacked confidence in her work. He encouraged her to work more cooperatively with the professionals in the office. During the conversation on June 14, 2000, Petitioner admitted that she needed to improve her computer skills. She felt that everyone was against her and that Mr. May's only option was to go ahead and fire her. Mr. May later sent Ms. Thompson a summary of his conversation with Petitioner. On June 16, 2000, Mr. Engle sent Mr. May an e-mail complaining about Petitioner's substandard performance. The message stated that Mr. Engle had resorted to doing his own copying because he could not depend on Petitioner. Additionally, she had misplaced an important laboratory report, which would not have been delivered in a timely manner if another employee had not discovered Petitioner's error. Mr. Engle also complained that Petitioner had misfiled and never shown him a time-sensitive letter from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection regarding Respondent's re-certification to perform work in the state. This error could have had a calamitous impact on Respondent's business interests. In a written correspondence dated June 29, 2000, Mr. May gave Petitioner a written warning that she would be terminated if her job performance did not improve. The communication outlined specific job performance areas that required immediate and sustained improvement. As of June 29, 2000, Petitioner had misdirected incoming facsimile transmissions, failed to ensure that outgoing FedEx deliveries met the regular schedule, and sent at least one FedEx delivery to the wrong location. Competent evidence indicates that Petitioner needed to pay more attention to detail. Petitioner failed to proofread final drafts of monthly reports that she prepared. As of June 29, 2000, every such report had errors in them. Petitioner failed to focus on directions for work assignments. She often failed to return the work in the order that it was assigned. Petitioner failed to prioritize her work. She did not give project-related activities priority over day-to-day overhead issues. When Petitioner felt overwhelmed by an assignment, she was unwilling to shift gears to handle a higher priority activity. Petitioner had difficulty working the office schedule. She needed to understand that she could not work a later schedule. She also had to understand that overtime pay would not be authorized except for work directly related to client projects or for important overhead objectives. Petitioner failed to be accountable to the professional staff that depended on her administrative assistance. At times, she was unwilling to accept work assignments from staff members other than Mr. May. At times Petitioner was argumentative with her co-workers and inflexible regarding office procedures and protocols. She needed to moderate her behavior towards her co-workers. Petitioner was paid at Respondent's top pay rate for the second highest administrative support grade. She should have been serving as a resource for staff members that were not expected to have expertise in word processing. However, Petitioner's computer proficiency was at a beginners level at best. At times, Mr. May had to assist Petitioner with computer skills that she should have mastered. After receiving the written warning, Petitioner showed no improvement in her job performance or ability to work with the people in Respondent's Tallahassee office. Therefore, Mr. May terminated Petitioner's employment on July 25, 2000, for substandard work performance. Respondent's decision to fire Petitioner was based solely upon her poor performance record. It was not a result of any complaints she made against Mr. Dale the preceding year when she worked in the Jacksonville office. In making his decision to terminate Petitioner, Mr. May did not receive input from anyone in the Jacksonville office or from any other of Respondent's employees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR dismiss Petitioner's Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sharon Jensen 2692 Spring Lake Road Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Michael Mattimore, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. 906 North Monroe Street, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether the Respondent, Tallahassee Coca-Cola Bottling Company (Coke), engaged in an unlawful employment practice on the basis of race in its termination of James Andrews, the Petitioner. Andrews was purportedly terminated because of allegations that he had repeatedly sexually harassed and touched female employees. Resolution of the ultimate issue does not require a determination of whether such sexual harassment actually occurred. Instead, the issue is whether Coke's motivation for the termination was racially based and thus impermissible.
Findings Of Fact Andrews, who is black, was initially hired by Coke in 1969 and worked on the production line until he quit in 1971. Andrews was rehired by Coke in 1973, also in the production department. He worked in various positions in both the production department and in the inventory warehouse, and was promoted to assistant production superintendent in 1977. When the production department was closed in June 1982, Andrews transferred to the warehouse as assistant warehouse supervisor. In 1983, he assumed the responsibilities of head shipping and receiving clerk, and was placed in charge of inventory control, plant security and vehicle maintenance. Warehouse Supervisor Dale Dunlap resigned in July 1988 and Andrews was promoted to Warehouse Supervisor. As warehouse supervisor, Andrews had primary responsibility for the overall management of the warehouse, including inventory control, shipping and receiving, personnel management, and warehouse and vehicle maintenance. Andrews' performance evaluations were generally excellent, but the most recent evaluations were less favorable than his earlier reviews. Reports of Sexual Harassment Prior to Andrews' termination reports of sexual harassment were made to Coke by three employees: Susan Lingerfelt, Mandy Stinson, and Sue Rosenthal (now Rubin). In summer 1989, Lingerfelt reported to Office Supervisor Mandy Stinson that Andrews had just grabbed her in the warehouse by the Coke machine and had forced her head back and kissed her. She had shoved Andrews into the Coke machine, told him not to do that, and went to report it to her supervisor. Because the Sales Center Manager had resigned and his replacement had not yet been appointed, the two women agreed not to tell anyone about the incident, but instead to wait until the new manager arrived. In February 1990, around Valentine's Day, Lingerfelt reported that Andrews came up behind her when she was sitting alone at a computer terminal, grabbed her hair, pulled her head back, and again kissed her on the lips. Lingerfelt again protested and tried to get away from Andrews. Lingerfelt again reported the incident immediately to Stinson. Stinson and Lingerfelt went immediately to Lee Burk, the new Sales Center Manager, and reported the incident and the earlier incident at the Coke machine. During this same meeting with Lee Burk, Stinson also complained that she had been repeatedly harassed by Andrews and that Andrews had come up behind her, given her a "bear hug," and tried to kiss her. Burk was confused about what had happened to Lingerfelt because a black employee, Roosevelt Humphrey, had reported to him a couple of months before that he had seen two employees consensually embracing at the Coke machine. Humphrey had not identified the two employees except to say one was a supervisor. Burk mistakenly believed that the two separate Coke machine incidents were the same event. Based on this mistaken belief, Burk thought that a supervisors' meeting would be enough to solve the problem. A few days later, Burk called a supervisors' meeting and discussed several topics, including sexual harassment. He redistributed and discussed Coke's written policy forbidding sexual harassment. Burk told all the supervisors in no uncertain terms that he would not tolerate unwelcome sexual advances at the plant and that if anything of that sort had happened, the supervisor had better clean up his act. In August 1990, Andrews again was reported by Lingerfelt for grabbing her hair, pulling her head back and kissing her on the lips. Lingerfelt tried to slap Andrews, but missed, hitting him on the shoulder. Lingerfelt went immediately to Stinson and they went to see Burk. Lingerfelt was quite upset and was crying. When Burk heard the report, he said he would take care of it. Lingerfelt left the plant for about an hour to collect herself. While Lingerfelt was gone, Burk called Andrews to his office and confronted him with the two women's allegations, including the previous reports by both women. Andrews categorically denied the allegations, except that he had once put his arms around Lingerfelt. He denied ever kissing her and said he did not mean anything by his actions. Burk stressed to Andrews that he could not touch any female employee again, even if he didn't think anything was wrong with it--that he must stop it. Andrews claimed that Lingerfelt had invited the contact by bumping against him and that she was making the allegations because he was black. Andrews also claimed that Lingerfelt had allowed sexually explicit advances from a white supervisor, Doc Roddenberry, and that Roddenberry, not Andrews, should be the subject of Burk's admonitions. Burk told Andrews that he had only gotten complaints about him (Andrews) and that if he continued with his unwelcome conduct, he could lose his job. No advances were reported by Lingerfelt for a few months, but she did complain that Andrews was uncooperative with her about work. In January 1991, Lingerfelt noted that Andrews was calling her frequently and spending long periods of time in her office. Because this behavior was similar to Andrews' conduct before the previous incidents, Lingerfelt became concerned. On January 16, 1991, Stinson was in Jacksonville at Coke's regional office. Lingerfelt became so concerned that she called Stinson in Jacksonville and reported that Andrews had spent several hours that day in Lingerfelt's office staring at her. Stinson immediately asked the Regional Human Resources Manager, Thomas Bauman, for assistance. Stinson informed Bauman of all the prior alleged sexual harassment by Andrews. The next day Stinson returned to Tallahassee and she and Lingerfelt spoke with Burk. Lingerfelt, who was visibly scared and crying, explained to Burk that Andrews had been standing around her office staring at her. Burk said he would address the problem immediately. After talking with Bauman and obtaining his approval, Burk called Andrews into his office and confronted him again. Andrews denied that he had been hanging around Lingerfelt's office staring at her. Burk then brought Stinson into his office to confront Andrews about his persistent harassment against her. Andrews denied the allegations and accused Stinson of "coming on" to him. Andrews again asserted that the women's allegations were racially motivated. He also brought up his allegations against Roddenberry and Lingerfelt and demanded to know why Roddenberry could "get away with it" and he couldn't. Burk advised Andrews that it was only his own misconduct which was being addressed at the moment. Burk also informed Andrews that the allegations of Andrews' misconduct would be brought to the attention of Bauman for further action. Shortly thereafter, Coke's Special Events Supervisor, Sue Rosenthal (now Rubin), reported several events of sexual harassment by Andrews. She had come forward to help support Lingerfelt. Coke's Investigation After discussing the situation and receiving instructions from Buddy Donaldson, Coke's Florida Human Resources Director, Bauman travelled to Tallahassee to conduct an investigation on January 24 and 25, 1991, into the allegations against Andrews. Bauman first met with Burk and received a briefing on the series of allegations. Burk reported the incident which Roosevelt Humphrey had reported to him, still thinking that incident involved Andrews. Bauman interviewed Lingerfelt, who related in great detail each of the alleged incidents set forth above. Bauman took notes and Lingerfelt signed those notes as being an accurate account of her statement. Bauman asked Lingerfelt whether she had any racial motivation for her reports. Lingerfelt denied that Andrews' race had anything to do with her allegations. At this meeting, Lingerfelt told Bauman that she had hired an attorney and had filed sexual harassment charges against Coke with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Bauman next interviewed Roosevelt Humphrey. Humphrey told Bauman that the two people he had reported were Lingerfelt and Roddenberry, not Lingerfelt and Andrews. Humphrey also acknowledged that he had not seen any other such incidents involving Lingerfelt and Roddenberry since the one incident he had reported to Burk without giving names. Bauman then went to Lingerfelt and asked if Roddenberry had sexually harassed her. Lingerfelt denied that Roddenberry had ever harassed her. Bauman next interviewed Rosenthal. Rosenthal told Bauman that before she became a supervisor in early 1989, Andrews had engaged in unwelcome sexual conduct toward her on three occasions. The first two times, Andrews came up behind her in her office, lifted the hair on the back of her neck, and kissed her on the neck. The third time, Andrews surprised her by kissing her on the lips after she had finished a telephone call and had turned around. Rosenthal said she was too startled to say anything after the first incident, but after the second and third events, she told Andrews not to do that. She said she did not report these incidents at the time because she was new, young and nervous. Rosenthal also reported that she had recently seen Andrews "stalking" Lingerfelt, staring at her for long periods of time and waiting for Rosenthal to leave so that he could be alone with Lingerfelt. Bauman asked Rosenthal whether her allegations could be racially motivated. Rosenthal said race had nothing to do with it and, in fact, she lived with a black roommate. Rosenthal had selected that woman from a pool of applicants who had responded to her newspaper ad seeking a roommate. Bauman next interviewed Stinson. Stinson told Bauman of the harassment she had suffered from Andrews, which included several attempts by Andrews to hug and kiss her. She also related information about the times Lingerfelt would come to her and they would go to Burk about Andrews' actions toward Lingerfelt. On January 25, 1991, Bauman officially interviewed Burk. Burk related the actions he had taken, including the supervisors' meeting in February 1990 and the personal meetings with Andrews in August 1990 and January 1991. Burk also recommended that Andrews be terminated for sexual harassment and stalking. Suspension and Termination Bauman then called Donaldson and discussed the information he had learned. They decided that Andrews should be suspended immediately, pending a final decision. They also decided not to interview Andrews again because he had denied any wrongdoing twice, most recently a week earlier. They had no reason to believe that Andrews would recede from his denials. Before suspending Andrews, Bauman asked Lingerfelt and Stinson to leave the building. He did so because of his concern and the women's concerns about their personal safety, especially when Andrews was told of the suspension. As soon as the two women had left the building, Bauman called Andrews to Burk's office. They told Andrews that he was being suspended for conduct unbecoming a supervisor. Andrews wanted to know "who said what" about him, but Bauman declined to give him further details. As he was leaving Burk's office, not knowing that Lingerfelt and Stinson had left the building, Andrews shouted to the closed door of Stinson's office something to the effect of "Did you women hear that--are you happy now?" As soon as Andrews was escorted from the premises, Coke changed all the locks at the Tallahassee facility, which was standard procedure. Bauman also had an automatic front door lock installed so that no one could enter the front office without being pre-screened. The following week, Bauman and Donaldson reviewed all the information, including the interview notes which had been attested to by the three women. They concluded that sufficient evidence existed to require termination of Andrews' employment. On January 31, 1991, Donaldson came to Tallahassee, summoned Andrews to the facility, and terminated him for misconduct. The decision to terminate Andrews was based on a good faith belief that he had engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct on multiple occasions, despite and in the face of at least two warnings by the sales center manager. Coke did not immediately replace Andrews. Due to a "cost containment" program that had recently been instituted and because Tallahassee's volume was too low, Burk was not permitted to hire a replacement. In February 1992, more than a year later and after two neighboring sales centers were closed and their operations consolidated at the Tallahassee facility, Burk was allowed to hire a replacement. He hired the warehouse manager from one of the closed sales centers, a white male. Other Victims Come Forward While Coke knew of only three female employees who had been harassed by Andrews when Coke terminated him, three additional women also came forward to testify about sexual harassment they had suffered at the hand of Andrews. Johnnie Mae Marshall, a black woman who had worked for Coke as a receptionist, said Andrews had suggestively rubbed her arms and hands when she handed him documents. To stop it, she ceased to hand him papers, instead placing all such documents in a mail tray for him. Christen Cheshire, a white female telephone sales operator, testified that Andrews harassed her beginning in late 1988. She said Andrews came into her office once or twice a day, hugged her around the neck, and kissed or attempted to kiss her. This went on for about two months before Cheshire was able to persuade Andrews to stop the unwelcome advances. While Cheshire never reported Andrews' advances, Marshall remembers Cheshire complaining to her about it. Jeanie Benton, a white female who worked for Coke from 1987 to 1990, also testified about Andrews' unwelcome advances. One time when she rose from her desk and turned around, Andrews was right behind her and tried to kiss her. She told him to get back and leave her alone. On a later occasion, Andrews tried to massage her shoulders and she told him to stop. Thereafter, Andrews would stand in her office door and stare at her. Andrews' Claims of Discrimination Andrews' claims that the termination was motivated by racial discrimination and that Coke's reasons for terminating him were pretexts for discrimination. As evidence, he offered a story that Roddenberry committed egregious acts of sexual harassment and misconduct, but was not disciplined. Additionally, he alleged that a "white clique" wanted to get rid of him because they did not like that a black man was made warehouse supervisor. Not one shred of credible evidence was given to support Andrews' claims. Besides Andrews' own testimony, the only witness who claimed to have seen any sexually inappropriate conduct between Roddenberry and anyone, including Lingerfelt, was Roosevelt Humphrey. Humphrey was not a credible witness. First, he was terminated by Coke for stealing a check from a coworker and cashing it. Next, he said he saw Roddenberry and Lingerfelt three times a week with Roddenberry kissing Lingerfelt, rubbing her buttocks and her breasts. However, he was not even working at the warehouse during most of the time he said he saw this and his testimony was filled with contradictions and discrepancies. Finally, he named others who saw and discussed this behavior; but each of those named persons denied ever seeing any sexually inappropriate behavior between Roddenberry and Lingerfelt or other female employees. Andrews' suggestion that his termination was racially motivated by false reports from a group of white employees, including Lingerfelt, Stinson, Rosenthal, and Roddenberry, is also unworthy of belief. Andrews' purported to support his conspiracy theory with anecdotes about other white employees, Jeanie Benton and William Beck, who tried to help him in the face of the covert actions of the alleged conspirators. However, Benton and Beck both denied that the events Andrews described in his anecdotes ever occurred. Additionally, Andrews' version of all these incidents was simply implausible and inconsistent with the credible and substantial evidence. Finally, Andrews presented no credible evidence to rebut Coke's evidence of its legitimate reason for the termination. Andrews simply offered no competent or probative evidence of a racial motivation for his termination.
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 denying and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by James Andrews, Jr. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 23rd day of September, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-2063 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, James Andrews, Jr. 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-3(1-3); 9-12(8-11); 17-19(13- 15); 23-25(20-22); 34(29); 36(31); 37(32); 40(35); 41(36 & 37); 42(38); 45(42); 46(43); 50 & 51(46); and 53(47). 2. Proposed findings of fact 4-8, 13-16, 20-22, 26-33, 35, 38, 39, 43, 44, 47-49, and 54 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 3. Proposed finding of fact 52 and 55 are irrelevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Tallahassee Coca-Cola Bottling Co. 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 53(35). 2. Proposed findings of fact 4, 5, 12-17, 19, 20, 22-27, 29-36, 40, 43, 44, 47-52, 55, 56, 79, 80, 87-90, 127, and 137 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. 3. Proposed findings of fact 6-9, 11, 18, 85, 91, 102, 107-113, 117, 118, 121, 128-130, 134, and 136 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. 4. Proposed findings of fact 10, 21, 28, 37-39, 41, 42, 45, 46, 54, 57-78, 81-84, 86, 92-101, 103-106, 114-116, 119, 120, 122-126, 131-133, 135, and 138-152 are irrelevant, repetitive, unnecessary, and contain summaries of testimony and argument which are not appropriate proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Marie A. Mattox Attorney at Law 3045 Tower Court Tallahassee, Florida 32303 William R. Radford Attorney at Law 5300 First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2339 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Petitioner failed to timely file her Petition for Relief following the Florida Commission on Human Relations' No Cause Determination? Whether Petitioner failed to timely file a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations with respect to her claim of harassment? Whether Respondent promptly and thoroughly investigated Petitioner's claim of sexual harassment? Whether Respondent took measures reasonably calculated to end and prevent any alleged sexual harassment? Whether Petitioner suffered from a disability, and, if so, what was the nature of her disability. Whether Respondent provided Petitioner with a reasonable accommodation for her alleged disability? Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her sex and/or disability? Whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for complaining of sexual harassment?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed her Charge of Discrimination against Respondent on August 29, 2002. FCHR issued a No Cause Determination and Notice of Determination: No Cause on May 12, 2003. Petitioner filed her Petition for Relief on June 20, 2003. This was 39 days after the No Cause Determination was issued. Petitioner failed to show good cause for the delay in filing. Petitioner worked as an apprentice operator at Respondent's Stanton Energy Center ("Energy Center"), during the relevant time period, under the supervision of Wade Gillingham ("Gillingham"), manager of Operations for the Energy Center. Respondent is an employer under the FCRA. On or about July 5, 2001, Petitioner expressed some concern to Gillingham about a co-worker, Tim Westerman ("Westerman"), potentially hurting himself or others. More specifically, Petitioner told Gillingham that she was concerned Westerman was going to hurt himself or her. Upon learning of Petitioner's concerns, Gillingham notified Respondent's Human Resources Department, and he scheduled a follow-up meeting with Petitioner on Monday, July 9, 2001. Lou Calatayud ("Calatayud") from Human Resources also attended this interview. During these initial meetings, Petitioner did not complain of any inappropriate touching or sexual contact between herself and Westerman. Following her meeting with Calatayud and Gillingham, German Romero, director of Human Resources, held a second interview with Petitioner to discuss her concerns about Westerman. Thereafter, Respondent conducted a thorough investigation into Petitioner's allegations. During the course of the investigation, Petitioner was interviewed twice and Westerman was interviewed twice. Both Westerman and Petitioner admitted to voluntarily participating in several telephone calls with each other, with some lasting as long as two hours. Petitioner did not appear upset or concerned after these calls. Human Resources also interviewed Terry Cox and Tom Dzoba, both watch engineers to whom Petitioner claimed she reported complaints regarding Westerman. Neither Cox nor Dzoba was Petitioner's direct supervisor. Petitioner told Cox that she had issues with another employee. However, she refused to provide Cox with the other employee's name and insisted on handling the matter on her own, despite Cox's asking her for the name of the person. Dzoba has no knowledge of Petitioner ever complaining about any problems with another employee in the workplace. The first person to whom Petitioner reported Westerman's name was her supervisor, Gillingham, who immediately reported Petitioner's complaints to Human Resources. Westerman was not Hanson's supervisor. Westerman never expressed any romantic interest in Petitioner; however, Petitioner had expressed interest in meeting Westerman outside the workplace for dinner. Additionally, Petitioner used to write Westerman "cheer-up notes" while at work. In fact, the only touching that Petitioner later referred to were hand or arm rubbing during voluntary personal conversations with, and counseling or consoling of, Westerman. Similarly, the only touching Westerman recalls was possibly rubbing up against Petitioner in the workplace or maybe putting his hand on her shoulder when they were talking. Westerman never kissed or attempted to kiss Petitioner. In addition to the above, no other employees were able to identify any inappropriate contact between Petitioner and Westerman. After completing its investigation in early August 2001, Respondent determined that sexual harassment had not occurred but instructed Westerman, verbally and in writing, not to have any further contact with Petitioner. Prior to Respondent's instruction, sometime between May and July 2001, Petitioner personally asked Westerman to stop calling her, a request he complied with generally. At the same time, Respondent instructed Petitioner to discontinue counseling employees to protect against any future incidents or allegations of sexual harassment. It is the policy and practice of Respondent to treat all employees equally regardless of their gender and/or disability. Respondent developed and distributed to its employees, via an Employee Handbook, an Equal Opportunity Policy and Policy Against Harassment. Following the conclusion of Respondent's investigation into Petitioner's complaints of sexual harassment, on or about August 6, 2001, Petitioner requested a medically-supported leave of absence for 30 days. This leave was granted by Respondent. However, Petitioner later requested to return to work nearly ten days ahead of schedule, on August 27, 2001, submitting a release from her doctor. Because Petitioner was seeking to return to work so far ahead of schedule, Petitioner was evaluated by Respondent's occupational medical director, Jock M. Sneddon, M.D., before she was released to return to work. Petitioner returned to work in the same position and rate of pay as before her leave. Additionally, Petitioner received disability benefit payments covering the entire duration of her leave. More than seven months later, Petitioner called in sick on April 6 through 8, 2002, after sustaining a house fire at her personal residence. Following the use of 16 hours or more of sick time, employees are required to return to work with a doctor's note authorizing their absence. Here, it was determined that Petitioner was not sick during this time, nor was she even evaluated by a physician. Based on similar previous problems, for which she was twice verbally reminded of Respondent's policy regarding sick leave, Petitioner received a disciplinary write-up. In addition to Petitioner's two verbal reminders, on or about January 7, 2002, Gillingham issued a memorandum to all operations employees, including Petitioner, detailing Respondent's sick leave policy. On or about June 7, 2002, Petitioner and a male co-worker, Tom Moran, were written up by Gillingham for neglect of their job duties as the result of an incident that occurred at the Energy Center on May 14, 2002. More specifically, both Petitioner and Moran were deemed responsible for failing to make sufficient rounds to discover a mechanical failure, which led to severe flooding of a sump basement in the coal yard, causing more than $12,000 in damages. Gillingham estimated it would have taken between six to eight hours to fill the 60-foot by 20-foot sump basement with the seven feet of water that was found the following morning. Although Moran was an auxiliary operator, both "operators," including Petitioner, an apprentice operator, have the same responsibilities and were responsible for making the necessary rounds to ensure that a mechanical failure of this nature is promptly discovered and repaired. In accordance with Respondent's policy, employees with active discipline in their files are not eligible for promotions or transfer. The written discipline Petitioner and Moran received for the May 14, 2002, sump incident remained active in their employee files for nine months. During her employment at the Energy Center, Petitioner's performance evaluations remained relatively unchanged, receiving a "meets" or "good" rating on each evaluation. Additionally, Petitioner received all regularly scheduled wage increases, until she topped out at the salary for her position. Petitioner received the same wage increases as similarly-situated male employees. Further, on or about April 2, 2003, Gillingham notified Human Resources that the discipline in her file had expired, and Petitioner was promoted to auxiliary operator, with the commensurate increase in pay. Petitioner started at the same rate of pay as three of the four other male employees placed in the apprentice operator position at that time. The fourth male employee, David Ziegler, started at a higher rate of pay based on his five years of previous experience working for a contractor at the Energy Center. Further, because of the credit Ziegler was given for his previous work experience, he was promoted to auxiliary operator ahead of Petitioner and all of the other apprentice operators who started at the same time. Vasquez was promoted to auxiliary operator on the standard two-year schedule on or about August 12, 2002; however, Petitioner was not eligible for promotion at that time because of the active discipline in her file. Petitioner failed to prove that she suffered from a recognized disability or that Respondent failed to make a reasonable accommodation for her alleged disability. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent discriminated against her on the basis of her sex. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent retaliated against her for complaining of the alleged sexual harassment which occurred in the Summer of 2001.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR enter a final order dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Relief in DOAH Case No. 03-2306, FCHR Case No. 22-02718. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ellen Edith Hanson 5355 Rambling Road St. Cloud, Florida 34771 David C. Netzley, Esquire Ford & Harrison, LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1300 Orlando, Florida 32801 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Rural Metro of North Florida, Inc., violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was hired by Respondent on October 11, 1999, as an Emergency Medical Technician Basic, until July 2001 when he was reclassified with Respondent as an Emergency Medical Technician Paramedic, until his termination from employment with Respondent on April 16, 2003. In July 2001, Petitioner told his then manager, Dominic Persichini, that he no longer wanted to work with his partner, Marlene Sanders, and he requested a transfer. Petitioner gave as his reason for the transfer that Ms. Sanders was interested in him in an inappropriate way which disrupted his family life. He never actually heard Ms. Sanders make any inappropriate sexual remarks directed at him. Ms. Sanders accused Petitioner of allowing his wife to interfere with their working relationship and to involving herself in Ms. Sanders' personal life, which made her uncomfortable working with Petitioner. On March 27, 2002, Stephen Glatstein, Respondent's new General Manager, wrote a letter to Petitioner in which he acknowledged that problems had occurred between Petitioner and Ms. Sanders, that the two of them would be separated and reassigned to new shifts, and that Petitioner was being reassigned to the B-shift rotation (1800-0600 hours), which conflicted with his family duties. Petitioner received a good evaluation and a pay raise dated February 15, 2003, in which his supervisor, Ryan Jenkins, stated that "Michael's abilities meet or exceed industry standards. Michael keeps current by completing CEU's and taking refresher classes. There is one new Corrective Action Notice in his file since last year involving a post move. The incident was on 08-07-02 and to my knowledge there have not been any further problems since." Further, the evaluation reads that "Michael shows a great attitude and appears to really enjoy his job. This makes him very easy to work with. Michael's good personality and working knowledge of E.M.S. is a benefit to the customers that he serves. It is clear that we should be proud to have Michael as part of our team." Petitioner received letters of commendation from his supervisors and letters of thanks from patients and their families he had served. In April 2003, Natashia Duke, a new employee with Respondent, went to the General Manager, Mr. Chalmers, and accused Petitioner of having made statements of a sexual nature to her and of touching her inappropriately. Ms. Duke provided a written statement to Mr. Chalmers who forwarded the information to the Division General Manager, Chris Rucker. Mr. Rucker advised Mr. Chalmers to place Petitioner on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of an investigation concerning Ms. Duke's complaint. Mr. Chalmers followed this instruction and placed Petitioner on leave. Mr. Rucker traveled to Pensacola to meet with Mr. Chalmers and Ms. Duke. At this meeting, Ms. Duke reaffirmed what she had written in the complaint against Petitioner and told Mr. Rucker and Mr. Chalmers about another employee she believed had been sexually harassed by Petitioner, Kristy Bradberry. The next day, Mr. Rucker and Mr. Chalmers interviewed Ms. Bradberry who informed them that she had been sexually harassed by Petitioner. She provided a written statement which described the alleged harassment in detail. Ms. Bradberry told the interviewers of another person she believed had suffered sexual harassment by Petitioner, Tina Dunsford (Tina Richardson at the time of her complaint). Mr. Rucker and Mr. Chalmers next interviewed Ms. Dunsford who confirmed that Petitioner had sexually harassed her as well by making sexual comments and propositions to her, and by touching her inappropriately. After Ms. Dunsford's interview, Ryan Jenkins, another of Respondent's employees, reported that Ms. Dunsford had complained to him of sexual harassment by Petitioner a few months earlier. Mr. Jenkins had failed to take any action on the previous complaint. After interviewing the three complainants, Ms. Duke, Ms. Bradberry, and Ms. Dunsford, Mr. Rucker and Mr. Chalmers met with Petitioner. At that meeting, Petitioner denied all of the allegations made by the three female co-workers and gave no explanation for what they alleged had happened. Mr. Rucker believed the statements given by the three female co-workers who complained of sexual harassment by Petitioner were credible. Mr. Rucker made the decision with Mr. Chalmers to terminate Petitioner's employment. Respondent had no prior history of problems with any of the three female co-workers who complained of sexual harassment by Petitioner. Petitioner believes the sexual harassment charges were trumped up against him so that Respondent could fire him, since he was beyond the company probationary period and therefore could be terminated only for a business purpose pursuant to the company employee handbook. No evidence was produced at hearing to support a violation of company policy by Respondent in Petitioner's termination. At the time of hearing, Petitioner was employed with the Escambia County E.M.S.
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 Petitioner's claim for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 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 February, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael J. Welch 2060 Burjonik Lane Navarre, Florida 32566-2118 John B. Trawick, Esquire Shell, Fleming, Davis & Menge 226 Palafox Place Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32591-1831 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent intentionally committed an unlawful employment practice against the Petitioner on the basis on her national origin/Hispanic (Puerto Rican) or gender/female (sexual harassment). Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was removed from her position with the Respondent in retaliation for her filing of a sexual harassment complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on March 12, 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of these proceedings and the parties involved. All procedural prerequisites and requirements have been duly accomplished or satisfied. Respondent, Martin-Marietta Electronics Information and Missiles Group, is a foreign corporation licensed to do business in Florida which employs more than fifteen employees. Respondent is an "employer" within the definition found in Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Margarita Coll, is a female, hispanic, citizen of the United States who resides in the State of Florida. Petitioner is a member of a protected class. Petitioner was an employee of Hi-Tec Associates, Inc., during all relevant periods, and was a de facto employee of Respondent for approximately four and one-half years. Petitioner was employed at Respondent company through a temporary agency called Associated Temporary Services and placed with the Respondent on January 5, 1987 as a receptionist/secretary in Martin-Marietta's Fleet Administration Department off Sand Lake Road, Orlando, Florida. Her responsibilities included record keeping, filing and helping Respondent's employees with company vehicles. Petitioner reported to the Respondent's Fleet Manager, Linda Reilly. Her day to day work assignments and supervision were received exclusively from the Fleet Manager. Petitioner worked in her position at the pleasure of the Respondent. She was assigned a "buyer" at Martin- Marietta who worked with the requesting department to fashion a position to meet the department's needs. The work was bidded out and awarded to the temporary employment agency who best met Respondent's criteria, on an annual basis. Over time, Petitioner assumed additional job responsibilities and in June, 1988 received a commendation for exceptional performance from Respondent's supervisors. In an effort to reward her efforts, Reilly successfully upgraded her position, first to Administrative Assistant and then to Fleet Analyst. When she was reclassified as a Fleet Analyst, the contract for her position was awarded to Hi-Tec Associates, Inc., since Associated Temporary Services did not provide technical employees under their contract with Respondent. Petitioner always worked at Martin-Marietta as a temporary employee and was never employed as a regular employee of the company. As such, she had no company benefits; she was classified as a contract laborer and her services were purchased by purchase order. Petitioner completed no company employment application, was not subject to Martin-Marietta performance appraisals and had no Martin-Marietta employment records or personnel file, other than her contract labor time slips. Petitioner received her pay from Hi-Tec. In June, 1990, Marilyn Quinonez was placed in the Fleet Administration Department as a Fleet Administrative Assistant by a temporary employment agency. Friction quickly developed between Petitioner and Quinonez. Petitioner believed that Quinonez was hired to assist her and became upset when she would not follow Petitioner's supervision or directions. Quinonez understood that she was to report to the Fleet Manager, and objected to the way Petitioner treated her. On November 15, 1990, Reilly was laid off by Respondent as part of a reduction in force and was replaced by Joseph LaPak. LaPak observed the bickering between Petitioner and Quinonez and that it continued to escalate over time. In December, 1990, the temporary positions in the department were reevaluated and the contract requirements for both positions were rewritten. The titles of both Petitioner and Quinonez were changed to that of Fleet Administrative Assistant. Any language in the contract which called for Petitioner to direct the clerical duties of the department were eliminated. In the fall of 1991, Quinonez met with LaPak and Wally DuBose to clarify her reporting responsibilities. It was confirmed that Quinonez and Petitioner were to report to the Fleet Manager, and that Petitioner did not have supervisory authority over Quinonez. Nevertheless, disputes between Petitioner and Quinonez continued. Attempts by management to resolve the problems were unsuccessful. On February 17, 1992, during the normal lunch hour, an altercation occurred between Petitioner and Quinonez. When Quinonez returned from lunch, she found Petitioner at her computer terminal. Quinonez asked for it back. Petitioner refused and an argument ensued. The two women became so angry and loud that a neighboring supervisor had to come over and separate them. Wally DuBose sent both Petitioner and Quinonez home for the day. Petitioner's immediate supervisor, LaPak was not in the office at the time. DuBose then discussed the matter with his supervisor, Paul Smilgen, and it was decided that Petitioner would be removed from the contract for her failure to work with fellow employees and management, and for general insubordination. LaPak was not involved in the decision to remove Petitioner. The decision was communicated to Hi-Tec. They, in turn, notified Petitioner that same evening that she was being replaced on the contract and not return to the Fleet Administration Department. Hi-Tec offered to attempt to place Petitioner elsewhere at Martin-Marietta but Petitioner refused because the openings available at the time paid less that the Fleet Administrative Assistant position. When LaPak first became the Fleet Manager in November of 1990, Petitioner and Quinonez worked in a very small work space. While Petitioner was training LaPak and working on the computer, LaPak's body was frequently close to Petitioner's and she felt pinned in a corner by him. After the initial working relationship was established and LaPak came into Petitioner's work area, he would touch her on her arms or shoulder in order to get her attention. In December, 1990, Petitioner complained to DuBose about LaPak touching her and making her uncomfortable. Both Petitioner and DuBose talked to LaPak about the fact that Petitioner did not want LaPak to touch her. LaPak honored that request and did not touch her again. He made every reasonable effort to get her attention when he needed to talk to her without touching her. In October, 1991, Petitioner complained to the Martin-Marietta EEO office that LaPak was sexually harassing her by inappropriate touching. Respondent then conducted an immediate investigation into the allegations and attempted to resolve the matter through internal mediation. Petitioner's testimony and other witnesses' testimony concerning sexual comments, innuendoes or propositions and inappropriate touching allegedly made by LaPak that occurred between December, 1990 and October, 1991 were inconsistent and are not credible. Petitioner presented no relevant or material evidence to show that Petitioner was the victim of national origin discrimination. Respondent's articulated reason for its decision to remove Petitioner from her contract labor position was not based on gender discrimination or national origin discrimination, nor was it pretextual. Petitioner failed to prove that her termination of employment at the Respondent's company was in retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment or national origin discrimination.
Recommendation Based upon the testimony and evidence submitted on the record in the formal hearings on this matter and by application of the relevant or governing principles of law to the findings of facts established on such record, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be issued in which the Charge of Discrimination is DENIED and the Petition for Relief is DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 26th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted in substance: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5(in part), 6(in part), 7(in part), 8(in part), 9(in part), 10(in part), 13, 14(except as to date of hire), 15(in part), 16(in part), 18(except as to the date of the counseling session), 19(except as to the date of the counseling session), 20, 21(in part). Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraphs 5(in part: Petitioner was first a contract employee with Associated Temporary Services), 6(in part), 7(in part), 8(in part), 9(in part), 10(in part), 15(in part), 16(in part), 17. Rejected as immaterial, irrelevant or subsumed: paragraphs 11, 12, 21(in part). Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4(in part), 5, 6(in part), 7, 11(in part), 12, 13, 14(in part). Rejected as argument or a conclusion of law: paragraphs: 9, 10, 15, 16, 17. Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or subsumed: paragraphs 4(in part), 8, 11(in part), 14(in part). Rejected as against the greater weight of evidence: paragraph 6(in part). COPIES FURNISHED: Kay L. Wolf, Esquire John M. Finnigan, Esquire GARWOOD, MCKENNA & MCKENNA, P.A. 815 North Garland Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 James Sweeting, III, Esquire 2111 East Michigan Street Suite 100 Orlando, Florida 32806 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent has committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2006), and if so, what remedy should be ordered?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female formerly employed by the School District. From February 2006 to April 18, 2007, she was employed as a paraprofessional in the special education unit at Flagler Palm Coast High School. Petitioner is an "aggrieved person" within the meaning of Section 760.02(6) and (10), Florida Statutes, in that Petitioner is female and filed a complaint of gender discrimination and retaliation with the Commission. Respondent is an "employer" within the meaning of Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. From the inception of her employment and until March 13, 2007, Ms. Price was assigned as a paraprofessional (parapro) in Mr. Robert Rinker's classroom. Ms. Price had not been in the work force for several years before taking the job at Flagler Palm Coast High School and was taking classes at night to obtain her teaching degree. Mr. Rinker teaches in what was described as a self- contained classroom for students who are classified as emotionally handicapped in the exceptional education program. At Flagler Palm Coast High School, at least some of the students in the program would attend classes in the 300 building of the campus, and would have fewer classes and teachers compared to a traditional schedule. However, students would not necessarily be limited to one classroom all day. They could, for example, have classes with other special education teachers in the 300 building. Parapros are evaluated by the assistant principal. While teachers with whom the parapro worked might be asked to provide input for evaluations, the teachers are not considered to be their supervisors. Ms. Price was in the classroom with Mr. Rinker during first and second periods, between classes, and during lunch. During third and fourth period, Mr. Rinker supervised students in the gym while Ms. Price remained in the classroom with students who did not go to the gym. Stan Hall also teaches special education in the 300 building of Flagler Palm Coast High School. During Ms. Price’s employment, he was assisted by a parapro named Kathy Picano. Ms. Picano sometimes visited Ms. Price in Mr. Rinker’s classroom. She is significantly younger than both Ms. Price and Mr. Rinker. Mr. Rinker is a jovial man and a veteran teacher. He coaches soccer and has coached basketball. He is well liked by his peers and by the students he teaches. Mr. Rinker often tells jokes and stories, and sometimes his jokes are “off color” or of a sexual nature. The jokes and stories are told to both male and female colleagues and not in the presence of students. No other staff member had ever told Mr. Rinker that his jokes were offensive and no one had ever complained to supervisory personnel that they were offended by Mr. Rinker’s behavior. Mr. Rinker sometimes used the phrase, “a good lovin’ is the universal cure.” He testified that he had heard this phrase since his childhood from his older relatives, and simply meant that when someone is having a bad day, a hug or other encouragement helps make things better. The remark could be addressed to students and staff alike. He did not mean anything sexual by the phrase, and others hearing the phrase did not interpret it as a sexual remark. Mr. Rinker’s testimony is credited. Ms. Price, however, was offended by Mr. Rinker’s jokes. She testified that nearly every conversation with Mr. Rinker became focused on sex. According to Ms. Price, the first week she worked with Mr. Rinker, they were discussing mailboxes in the classroom, and he stated, “let’s talk about the box you are sitting on.” She understood that he was referring to her vagina. Ms. Price stated that she was shocked by this statement, but did not say so because it was her first week on the job. Mr. Rinker does not remember ever making such a statement. Whether or not this incident actually happened, it occurred over a year prior to Ms. Price's complaint to either the School District or the Commission. Also that first week, Ms. Price mentioned in the classroom that she had a headache, and in response Mr. Rinker rubbed her shoulders or neck. Ms. Price was offended but did not tell Mr. Rinker his touch was unwelcome. Ms. Price claims that while things were not too bad the first semester she worked with Mr. Rinker, eventually it got to the point where she was unable to have a conversation with Mr. Rinker without it focusing on sex. She claimed that he sometimes purposefully rubbed up against her in the classroom.1/ In order to avoid talking to him or being physically close to him, she moved her desk to another part of the room. While she claimed the situation was intolerable, she did not report Mr. Rinker’s behavior to any supervisor and did not tell him she was offended by his conduct. Kathy Picano and Ms. Price sometimes spent time together in Mr. Rinker’s classroom. Mr. Rinker sometimes told jokes in Ms. Picano's presence and sometimes “invaded her personal space.” He acknowledged that he might have patted her on the back in passing as part of a greeting, but Ms. Picano described the touch as no different from what she might have received from her grandmother. Although Ms. Picano did not particularly care for Mr. Rinker’s jokes, she attributed them to being “just his personality.” She was not offended by Mr. Rinker’s behavior and, before being questioned with respect to Ms. Price's complaint in this case, never complained about it to him or anyone else in authority at the school. She acknowledged hearing Mr. Rinker make the “good lovin” comment, but found it endearing, as opposed to harassing. Ms. Price, however, was deeply offended by what she viewed as Mr. Rinker’s behavior toward Ms. Picano. The things with which she took offense did not stop with Mr. Rinker’s jokes or the attention she perceived that he gave to Ms. Picano. She did not think that Mr. Rinker or Mr. Hall did an adequate job of teaching, and was upset that Mr. Hall’s students were allowed, on occasion, to come to Mr. Rinker’s classroom to finish assignments because they were disruptive. She did not appreciate the way Mr. Peacock, the assistant principal, performed his job and believed there was an unwritten code where coaches and athletes did not have to follow the same rules as others on campus. Perhaps most of all, she was offended because students in Mr. Rinker’s classroom talked about sex too much and she did not believe that he did enough to stop it. In her view, this was exacerbated when Mr. Hall’s students were allowed to come over and finish work. Further, she believed that the students were using the computers in the classroom to access inappropriate videos and music that were offensive. Computers were in the classroom for students to complete assignments and to do research for school projects. When they were finished with their work, students sometimes played games on the computers and checked sports sites. Sites such as “myspace,” however, were blocked in accordance with school policy. While Ms. Price claimed the students were using the computers for inappropriate purposes, she admitted that she could not see what was on the computer screens from where she sat in the classroom. The testimony of the students did not corroborate her claim. All stated computers were used for school work and when school work was finished, to play games as stated above. Only one student indicated that he watched music videos. All the others denied doing so. There is no question that the students in Mr. Rinker’s class sometimes talked about sex and used profanity in the classroom.2/ One of the classes was a health class. The students were teenagers, many of whom had significant emotional problems with little or no support at home. Some of their individual education plans addressed the problem of too much use of profanity, with a goal of reducing its use in the classroom setting. Staff who testified all stated that trying to eliminate the use of profanity entirely was probably not a realistic goal, but modifying behavior to reduce it was. Their testimony is credited. Ms. Price was not the only one who complained about students talking about sex in the classroom. Barbara Ryan was another parapro who sometimes worked in Mr. Rinker’s classroom. She agreed that the students sometimes talked about sex and remembered a particular incident where she thought the discussion was particularly explicit and she said something to Mr. Rinker. He told the students involved to “knock it off.” In December 2006, an anonymous call came in to Ms. Myra Middleton at the District office complaining about inappropriate language used by students in the 300 building. Ms. Middleton referred the person to Mr. Peacock in accordance with School District policy. She spoke to Mr. Peacock, who said he would take care of it. After the phone call, Mr. Peacock went to each of the classrooms in the 300 building and spoke to the students about the inappropriateness of using profanity and talking about sex in the classroom. There was no evidence, however, that the anonymous call was placed because of conduct occurring in Mr. Rinker's classroom. The talk by students did not necessarily stop after Mr. Peacock spoke to the students. However, the more credible evidence is that these conversations did not involve the entire class, but rather small groups of students. Several students testified they never heard talk about sex in the classroom. The conversations that did occur took place while other conversations were also taking place. When Mr. Rinker heard the conversations, he told students to stop. There is no credible evidence that Mr. Rinker heard each conversation that Ms. Price heard or that he deliberately chose not to address the students’ behavior. Nor is there any evidence that the students’ discussions regarding sex were in any way directed toward her. Mr. Rinker was not particularly computer literate. As a consequence, Ms. Price entered all of the students' grades in the computer. She had access to Mr. Rinker’s password and would print out his e-mail. In early March, 2007, Mr. Rinker received an e-mail from Mr. Peacock’s secretary directing that he see Mr. Peacock regarding his evaluation. Ms. Price did not believe that Mr. Peacock intended to complete the required observation for Mr. Rinker's evaluation, and this offended her. Ms. Price answered the e-mail as if she were Mr. Rinker, noting that no observation had yet taken place. This conduct violated the written standards applicable to parapros. Mr. Peacock discovered that Ms. Price, and not Mr. Rinker, had responded to his secretary's e-mail. On March 9, 2007, Mr. Peacock called Ms. Price into his office and told her that it was improper for her to send e-mails under Mr. Rinker’s name. During the meeting, Ms. Price explained that she was inputting grades, attendance and all other computer data. Mr. Peacock advised that additional training would be made available for Mr. Rinker, but that she was not to perform his duties. Ms. Price was under the impression that she was receiving a reprimand. She also felt that Mr. Rinker, who was also counseled by Mr. Peacock, did not defend her as vigorously as he should, and that he was the one who should be in trouble. In fact, Mr. Rinker told Mr. Peacock that Ms. Price had his permission to use his password for the computer and that she was very helpful. Ms. Price’s reaction to this incident was well out of proportion to the incident itself. Moreover, she did not appear to recognize that what she did in signing Mr. Rinker’s name to the e-mail was wrong. She was crying, both after the meeting and into the next week. The meeting with Mr. Peacock took place on a Friday. On Monday, Ms. Price was on a previously-scheduled day off. On Tuesday, she was still upset to the point of tears, and went to see Sue Marier, the ESE Department head. Although she was told repeatedly, both by Ms. Marier and by Mr. Peacock, that she was not being formally reprimanded for the incident, she continued to believe she was being treated unfairly. She told Mr. Rinker, Ms. Marier and Mr. Peacock that if she was going down, then so was Mr. Rinker. The following day, March 14, 2007, Ms. Price went to the principal, Nancy Willis, and complained that Mr. Rinker had been sexually harassing her since the beginning of her employment. Ms. Willis advised Ms. Price to put her complaint in writing, which she did. The complaint was forwarded immediately to the district office for investigation. During the investigation, Mr. Rinker was suspended with pay. Mrs. Willis also asked Ms. Price if she wanted to be moved to a different classroom, and Ms. Price indicated she did not want to be around Mr. Rinker. Mrs. Willis went to Sue Marier, the ESE Department Head, and asked where there was a need for a parapro so that Ms. Price could be transferred. At the time of the request, Ms. Marier did not know that Ms. Price had filed the complaint regarding sexual harassment and thought Ms. Price was still upset over the computer e-mail incident. She told Mrs. Willis that the greatest need was in the class for autistic children, and Ms. Price was transferred to that class. A decision had been made to add more staff, including another teacher, for that area, but positions had not yet been advertised. Parapros do not generally have the right to choose their assignments. They are placed in the classroom with the greatest need. At the time of Ms. Price's transfer, the autistic classroom was the classroom with the greatest need. This transfer did not result in a change in pay or status. There were significantly fewer students in the autistic class than in Mr. Rinker's class, and at least one of the students had a one-on-one aide in the classroom. While there was a slight change in schedule, it was not significant, and she remained a parapro at the same rate of pay. Both Sue Marier and Nancy Willis went by at different times to check on Ms. Price in her new placement. The more credible evidence indicates that Ms. Price did not complain about being in this classroom. The School District has two policies that deal with sexual harassment: Policy number 662, entitled Prohibition of Sexual Harassment - Employees, and Policy number 217, entitled Prohibiting Discrimination, Including Sexual and Other Forms of Harassment. It is unclear why the School District has both at the same time. The definitions regarding sexual harassment in both policies are similar, with Policy number 217 being slightly more detailed. The complaint procedure outlined in Policy number 217 is clearly more detailed, and it cannot be said that it was followed to the letter in this case. However, Policy number 217 was amended after the investigation took place in this case. No testimony was presented to show whether the more detailed procedures presently listed in Policy number 217 were in place at the time of the investigation. Further, the documents related to the investigation reference Policy number 662, as opposed to Policy number 217. It is found that the investigation was conducted in accordance with Policy number 662, and that to do so was appropriate. Ms. Price’s complaint of sexual harassment was investigated by April Dixon and Harriet Holiday. Over the course of the next several days, both Mr. Rinker and Ms. Price were interviewed (separately) as well as several other staff members. Those staff members included Sue Marier, Kathy Picano, Donna Dopp, Stan Hall, Pat Barile (Sue Marier's assistant), Mr. Tietema (another teacher), and Barbara Ryan. The investigation conducted was reasonable, given the allegations by Ms. Price. Ms. Price's written complaint stated that Mr. Rinker made inappropriate sexual comments; that he rubbed up against her on numerous occasions; that Mr. Rinker allowed the students to talk in the classroom using sexually explicit language and had made no effort to stop it; and that he had made inappropriate sexual comments to Ms. Picano. Policy number 662 provides in pertinent part: Sexual harassment consists of unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other inappropriate oral, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature when: submission to such conduct is made, either explicitly or implicitly, a term or condition of employment (or of an individual's education). submission to or rejection of such conduct is used as the basis for an employment or employment decisions affecting that individual; or such conduct substantially interferes with an employee's work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. Sexual harassment, as defined above, may include but is not limited to the following: verbal harassment or abuse; pressure for sexual activity; repeated remarks to a person with sexual or demeaning implications; unwelcome or inappropriate touching; suggesting or demanding sexual involvement accompanied by implied or explicit threats concerning one's employment. * * * Procedures. -- Any employee who alleges sexual harassment by any staff member must report the incident directly to the building principal or the employee's immediate supervisor. Alternatively, the employee may make the report to the Assistant Superintendent of Instructional Accountability. Filing a complaint or otherwise reporting sexual harassment will not affect the individual's status, future employment or work assignments. The right of confidentiality, both of the complaint and of the accused will be respected, consistent with the Board's legal obligations, and with the necessity to investigate allegations of misconduct and take corrective action when this conduct has occurred. In determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual harassment, the totality of circumstances, the nature of the conduct, and the context in which the alleged conduct occurred will be investigated. The Superintendent or designee has the responsibility of investigating and resolving complaints of sexual harassment. A substantiated charge against a Board employee shall subject such employee to disciplinary action, including but not limited to warning, suspension or termination, subject to applicable procedural requirements. After investigation of Ms. Price's complaints, April Dixon discussed her findings with Mr. Delbrugge, the School District Superintendent. She also turned over to him all of the transcripts of taped interviews and her conclusions regarding the investigation. She concluded, and he agreed, that the investigation showed Mr. Rinker told inappropriate jokes in the workplace but that in all other respects Ms. Price's complaints were not substantiated. The investigation also revealed that Ms. Price also used profanity and occasionally told sexually- related jokes in the workplace. The Superintendent decided that the appropriate penalty (in addition to the suspension with pay already imposed) was to reprimand Mr. Rinker with a letter in his file; to require him to receive additional training on sexual harassment; to warn him that further complaints would result in termination; and to place him on probation for the remainder of the school year. This discipline was consistent with the School District's collective bargaining agreement concerning discipline of instructional staff. Mr. Rinker was informed of this result March 19, 2007, and completed the sexual harassment training as required. Ms. Price was notified informally of the results of the investigation that same day. She received official notification by letter dated May 3, 2007. Ms. Price was very dissatisfied with the results of the investigation and the action taken by the School District. She felt that Mr. Rinker should be fired. It is clear, after hearing, that nothing less then Mr. Rinker's termination would appease her. Ms. Price was also unhappy with her new placement. She did not like being in the classroom with the autistic students and felt they were dangerous. She felt that she should have been allowed to remain in her original classroom and Mr. Rinker should have been removed. After less than three weeks, she tendered her resignation. This three-week period included one week off for Spring Break and some personal leave days taken due to Ms. Price's husband having a stroke. Her resignation is dated April 18, 2007, but her last day working in the classroom was approximately April 6, 2007. Ms. Price's resignation was voluntary. While there was some belief that she left because of her husband's stroke, Ms. Price disputes that assertion and insists that it was because of the conditions in the new classroom to which she was assigned. Her resignation letter, however, references neither reason. It states: Dear Ms. Willis: It is with sincere regret that I am writing this letter of resignation as an ESE Para Professional for Flagler Palm Coast High School. Please accept this as such. I do apologize for the short notice. I would also like to take this opportunity to express to you my appreciation of your handling of my complaint. You are the only one who has validated me as a person and as a worthy employee. I only had a brief encounter with you but it was enough for me to know that working directly under you would have been a pleasure as well as a great learning experience as I respect your leadership abilities. I recognize that this is a trying situation for all involved and that you have done your very best to rectify the matter under the circumstances. It is important for me to let you know that whatever happens in the future in regards to my claim, this is no way a reflection on you. I truly hope that you can appreciate my position and the importance of making positive changes for the future. Based upon the evidence presented, it is found that Ms. Price resigned for a variety of reasons, including her husband's stroke and her unhappiness with the new placement. However, her dissatisfaction with the handling of the complaint regarding Mr. Rinker and his continued employment was at least a part of her decision. Ms. Price was not subjected to an adverse employment action as a result of her complaint. To the contrary, school officials transferred her to another classroom at her request. The conditions in the new classroom setting were not onerous.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Human Relations Commission dismissing Petitioner’s complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of August, 2008.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to a hostile work environment condoned by Respondent due to Petitioner's race and sex in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was previously employed by the Auditor General, Division of Public Assistance Fraud. That program, along with Petitioner, co-workers, and the persons in her chain of command, were later legislatively transferred to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. On January 28, 1999, Petitioner filed a complaint of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), alleging that the State of Florida, Office of the Auditor General discriminated against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections 760.01- 760.11, Florida Statutes (1999). Allegedly, the discrimination was based on Petitioner's race (African- American) and sex (female). Petitioner claimed that Respondent's actions created a hostile work environment as a consequence of her race and/or sex. Petitioner has not been demoted, reassigned, or terminated by her employer. Petitioner complained of certain events that occurred in 1994 regarding the assignment of particular cases. She alleged that she was not being fairly treated in the assignment of pending cases. These events, which occurred in 1994, are time-barred from further consideration by virtue of Section 760.11(1), Florida Statutes, which requires filing of a complaint within 365 days of occurrence of an alleged violation. On one occasion on an unspecified date during her employment, a co-worker asked Petitioner whether her ponytail was real. On March 11, 1998, Regional Supervisor William Martin, a white male, typed a memorandum for Petitioner. The memorandum was precipitated by a conference between Petitioner and her immediate supervisor in which procedures regarding work hours, breaks, and lunch hours were discussed. Petitioner was told in the course of the conference that some staff members perceived Petitioner as "not playing by the rules." Petitioner responded through the memorandum typed by Martin. The memorandum set forth Petitioner's complaints concerning her work situation, inclusive of her observation that others were committing the same violations of policy of which she was accused with no repercussions occurring to them. Petitioner had the opportunity to review a draft of the memorandum and made corrections to the draft. Petitioner then signed the final version of the memorandum, which included Petitioner's express declination to pursue the matter further, stating that she "wanted my personal concerns and feelings on record." Nowhere in the memorandum does Petitioner allege that she has been treated differently on the basis of her race or her sex. There are two supervisors in Respondent's Jacksonville, Florida, office. Petitioner’s immediate supervisor is Laverne McKinney, an African-American female. The other supervisor in the Jacksonville office is Stan Stephens, a white male. The relationship between Stan Stephens and Petitioner is strained. The strained relationship is not due to racial or sexual discrimination. On one occasion during Petitioner's employment, Stan Stephens asked Laverne McKinney to instruct Petitioner to let him know when Petitioner would not be available to work until 5:00 p.m., so that the office could be properly manned until that time. The request followed an incident when Stephens, who usually leaves the office at 4:30 p.m., was unable to find someone to mind the office when he left. Unknown to Stephens, Petitioner had left early to perform official business for Respondent. On another occasion during Petitioner's employment, while Laverne McKinney was the designated "Acting Regional Supervisor," Stan Stephens called William Martin, a former supervisor at the time, on a travel issue regarding Petitioner. Martin was working in Respondent's Miami, Florida, office at the time and McKinney was away from the Jacksonville Office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DON W. 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 13th day of February, 2001.
The Issue Whether petitioner suffered sexual harassment for which respondent is answerable, or whether, on account of her sex, respondent discriminated against her by paying her unequal wages, or whether, in terminating her employment, respondent retaliated against her on account of statutorily protected activity?
Findings Of Fact In April, of 1982, the year after her 19-year marriage to a Mr. Powell, whose surname she originally kept, came to an end, petitioner Gloria Patricia Hord, as she has been known since her remarriage in August of 1984, began work for respondent Bell Aerospace Textron, which has since become the Textron Marine Systems Division of Textron, Inc. (Textron). A defense contractor that builds landing craft air cushion vehicles and trains Navy personnel to operate them, Textron employs perhaps 130 persons in Panama City alone. Textron has a written policy against sexual harassment by or of its employees. As Textron's director of logistics at its Panama City facility, George Gust Alepakos, told the petitioner she was hired on April 3, 1982. Robert L. Ormsby and Albert Eugene "Bud" Small, the supervisor of inventory control who, as her immediate supervisor, shared an office with her when she began, had already interviewed her. Bell hired her as a clerk, general class III in labor grade N-6. The duties of general class III clerks are: Under general supervision, performs a variety of clerical work, where there is individual responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of important records and where decisions within the limits of policies or rules are required. Performs duties such as or similar to the following: supervises and works with a small group of clerks; sets up and maintains record systems of a widely varying nature, including secret or confidential material or information; prepares and issues reports as required; contacts other personnel as necessary in maintaining accurate records; reads reports, correspondence, publications, etc., and abstracts therefrom information pertaining to a particular subject; may perform miscellaneous duties relate dot office work, such as filing, operating various machines, etc. (sic). Respondent's Exhibit No. 23. According to Bell's job description, "demonstrated supervisory ability", is a desirable qualification for general class III clerks. In addition to processing receipts and keeping inventory logs, Patty Powell, as her co-workers then called her, typed and did other secretarial chores for Textron. She worked in a trailer which housed other offices and other workers, including Carol Bjorgan, Robert L. Ormsby, Monica Mitchell, Mike Pate, Mike Smith, Betty Brandon, and George Alepakos, to whom Mr. Small reported. Mr. Alepakos was in the adjoining office. Witnesses described Mr. Alepakos as personable, fun loving, happy go lucky, warm, friendly, outgoing, talkative, loud, sometimes grouchy, displaying a temper at times without being a screamer, dedicated, conscientious, a hard worker and a firm manager. He looked at the hearing to be in his sixties. The time Ms. Powell told him he reminded her of her grandfather, he said she had hurt his feelings. One day as Ms. Powell, then 36 years old, was typing, Mr. Alepakos stood behind her and placed his hands on her shoulders, watching her finish a memorandum. Mr. Alepakos invited Ms. Powell to lunch on several occasions. He regularly took employees in his group to lunch, both male and female, individually and in groups. Conversations at lunch were "business-related" and "very professional" at first. The third or fourth time they ate lunch together, however, Mr. Alepakos professed his love for Ms. Powell. Thereafter, when Mr. Small left the office, Mr. Alepakos would stop in. Within a week of declaring himself at lunch, he said, "I really mean it." He told her she would grow to love him, would learn to, and began leaving notes for her, typically like the one that said, "I love you," signed "George ." She "tried to laugh it off," questioning his sincerity. He was married, and she had a boyfriend. Beginning in the summer of 1982, he asked her almost daily for lunch. He telephoned to inquire, "Have I told you today that I love you?" Sometimes she went to lunch with him during this period, but more often she declined. He promised to behave if she accepted his invitations for lunch, but, in Ms. Powell's view, he welshed on these promises. She had mixed feelings about George Alepakos. She discussed with Carol Bjorgan the possibility of a relationship with him. By this time, her boyfriend Chip McDill had left her in the lurch. It would be nice to have someone older to take care of her, she mused aloud; and she felt she would be better off materially. Never once did she complain to Carol Bjorgan about Mr. Alepakos' romantic interest in her. She left him notes. One note, signed "Patty" and written on notepaper depicting two smiling bees among azalea blossoms, read, "Have a wonderful vacation, then hurry back." Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. One night she and Carol were drinking during "happy hour." Saying she wanted to talk to George, she telephoned his home, but hung up when his wife answered. She sometimes seemed to boast about Mr. Alepakos' taking her to lunch, asking, "Guess who I'm going to lunch with?" At Peddlers Alley one night, Mlles. Hord and Bjorgan met Mr. Alepakos for drinks. When they arrived, Ms. Hord playfully pretended to sit in Mr. Alepakos' lap, and said to Ms. Bjorgan, "We can handle it from here." In December of 1982, both Mr. Alepakos and Ms. Powell attended a party at a bar or restaurant. Mr. Alepakos "didn't think much" of her going out with the 23-year old man who escorted her to the party, danced with her, kissed her while they were on the dance floor, and, later in the evening, wrestled with her in the back seat of an automobile parked outside the establishment. He felt that "it looked bad for the company." The next morning, he called her into his office, told her she had "fallen off [her] pedestal," and that somebody had said she had behaved like a slut. Over the Christmas holidays she was in the hospital, and afterwards visited her mother in Atlanta. Mr. Alepakos called her there at the number she had given him, to ask about her health and to learn when she was coming back to work. On her return she talked things over with Mr. Small, her immediate supervisor, although she never told him about Mr. Alepakos' touching her. He advised her to decline the luncheon invitations and avoid Mr. Alepakos as much as possible. He spoke to Mr. Ormsby about the matter, at her request. In deference to Ms. Powell, who asked that nobody say anything to Mr. Alepakos, Mr. Small spoke to Mr. Ormsby "off the record." At some point, Mr. Alepakos called on Ms. Powell at the apartment she had recently moved into at Panama City Beach. She had invited him. When he arrived he found her with her daughter and stayed only about 20 minutes. Eventually Patty Powell went herself to Mr. Ormsby, and Mr. Ormsby took the matter up with Clarence L. Forrest, then the vice-president in charge of Textron's Panama City operations. Messrs. Ormsby and Forrest decided to transfer Ms. Powell to a general secretarial and word processing assignment in "the training trailer." The transfer was "lateral" in the sense that neither Ms. Powell's official job description nor her labor grade changed. In her new situation, she was involved in the production of training manuals. Bell hired two other word processing clerks to assist in this effort, Diane Ansell and April Dawn Day. Ms. Powell had recommended both Ms. Ansell and Ms. Day. She helped train them when they began. Even after they had learned the ropes, she gave them work to do which she proofread afterwards. If she was out, Ms. Ansell would assume these duties. Ms. Powell wrote out evaluations for Ms. Ansell and Ms. Day, although she never signed them. She did once sign an overtime authorization form, but Mr. Forrest sent it back for Mr. Higgins' signature and resubmission. She assumed her new duties in February of 1983, but invitations to lunch and expressions of affection continued after the transfer. One afternoon, just after Ms. Powell left the office, Mr. Alepakos said to Diane Ansell, "I love that girl," referring to Ms. Powell. After she told Mr. Ormsby that Mr. Alepakos would not leave her be, Mr. Forrest instructed Mr. Alepakos to cease and desist from any activity involving Ms. Powell unrelated to professional requirements, and directed him to communicate with her, if at all, through third parties. During the ensuing eight or nine months, Mr. Alepakos avoided Ms. Powell entirely. He "went the other way around when he saw her coming." In the fall of 1983, however, they were both at an office party at the Long Glass. She grabbed his shirt and led him into another room, where she asked him why he had been avoiding her. According to a friend and co-worker, petitioner was not "an outward flirt," except when she drank. Encouraged by the evening's events, Mr. Alepakos resumed his attentions. He telephoned several times a day, unless he was angry, and they began lunching together again. At various times, she told him she was at the point of reconciliation with her ex-husband, that she was seeing a boyfriend, and that she was gay. But she accepted a good many of his luncheon invitations, which was enough to inspire him to several proposals of marriage. In November of 1983, Ms. Powell came to work early one morning and made her way in the still dark trailer to the word processing room. Suddenly Mr. Alepakos, whom she had not seen nor expected to be there, embraced her and tried to kiss her. When the lights came on, he said, "I'm sorry", and left. During this period, Ms. Powell worked under the immediate supervision of Frank Higgins, who left civilian employment with the Navy and began with Textron in August of 1983. In early December of that year, Ms. Powell spoke to Mr. Higgins about Mr. Alepakos. After a second conversation on the subject, on February 9, 1984, Mr. Higgins stated, in a "Memo For the Record": FOR BACKGROUND, PATTY IS AN EXTREMELY QUIET, SHY PERSON WITH A RATHER "FRAGILE" QUALITY. SHE IS A DEDICATED PROFESSIONAL IN HER APPROACH TO HER JOB. SHE HAS NEVER APPEARED TO PROJECT (AVERT OR OTHERWISE) HER SEXUALITY AT WORK, DRESSES CONSERVATIVELY - AN IDEAL FEMALE WORKER IN TERMS OF NOT BEING INVOLVED TO ANY EXTENT WITH HER MALE CO- WORKERS OTHER THEN PROFESSIONALLY. SHE HAS NOT AND PROFESSES NO[T] TO WANT TO DATE ANYONE FROM WORK. GEORGE IS APPARENTLY "LEANING" ON HER AT WORK TO THE POINT SHE'S BECOMING EMOTIONALLY FRAZZLED OVER IT. HE PROFESSES TO BE IN LOVE AND "WANTS HER." GEORGE IS INSANELY JEALOUS OF HER BEING SURROUNDED BY ALL THESE MEN AND TOLD HER THAT DAVE STULTS, BOB NISSLEY AND MYSELF ARE OR MAY WANT TO BE ROMANTICALLY INVOLVED. HE CALLS HER SEVERAL TIMES SOME DAYS, SOMETIMES ASKING HER TO COME TO HIS OFFICE WHERE "COMMENTS ARE MADE" TO HER. SHE IS AFRAID NOT TO GO OVER TO HIS OFFICE - APPARENTLY FEELS GEORGE IS A POWER BROKER AND IF SHE GETS HIM MAD, HE'LL TAKE IT OUT ON TRAINING BY NOT SUPPORTING OUR NEEDS. PATTY SAYS SHE HAS TRIED EVERY CONCEIVABLE APPROACH TO TELL GEORGE SHE IS NOT INTERESTED IN HIM AND HE'S ANNOYING HER & SHE WANTS IT STOPPED. YET HE REFUSES TO LEAVE HER ALONE. I TOLD HER THAT SHE NEEDS TO THREATEN HIM WITH HARASSMENT CHARGES & BE WILLING TO FOLLOW UP ON THEM TO THE BITTER END - IF GEO. KNEW SHE WAS SERIOUS AND HIS JOB WAS IN DANGER, I HOPE HE WOULD BE PRUDENT ENOUGH TO BACK AWAY. PATTY SEEMS RELUCTANT TO PRESS CHARGES FOR FEAR THAT SHE WILL END UP BEING FIRED AND PERCEIVED AS THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. SHE FEELS CASEY WILL PROTECT GEORGE AND WOULD CONSIDER GEO. MORE IMPORTANT TO BELL THAN PATTY. IN PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS WITH CASEY DATING BACK TO DECEMBER, I TOO SENSED THAT EITHER CASEY WASN'T BE[ING] OBJECTIVE OR FAIR IN HIS ASSESSMENT OF PATTY OR THAT POSSIBLY GEORGE HAD BEEN FEEDING CASEY LIES AND INNUENDO ABOUT PATTY'S POTENTIAL INVOLVEMENT WITH PERSONNEL IN TRAINING. THE APPARENT STRATEGY IS TO CAST DOUBTS ABOUT PATTY'S CHARACTER SUCH THAT IF HIS SITUATION EVER BOILED TO THE SURFACE HE COULD BLAME IT ON HER TO SAVE HIS JOB. I BELIEVE THERE IS ENOUGH INFO AVAILABLE TO HAVE GEO. REPRIMANDED OR FIRED OVER THIS. THERE ARE SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEEN OR HEARD GEO. MAKE APPROACHES TO HER WHO I'M SURE WOULD COME FORWARD TO SUPPORT PATTY'S POSITION. SINCE THE DISCUSSION WAS OFF THE RECORD I AGREED NOT TO APPROACH CASEY YET. I OFFERED TO SPEAK WITH GEO. BUT IF HE PERCEIVES ME AS A COMPETITOR FOR PATTY, HE OBVIOUSLY WOULD MISCONSTRUE MY INTENTIONS. I DO INTEND TO SPEAK TO LENNY MORGAN "OFF THE RECORD" NEXT WEEK IN NEW ORLEANS TO GAIN SOME ADDITIONAL INSIGHT IN HANDLING THIS ISSUE. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. In a second "Memo For The Record," Mr. Higgins reported discussing the situation with Mr. Morgan, and summarized the latter's advice. * * * LENNY'S BOTTOM LINE WAS AS I SUSPECTED - DON'T LEAVE IT SIMMERING TAKE FIRM ACTION. BRING IT TO CASEY'S ATTENTION. LENNY INDICATED HE WOULD BE GLAD TO COME OVER AND BECOME DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN SOLVING THIS. * * * Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Although Mr. Higgins never showed these memoranda to "Casey" Forrest, who only learned of them after the present proceedings began, he did mention the situation to Mr. Forrest, who indicated that he wondered whether there was a "problem on both sides," but agreed to speak to Mr. Alepakos. By the time Mr. Higgins left Panama City, in July of 1984, he thought the situation had been resolved. About this time, Ms. Powell told Mr. Alepakos she planned to remarry. He responded that he would be there, if it did not work out. He said he still loved her, and he did not stop asking her out, although, after she became Mrs. Hord, she consistently declined. He continued to declare his love. Mrs. Hord again complained, this time to B. L. Nissley, Textron's director of training documentation, on or about December 15, 1985. Her complaint notwithstanding, she sent Mr. Alepakos a poinsettia for Christmas. At some point, she left a note on his desk, saying "Missing you, P.H." By a memorandum dated January 29, 1985, Mr. Nissley asked Mr. Forrest for a formal investigation "to assure that this problem be resolved once and for all." Respondent's Exhibit No. 6. On January 31, 1985, Mr. Forrest interviewed Mrs. Hord in Mr. Ormsby's presence. She reported the frequent invitations to lunch and a suggestion by Mr. Alepakos that they take a vacation together, but said nothing about his touching her. Messrs. Forrest and Ormsby also interviewed Mr. Alepakos. They decided it might be well for a disinterested third party to investigate, and asked Textron's Mr. Morgan to come over from New Orleans for the purpose. Mr. Morgan interviewed Mrs. Hord for two and a half hours on February 10 or 11, 1985. In answer to his questions, Mrs. Hord said that Mr. Alepakos had not asked her for sexual favors, and had not behaved vulgarly, lewdly or indecently. Nor did she advert to the early morning incident in the trailer, which Mr. Alepakos admitted at hearing, while denying any attempt to kiss her. When Mr. Morgan asked her if Mr. Alepakos had ever touched her, or tried to kiss her or to force himself on her, she answered no. Mr. Morgan asked Mrs. Hord to name others who could support her claim of harassment. She gave him only one name, Ms. Ansell's. Mr. Morgan also interviewed George Alepakos at length, and asked him to name others who could support his assertions. Mr. Alepakos gave him some five names. After interviewing these people and Ms. Ansell, Mr. Morgan returned to New Orleans and stated his conclusions in a memorandum dated February 15, 1985. Mr. Forrest wrote Mr. Alepakos a memorandum advising him that his "conduct in the matter lacked professionalism and good judgement." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. He was "warned to confine ... communications and relationships with Mrs. G. Hord to a professional/business environment." Id. This February 25, 1985, memorandum raised "the possibility of termination of [Alepakos'] employment," id. in the event "the cited harassments reoccur[ed]." Id. But the phrase "cited harassments" was a reference to the February 15, 1985, memorandum, Respondent's Exhibit No. 6, in which Mr. Morgan stated: Since the evidence indicates that the relationship was two sided, I find it difficult to describe the activity of Mr. Alepakos as one of harassment. Respondent's Exhibit No. 6, p. 2. Mr. Forrest did not warn or reprimand Mrs. Hord because he felt a supervisor or manager had a different responsibility in matters of this kind than an employee under supervision. At no time, did Mr. Alepakos tell her off color stories, show her pornographic photographs, explicitly solicit sexual favors, or make obscene gestures to or from Mrs. Hord. It fell to Messrs. Ormsby and Nissley to relay the results of Mr. Morgan's investigation to Mrs. Hord. The three of them gathered in Mr. Nissley's office, and he furnished her a copy to read. She had gotten part way through when she exclaimed, "That's a lie. I never sent him flowers. I never left notes on his desk." She threw down the report, and left the office, despite Mr. Nissley's telling her to stay. She dismissed the February 15, 1985, memorandum as a "bunch of bullshit." Mr. Nissley spoke to her afterwards and told her that he would not tolerate vulgar outbursts in the future. She telephoned Mr. Morgan and complained to him about the result of the investigation. She told him she did not think the report was fair or that it reflected what had happened. She became upset and characterized the report as "bullshit." To this he replied, "Wait a minute. I'll answer any question you want to ask." But she hung up the telephone. On January 30, 1985, Mrs. Hord had asked to take a leave of absence. Her request approved, she began thirty days' leave soon after she learned the results of Mr. Morgan's investigation. Upon her return, Mr. Nissley told her about the results of her annual evaluation, and informed her she had been given a raise of $.20 per hour. The $.20 raise took effect March 16, 1985. With the raise, Mrs. Hord was paid $7.90 per hour, a dollar an hour more than Diane "Dee" Ansell was paid. And Ms. Ansell was paid more than April Dawn Day, the third word processing clerk who helped produce training materials for Navy personnel. Mrs. Hord requested a meeting with Mr. Forrest to discuss the raise, which brought her salary to the highest authorized for her position; it was the same amount as the raise the other two word processing clerks in the training program received. But, since she was paid more than they were, the raise represented a smaller percentage of increase, and she objected. On the morning of March 27, 1985, when Mrs. Hord met with Mr. Forrest, Messrs. Ormsby and Nissley were also present. She told them Bell could keep the raise. Mr. Forrest began to explain the mechanics of Bell's merit raise system, when Mrs. Hord interrupted, "It's a bunch of bullshit. You can do anything you want." As she started to leave, Mr. Forrest told her to stay, but she refused. At one point, she called her bosses "jackasses." According to Mr. Forrest's secretary, who was outside, she "had a wild look" as she slammed the door on her way out. Before they dispersed, Mr. Forrest and the others decided to terminate her employment, unless Mr. Morgan advised against it. Mr. Forrest thought her language "unbecoming a lady." He certainly would not have expected a woman to use such language, and it did not affect him in the same way as it would have, if a man had used the same language. On the other hand, he would not have expected any of Bell's Panama City employees to use language of this kind in such a setting. Mr. Forrest testified under oath that Mrs. Hord was not fired because he found her language the more offensive on account of her femininity. Apprised of the situation, Mr. Morgan consulted a New York lawyer, then told management in Panama City he had no objection to firing Mrs. Hord. Mr. Ormsby then caused a memorandum to be addressed to Mrs. Hord, notifying her that her employment was "terminated as of this date (27 March 1985), for gross disrespect, incertituded (sic), premeditated and continued disregard for all levels of Management ... so as to challenge the management of this company and to incite disrespect of other employees ...." Respondent's Exhibit No. 10.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss Gloria Hord's petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 1987. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 2, the evidence showed that she worked as an acting supervisor for Columbia Research but not, as far as the hearing officer's notes reflect, for CSC. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 3, the evidence showed that Mr. Small interviewed her first. Mr. Alepakos, as his supervisor, could presumably have overruled Mr. Small's choice even if Mr. Small made the "basic decision" to hire. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 4 has been adopted, in substance, except that the evidence did not establish that he placed his hands on her shoulders more than once. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 9 and 10, the evidence did not reveal any sexual advances at this point, aside from declarations of love, which were not entirely unwelcome. Except for the last sentence, petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 11 has been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to the final sentence of No. 11 and the word "Again" in No. 13, it was not clear from the evidence that she went to Mr. Ormsby before Christmas. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 12, Mrs. Hord did not always go "to great lengths to avoid contact with Mr. Alepakos during this time period." She not infrequently accepted his invitations to lunch. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 14 has been rejected as against the weight of the evidence. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 16 has been adopted, in substance, insofar as material, except that Mr. Alepakos was not put on any formal probation. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact Nos. 21 and 22, the evidence showed that he resumed his attentions because of her advances. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 27, the evidence showed that he called, but not that he called frequently. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 28, he did not come by uninvited. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 31, he said she needed to see a doctor but not, in so many words, that the marriage would fail. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 34, nobody placed limits on Mr. Morgan's investigation. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 35 has been rejected as contrary to the evidence. She was not told she would be reprimanded for making good faith complaints. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, the first two sentences of No. 38, Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 70 and 72 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 4, she lived at Panama City Beach at one point. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 9 and 10 are immaterial or subordinate. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 11 is rejected. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, Ms. Bjorgan's testimony was that she was not sure Mrs. Hord wanted to see him that night. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 14 has been accepted, in substance, insofar as material, except for Small's suggested advice to change her manner of dress. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 25, Mrs. Hord was ambivalent about Mr. Alepakos before as after the incident. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 27 is rejected. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 28 blows a single incident out of proportion. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 30 is rejected. The final sentence of respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 38 is rejected, as is No. 39 to the extent it proceeds on the assumption there was any hiatus. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 44 has been adopted, in substance, except that the evidence did not establish that the poinsettia was flowering. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 57, the epithet was "jackasses." With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 59 and 64, Alepakos had no input, but the fact of her complaints was considered and inspired the call to Morgan. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 63 is immaterial, except that Alepakos' attentions did not cause great mental stress. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 67, his overtures were romantic. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 68, he did propose marriage. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 69 has been adopted, in substance, insofar as material, except for the final clause of the final sentence which is rejected. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 71 is immaterial or subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Alvin L. Peters, Esquire 36 Oak Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 William B. deMeza, Jr., Esquire Holland and Knight Post Office Box 241 Bradenton, Florida 33506 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an act of discrimination or sexual harassment against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed as a payroll, accounts-payable clerk for Respondent's furniture store from May 23, 2001 until May 20, 2002. Respondent operates a furniture store located at 6886 North 9th Avenue, Pensacola, Florida 32504-7358. Five months after commencing her employment with Respondent, Petitioner began to look for a new job. Petitioner believes that Mr. Alan Reese, Respondent's office manager and Petitioner's direct supervisor, began to follow her home in August 2001. Petitioner believes that, after ceasing to follow her when she confronted him about it, Mr. Reese began to follow her home again two months later. Petitioner accused Mr. Reese of following her home on numerous occasions, peeking into her windows, and sitting in his car and watching her while she tended to her garden. Petitioner was permitted to come to work late during October 2001, on occasion, when she was looking for a new place to live. Petitioner did not get along with Serita Coefield, her fellow accounting clerk at the furniture store. They often had disputes over the handling of invoices. In May of 2002, Petitioner met with Barbara Hoard, the Escambia County/Pensacola Human Resource Coordinator, to discuss the alleged harassment by Mr. Reese. Ms. Hoard told her to inform her employer in writing of her concerns and explained the availability of filing a complaint with the FCHR or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. On May 15, 2002, Petitioner delivered a memo to Mr. Reese in which she accused him of following her home, touching her improperly in the workplace, and asking her questions about her personal life. She also sent, by certified mail, a copy of the memo to Elmer Githens, Respondent's president. After receiving the memo, Mr. Githens conferred with Mr. Reese, then issued a memo to Petitioner on May 17, 2002, in which he set forth her work schedule for the dates of April 29 through May 16, 2002. Petitioner's regular work hours were supposed to be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with an hour for lunch. The May 17 memo, which was based upon Petitioner's actual time cards, showed that her start time at work ranged from 8:18 a.m. to 11:38 a.m. and her end time ranged from 4:01 p.m. to 6:12 p.m. Petitioner clocked in for a full eight- hour workday on only four of fourteen days during the time period reflected in the memo. Later in the day on May 17, 2002, Mr. Githens issued a second memo to Petitioner in which he noted that Petitioner had yelled at him when he gave her the first memo, and accused Serita Coefield of "being out to get her." The memo further stated that Petitioner "has alienated every one [she] works with due to [her] attitude." The memo continued with a discussion of Petitioner's work hours which were to be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. with at least a 30-minute lunch break every day. Petitioner was informed that this was her final warning about her tardiness and her inability to get along with her co-workers. The memo concluded with the words "[t]he next time you will be dismissed." On Monday, May 20, 2002, Petitioner's next workday, Petitioner clocked in at 10:37 a.m. She was given a memo that day dismissing her for "willful misconduct after receiving ample warnings that termination of your employment was imminent if you continued present behavior of coming to work late, not putting lunch on your time card, clocking out after 5pm without permission and causing disturbances with fellow employees for no reason." Petitioner claims that, on the day she was fired, she arrived at Respondent's parking lot at 8:00 a.m., but sat in her car because she was having a "panic attack" due to her belief that Mr. Reese was continuing to stalk her. Both Petitioner and Mr. Reese live east of Respondent and travel, at least part of the way, in the same direction and on the same roads to go home after work. Mr. Reese denies knowing the location of Petitioner's home. Mr. Reese has never been to Petitioner's home. Mr. Reese admits he drove home in the same direction as Petitioner on numerous occasions since she drove along one of the routes he routinely took home. No one witnessed the alleged stalking of Petitioner by Mr. Reese. Petitioner claims to have contacted the police by telephone, but never filed a police report concerning the alleged stalking by Mr. Reese.
Recommendation is, Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's claim for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 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 January, 2005.
