The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of Sections 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Beard Equipment Company, Inc., sells and maintains heavy equipment in Panama City, Florida. The Petitioner, Robert G. Harrison began employment with the Respondent in Panama City, Florida, in September, 1988. The Petitioner was employed as a janitor. Petitioner's duties included running numerous and varied errands which required driving of a motor vehicle. In April of 1989, Petitioner was hospitalized in order to adjust his medication for what he indicated was a bipolar disorder. However, at the hearing, Petitioner produced no expert testimony to establish that he was mentally handicapped or had bipolar disorder. At that time, Respondent became aware that Petitioner had a medical problem. Later, Petitioner was hospitalized in order to adjust his medication on two more occasions in 1989, and twice in 1992. On each occasion the Respondent accommodated Petitioner by making arrangements to hire temporary employees or readjust other employees' duties so that they could perform Petitioner's duties while he was hospitalized. In early 1992, the Respondent's liability insurance company conducted a random audit of employee driving records. The Respondent was notified by its insurance company that no coverage would be provided for any accident where the employee/driver had a DUI conviction. This random audit prompted Respondent to conduct a complete company- wide internal audit of driving records of all employees. The driving record audit resulted in some transfers for those employees for whom driving was an essential part of their job duties, but whose driving records would prohibit them from being covered under Respondent's liability policy. Employees who could not fulfill the duties of a non-driving position were terminated. Respondent could not afford to allow employees to drive who could not be insured by Respondent's liability carrier. The in-house driving record audit revealed that Petitioner had a DUI conviction on his record. Respondent had no other non-driving positions for which the Petitioner was qualified. Respondent was therefore forced to discharge the Petitioner since he could no longer fulfill the duties of his employment. Petitioner was discharged in November of 1992. When Petitioner was terminated, Petitioner was advised by Mark Veal, his supervisor, that the driving record audit had revealed that Petitioner had a DUI conviction, and because he would not be covered under the company insurance policy, they had no alternative but to discharge him. Within a day or so, Petitioner's wife called and requested his discharge letter in writing. Veal prepared the letter, indicating that due to Petitioner's medical history, his operating a motor vehicle would be too much of a liability. Although the real reason for Petitioner's discharge and the reason given him at the time was the DUI conviction, Veal tried to write the discharge letter in such a way as to minimize any embarrassment for the Petitioner due to his DUI conviction. Therefore, the termination letter does not support the conclusion that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on a mental handicap. In fact, there was no substantial evidence that Respondent terminated Petitioner based on a mental handicap. The evidence clearly showed Respondent was terminated for his driving record and his lack of qualifications to fill any other non-driving position. Moreover, Petitioner failed to establish that his position was filled by a person not in a protected class or that Respondent is an employer employing more than 15 employees. Given these facts, Petitioner has not established a prima facie case that Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was discriminated against because of his alleged handicap in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act and that the petition be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 22nd day of December, 1994.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black male and is part of a group of persons protected from unlawful discrimination. Petitioner was formerly employed by Respondent and served initially as an usher for Respondent’s business. Respondent operates theaters and concessions in Florida, and employs a number of individuals, none of whom are employed on a “full-time” schedule. Only the manager, Cindy Palmer, is considered a full-time employee. During the school year when attendance at the theaters may be presumed to be down, Respondent offers fewer hours to its employees. Conversely, during the summer months, employees may be offered more hours. Respondent’s employees are asked to fill out a form that indicates the amount of hours they are available to work and the days upon which those hours may be assigned. Pertinent to this case, Petitioner advised Respondent that he was available to work only on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, and Tuesdays. Petitioner asked that he be given 40 hours per week. When Petitioner applied for employment with Respondent he was required to answer a number of questions. One of the questions, aimed at addressing the seasonal aspect of Respondent’s work demands, asked: “During slow periods when school is in session, there may be only 10 to 15 hours a week to work. Is this ok?” Petitioner answered “yes.” Petitioner failed to show that any employee was given more hours than he during the slow work periods. Respondent did not cut Petitioner’s hours during his employment at the theater. Respondent did not fail to consider Petitioner for any promotion or wage increase that he applied for during his employment. Petitioner presented no evidence that any employee was more favorably treated in the assignment of hours or promoted over him. Petitioner did not apply for any promotions. Petitioner’s verbal interest in seeking additional skills was never formalized or written to management. Despite postings of methods to complain to upper management regarding the theater operations, Petitioner never notified Respondent of any problems at the theater that would have suggested racial discrimination on Respondent’s part. In fact, when he completed an investigative form on an unrelated matter, Petitioner did not disclose any type of inappropriate behavior by any of Respondent’s employees. Petitioner’s response to the question, stated that he “hadn’t seen anything inappropriate, just bad attitude.” During the period July 2010 through November 2011, Petitioner received a number of “write-ups” citing performance deficiencies. Similar “write-ups” were issued to non-black employees. Petitioner did not establish that he was written up more than any other employee. More important, Petitioner did not establish that the deficiencies described in the write-ups were untrue. Respondent’s Employee Handbook (that Petitioner received a copy of) prohibits discrimination on the basis of race. Methods to complain to upper management, including a toll-free number, were open to Petitioner at all times material to this case. Except for the filing of the instant action, Petitioner never availed himself of any remedy to put Respondent on notice of his claim of discrimination, nor the alleged factual basis for it. Petitioner was directed to leave the theater after a verbal disagreement with his supervisor, Ms. Palmer. Petitioner’s take on the matter is that he was fired by Respondent. Respondent asserts that Petitioner voluntarily quit based upon his actions and verbal comments to Ms. Palmer. Regardless, Petitioner’s race had nothing to do with why he ultimately left employment with Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission Human Relations issue a final order finding no cause for an unlawful employment practice as alleged by Petitioner and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 2012.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Clifford McCullough (Petitioner) was the subject of unlawful discrimination by Nesco Resources (Respondent) in violation of chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2015)1/.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a company that refers pre-screened job candidates to employers upon request by an employer seeking to fill a specific position. The Petitioner is an African-American male, born in 1959, who sought employment through the Respondent. The Respondent does not make the hiring decision. The actual decision is made by the employer requesting referrals from the Respondent. The Respondent is compensated by the employer if and when the employer hires an applicant referred by the Respondent. On occasion, the Respondent publishes advertisements seeking applications to fill specific positions, such as “forklift drivers.” The fact that the Respondent seeks applications for specific positions does not mean that an employer has contacted the Respondent seeking referrals for such positions. The advertisements are used by the Respondent to create an inventory of applicants who can be referred to employers. On December 20, 2013, the Petitioner submitted a job application to the Respondent seeking a “forklift driver” position. At that time, the Petitioner indicated to the Respondent that he was available to perform “warehouse, packing, production, shipping and receiving tasks.” Several weeks prior to the Petitioner’s application, the Respondent had referred job candidates to an employer seeking to fill an available forklift driver position. The employer filled the position by hiring an African-American male born in 1961 who was referred to the employer by the Respondent. As of December 20, 2013, the Respondent had no pending employer requests seeking referrals to fill forklift driver positions. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent had any employer requests at that time which were consistent with the Petitioner’s skills. The Respondent’s general practice when contacted by a prospective employer is to recommend applicants who have maintained ongoing contact with the Respondent’s staff after the submission of an application. There was minimal contact between the Petitioner and the Respondent after the Petitioner submitted his application in December 2013. The Respondent presumes that some people who submit applications subsequently relocate or obtain employment elsewhere. Accordingly, the Respondent requires that previous applicants periodically submit new employment applications so that the Respondent’s inventory includes only active job seekers. On April 8, 2014, the Petitioner submitted another application to the Respondent. Also in April 2014, an employer contacted the Respondent to obtain referrals to fill another forklift driving position. The employer filled the position by hiring an African- American male born in 1964, who was referred to the employer by the Respondent. Prior to his referral for the forklift driver position, the successful applicant routinely contacted the Respondent’s staff, in person and by telephone, regarding available employment opportunities. The evidence fails to establish whether the Respondent was included within the applicants who were referred to the requesting employer. There is no evidence that the Respondent’s referral process reflected factors related to any applicant’s race, color, sex, or age. The Petitioner has also asserted that his application should have been referred to an employer who, on one occasion, was seeking to fill an available cleaning position. The position was a part-time job paying an hourly wage of $10. The Petitioner had not submitted an application for such a position. Nothing in the information provided by the Petitioner to the Respondent indicated that the Petitioner was interested in such employment. Through the Respondent’s referrals, the employer filled the cleaning position by hiring an African-American male.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's complaint of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2016, 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 21st day of June, 2016.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner has been subjected to discrimination within the meaning of the relevant provisions of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, based upon alleged sexual harassment in the course of her employment and retaliation for her complaints concerning the alleged sexual harassment.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee of the Respondent at times pertinent hereto. It is undisputed that that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and that timeliness and jurisdictional requirements have been met. The Respondent obtained a contract with the United States Navy for a project to be performed at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida. It became the contractor for the project in approximately December of 1991. The contract, in pertinent part, provided that the Respondent would provide local cartage trucking services for the Navy on and in the environs of the Pensacola Naval Air Station. The project involved loading and transportation of aircraft parts and related supplies and equipment. The Petitioner was hired as a truck driver, delivering aircraft parts for the naval aviation depot (NADEP). During the course of that employment, there came a time when the Petitioner contended that she had been discriminated against because of her gender. The Petitioner contends that in a meeting in December of 1991, she was told by Terry Meyers, an employee of the Respondent and the Petitioner's supervisor, that she "didn't look like a truck driver" and that she had three weeks to look for another job. The meeting in which the statements were allegedly made was a meeting called by the Petitioner's supervisor and the project manager, Mr. Danny Francis, to address certain deficiencies in the Petitioner's performance. Another employee, Mr. Braughton, was also counseled at the meeting concerning his performance as a truck driver. His was the same type of employment position as that occupied by the Petitioner. Mr. Braughton is a white male. The Petitioner maintains that she informed a white male employee, Mike Morris, of the statements allegedly made at the meeting and that he immediately made a telephone call to Mr. Frank Moody, the president of the corporation, to put the president and the corporation on notice of sexual discrimination against the Petitioner. The Petitioner, however, was not present when Mr. Morris made that telephone call to Mr. Moody. Even had he made reference to alleged sexual discrimination in his telephone call to Mr. Moody, Mr. Morris only learned of the purported sexually-discriminatory statements from the Petitioner. The Petitioner maintained that Mr. Morris informed her that he had heard the statements made while standing at the door of the room in which the meeting occurred and that Mr. Morris initiated the telephone call on his own volition to Mr. Moody, based upon hearing those statements. Mr. Morris, however, testified to the contrary, stating that the Petitioner approached him and claimed that she was on probation and was fearful of being laid off from employment and that the Petitioner told him of the alleged sexually-discriminatory statements and that he did not hear them himself. He further testified that the Petitioner instructed him to contact Mr. Moody concerning her fears about her job and the alleged discriminatory statements or she would contact "HRO and EEO and have the contract shut down". Mr. Morris, indeed, called Mr. Moody but never mentioned the statements alleged by the Petitioner to have been made to her by Mr. Meyers during the performance evaluation meeting. In fact, it has been demonstrated by Mr. Morris' testimony, which the Hearing Officer accepts as more credible, that the Petitioner never complained to Mr. Morris about a sexually-discriminatory statement or purported sexual discrimination. Mr. Morris, instead, spoke to Mr. Moody about problems he saw occurring in the operation in Pensacola which he attributed to the project manager, Mr. Danny Francis. He told Mr. Moody that Mr. Francis was allowing employees to leave work early without Mr.. Moody's knowledge and still crediting them with working a full day on such occasions which, in effect, cost the corporation additional salary monies which were unearned. The meeting in which the Petitioner was allegedly confronted with the statement that she did not look like a truck driver and had three weeks to look for another job was called and conducted by Mr. Francis and Mr. Meyers was present. It is undisputed that Mr. Moody terminated Mr. Francis shortly after the telephone conversation with Mr. Morris. He replaced Mr. Francis with the current project manager, John Jacobs. Mr. Moody testified that in a telephone conversation with the Petitioner that she never mentioned to him the alleged sexually-discriminatory statements referenced above. Instead, he was told by both Mr. Morris and the Petitioner that she was concerned that she might lose her job because of the results of the meeting with Mr. Francis, in which he told her that she needed to improve her job performance. In fact, the management of the Respondent perceived a genuine job performance problem involving the Petitioner's conduct of her job duties. This was disclosed in the testimony of both Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Morris, where it was revealed that the Petitioner had had a continuing problem performing her job correctly and that Mr. Morris and the management personnel had worked with her constantly during the course of her employment term with the Respondent, taking more time and personal attention with her than with other employees. This was done in order to repetitively explain her job duties and give her additional chances to improve her work performance, in comparison to the lesser degree of attention and remedial help that they accorded other employees. Prior to February 3, 1993, the Petitioner had been employed with the Respondent for over a year. The testimony of Mr. Jacobs established, however, that even though her probationary period had long since elapsed, he still considered the Petitioner to be, in effect, an employee in training because she was deficient in correctly accomplishing all of the duties of her job. She was slow in performing her job duties, including preventive maintenance inspections of her vehicle and in making the "pickups and deliveries" of freight she was required to transport on her truck in the performance of her duties. The counseling session concerning her work performance occurring in December of 1991, referenced above, was during her probationary period. The white male employee, Mr. Rick Braughton, who was also counseled about deficient work performance on that occasion, was informed that he might not remain employed past his probationary period unless his performance improved. The Respondent had a regular practice and procedure, as part of its truck safety and preventive maintenance program, that employees, who were drivers, were required to give a preventive maintenance and safety inspection of their vehicles each day prior to leaving the company facility or terminal to transport aviation parts or other freight. This was regarded as crucial to proper job performance by the employer because of the concern about safety of the drivers and avoidance of damage, and liability for damage, to the expensive equipment and parts which the Respondent was required by its contract to transport, such as expensive military aircraft parts and related equipment. Among these preventive maintenance inspection duties that driver/employees, such as the Petitioner, were required to perform daily was the requirement to check the air in the truck tires and "top off" the tires with the required air pressure, if necessary. 10 Mr. Jacobs established that there came a time when the Petitioner was noted to have failed on multiple occasions, in the same week, to check and air her tires. Finally, upon this deficiency coming to his attention again on February 3, 1993, Mr. Jacobs suspended the Petitioner for a day without pay, for failing to check and air her tires. The Petitioner claims that she was the only employee singled out for this treatment concerning failure to inspect and air her tires. The testimony of Mr. Jacobs is deemed more credible, having observed the candor and demeanor of all of the witnesses, and it is determined that the employer had a good-faith belief that the Petitioner was deficient in this regard and that the reprimand, consisting of the one-day suspension, was justified. It was not demonstrated that, even if the Petitioner's version of events is true and that other driver/employees were not disciplined for failure to air their tires, that such a circumstance occurred as a result of the employer's knowledge of other driver/employees failing to air their tires and arbitrarily choosing not to discipline them. In fact, it was not demonstrated by preponderant, non-self-serving evidence that other employees had not been disciplined for failure to air their tires. In fact, it was not shown, other than by the self-serving testimony of the Petitioner, that other employees had failed to air their tires when required. The other drivers are mostly male, but one is a female. There was no showing that she was treated any differently than the male drivers. In summary, it has been established that the employer accorded the reprimand to the Petitioner because of a good-faith belief that her performance had been deficient, on repeated occasions, in this respect. It is undisputed that prior to the date the Petitioner received the reprimand, consisting of one-day suspension without pay, that the Petitioner had a generally good attitude about her job insofar as management was able to observe. Even though management had had some concerns about her performance and the slow manner in which she was learning certain aspects of her job, with resulting deficient effects upon her performance, management forbore from using these concerns to reduce her performance rating. She received good evaluations of her performance, insofar as her personnel record is concerned, prior to the time she was suspended for one day on February 3, 1993. After the Petitioner received the suspension she developed a "bad attitude" insofar as her perception of management was concerned. She began to complain frequently about vehicle safety or purported concerns she had about the condition of her vehicle related to safety, particularly the truck brakes. Prior to her suspension, she had never complained in this regard. Management also perceived that she appeared to show down her work performance and management came to believe that it was an intentional delay of her work performance on an ongoing basis. Prior to receiving the reprimand, she was never known to complain to management concerning discrimination on account of her gender. She had never informed the project manager or any other supervisory personnel concerning her purported belief that employee Meyers was "following her". Only after she received the reprimand on February 3, 1993 did she elect to file a sexual discrimination charge with the Commission. Mr. Meyers had some supervisory authority over the Petitioner. His job duties also required that he drive his truck around the Naval Air Station and the immediate vicinity in the normal performance of his duties. This circumstance resulted in his being in close proximity to the Petitioner during the course of their respective work days. He contends that he was not purposely following her for the purpose of harassing her. The overall evidence of record reveals, however, that he, indeed, did follow or stop in her vicinity on a number of occasions to observe her work performance. This was not shown to be out of the ordinary scope of his supervisory duties, especially because of management's concern that the Petitioner was not progressing in the learning and performance of her job duties as well as other employees, including the other female driver. The project manager, Mr. Jacobs, felt that the Petitioner's attitude continued to decline after the February 3, 1993 reprimand. He felt that her attitude and performance reached its lowest level on the date she was observed to be loading "unauthorized equipment" (apparently a portion of a helicopter assembly weighing approximately 4,000 pounds) on the flatbed trailer of her assigned work truck. She was not authorized to load that equipment and apparently, according to her testimony, she did so in order to provide a substantial amount of weight on her trailer for the purpose of having her brakes inspected by the quality assurance official for the project. She went to an unauthorized area for approximately one hour to have this inspection performed without the approval of the Respondent's management. Further, it was not necessary, in order to evaluate the brakes on the vehicle for proper function and safety, to have the weight of the unauthorized load placed on the trailer. If, indeed, the brakes had been defective, it would have been entirely possible that the expensive aircraft parts she had placed on the trailer without authorization could have been substantially damaged, the truck or other property could have been damaged, and, indeed, the Petitioner or other persons could have been injured. Additionally, the Petitioner misrepresented the reason she was in the unauthorized area where she had her brakes inspected by Mr. Lett, the quality assurance officer. In this connection, because she had begun to complain repeatedly about the condition of her brakes and her vehicle (after her reprimand), the project manager, Mr. Jacobs, had had certain other employees come in on several occasions at approximately 6:00 a.m., before normal working hours, and before the Petitioner arrived on the job site, to inspect the Petitioner's truck for safety and appropriate preventive maintenance purposes. These employees were not informed that it was the Petitioner's truck they were inspecting at the time they were told to do the inspections. The Respondent was attempting to ascertain the true condition of the Petitioner's truck and determine whether her reports concerning safety problems, particularly with her brakes, were accurate or not. In fact, on the morning of the day when the unauthorized load was placed on the truck and the Petitioner had Mr. Lett perform the inspection of her brakes at the unauthorized area, one of the Petitioner's co-employees had inspected her brakes before she arrived to take custody of her truck that morning. He had determined that the brakes were operating properly. The Petitioner and Mr. Lett apparently felt that the brakes were deficient when they were inspected early in the afternoon of that day. The record does not reveal whether the brakes were deficient when Mr. Lett inspected them or that some change in the adjustment of the brakes or other problem had arisen since the employee inspected them early that morning and found them to be in proper operating order. Be that as it may, management was of the belief on that day and prior thereto that the Petitioner, although reporting brake deficiency problems, did not truly experience such brake deficiency problems with her truck. This belief was based upon management perceptions concerning the Petitioner's attitude after her reprimand and upon the independent, confidential inspections management had other employees do on the Petitioner's truck. Accordingly, whether its belief was accurate or not, management was of the good-faith belief, on the date she was observed loading unauthorized, expensive equipment onto the flatbed truck, in an unnecessary fashion, for the purpose of having her brakes inspected, while being absent from her work assignment for one hour in an unauthorized area, that it had performance-related reasons to terminate her, which it did. This decision was made against the background of the increasingly poor attitude displayed by the Petitioner since her reprimand and because of the continuing problems management had experienced with the Petitioner's job performance since her initial employment one and one- half years previously. Although the Petitioner testified that as early as December of 1991, the management of the Respondent had spoken with her regarding her work performance and she interpreted that meeting as an attack on her gender and not upon her poor work habits, this contention was not verified by any other testimony. Having observed the candor and demeanor of the Petitioner versus that of the other witnesses, it is determined that her testimony is less creditable because of its self-serving nature. Although the Petitioner testified that a comment was made that "she did not look like a truck driver" and that she had three weeks to find another job, this was not verified through testimony of any other witness. To the extent that any other witnesses testified concerning these statements being made in a belief that discrimination had been exhibited toward the Petitioner, the evidence reveals that this information only came to these people through self-serving reports by the Petitioner herself. Meyers directly contradicts that these statements were made to the Petitioner and he states that he never heard anyone tell her that she had three weeks to look for a job or that she "didn't look like a truck driver". The petitioner provided no testimony or evidence which could show how these alleged statements constituted "sexual discrimination" or how the statements related to her sexual discrimination claim. It was not shown that any member of management, with employment-decision authority, made or condoned such statements even if it had been established that they evidenced gender-based discrimination, which was not done. The Petitioner did not complain of sexual discrimination per se until after she had received a reprimand from management. Likewise, she began to repetitively claim that her equipment was unsafe after the reprimand. The Petitioner may have been overly sensitive to management's concern for safety inspections of her truck because of being reprimanded for safety violations and was afraid she would "get into trouble" with management if she did not constantly report feared safety problems. The fact was established, however, that management had a genuine, good-faith belief that it was being harassed by these repetitive, unsafe equipment reports by the Petitioner, given the then- prevailing atmosphere surrounding the Petitioner's employment, characterized by her less than satisfactory attitude, as perceived by management, and the fact that management's confidential inspections of her equipment did not reveal any safety problems of the type reported by the Petitioner. Finally, it is especially noteworthy that during this period of time when the Petitioner made the claim of sexual discrimination and retaliation based upon her claim, that the Respondent had in its employ, in an identical job position, a female truck driver who had had no unsatisfactory experience by management with her performance, was not subjected to investigative or disciplinary measures, and who is still satisfactorily employed with the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the petition herein in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1459 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact which are not in separately-numbered, discrete paragraphs. The paragraphs contain some proposed findings of fact which the Hearing Officer accepts and some which are rejected as being not supported by preponderant evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the same subject matter. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are intertwined with argument and discussions of the weight of the evidence or testimony. Because the paragraphs in the proposed findings of fact contain both findings of fact which the Hearing Officer accepts and which the Hearing Officer rejects, discrete, specific rulings thereon are not practicable. It suffices to say that all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are subordinate to, but have been considered and addressed in the findings of fact portion of this Recommended Order and have been in that fashion completely ruled upon. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The same considerations are true of the Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Some portions of the findings of fact proposed by the Respondent consist of merely discussions and argument concerning the weight of the evidence and some are acceptable to the Hearing Officer based upon the Hearing Officer's determination of the weight and credibility of the testimony and evidence. Some are rejected as being unnecessary or subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact made on the same subject matter. Here, again, this Recommended Order completely and adequately addresses the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, and the Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted to the extent they are not inconsistent with those made by the Hearing Officer and to the extent they are inconsistent therewith, they are rejected as being not supported by preponderant evidence or as being immaterial, unnecessary, or subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry W. McCleary, Esquire 3 West Garden Street Suite 380 Pensacola, FL 32501 Donna Gardner, Esquire 213 South Alcaniz Street Pensacola, FL 32501 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner timely filed a complaint of discrimination in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2010).
Findings Of Fact At the hearing, the parties stipulated to the facts numbered 1-4, as follows: Petitioner was terminated from his employment with Respondent on March 13, 2009. Petitioner's deadline for filing his complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) was March 14, 2010. Petitioner emailed a Technical Assistance Questionnaire to the FCHR on February 18, 2010. Petitioner signed an Employment Complaint of Discrimination and dated it March 24, 2010. In addition to the stipulated facts, the undersigned noted that the Complaint is stamped received by the FCHR at 10:48 a.m. on March 25, 2010.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's claim of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lacey Hofmeyer, Esquire Danielle Garno, Esquire Greenberg Traurig 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 James Jean-Francois, Esquire Law Offices of James Jean-Francois, PA 6100 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 211 Hollywood, Florida 33024
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Macia Poole, was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, Westminster Village of Pensacola, on account of her sex or due to retaliation for her opposition to an unlawful employment practice in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 3, 2015, Petitioner’s Employment Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief were transmitted to the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Florida Commission on Human Relations for a formal administrative hearing to be held in accordance with section 120.57, Florida Statutes. On April 10, 2015, a Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference was entered which set the final hearing for June 1, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., Central Time, (10:00 a.m., Eastern Time), at video teleconference sites in Pensacola, at the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims, Video Teleconferencing Room, 700 South Palafox Street, Suite 305, Pensacola, Florida, and in Tallahassee, at the Division of Administrative Hearings, the DeSoto Building, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, Tallahassee, Florida. On May 4, 2015, one Subpoena Duces Tecum and four Subpoenas Ad Testificandum were issued at the request of Petitioner. On May 14, 2015, Petitioner electronically filed her Notice of Appearance in this proceeding. On May 26, 2015, Petitioner filed a Request to Reschedule Video Hearing. The Request made no allegation of an inability to attend the hearing, only that her attendance would be an “inconvenience.” The Request was denied. The filing of the Request is convincing evidence that Petitioner knew that the final hearing was scheduled to be heard in accordance with the Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference. On June 1, 2015, at the scheduled date, time, and place, the final hearing was convened. Mr. Moran, representing Respondent, Westminster Village of Pensacola, made his appearance. Petitioner did not appear. The final hearing was recessed for twenty minutes to allow Petitioner to appear. During the recess, the undersigned confirmed that the Division had not received any communication from Petitioner of exigent circumstances that may have interfered with her appearance at the final hearing. After twenty minutes had passed, the final hearing was re-convened. Petitioner was not in attendance. Respondent was prepared to proceed, and had its witnesses in attendance at the Pensacola video location. Mr. Moran confirmed that he had received no emails from Petitioner, that being their normal form of communication. At 9:25 a.m., Central Time, (10:25 a.m., Eastern Time), the final hearing was adjourned. There was no evidence presented at the final hearing in support of Petitioner’s Employment Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent, Westminster Village of Pensacola, did not commit an unlawful employment practice as to Petitioner, Macia Poole, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2014-01235. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of June, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy Scott Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Brian J. Moran, Esquire Moran Kidd Lyons Johnson, P.A. 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 900 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Macia Deanne Poole Apartment 176 6901A North 9th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32504 (eServed) Christopher R. Parkinson, Esquire Moran, Kidd, Lyons, and Johnson, P.A. 111 North Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner was discriminated against in employment by Respondent because of his race.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Tredit Tire & Wheel Co., Inc., operated a specialty tire and wheel assembly facility in Plant City, Florida. Petitioner was employed by Tredit at that facility. On October 10, 1995, Ronald Pike, Tredit’s vice- president for operations, paid a routine visit to Tredit’s Plant City facility. Somewhat concerned over the apparent inadequate level of production and higher costs being experienced there, Mr. Pike called a meeting of the entire 15-member staff. During the course of the meeting, in an attempt to determine, if possible, the reason for the deficiency, Mr. Pike asked questions of each member of the staff. Mr. Lee, who recalls he had nothing to say at the time, claims Pike’s insistence on his participation in the discussion constituted "picking on him." Mr. Pike denies picking on Petitioner. He contends he was trying to get some input from the hourly employees, and insists he questioned all of them even-handedly. He asked each for input, indicating their jobs would not be jeopardized by their answers. During the meeting Pike advised the associates that both their attitudes and their production must improve. Though Petitioner denies it, Mr. Pike indicated that Petitioner claimed at that time there was not enough work to give him a 40-hour week, and he was stretching out his jobs in order to make them take long enough to ensure he could work a 40-hour work week. Mr. Bauer, also a Tredit executive, is of the opinion this manipulation is neither necessary nor possible, considering the facility’s work practices. Tredit creates wheel assemblies for specialty vehicles, utilizing tires and wheels manufactured by others. Though its Florida business is high volume, due to the nature of the product and the intense competition, the profit margin is low, and the company has to react to order cycles which require immediate response. However, Mr. Bauer opined there was always enough to do to make sure the hourly employees were always productively employed. No independent evidence was presented in support of the position taken by either party on this point, however. Once the meeting was completed, Mr. Pike and Mr. Bauer left. The facility was being managed at the time by Carol Suggs. At the end of the day after Mr. Pike held his meeting with the staff, Ms. Suggs called for Petitioner to meet with her. The request was communicated through Mr. Longo. According to Ms. Suggs, Petitioner was admonished about his working habits and warned regarding his attitude on the job. She claims he then became disrespectful and quit. A short while later, a payroll accounting document was prepared reflecting Petitioner had been discharged on the day of the conference with Ms. Suggs. Petitioner categorically denies having quit the job as Ms. Suggs indicates in her sworn affidavit of August 22, 1996. He claims to have taken pride in his work and to have been so upset by his termination that he actually cried as a result. Ms. Suggs, on the other hand, contends that Petitioner did not put forth appropriate effort on the job. She claims that not only were the hourly employees getting a full 40-hour week, but also performing overtime, and yet the required amount of material was not being produced. Petitioner rebuts this contention, claiming adequate inventory was prepared. Nonetheless, as a result of what she perceived as Petitioner’s attitude and performance shortcomings, on October 11, 1995, at her meeting with Petitioner the day after Mr. Pike’s visit, Ms. Suggs gave him a written employee warning notice. Petitioner admits to having signed this notice as indication he received it, but denies he agreed with its contents. No other notice of dismissal action was executed by Ms. Suggs except the payroll change notice reflecting Petitioner’s dismissal on October 13, 1995, two days following the meeting she had with Petitioner. Because this earlier action, the warning, does not reflect Petitioner was terminated, but within two days thereof he was taken off the payroll, and because Ms. Suggs’ testimony was credible, it is found that Petitioner’s reaction to the warning was as described by her and was the basis for his dismissal. Tredit had 15 employees at the Plant City facility when Petitioner was employed there. Of this number, four were female and eleven were male. Two of the males were black. After Petitioner was terminated, the employee census was the same except for one fewer black employee. At the time of the hearing, Tredit employed four individuals in the Plant City facility’s office, all of whom were white; and nine warehouse employees, of whom four were white, one black, and two Hispanic. No evidence was presented to establish that Petitioner’s termination from employment with Respondent was the result of his race.
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 Raymond T. Lee’s Petition for Relief filed against Tredit Tire & Wheel Co., Inc. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Ramon T. Lee, pro se 832 Augusta Street Lakeland, Florida 33805 Antonio Faga, Esquire 375 Twelfth Avenue South Naples, Florida 34102 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 249 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 249 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner has been the victim of employment discrimination by reason of his being terminated, allegedly on account of his physical disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an "employee" as defined in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and the Respondent meets the statutory definition of "employer" appearing in that Chapter. The Petitioner is a truck driver by occupation and was employed by the Respondent, Gurley Refining Company, in that capacity from February, 1982 until February 11, 1988, with the exception of a very brief period of time when he performed some other duties for that firm. This cause arose under the auspices of the Florida Human Relations Commission, an agency of the State of Florida constituted in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. It is charged by that Chapter with oversight of working conditions and circumstances between employers and employees in Florida to the extent that the agency, under the mandate of Chapter 760, provides a procedure whereby employee claims of employment discrimination on account of race, age, sex, religion, national origin or disability can be adjudicated in a due process hearing environment, including hearings before the Division of Administrative Hearings in the event such claims culminate in formal disputes. During the course of the Petitioner's employment with Gurley Refining Company, in addition to being employed as a truck driver (the vast majority of his duties with that company), the Petitioner also had significant experience as a warehouse employee, handling the company's inventory and freight. The Petitioner had an unblemished record as a truck driver for the Respondent company. He had no disciplinary altercations with his supervisors and his attendance record was characterized by very few absences, sick leave and little tardiness. In approximately early January of 1988, the Petitioner suffered an acute myocardial infarction (heart attack), which necessitated his absence from work for a period of approximately thirty days. His treating physician, a cardiologist, Dr. Story, of Orlando, released him approximately a month after his heart attack, but admonished him to engage in light duties, and restricting him against lifting weight in excess of seventy pounds. During the course of his illness, the operations manager of the Respondent's Lake County facility and Petitioner's supervisor, Mr. Kenny Hart, had assured the Petitioner that his job would be waiting for him as soon as he recovered from his illness. In fact, however, in early February, when the Petitioner was released by his doctor to return to his job, with the restrictions mentioned above, the Petitioner requested his former job back and was refused. Mr. Hart indicated to the Petitioner that he would not hire him back, and in fact terminated him due to his medical condition, as Mr. Hart explained it. The Petitioner's doctor had not restricted him from doing his same job or from working an eight hour day, but merely had restricted him against lifting more than seventy pounds at any one time. When Mr. Hart refused to put him back to work in his old job, the Petitioner requested to be assigned to duties in the company's warehouse or bottling plant. The company had an operation involving bottling of windshield washer detergent fluid. The Petitioner had had substantial experience in those operations, especially as a checker of merchandise and as a forklift operator in the company warehouse. His physical disability would not preclude him from performing those functions. Mr. Hart, and his superior, Mr. Helton of the company's office in Memphis, Tennessee, declined to place the Petitioner in such an employment position with the company. There have been a number of instances in which the company accommodated employees by placing them at work at various positions in the company operations during the period of time they were on medical restrictions by their doctors due to some disability or illness. The Petitioner described one case in particular involving an employee who had surgery for amputation of his leg and who was allowed to come back to work performing various minor jobs during his convalescence in order to allow him some gainful employment, later being restored to more meaningful permanent duties. The Petitioner was not thus accommodated, however. The Petitioner could have performed any of the types of duties mentioned above, involving the warehouse or the bottling plant or driving a truck once again, because all were within the scope of his years of experience with the company and his physical abilities, even as restricted by his doctor. The Petitioner was making $7.80 an hour when he was terminated and during the year after his termination from February 11, 1988 to approximately February 1, 1989, the Petitioner was not able to get regular employment. For a time after termination, he was receiving unemployment compensation and thereafter worked at casual labor jobs involving loading and unloading trucks for a trucking company. He also worked at laying sewer lines, doing manual labor. During the year after his termination, the Petitioner and his wife earned approximately $18,000. Four thousand dollars of that sum was from the wife's part-time employment. The Petitioner had grossed approximately $30,000 in the past full year he worked for the Respondent company, that is, 1987. In February, 1989, the Petitioner again obtained full-time employment in a truck driving position with another firm. He is again making approximately $30,000 gross salary per year. At the time Petitioner was off work from his job with the Respondent due to his heart condition, and at the time of his termination, no mention was made or information given him about any right to medical disability to leave. The Petitioner apparently missed approximately thirty days of work, and then was terminated under the above conditions and circumstances.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, and the candor and the demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Human Relations Commission finding that an unlawful employment practice occurred by Respondent's discrimination against the Petitioner on account of his handicap, and that he be accorded all relief allowed under the above-cited authority, including back pay of $16,000 and related benefits in accordance with the requirements of Section 760.10(13), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 16th of October, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. P MICHAEL RUFF 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 16th day of October, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Allen Reynolds 2356 Oliver Avenue Leesburg, FL 32748 Mr. R. D. Helton Director of Operations Gurley Refining Company Post Office Box 626 Memphis, Tennessee 38101 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 240, Building F 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination should be dismissed as untimely pursuant to Section 760.11, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination dated June 2, 1998, alleges that Respondent discriminated against him because of his age and in retaliation for opposing illegal behavior. FCHR received the Charge of Discrimination on June 18, 1998. For purposes of this Recommended Order of Dismissal, it is assumed that the Charge of Discrimination was timely filed with FCHR. As of December 15, 1998, 180 days after Petitioner filed his Charge of Discrimination, FCHR had not assigned an investigator to investigate Petitioner's complaint or taken any other action related to the complaint. As of January 19, 1999, 35 days after December 15, 1998, Petitioner had not requested an administrative hearing. By letter dated June 2, 1999, Petitioner requested FCHR to forward his complaint to the Division of Administrative Hearings. FCHR received the request for an administrative hearing on June 7, 1999. This request was filed 354 days after June 18, 1998, 174 days after December 15, 1998, and 139 days after January 19, 1999. Petitioner does not argue or present any facts to support a finding that the doctrines of equitable tolling or excusable neglect apply in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to the issues herein, petitioner Davis was an automotive equipment repair foreman at respondent's Pinellas County Maintenance plant. In addition to this employment, petitioner also had a pecuniary interest in the Sunshine Speedway in St. Petersburg. A steel pole was located on private property belonging to Sunshine Speedway. Because persons and/or vehicles had been injured by this pole, petitioner and a heavy equipment operator employed by respondent decided to remove it. They went to respondent's maintenance yard at 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. after their hours of employment, got a crane truck belonging to respondent, drove it to the Speedway, removed the steel pole to another area and returned the truck to the maintenance yard after dark. Petitioner neither asked for nor received permission to use respondent's equipment for this purpose. At a time when petitioner was leasing the Sunshine Speedway, and during his hours of employment with respondent, he filled a dump truck belonging to respondent with limerock or scrap materials. After his hours of employment with respondent, petitioner drove this truck to the Speedway and dumped its contents near the entranceway for the purpose of making a culvert or crossover. While there was some evidence that petitioner had the permission of his immediate supervisor, Mr. William Dasher, to use the respondent's scrap culvert material, petitioner admitted that no one gave him the authority to improve the entranceway to the Speedway or to use the respondent's truck for this purpose. As a result of the facts described in paragraphs 2 and 3 above, respondent found that petitioner had violated state rules and regulations and departmental policies with regard to the unauthorized use of state equipment outside of his regular assigned duties and responsibilities and for other than state purposes. The disciplinary action taken was demotion of petitioner from automotive equipment repair foreman at Pinellas Maintenance to automotive equipment mechanic II and reassignment to Tampa Maintenance. Petitioner thereafter appealed this disciplinary demotion and reassignment to the Career Service Commission. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for hearing, and the undersigned was designated to conduct the hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the Commission affirm the demotion and reassignment of petitioner inasmuch as the same was based upon good cause and was in accordance with established rules and regulations. Respectfully submitted and entered this 23rd day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Horace E. Davis Post Office Box 375 Pinellas Park, Florida 33565 Mrs. Dorothy Roberts Appeals Coordinator Phillip Bennett, Esquire Department of Administration Department of Transportation Room 530 Carlton Building Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
