The Issue Did Petitioner suffer an adverse employment action as a result of an unlawful discrimination by the Department of Corrections (Department) in violation of Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. At times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner was employed at Brevard Correctional Institution and was considered by the Department to be qualified for the position for which he was employed. Petitioner is a male, African-American. On October 24 1994, Petitioner received a Written Reprimand for the abuse of the Department's sick leave policy, which had occurred on October 21, 1994, in that Petitioner, while on authorized sick leave on October 21, 1994, attended the Dorothy Lewis trial, without authorization from the Department. Petitioner presented no evidence to show that the Written Reprimand issued on October 24, 1994, was issued because of Petitioner's race or gender; rather it was issued based on a reasonable belief that Petitioner had abused the Department's sick leave policy by attending the Dorothy Lewis trial while out on official sick leave. Petitioner presented no evidence to support the remaining allegations contained in the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner in this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Hugh F. Brockington, II 19715 Eagles View Circle Umatilla, Florida 32784 Violet Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Gary L. Grant, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Louis A. Vargas, General Counsel Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-6563 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent is guilty of discrimination in employment on the basis of race or sex.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is Valerie Miller-Moskowitz. She was employed by Respondent from August 4, 1987 until termination of her employment on September 9, 1987. Respondent is the Tom James Company, an interstate mail order clothing business based in Brentwood, Tennessee with an area sales office in Tampa, Florida. Respondent sells garments through its salespersons as opposed to operation of a retail store. These salespersons, including the office manager, are generally in the office only in the late afternoon in order to make telephonecalls and arrange appointments with customers for the following day. The manager of Respondent's Tampa office, with authority to fire, hire and impose disciplinary actions upon employees at all times pertinent to these proceedings, was Mark Dunphy. Through a process of interviews, Petitioner became a finalist for Respondent's vacant position of "operations manager" in the Tampa office. In the final interview, Petitioner went to Dunphy's home where he and his wife observed Petitioner's operation of a personal computer. Skill in the usage of the personal computer was important to Dunphy since he expected the new operations manager to prepare letters for mass mailing to potential customers through the use of a software program on the computer. The letters, extolling the company's products, would be mailed to potential customers after preparation by the operations manager. Following completion of all interviews, including a psychological evaluation of Petitioner conducted over the telephone with Petitioner by an individual hired by Respondent for that purpose, Dunphy formally hired Petitioner. This occurred sometime around the first of August of 1987. Petitioner's duties as operations manager consisted of being a "jack of all trades" with responsibility for typing, telephone answering and meeting with customers in the absence of salespersons in the office. She was also expected to operate the computer, now moved to the office from Dunphy's home, and to prepare mass mailings. Petitioner initially reported for work on August 4, 1987. At the conclusion of Petitioner's first day on the job, Dunphy went by Petitioner's home at her request. Petitioner was upset as the result of a telephone call from her husband and talked with Dunphy regarding her martial problems. After some discussion, Dunphy, who was growing hungry, asked Petitioner to have a drink and dinner at a local Mexican restaurant. Petitioner consented. The two went to the restaurant, had dinner and continued to discuss their personal backgrounds and experiences. Petitioner, who is black, related her disappointment with her present separation from her husband, who is white. Dunphy is also white. At the conclusion of the dinner, both left for their respective homes in their separate automobiles. As her employment progressed in the following days, Petitioner experienced some difficulty operating the personal computer at the office and called Dunphy's wife on several occasions for guidance in the effective use of the machine. While she managed accounting matters in the office quite well, Petitioner was unable at any time during her brief employment to produce mass mailing letters in a quantity sufficient to meet Dunphy's expectations. Although he was becoming aware that Petitioner's computer skills were not as proficient as he desired, Dunphy continued an amicable relationship with Petitioner. On August 6, 1987, he again invited Petitioner to go out for drinks, but she refused. There were subsequent invitations from Dunphy during thenext week to go out for drinks, to go jogging, and to go dancing. Petitioner declined all these invitations from Dunphy. Approximately two weeks after beginning her employment, Petitioner went to Jacksonville, Florida, for a job related training session sponsored by Respondent. Upon conclusion of the training session on or about August 14, 1987, she and Dunphy agreed in the course of a telephone conversation that Dunphy would meet her at the airport and give her a ride to her home. Dunphy complied and upon arriving at Petitioner's residence, Dunphy escorted her inside where he attempted to embrace and kiss her. Petitioner told him "you shouldn't do this to your wife." Dunphy did not attempt to press his affections further and left Petitioner's home. One day during the next week, in the course of conversation, Petitioner told Dunphy that the day, August 18, 1987, was her birthday. Dunphy proceeded to give her a birthday card in which he inscribed the following: Happy B. Day Val- you inspire me with your attitude toward life, and what life throws at us from time to time. Your[sic] tough in your determination to make a success of your self even in tough personal times. I know you will help me in achieveing[sic] my goals while we are associated together. I know I will be helpful to you in achieveing[sic] your dreams & goals. --This good for one marguerita. Mark In the ensuing days, Petitioner began to be late for work at various times, although Dunphy did not formally document this deterioration of Petitioner's attendance in any time records. Petitioner's car was burglarized during the week of August 24, 1987, and she took time from work to replace her driver's license, credit cards and other documents that were stolen from the vehicle. Dunphy became concerned about Petitioner's attendance at work and the two of them quarreled. Petitioner's husband contacted her in the early part of September, 1987. He was ready to conclude their separation and needed her to come to New York and assist in his move to Florida. Petitioner met with Dunphy on the morning of September 9, 1987, and informed him of her intention to take the following two work days (Thursday and Friday) off in order to go to New York to deal with family business matters. When Dunphy expressed reluctance to authorize the time off for Petitioner, she became angry and declared that she would be taking the time off anyway because her "family came first." Dunphy, already disappointed with Petitioner's failure to meet expectations regarding operation of the personal computer and preparation of mass mailing materials, also became angry and told Petitioner to leave since she was going anyway. Petitioner took Dunphy's response to mean that she was fired and left the business premises. Later in the day, Petitioner contacted an accountant in the company's home office for assistance in persuading Dunphy to reconsider and continue her employment. Those efforts were unsuccessful. After conclusion of her trip to New York, Petitioner wrote to Respondent's president at the company's home office on September 16, 1987, and complained of Dunphy's verbal abuse and unprofessional displays of anger. In the letter, she opined that Dunphy was a good salesman, but needed additional training in order to become a "people oriented supervisor." Notably, she made no specific reference to racial discrimination or sexual harassment in the letter, although she noted Dunphy's attempts "to pressure the Operations Manager into going out for drinks, when both parties are married."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS 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 10th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my ruling on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. Rejected, a mere restatement of Petitioner's position. To the extent that this proposed finding seeks to establish that Petitioner rejected advances of Mark Dunphy, the proposed finding has been substantially adopted with regard to one occasion, but not verbatim. Adopted in substance. Rejected, argumentative as to legal conclusion regarding burden of proof rather than proposed finding of fact. 6 Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Rejected, relevancy, conclusion of law. Adopted in substance as to firing and date of same. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence, legal conclusion and argumentative. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-3. Rejected, unnecessary. Modified to extent that Dunphy operated Respondent's Tampa office. Addressed in substance as to Respondent Tom James Company. 6.-10. Adopted in substance, but not verbatim. Petitioner's hiring found to have occurred on August 4, 1987, otherwise this proposed finding is adopted in substance. Adopted by reference. Not supported by weight of the evidence with regard to lack of capability of Petitioner, adopted in substance with regard to Dunphy's disappointment with her performance abilities. Adopted in substance. Petitioner's version that August 4, 1987, was her first day of work is adopted on the basis of the witness' credibility as opposed to Dunphy's testimony on this point. 16.-19. Adopted in substance. 20. Rejected, relevancy. 21.-23. Rejected, relevancy. 24. Adopted by reference. 26. Rejected, relevancy and cumulative. 27.-28. Adopted in substance. 29.-30. Rejected, relevancy. Rejected, cumulative. Rejected, cumulative. 33.-34. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted in substance. Rejected as to Dunphy's version of these events on the basis of the comparative creditability of the witnesses on this particular point. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. 38.-41. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. 42.-44. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 45.-48. Rejected, unnecessary. 49.-66. Rejected as argumentative of proposed findings postulated by Petitioner. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin Executi
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Division of Emergency Management issue a final order dismissing Berger's First Amended Formal Written Protest and Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Timothy Cerio, General Counsel Office of the Governor The Capitol, Suite 209 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1001 (eServed) Mindy Dowling, Agency Clerk Florida Division of Emergency Management 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 (eServed) Michael Terrence Kennett, Chief Legal Counsel Florida Division of Emergency Management 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 (eServed) Thornton Williams, Esquire Williams Law Group, P.A. Suite 1-B 800 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303-8714 (eServed) David A. Yon, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1722 (eServed) Eduardo S. Lombard, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence and Piscitelli, P.A. 413 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1515 (eServed) William Robert Vezina, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence and Piscitelli, P.A. 413 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1515 (eServed) Brittany Adams Long, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. Suite 200 301 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1722 (eServed) James A. McKee, Esquire Foley and Lardner, LLP 106 East College Avenue, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7732 (eServed) Benjamin J. Grossman, Esquire Foley and Lardner, LLP 106 East College Avenue, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7732 (eServed) Robert H. Hosay, Esquire Foley and Lardner, LLP 106 East College Avenue, Suite 900 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7732 (eServed) Megan S. Reynolds, Esquire Vezina, Lawrence and Piscitelli, P.A. 413 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1515 (eServed) Harriet W. Williams, Esquire Williams Law Group, P.A. Post Office Box 10109 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-2109 (eServed) John A. Tucker, Esquire Foley and Lardner, LLP Suite 1300 One Independent Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202-5017 (eServed)
The Issue This cause came on for consideration upon Respondent's Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Relief from a "Determination: No Cause," order entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
Findings Of Fact The undisputed facts are as follows: After investigating Petitioner's Claim of Discrimination, the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) entered its Order, "Determination: No Cause," on March 12, 1996. FCHR's order unequivocally advised Petitioner that her Petition for Relief, if any, must be filed within 35 days. The thirty-fifth day would have been April 16, 1996. After the time as provided by FCHR's Rule 60Y-5.008(1) and by FCHR's March 12, 1996 order for the filing of her Petition for Relief had already run out, Petitioner filed a request for extension of time in which to file her Petition for Relief. Her request for extension stated that she needed the extension of time "due to failing health of my spouse and medical care and concern for him." This late request for extension of time was the only request for extension of time filed by Petitioner. It was dated April 17, 1996, (one day late) but it was not filed with the FCHR until April 24, 1996 (eight days late). Petitioner did not mail a copy of her April 1996 request for extension of time to Respondent as required by FCHR rules. Therefore, Respondent was unaware there had been a request for extension made to the FCHR until Respondent received the FCHR's order dated May 31, 1996. Because it had no notice that Petitioner was requesting an extension in April 1996, Respondent had no opportunity to object to the FCHR before the Commission entered its May 31, 1996 order. By its May 31, 1996 order, FCHR granted Petitioner an extension of time only until June 14, 1996 in which to file her Petition for Relief. The order does not state a number of days, but clearly and specifically states that the Petition for Relief must be filed by June 14, 1996. FCHR granted no further extensions to Petitioner for filing her Petition for Relief. Petitioner filed her Petition for Relief beyond the June 14, 1996 date assigned her by the FCHR. Although her Petition for Relief was dated June 14, 1996, FCHR's date stamp on the Petition for Relief shows that it was not filed with the Commission until June 18, 1996. FCHR transmitted the Petition for Relief to the Division of Administrative Hearings on or about July 12, 1996. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Relief and an Answer with affirmative defenses based on untimeliness. See, Conclusion of Law 15. In response to the October 8, 1996 order to show cause herein, Petitioner filed a pleading she labelled "Order Requiring Further Advices and to Show Cause." Although she had been required to show cause why she did not timely file her Petition for Relief between May 31, 1996 and June 18, 1996, she instead explained her tardiness in filing for an extension of time back in April 1996 this way: I was under the impression that I had 35 days to respond from the time I received the Notice of Determination: No Cause. I receive [sic] this notice on March 15, 1996, under my impression the 35 day lapse period would have been until April 19, 1996. I feel my response met this time period as my letter was dated April 17, 1996. In response to the October 8, 1996 order herein, Petitioner has offered no explanation why she filed her Petition for Relief beyond the clearly specified extension period granted her by the Commission.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is
Findings Of Fact The undersigned convened the final hearing at 9:40 a.m. on January 29, 2014, having allowed Petitioner additional time to appear. Respondent’s counsel made his appearance for the record. The undersigned informed Respondent’s counsel regarding Petitioner’s communication stating his intent not to appear. Respondent’s counsel was questioned about any acquaintance with the undersigned and confirmed that he never met nor communicated with the undersigned before the hearing on January 29, 2014.
Recommendation Based upon the fact that Petitioner failed to present any evidence in support of his Petition, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter an order dismissing this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Violet Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Torri Holmes 1700 North Monroe Street, Suite 11-263 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Elwin R. Thrasher, III, Esquire The Thrasher Law Firm 908 North Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Findings Of Fact Petitioner in this case is K. Kristine Nowacki. She was employed as an attorney in the office of the legal counsel for Respondent's District One in Pensacola, Florida, from November 14, 1988, until termination of her employment on June 9, 1989. Respondent is the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Rodney Johnson, the district's chief legal counsel. Cheleene Schembera was Johnson's immediate supervisor and chief administrator of District One. Upon commencement of Petitioner's employment, the work force in the legal office consisted of Johnson, a male, and Teresa Goodson, another female attorney. Another attorney, Randy Werre, was male and began employment in March of 1989. Since Petitioner had never used a dictaphone and could type exceedingly fast, 140 words per minute, she was given a word processor to prepare preliminary drafts of her work products. Word processing equipment was limited in the office. Johnson considered the provision of such equipment to Petitioner to be an exceptional employee benefit, as opposed to a burden or impairment. Petitioner never requested that she be provided with a dictaphone. Both Johnson and Schembera were concerned about Petitioner's dress and appearance. On separate occasions, both individuals spoke with Petitioner about a need to effect changes in her personal dress and grooming habits. When Johnson offered employment to Petitioner, he discussed with her the need to do something with her long, bushy and unkempt hair style. Prior to his employment offer to Petitioner, Johnson was told by Schembera that he should counsel with Petitioner about her hair style if he intended to hire Petitioner. However, the need to change dress or hair style was not a condition of employment. On January 11, 1989, Johnson spoke with Petitioner and noted that she had handled a difficult evidentiary matter in a hearing that day. However, Johnson's comments did not amount to an endorsement of Petitioner as a person with potential to become a great trial attorney. Petitioner was hired to serve as Johnson's "backup" and to effectively take Johnson's place in the event of his absence. Petitioner never developed such capability in the course of her employment with Respondent. Although Schembera spoke with Petitioner on April 21, 1989, regarding the need for Petitioner to adopt a more conservative hairstyle and dress, Schembera sought to provide Petitioner with guidance in order that Petitioner might retain the respect of her peers. Schembera told Petitioner that the discussion had no significance with regard to Petitioner's job. Such counselling by Schembera is not unusual. She has counseled with other employees concerning dress or hair styles when she considered such action to be appropriate. On at least one occasion in proximity to Petitioner's employment, Schembera counselled a male employee regarding the necessity of that employee obtaining a hair cut. Schembera even-handedly applied her grooming code to both male and female employees. Petitioner was unable to properly perform her job duties. In the judgement of her supervisors, she did not adequately prepare for hearing or otherwise adequately present Respondent's position in numerous hearings. As an attorney in Respondent's employment, Nowacki was a select exempt employee serving at the pleasure of Respondent. As such an employee, Petitioner's employment could be terminated at any time by Respondent. By letter dated June 9, 1989, Johnson informed Petitioner that her employment had been terminated. Her gross wages at the time of discharge from employment were $788.46 biweekly. The testimony of Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Rodney Johnson, was candid, consistent and creditable. That testimony establishes that Petitioner's employment was terminated because of her work performance. Neither dress nor hair length or style were factors in her termination. Johnson felt that Petitioner's appearance had begun to improve at the time of her employment termination. Petitioner's testimony, as a result of inconsistencies in that testimony and her demeanor while testifying, is not credited and fails to establish that her supervisors unlawfully terminated her employment. During the course of her seven months of employment, Petitioner made extensive use of sick leave. From an initial allotment of 104 hours, Petitioner used all but 17 hours of that leave amount. On June 27, 1989, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination against Respondent alleging termination of employment on the basis of sex.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W.DAVIS 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 26th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-6600 The following constitutes my ruling on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings Adopted in substance. Rejected with regard to pregnancy comment, credibility. Rejected, legal conclusion, argumentative and a mere restatement of Petitioner's position. The creditable evidence establishes that Petitioner was hired and retained in employment until her lack of capability was demonstrated. Rejected, Petitioner's testimony in this regard is not credited. As established by Johnson's testimony, which is credited, one of Petitioner's asserted strengths was her typing capability and she was provided a word processor as a benefit. Petitioner did not establish that she objected to this arrangement at the time. Rejected, creditability, insofar as grooming and dress requirements comprising employment conditions. Adopted in substance. 7.-8. Rejected, relevancy. Rejected, Petitioner's version is not supported by weight of the evidence, creditability. Rejected, relevancy. Adopted in substance, but not verbatim. Rejected, not supported by the weight of the evidence. 13.-16. Rejected, relevancy. 17. While Schembera frankly admitted her dislike for Petitioner's dress and grooming and also accepted responsibility for the ultimate approval of the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment, this testimony does not establish that the basis for employment termination was other than Petitioner's job performance. This proposed finding must be rejected as a mischaracterization of Schembera's testimony. 18.-19. Rejected, unnecessary. Adopted. Rejected, not supported by weight of the evidence. 22.-24. Rejected, unnecessary. Respondent's Proposed Findings 1.-21. Adopted, although not verbatim. 22.-25. Rejected, relevancy. 26.-28. Adopted by reference. 29.-30. Rejected, relevancy. 31. Adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: John Barry Kelly,II, Esq. 15 West Main Street Pensacola, FL 32501 Peter S. Fleitman, Esq. Lynda Quillen, Esq. Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol-Suite 1501 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Ronald M. McElrath Executive Director Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Clerk Florida Commission On Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240 / Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
The Issue Whether Respondent, The Meltdown on 30A (“The Meltdown”), discriminated against Petitioners, D’Shante L. LeBeaux, Erin M. Scott, and Latanya M. Scott (collectively, the “Petitioners”), in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Meltdown is a restaurant operated out of a 23-foot- long Airstream trailer. It does not have tables and chairs for customers to consume their meals; it is a “to go” establishment. The trailer can comfortably hold about five people when it is in operation. The Meltdown operates on Highway 30A (hence its name) and is generally parked near the beach in Seaside, a tourist area. The Meltdown serves between 500 and 700 sandwiches per day. The restaurant is one of five owned by Mr. Shirley and managed by Mr. Haile. In February 2016, The Meltdown switched its payroll functions from Oasis to ECB. The change resulted also in a new method of signing in, on-line, by which employees were able to be paid. D’Shante L. LeBeaux is an African-American woman. At final hearing, she claimed to have a disability, but did not raise that as a basis for the discrimination claim against The Meltdown. She began working for The Meltdown in June 2016. She voluntarily left her employment when her means of transportation, Latanya Scott, resigned around August 19, 2016. While working for The Meltdown, Ms. LeBeaux was never written up or disciplined for missing work or performing poorly. Ms. LeBeaux did not cite any instance of discriminatory actions or words by her employer. She claimed that the manner in which her schedule was handled, i.e., that she did not always work the same hours as Latanya Scott, constituted discrimination. The testimony was not persuasive. Latanya Scott is an African-American woman. She is married to Erin Scott, an African-American woman. Latanya Scott was hired on June 24, 2016. On August 10, 2016, she provided a letter to The Meltdown which stated her intent to resign as of August 19, 2016. As of that date, she voluntarily ceased working for The Meltdown. Her reason for resigning was, primarily, that Mr. Haile had not shown any compassion when Latanya Scott’s grandmother got sick (and ultimately passed away). While working at The Meltdown, Latanya Scott was written up for being belligerent to other employees. She was passed over when a manager, Carolyn Bramlett, left her position and a new manager was needed. No one was hired, however, to replace Ms. Bramlett; Mr. Haile simply took over the responsibilities himself. Erin Scott is an African-American woman and is the wife of Latanya Scott. She was hired at The Meltdown on May 29, 2016, and continues to work there. She cited to no discriminatory actions by The Meltdown, but suggested that other related couples may have been treated somewhat differently than were she and her wife. Her complaints were neither confirmed nor deemed discriminatory. Erin Scott continues to work in a supervisory capacity for The Meltdown and is considered a good employee. Each of the Petitioners stated that they never received an employee handbook until recently, i.e., during the pendency of this administrative hearing. They never saw, therefore, the nepotism policy set forth in the handbook. The owner and manager maintain that all employees are given the handbook when they “signed in” as an employee the first time. Based upon the facts of this case, whether or not the Petitioners were provided an employee handbook or knew about the nepotism policy is essentially irrelevant to their claims of discrimination. There were a number of family members working at The Meltdown when Mr. Haile first began managing. When ECB came in, a nepotism policy was enacted that prevented any further employment of family members. The family members who were already there were grandfathered in, i.e., they were not asked to resign. Mr. Haile does not remember Ms. LeBeaux raising the issue of a disability at the time of her hiring. She did begin asking for fewer hours, no more than 25 per week, at some point and Mr. Haile tried to accommodate her. He learned that she and Latanya Scott were riding together, which created a small problem, but he attempted to work around that issue as well. Mr. Shirley operates all of his restaurants without tolerating discrimination or harassment. His credible testimony was that the Petitioners seem to have a problem with how the restaurant was managed rather than having a complaint about discrimination. He genuinely appears to care about his employees and to wish to do the right thing vis-à-vis his employees. In short, there was no credible or persuasive evidence of discrimination against Petitioners by The Meltdown.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Respondent, The Meltdown on 30A, did not discriminate against Petitioners, D’Shante L. LeBeaux, Erin M. Scott, and Latanya M. Scott, and their Petitions for Relief should be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of September, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) D'Shante LaCheryl LeBeaux Apartment B 190 Patrick Drive Defuniak Springs, Florida 32433 (eServed) Timothy Tack, Esquire Miller Tack & Madson Suite 135 3550 Buschwood Park Drive Tampa, Florida 33618 (eServed) Erin M. Scott Post Office Box 962 Defuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Latanya M. Scott Post Office Box 962 Defuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether this case should be dismissed based on Petitioner's failure to appear at the hearing.
Findings Of Fact The Notice of Hearing in these consolidated cases was issued on November 17, 2010, setting the hearing for January 24 and 25, 2011, in Tallahassee, Florida. The hearing was scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. on January 24, 2011. Also on November 17, 2010, an Order of Pre-hearing Instructions was entered. Neither the Notice of Hearing nor the Order of Pre- hearing Instructions was returned as undeliverable to Petitioner. On January 19, 2011, Petitioner filed a letter at the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting that the hearing be delayed until after February 18, 2011, due to various appointments she had made that conflicted with the hearing dates. This letter indicated that Petitioner was aware of the scheduled hearing dates. By order dated January 20, 2011, the undersigned declined Petitioner's request for failure to state grounds sufficient to warrant a continuance over the objection of Respondent. Several attempts to reach Petitioner by telephone were unavailing. At 9:30 a.m. on January 24, 2011, counsel and witnesses for Respondent were present and prepared to go forward with the hearing. Petitioner was not present. The undersigned delayed the commencement of the hearing by fifteen minutes, but Petitioner still did not appear. The hearing was called to order at 9:45 a.m. Counsel for Respondent entered her appearance and requested the entry of a recommended order of dismissal. The hearing was then adjourned. As of the date of this recommended order, Petitioner has not contacted the Division of Administrative Hearings, in writing or by telephone, to explain her failure to appear at the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petitions for Relief in these consolidated cases. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 26th day of January, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Kimberly D. Dotson 825 Briandav Street Tallahassee, Florida 32305 Kim M. Fluharty-Denson, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mary Kowalski Department of Financial Services Human Resource 200 East Gaines Street, Suite 112 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
