The Issue The issues are whether Respondent, Parkland Rehabilitation and Nursing Center (Parkland), committed an unlawful employment practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, when it terminated the employment of Petitioner, Ardel Hannah, and whether it subjected Petitioner to disparate treatment on the basis of his national origin.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Parkland is a rehabilitation and nursing center located at 1000 Southwest 16th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. It is an employer as that term is defined in Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a black male of American national origin. Although his actual date of employment is not of record, the evidence reflects that Petitioner had been employed by Parkland's maintenance department for more than ninety days when he was suspended on August 24, 2007, and then formally terminated by letter dated September 7, 2007. His primary job assignment was to repaint residents' rooms at the facility after the rooms were vacated. Petitioner's supervisor was Arthur Ellesten, Director of Maintenance, who is originally from Jamaica but is now a United States citizen. Although Mr. Ellesten has authority to hire employees in that department, he does not have authority to terminate employees. Two other workers on the maintenance staff, including Vichaun Palmer, were of Jamaican national origin. Michael Rau was the Administrator of the facility and its most senior employee. Mr. Rau has the authority to hire and terminate employees. He is of American national origin. On August 21, 2007, Mr. Ellesten verbally counseled Petitioner based on his unsatisfactory job performance. Petitioner became hostile towards Mr. Ellesten during this counseling session and swore at Mr. Ellesten. Petitioner was informed that he would be formally written up if his performance did not improve. Prior to August 24, 2007, Mr. Rau verbally counseled Petitioner on at least two occasions for his poor job performance, based on his slow progress at assigned tasks and fraternizing with female staff members for long periods of time during regular working hours. An incident occurred on August 24, 2007, which, when coupled with his prior unsatisfactory job performance, culminated in Petitioner's suspension and termination. Although the testimony regarding the incident is conflicting in many respects, the following facts are found to be the most credible. On that date, Petitioner arrived at work around 8:00 a.m. and confronted Mr. Ellesten in the courtyard of the facility. Petitioner requested Paid Time Off (PTO) for that day, which is paid leave accrued by full-time employees. Petitioner was told that he would have to request a form from Mr. Rau. Believing that Mr. Ellesten had provided PTO forms to the other Jamaican maintenance workers, Petitioner became angry and began swearing at his supervisor. Seeking to avoid a physical confrontation, Mr. Ellesten left the courtyard to return to his office on the second floor. Petitioner followed Mr. Ellesten up the stairs to the office where Petitioner verbally threatened to kill him. After Petitioner refused to leave the office, Mr. Ellesten called security, who telephoned the police department. Mr. Ellesten then departed his office, and as he was walking down the stairs, Petitioner pushed him. However, he was not injured. Petitioner left the premises a few minutes later and returned to an apartment complex where he lived. After security contacted the police department, Officer Moore was dispatched to Parkland. Mr. Ellesten requested that Officer Moore not file criminal charges against Petitioner but only give him a trespass warning. Officer Moore then went to Petitioner's apartment and issued a verbal trespass warning. This is evidenced by an Incident/Investigation Report prepared by Officer Moore. Petitioner later returned to Parkland the same day where he met with Mr. Rau to discuss the incident. During their conversation, Petitioner alleged that Mr. Ellesten had physically attacked him that morning. After Officer Moore arrived a few minutes later and joined the two, Petitioner did not repeat the allegation. Pending a further investigation of the matter, Mr. Rau suspended Petitioner. Petitioner never filed a complaint with the police department against Mr. Ellesten, and he never filed a complaint or grievance with anyone at Parkland alleging that Mr. Ellesten had attacked him, as alleged in his Petition for Relief. Also, he never informed Mr. Rau that he was treated different or unfairly by Mr. Ellesten, other members of the maintenance department, or other employees of Parkland. Finally, he never complained that the other two workers in the maintenance department were treated more favorably than he. Violence against a co-worker or supervisor is considered unacceptable conduct and by itself is a basis for termination by Mr. Rau and Parkland. As a part of his investigation, Mr. Rau questioned Mr. Ellesten about the events on August 24, 2007, obtained a written statement from Mr. Ellesten, spoke with Petitioner on August 24, 2007, and reviewed the Incident/Investigation Report prepared by Officer Moore. On September 7, 2007, Mr. Rau sent Petitioner a letter formally terminating his employment with Parkland based on the August 24, 2007, incident and "past issues related to [his] performance and conduct." There is no evidence, direct or circumstantial, that national origin was considered at any point during Petitioner's employment or that national origin played a part in his termination. Further, no credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, was submitted to show that he was otherwise subjected to disparate treatment because he was an American.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Parkland did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 22nd day of October, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4857 Ardel Hannah 996 Southwest 16th Avenue Apartment 904 Gainesville, Florida 32601-8483 Lauren M. Levy, Esquire Levy & Levy, LLC 4230 South MacDill Avenue, Suite 230 Tampa, Florida 33611-1901 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-4857
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Darryl Royster, was subjected to employment discrimination, by allegedly being terminated on the basis of his race or disability/handicap, by denial of a promotion and training, being subjected to discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, and by retaliation.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was employed by Pate Steveodore Company, Inc., (Pate) at times pertinent hereto. The Petitioner is an African-American male. Pate is a licensed Stevodore Company operating at the Port of Pensacola. Pate typically handles loading or unloading of various types of cargo, including soy beans, frozen food products, and other materials from railroad cars located in the port or onto ships berthed at the port. Pate has a staff of six permanent employees, including a president, vice-president, office manager, accounting clerk, and pier superintendent, as well as a part-time payroll clerk. Depending on the amount of work available at any particular time, Pate employs from 0 to 60 longshoremen, the majority of whom are African-American. The Petitioner was first employed by Pate in September 2005, as a longshoreman, responsible for loading and unloading box cars. Scott Miller is the former supervisor of the Petitioner. In his testimony he established that, typically, two teams of three longshoremen each would be assigned to load or unload each box car. The members of such teams work together to load or unload cargo from pallets, typically completing the unloading of two cars in a morning and two cars in the afternoon. The employees typically take breaks from the work in between pallets or box cars, but are allowed to take breaks whenever they feel the need. They arrange the schedule for taking breaks among themselves and without direction from supervisors. The Petitioner was working on August 2, 2006. On that date he contends that he suffered a back injury while lifting a 110 pound sack of beans. He states that he attempted to inform his supervisor, Mr. Miller, of the alleged injury, but was instructed to either return to work that day, or to leave if he was unable to do so. Mr. Miller was apparently frustrated with the Petitioner on that day because the Petitioner had left the work area on two occasions that morning for prolonged periods of time. The first time was when he went to the main office of Pate to discuss the fact that his child support payments were being withheld from his checks and to demand that the money be returned to him. The Petitioner wanted Pate to reimburse him for the withheld amounts and Pate explained to the Petitioner that they were legally required to make the deductions from his payroll. The second time that day he went to the main office to inform Mr. Pate that he had a job interview with an insurance company and would not be returning to work that afternoon after lunch. The Petitioner told Mr. Pate that he had already informed Mr. Miller that he would not be working that afternoon. Actually, he had never told Mr. Miller he was going to be absent in the afternoon. Because Mr. Miller did not have a replacement for the unexpected absence of the Petitioner, Mr. Miller had to perform the Petitioner's job loading and unloading cargo, during both the morning and afternoon absences. Mr. Miller told Mr. Pate of his dissatisfaction with the unexcused absences and having to perform the Petitioner's work himself. Pate did not hear from the Petitioner again until August 8, 2006, when Michael Pate, the company president, and Rosalee Garrett, the office manager, received a fax from the Petitioner requesting that they pass along certain information to the company's workers' compensation carrier, so that the Petitioner could be paid for the time he had been off work. The Petitioner informed Pate that he would be retuning to work the following week and attached a note from a medical clinic asking that he be excused from work until August 14, 2006. Ms. Garrett responded to the request and forwarded the requested information to the company's workers' compensation carrier. She also requested that the Petitioner report to the office so that he could complete an accident report form so that his workers' compensation claim could be properly processed. Pate's workers' compensation carrier's coverage policy and the workers' compensation law requires that an accident report be submitted by the claimant.1/ On August 11, 2006, the Petitioner wrote to Mr. Pate and Ms. Garrett informing them that he would not be able to return to work until October 20, 2006, because he was still experiencing back pain and rectal bleeding. The Petitioner wanted to wait until he could be seen by a doctor so that he could determine the source of those two problems. The Petitioner informed Mr. Pate and Ms. Garrett that he could perform light-duty work that did not involve bending or heavy lifting, such as running errands for the company, supervising other employees, and that he could also do work on the computer. Thereafter, on August 28, 2006, the Petitioner came to Pate's main office, again requesting light-duty work. There was no such work available, however, and Mr. Pate so informed the Petitioner. At that point the Petitioner became very upset and belligerent and began cursing Mr. Pate. Mr. Pate regarded that as threatening behavior and insubordination and was unwilling to tolerate such conduct. Mr. Pate escorted the Petitioner out of the office to converse with him outside, away from the other employees, because of his behavior, but was unsuccessful and thereupon terminated him. He told him to leave the premises, but ultimately had to call the port security office to have the port security personnel escort the Petitioner off the premises and outside the secure area of the Port of Pensacola. The testimony of Ms. Garrett corroborates that of Mr. Pate in establishing that the Petitioner was terminated because he became threatening, argumentative, and insubordinate toward Mr. Pate. In terms of his claim regarding racial discrimination, based upon allegedly different terms and conditions of employment imposed upon him, the Petitioner claims that he and other African-American employees were not allowed to take breaks or to train for and become forklift operators. The testimony of three witnesses, however, established that African-American employees are granted the same breaks as white employees and are otherwise treated the same with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment. The Petitioner was allowed to, and did take breaks during his employment with Pate. Moreover, contrary to the Petitioner's position, it was established, by persuasive, credible testimony, that in terms of the alleged issue concerning African-American employees not being allowed to become forklift drivers, that Pate conducted training so that such employees could become forklift drivers. Some employees took advantage of that training and became forklift drivers. In fact, the majority of Pate's forklift drivers are African-American. The Petitioner also contended that he was discriminated against in terms of his race for failure of Pate to promote or train him or other African-American employees. According to the preponderant, persuasive testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, however, there was no open position available at Pate, during the Petitioner's employment time there, to which he could have been promoted, nor had he ever applied for a promotion position. There was no denial of training opportunities because there was no training offered to any employee during the period of time of the Petitioner's employment with Pate and there was no evidence to show that the Petitioner ever requested training for any position at Pate. As found above, before the Petitioner became employed there, Pate did offer training for forklift drivers and trained some employees as forklift drivers, the majority of whom were African-American.
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 the arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2008.
The Issue The stipulated issue1 is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race by denying Petitioner equal pay in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2007).2
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an "aggrieved person" within the meaning of Subsections 760.02(6) and (10). Petitioner is an African- American female and filed a complaint of race discrimination, with the Commission. Respondent is an "employer" within the meaning of Subsection 760.02(7). Respondent is the Office of the Sheriff for Brevard County, Florida. The evidence, in its entirety, does not establish a prima facie showing of discrimination. Nor does the evidence prove that Petitioner received unequal pay. Respondent first employed Petitioner sometime in October 2002. Petitioner voluntarily resigned her position of employment with Respondent on May 30, 2008, for a higher-paying position with another employer.3 On July 29, 2006, Respondent transferred Petitioner from the position of payroll specialist, in the accounting department, to a position of personnel officer in the personnel department. The transfer was a promotion, and Petitioner received a 10 percent increase in pay. Ms. Bridget Bauer replaced Petitioner in the accounting department. The supervisor in the personnel office was Ms. Imogene Mullins. Ms. Mullins supported the transfer of Petitioner and considered Petitioner to be a valuable asset due to Petitioner's varied experience, including experience in human resources. On April 3, 2008, Ms. Bauer transferred from the accounting department to another position within Respondent's organization. Ms. Denise Postlethweight, the supervisor of the accounting department, asked Petitioner to temporarily assist the accounting department until the department could replace Ms. Bauer, to train the replacement for Ms. Bauer, and to assist in interviewing applicants to replace Ms. Bauer. Petitioner agreed to perform these temporary duties. Respondent, Ms. Postlethweight, and Ms. Mullins did not promise Petitioner she would receive additional compensation for performing these temporary duties in the accounting department until the accounting department replaced Ms. Bauer. Respondent's administrative policy does not authorize compensation for temporary duties. Ms. Mullins attempted to obtain authorization for increased compensation for the temporary duties performed by Petitioner without success. No pay increase was approved because Petitioner was performing equivalent supervisory duties in the accounting and personnel departments on a temporary basis. One alleged comparator relied on by Petitioner is not a comparator. Ms. Lisa Gillis performed equivalent supervisory duties as the special projects coordinator and sheriff's assistant. However, Ms. Gillis performed equivalent supervisory duties on a permanent basis rather than a temporary basis. Respondent's administrative policy authorizes additional compensation for dual duties performed on a permanent basis. Petitioner spent much of her time during the hearing attempting to show that Ms. Mullins promised additional compensation to Petitioner as an inducement for Petitioner's agreement to perform dual duties on a temporary basis. As previously found, the fact-finder does not find that evidence to be persuasive, and, if it were, the evidence does not rise to the level of a preponderance of the evidence. Moreover, evidence of an offer and acceptance of additional compensation between Ms. Mullins and Petitioner as an inducement for the performance of dual duties is relevant to an action for breach of contract rather than discrimination. Jurisdiction for an action for breach of contract is in circuit court rather than DOAH.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations against Respondent and dismissing the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 15th day of June, 2010.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner received notice of the August 19, 2005, administrative hearing, and if not, whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on his race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. In the fall of 2004, Petitioner's cousin, Barry Walker, worked for Respondent as a cook. Mr. Walker recommended that Respondent hire Petitioner as a dishwasher. James Pigneri, Respondent's owner, interviewed Petitioner and decided to hire him as a dishwasher on a trial basis. Petitioner began washing dishes for Respondent in September 2004. In October 2004, Petitioner began a 90-day probationary period as Respondent's dishwasher. At that time, PMI Employee Leasing (PMI) became Petitioner's co-employer. PMI has a contractual relationship with Respondent. Through this contract, PMI assumes responsibility for Respondent's human resource issues, payroll needs, employee benefits, and workers’ compensation coverage. On October 10, 2004, Petitioner signed an acknowledgement that he had received a copy of PMI's employee handbook, which included PMI's policies on discrimination, harassment, or other civil rights violations. The handbook states that employees must immediately notify PMI for certain workplace claims, including but not limited to, claims involving release from work, labor relation problems, and discrimination. The handbook requires employees to inform PMI within 48 hours if employment ceases for any reason. PMI's discrimination and harassment policies provide employees with a toll-free telephone number. When an employee makes a complaint or files a grievance, PMI performs an investigation and takes any corrective action that is required. The cook-line in Respondent's kitchen consist of work stations for all sauté and grill cooks. The cook-line runs parallel to a row of glass windows between the kitchen and the dining room and around the corner between the kitchen and the outside deck. Customers in the dining room and on the deck can see all of the cooks preparing food at the work stations along the cook-line. On the evening of December 18, 2004, Respondent's business was crowded with customers in the dining room and on the deck. On December 18, 2004, Petitioner was working in Respondent's kitchen. Sometime during the dinner shift, Petitioner was standing on the cook-line near the windows, talking to a cook named Bob. Petitioner was discussing a scar on his body. During the discussion, Petitioner raised his shirt, exposing his chest, arm, and armpit. The cook named Bob told Petitioner to put his shirt down. Erin Pigneri, a white male, is the son of Respondent's owner, James Pignari. As one of Respondent's certified food managers, Erin Pigneri must be vigilant about compliance with health code regulations when he works as Respondent's shift manager. Erin Pigneri has authority to recommend that employees be fired, but his father, James Pigneri, makes the final employment decision. On December 18, 2004, Erin Pigneri, was working as Respondent's manager and was in charge of the restaurant because his father was not working that night. When Erin Pigneri saw Petitioner with his shirt raised up, he yelled out for Petitioner put his shirt back on and to get off the cook-line. Erin Pigneri was alarmed to see Petitioner with his shirt off on the cook-line because customers could see Petitioner and because Petitioner's action violated the health code. Petitioner's reaction was immediately insubordinate. Petitioner told Erin Pigneri that he could not speak to Petitioner in that tone of voice. Erin Pigneri had to tell Petitioner several times to put his shirt on, explaining that Petitioner was committing a major health-code violation. When Petitioner walked up to Erin Pigneri, the two men began to confront each other using profanity but no racial slurs. Erin Pigneri finally told Petitioner that, "I'm a 35- year-old man and no 19-year-old punk is going to talk to me in that manner and if you don't like it, you can leave." Erin Pigneri did not use a racial slur or tell Petitioner to "paint yourself white." After the confrontation, Erin Pigneri left the kitchen. Petitioner went back to work, completing his shift without further incident. Petitioner did not have further conversation with Erin Pigneri on the evening of December 18, 2004. Erin Pigneri did not discuss Petitioner or the shirt incident with any of the waiters or any other staff members that night. On Monday evening, December 20, 2004, Erin Pigneri was in the restaurant when Petitioner and his cousin, Mr. Walker, came to work. Petitioner was dressed in nicer clothes than he usually wore to work. Mr. Walker approached Erin and James Pigneri, telling them that they needed to have a meeting. Erin and James Pigneri followed Petitioner and Mr. Walker into the kitchen. The conversation began with Mr. Walker complaining that he understood some racist things were going on at the restaurant. Mr. Walker wanted talk about Erin Pigneri's alleged use of the "N" word. Erin Pigneri did not understand Mr. Walker's concern because Mr. Walker had been at work on the cook-line during the December 18, 2004, shirt incident. According to Petitioner's testimony at the hearing, Mr. Walker had talked to a waiter over the weekend. The waiter was Mr. Walker's girlfriend. Petitioner testified that the waiter/girlfriend told Mr. Walker that she heard Erin Pigneri use the "N" word in reference to Petitioner after Erin Pigneri left the kitchen after the shirt incident on December 18, 2004. Petitioner testified that neither he nor Mr. Walker had first- hand knowledge of Erin Pigneri's alleged use the "N" word in the dining room. Neither Mr. Walker nor the waiter provided testimony at the hearing. Accordingly, this hearsay evidence is not competent evidence that Erin Pigneri used a racial slur in the dining room after the "shirt incident." During the meeting on December 20, 2004, Erin Pigneri explained to Petitioner and Mr. Walker that the incident on December 18, 2004, involved Petitioner's insubordination and not racism. Mr. Walker wanted to know why Erin Pigneri had not fired Petitioner on Saturday night if he had been insubordinate. Erin Pigneri told Mr. Walker that he would have fired Petitioner but he did not want Respondent to lose Mr. Walker as an employee. Apparently, it is relatively easy to replace a dishwasher but not easy to replace a cook like Mr. Walker. Erin Pigneri asked Mr. Walker and another African- American who worked in the kitchen whether they had ever heard him make derogatory racial slurs. There is no persuasive evidence that Erin Pigneri ever made such comments even though Petitioner occasionally, and in a joking manner, called Erin Pigneri slang names like Cracker, Dago, and Guinea. Petitioner was present when Mr. Walker and Erin Pigneri discussed the alleged racial slurs. Petitioner's only contribution to the conversation was to repeatedly ask whether he was fired. Erin Pigneri never told Petitioner he was fired. After hearing Mr. Walker's concern and Erin Pigneri's explanation, James Pigneri specifically told Petitioner that he was not fired. James Pigneri told Petitioner that he needed to talk to Erin Pigneri and that they needed to work things out, man-to-man. After the meeting, Mr. Walker began his work for the evening shift on December 20, 2004. Petitioner walked around talking on his cell phone, telling his mother that he had been fired and she needed to pick him up. James Pigneri told Petitioner again that he was not fired, that Petitioner should go talk to Erin Pigneri, and that Erin Pigneri was waiting to talk to Petitioner. Erin Pigneri waited in his office for Petitioner to come in to see him. Petitioner never took advantage of that opportunity. During the hearing, Petitioner testified that James Pigneri made an alleged racial slur in reference to Petitioner at some unidentified point in time. According to Petitioner, he learned about the alleged racial slur second-hand from a cook named Bob. Bob did not testify at the hearing; therefore, there is no competent evidence that James Pigneri ever made a racial slur in reference to Petitioner or any other employee. Contrary to PMI's reporting procedures, Petitioner never called or informed PMI that he had been harassed, discriminated against, fired, terminated, or ceased working for Respondent for any reason. On December 22, 2004, PMI correctly concluded that Petitioner had voluntarily terminated or abandoned his employment. When Petitioner filed his Employment Complaint of Discrimination on January 11, 2005, Petitioner listed his address as 6526 Lance Street, Panama City, Florida, which is his mother's residence. On April 18, 2005, FCHR sent the Determination: No Cause to Petitioner at 6501 Pridgen Street, Panama City, Florida, which is the address of one of Petitioner's friends. When Petitioner filed his Petition for Relief on May 25, 2005, Petitioner listed his address the same as his mother's home. FCHR transmitted the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings, indicating that Petitioner's address of record was the same as his friend's home. Therefore, the June 9, 2005, Notice of Hearing, and the July 12, 2005, Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing were sent to Petitioner at his friend's address. During the hearing, Petitioner admitted that between January 2005 and August 2005, he lived back and forth between his mother's and his friend's residences. When he lived with his friend, Petitioner did not check his mail at his mother's home every day. However, Petitioner admitted that he received the June 9, 2005, Notice of Hearing, scheduling the hearing for July 18, 2005, and the July 12, 2005, Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing for August 19, 2005. Petitioner testified that he knew the first hearing was rescheduled to take place on August 19, 2005. According to Petitioner, he misplaced the "papers" identifying the location of the hearing at the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims in Panama City, Florida. Petitioner asserts that he went to the county courthouse on August 19, 2005, based on his erroneous belief that the hearing was to take place at that location. After determining that there was no administrative hearing scheduled at the county courthouse on August 19, 2005, Petitioner did not attempt to call FCHR or the Division of Administrative Hearings. On December 1, 2005, the undersigned sent Petitioner a Notice of Hearing, scheduling the hearing after remand for January 25, 2005. The December 1, 2005, Notice of Hearing was sent to Petitioner at his mother's and his friend's addresses. The copy of the notice sent to his friend's home was returned as undeliverable. During the hearing on January 25, 2005, Petitioner testified that he used one of the earlier notices (dated June 9, 2005, and/or July 12, 2005) to locate the hearing site for that day. This was necessary because Petitioner had misplaced the December 1, 2005, Notice of Hearing. All three notices have listed the hearing site as the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims, 2401 State Avenue, Panama City, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Wheeler, Esquire McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod Pope & Weaver, P.A. Post Office Box 550770 Jacksonville, Florida 32255-0770 Marlow Williams 6526 Lance Street Panama City, Florida 32404
The Issue Whether Petitioner was discriminated against by Respondent, based upon his race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. As such, he is a member of a protected class. Petitioner was employed as a co-manager at a Delchamps grocery store in Destin, Florida. The Destin store was a high- volume operation. In January 2001, Bruno's, Inc., acquired the Delchamps' Destin store and converted the store to a Bruno's supermarket. Petitioner was retained in the co-manager position while Bruno's conducted a full assessment of the staff and store. Under the Bruno's assessment, the company found several employees, including white employees, underperforming pursuant to Bruno's goals for high volume stores. Petitioner was one of the individuals found to be underperforming at the Destin store. On November 4, 2001, Bruno's moved Petitioner as a co- manager to a lower volume store in Niceville so that he would have a better opportunity to grasp management protocol under the Bruno's umbrella and develop professionally. During the same time period, another employee at the Destin store, Steve Aaron, who is Caucasian, was transferred to another store for the same reason. Petitioner’s duties and work conditions at the new store did not materially change. As before, all managers in the store, including himself, regardless of race, had the same hours, had the same working conditions in the store and closing the store, had the discretionary authority to hire additional staff as needed, and had an opportunity to use their discretionary authority in managing and operating the store. Petitioner’s pay and benefits at the new store, also, did not change. The transfer was abrupt since Petitioner was told to and did report to his new store immediately. The reason for the transfer was not fully explained to him. However, other than to inquire about the reason for the transfer, Petitioner did not complain about or object to the transfer even though he was aware of Bruno’s policy against racial discrimination and the various mechanisms to report such activity. There was no evidence that Petitioner’s transfer was based on Petitioner's race. Neither the abruptness nor the lack of explanation supports a finding that the transfer was based on Petitioner’s race since the transfer was part of Bruno’s review and adjustment process for the stores it had acquired, and other employees who were not members of Petitioner’s protected class were also transferred. Indeed, the evidence showed that employees of all races were and continue to be transferred from one store to another under Bruno's operations for business reasons, such as the reason that precipitated Petitioner’s transfer. Such employee development and training are legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the transfer of Petitioner to another store. Petitioner offered no evidence that demonstrated the reason for his transfer was pretextual. Moreover, Petitioner's first complaint based on race regarding his transfer was filed on January 14, 2003, more than a year after his transfer and is therefore time barred. In June 2002, Bruno's Supermarkets received separate complaints from four female employees at the Niceville store that Petitioner had subjected them to unwelcomed touching, rubbing, massaging and/or kissing. The complaining employees were Dawn Lawson, Christina Gore, Donna Ermilio, and Erin Epperson. None of the young women that placed complaints against Petitioner were at risk of losing their job nor did they have anything to gain in placing the complaints against Petitioner. Dawn Lawson was an assistant deli bakery manager and subordinate of Petitioner. She complained that while at work Petitioner would rub her arms, massage her shoulders, and kissed her once while she was on the phone. All the aforementioned was unwelcomed by Ms. Lawson and made her feel uncomfortable. Petitioner did not deny these actions, but thought he was making an effort to comfort Ms. Lawson who was experiencing some personal problems. Ms. Lawson also accused Petitioner of spending an inordinate amount of time in the deli area of the store. However, the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner had been instructed to closely monitor the deli operation because it was below the standards Bruno’s expected of its deli operations. Ms. Lawson also complained that while at work, Petitioner gave her several gifts of alcohol and a card in which Petitioner wrote, "Know you are a very special someone" and drew several ‘X’s and ‘O’s. Petitioner admitted to giving the alcohol and card to Ms. Lawson, but again thought he was being friendly and trying to comfort her. Petitioner denied drawing the ‘X’s and O’s on the card. However, Petitioner’s denial is not credible since the drawing is in the same type of ink as the writing and the letters are similar to the handwritten portions of the card. Additionally, on New Year's Eve, December 31, 2001, Petitioner gave Ms Lawson a miniature bottle of Southern Comfort. Later, Petitioner called Ms. Lawson twice at her home in the early morning between 1:30 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. Ms. Lawson felt very uncomfortable regarding these calls. Clearly, the kiss, the late night phone calls, and the note violated Bruno’s anti-harassment policy. More importantly, at the same time Petitioner gave Ms. Lawson the Southern Comfort, he gave Erin Epperson, a co- worker of Ms. Lawson, a miniature bottle of alcohol. Petitioner knew Ms. Epperson was 19 years old and under the age at which she could legally possess or drink alcohol. Petitioner denied giving Ms. Epperson any alcohol. However, given the demeanor and candor of the witnesses, Petitioner’s denial is not credible. Providing alcohol to a minor was in violation of state law, could have caused the store to lose its liquor license or incur other penalties, and violated the store's policy of not providing alcohol to minors. This act alone justified Petitioner’s termination. Donna Ermillio, a cashier, utility clerk, and a subordinate of Petitioner similarly complained that while she was at work Petitioner would rub her arms, massage her shoulders, compliment her arms, feet and hands and tell her she was beautiful and too much "of a woman to be as young" as she was. All the aforementioned was unwelcomed by Ms. Ermillio and made her feel uncomfortable. Again, Petitioner thought that he was trying to soothe Ms. Ermilio, who was clearly nervous around him. He noticed others’ hands and feet because he had a friend who was a hand and foot model. However, Ms. Ermilio’s complaints are consistent with the other complaints received by Bruno’s and show a pattern of intrusive behavior on Petitioner’s part. Christina Gore, a cashier, customer service representative, and subordinate of Petitioner complained that Petitioner rubbed her, massaged her, and kissed her while she was at work. All the aforementioned was unwelcomed by Ms. Gore and made her feel uncomfortable. Petitioner admitted kissing Ms. Gore because she had graduated from high school. The kiss occurred after her boyfriend had walked away and Petitioner, jokingly, told Ms. Gore that he couldn't have kissed her while her boyfriend was around. Again, Petitioner’s actions were overly intrusive. In response to these complaints, the company conducted a timely and thorough investigation. The investigation included interviews and statements from Petitioner, Ms. Ermillio, Ms. Lawson, Ms. Gore, and Ms. Epperson. The evidence did not demonstrate any deficiency in the investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator, the district manager, the store manager, a representative from the legal department, and the human resources director met and reviewed the investigation and evidence. After all the aforementioned parties assessed all the evidence, the team unanimously decided to terminate Petitioner’s employment. Bruno's terminated Petitioner because he violated the company's anti-harassment policy and gave alcohol to a minor employee. There was no evidence that Bruno’s did not consistently apply these policies to other employees in its organization. The only evidence Petitioner presented regarding the consistent application of these policies was that a Danny Johnson allegedly sexually harassed Dawn Lawson and was not terminated and that a Dan Gaston also allegedly sexually harassed "someone." However, Dawn Lawson never complained to the company regarding Danny Johnson and testified that Mr. Johnson had never harassed her. Petitioner had no personal knowledge about Mr. Gaston's alleged harassment and could not provide any details. The human resources director for the store testified that no one had ever made a sexual harassment complaint against Mr. Gaston. Therefore, Petitioner failed to present evidence showing a similarly situated employee that allegedly committed the same acts as Petitioner and was not terminated. Based on the evidence, Petitioner had legitimate, non- pretextual reasons for terminating Petitioner, and this action should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing this action. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert L. Young, Jr. 409 Elaine Avenue Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Dan Burchfield Bruno's Food World 800 Lakeshore Parkway Birmingham, Alabama 35211 Faye R. Rosenberg, Esquire Corporate Counsel Bruno's Food World 800 Lakeshore Parkway Birmingham, Alabama 35211 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Claude A. White, is a black man employed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, the Respondent ("Department"), as a Detention Care Worker II at the Department's Juvenile Justice Center, a facility where the Department keeps juveniles under involuntary detention. The Petitioner has been so employed for approximately 17 years. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida and an employer within the meaning of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent hereto, it has been the employer of the Petitioner, Claude A. White. In approximately December, 1989, the Petitioner became involved in an altercation with a "client " or "inmate" of the detention center during his duty in the dining hall at lunchtime. Because a client was not obeying rules and policies, the Petitioner began escorting the client to his dormitory room. While they were walking down the hall, an argument or altercation ensued between the client and the Petitioner. The Petitioner maintains that the client, R.H., swung around toward him to face him and the Petitioner then put his hands up to protect his face, accidentally striking the client on the cheek as he was doing so. The Petitioner's supervisor, Mr. Barrett, maintains that he observed the Petitioner strike R.H., the inmate, with his fist. An investigation ensued by the Department and the Petitioner's supervisory personnel with the result that on January 19, 1990, the Petitioner was terminated for striking the child in question, as an incident of child abuse. The Petitioner filed an action with the Public Employees Relations Commission seeking to be reinstated in his employment position and to receive back pay and all due benefits. Ultimately, the Petitioner prevailed in that case and was reinstated on July 21, 1990 to his employment position, with award of back pay. The Petitioner alleges that in 1989, he sought a promotion to a supervisory position and was not promoted to that position but, rather, another person was promoted to it. The Petitioner then apparently filed a discrimination complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations and now alleges that he was retaliated against for filing that claim by the fact of and the manner in which he was terminated as a result of the child abuse incident allegedly occurring on December 29, 1989, for which he was terminated on January 19, 1990. The Petitioner also alleges that since his termination and reinstatement, he applied for another supervisory position, but that a white employee was promoted to that position. The Petitioner also contends that he overheard Mr. Barrett, his supervisor, tell Mr. Voldheim, in Mr. Barrett's office, that Mr. Voldheim had to find a basis to "terminate that nigger", meaning the Petitioner. The Petitioner also maintains that Mr. Barrett had written a note to Mr. Rivenbark, his superintendent, stating "there are too many niggers working here...we are going to change that...". Henry Bennett, a co-worker with the Petitioner who has known the Petitioner for approximately ten years, testified. The Petitioner had maintained that Mr. Bennett had told him of the memo or note allegedly written by the supervisor, Mr. Barrett, referencing "too many niggers" employed at the facility. In fact, Mr. Bennett testified that he had never told the Petitioner of any such memo and had never heard Mr. Barrett use the racial epithet "nigger". In fact, Mr. Bennett said he had never seen any memoranda whatever referencing race at all, including the use of that term. Mr. Bennett would have been incensed had he seen the use of such a term by the supervisor, Mr. Barrett, because he is black also, however Mr. Bennett saw no such reference. Mr. Barrett, in his own testimony, also, denied ever using the word "nigger", either verbally or in writing. Mr. Barrett's testimony establishes that during a recent alleged child abuse claim by one of the detention center inmates against the Petitioner, Mr. Barrett, in fact, believing that the Petitioner was not guilty, let him continue working without even temporarily suspending him, as is the normal practice. This fact tends to show that Mr. Barrett is not biased against the Petitioner and is not seeking an opportunity to retaliate against the Petitioner for the Petitioner's past civil rights activism on the job, which he admits and for his past filing of discrimination claims. Mr. Don Bell, the personnel director for HRS District I and the custodian of the employee records for the respondent agency, testified. He illustrated a comparison between March, 1989 through March, 1992, covering the time periods at issue in this case, showing the black versus white racial ratios, by position, for employees at the detention center. All positions, both that of superintendent and assistant superintendent, including various other supervisory positions, were thus shown to be occupied by more blacks than whites. In fact, the black/white ratio of employment positions at the facility presently is 19 blacks and 11 whites. Formerly, there were as many as 27 blacks and 3 whites. The increase in white employees and corresponding decrease in black employees was not shown to be other than a natural occurrence through such things as, for example, transfers, voluntary terminations of employment, or even involuntary terminations. The change in the number of black employees was not shown to be the result of any intent or practice of discrimination exercised by the Respondent employer, however and the number still shows that a majority of blacks hold positions at the detention center. Mr. Barrett established that the reason the Petitioner was not promoted to the supervisory position of which he complained was not on account of his race, not because of any effort to retaliate against him for his civil rights activism on the job or his past filing of claims against the employer, but rather was due to his record of inadequate behavior on the job, and that poor conduct was the reason he was denied the promotion. Mr. Barrett's testimony, concerning his not having used the term "nigger", in writing or verbally, was corroborated by that of Mr. Bennett, a black employee, who the Petitioner testified told him of the alleged memo where Mr. Barrett was supposed to have indicated that there were too many "niggers" employed at the facility. Mr. Barrett's and Mr. Bennett's testimony is accepted, as is that of Don Bell, the personnel director. The Petitioner's testimony is not credited, as it is not judged credible when compared to that of Mr. Bennett, Mr. Barrett and Mr. Bell. Mr. Bennett's testimony particularly contradicts that of the Petitioner, and there was absolutely no motive to lie, on the part of Mr. Bennett, demonstrated in the evidence of record. The Petitioner has demonstrated that he had to borrow money during the time he was out of work, after he was dismissed for striking the minor inmate, and that he has never been recompensed for the interest he paid on that borrowed money, that he was embarrassed as a result of the firing incident and has missed chances at promotion. However, based upon the testimony of the above-named witnesses, the Hearing Officer having weighed the candor and credibility of all witnesses in reaching that decision, it has not been established that the Petitioner was not promoted due to any discriminatory intent on account of his race nor on account of retaliation for his having filed past claims against his employer. It has not been shown that the termination of the Petitioner, with regard to the "child striking" incident, was levied against the Petitioner by the Respondent in retaliation for any past claims or past civil rights activism or other dispute with the employer. Although the Petitioner demonstrated that he failed to get the supervisory position and established that a white man was promoted to that position, who had been working for the employer for a shorter period of time, it was not shown that the hiring of the white person was done for any discriminatory motive. In view of the fact that at all times pertinent to this proceeding, the Respondent has employed significantly larger numbers of black employees than white employees across most of its position categories, the mere fact that a white person was promoted to the supervisory position in question instead of the Petitioner does not establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Even if it had, the Respondent established a legitimate business reason for the failure to promote the Petitioner, in that the Petitioner's attitude and conduct was not sufficiently satisfactory to justify his promotion to a supervisory position like that in question. Further, the testimony of Mr. Bennett and Mr. Barrett established that there was no ongoing policy or motive on the part of Mr. Barrett or other supervisory personnel to retaliate against the Petitioner for his past activist attitude and conduct in the work place nor for his past filing of claims of discrimination against the employer. In fact, the testimony of Mr. Bennett shows that the Petitioner was simply not telling the truth about the alleged written memo concerning the so- called issue of "too many niggers" being employed at the facility. An employee's attitude and conduct on the job are an important part of his job performance and have a direct and important bearing on whether that employee is adequately performing his job. If one employee, even assuming they were equally qualified (which was not established by the Petitioner) has a record of improper behavior and attitude on the job and the other employee is promoted to a position at issue, the employee with the poorer behavior or conduct record cannot, thus, show discriminatory intent or motive even if the employee promoted happened to be white because such is a legitimate business reason not to promote the employee situated like the Petitioner. Moreover, although the employee, Mr. Kreitzer, who was promoted instead of the Petitioner, is white and had been there only a short period of time (or something over six months) whereas the Petitioner had been employed for 17 years, the Petitioner did not establish that the two employees, he and Mr. Kreitzer, were similarly situated because he did not establish that their qualifications were equal or that he was better qualified than Mr. Kreitzer, other than in time of service, which is only one criteria in considering qualifications. In summary, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that his earlier termination and his failure to be promoted to the supervisory position in question was due to discriminatory reasons. He has not shown that he was accorded disparate discriminatory treatment, as opposed to white persons similarly situated, because although the employee who got the promotion in question was white, it was not shown that the Petitioner and that employee were equally qualified or that the Petitioner was better qualified than the white person who was promoted and thus that they were similarly situated. Thus, a prima facie case has not even been established. The Respondent demonstrated that there was no retaliatory intent with regard to the "child striking incident" because a later incident occurred when the Petitioner could have been accused of child abuse because of an altercation with a minor inmate, and Mr. Barrett allowed the Petitioner to continue working when he could have suspended him, at least temporarily, during an investigation of the incident. This shows a lack of retaliatory motive. Moreover, with regard to the termination incident, the Petitioner did not establish that white employees who were involved in similar altercations with inmates and accused of child abuse had not been terminated. Thus, no disparate treatment has been demonstrated.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered holding that no discriminatory employment action occurred and that the Petition be dismissed in its entirety and that the motion for fees and costs be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 29th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-7256 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-5. Accepted, but not in themselves materially dispositive. 6. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. 7-9. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant weight of the evidence. 12-16. Accepted, but not in themselves dispositive of the material issues presented. Rejected, as contrary to the preponderant weight of the evidence. Rejected, as not supported by competent, substantial evidence of a preponderant nature. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-10. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of facts on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4113 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4113 Gregory P. Farrar, Esq. 109 N. Palafox Street Pensacola, FL 32501 Rodney M. Johnson, Esq. District Legal Counsel Department of HRS P.O. Box 8420 Pensacola, FL 32505-8420
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 27, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female who at all times material to this case was employed with Respondent as a production worker. Respondent, Hamilton Products, Inc., manufactures various animal related products such as horse tack and pet collars and is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. Allegations of Race Discrimination Petitioner's Employment Complaint of Discrimination alleged discrimination on the basis of race and retaliation and reads in pertinent part: I believe that I have been discriminated against based on race, Black, which has resulted in discipline, unfair terms and conditions, and denial of promotion. Since 2003, I have noticed disparate treatment between White and Black employees. One example of this is that Black employees are rarely if ever promoted to management positions. Another example of this is that a Black coworker of mine, Deloise, would often harass me and when I complained to my supervisor Mrs. Robinson, she took the matter to Mrs. Lake. Mrs. Lake merely asked the woman to not do that again. This harassment continued and I repeatedly complained about it so that finally, I was moved to a different location. A similarly situated White female, Elaine, experienced similar treatment from Deloise but when she complained Deloise was stopped from repeating the behavior almost immediately. I was very upset about this obvious disparity that I contacted Mrs. Benfel and explained to her what was transpiring. She asked me to gather together my complaints and those of others which I did and submitted it to her in a letter. Almost immediately after I began to receive retaliation for my complaint. I was disciplined, verbally harassed and moved away from the other employees. Martha Robinson is a supervisor employed by Respondent for over 16 years. She was Petitioner's direct supervisor for some of the time Petitioner worked for Respondent. Ms. Robinson is a white female. A coworker, Delores,1/ who sat near Petitioner would tap her foot on a wooden box while working. Petitioner found this annoying and complained to Ms. Robinson. Ms. Robinson asked Delores to stop tapping her foot and had fleece put on the box. However, Delores continued to tap her foot. After three or four employees complained about Delores' foot tapping, Ms. Robinson took the box away from Delores and put it in Ms. Lake's office. Karen Benfield is the office manager for Respondent, where she has been employed for 19 years. Petitioner went to Ms. Benfield's office to complain about working conditions. Ms. Benfield described the complaints made by Petitioner as vague and broad-based, consisting of general assertions that employees were unhappy at work. Petitioner's complaints to Ms. Benfield did not include any allegation of racial discrimination about her or anyone else. Ms. Benfield asked Petitioner for specifics, to put her complaints on paper and she would make sure management saw it. She did not ask Petitioner to solicit comments from other employees and told Petitioner she could only speak for herself. Petitioner collected written complaints from her co- workers and delivered them to Ms. Benfield. Petitioner received a Warning Notice dated October 26, 2004, for disruptive influence on the workforce. It read as follows: The purpose of this warning is to make sure that you understand the structure of Hamilton Products and the parameters of acceptable behavior at work. Lately, you have brought a number of suggestions and grievances to the management of Hamilton Products on behalf of yourself and others. There is no single employee representative to management at Hamilton Products. You do not and may not speak on behalf of other employees. Every employee at Hamilton Products, including yourself, enjoys the right to share ideas, suggestions or grievances with management. Such communication is encouraged as long as it is made properly. There is a clear chain of command at Hamilton Products, and you must follow that chain of command when communicating with management. You must speak to your immediate supervisor or place a suggestion in the box provided for suggestions at the north end of the nylon department. It is not acceptable to go around the chain of command to a higher supervisor, as this disrupts the operations of Hamilton Products. In the future, you must follow the chain of command or use the suggestion box, and speak only for yourself. Failure to follow the procedure outlined herein will result in further disciplinary actions up to and including discharge. After the hurricanes of 2004, Petitioner's entire department was reprimanded by the plant manager for missing work. This was upsetting to Petitioner because Ms. Robinson had told these employees not to call in. She felt that Ms. Robinson should not have let him "talk trash" to the employees. There is no evidence that Petitioner or anyone else was singled out in any way by the plant manager regarding this incident. Petitioner believes that white employees were given opportunities for promotion and resulting raises. However, no employees on the production floor were promoted during the time Petitioner worked for Respondent. There is no competent evidence in the record to support Petitioner's claim that white employees received promotions and black employees did not. At some point, Petitioner was moved when the production department was reorganized. Petitioner was placed in the center of the plant, facing the rest of her department. She had no one on either side of her which resulted in her not being able to talk to coworkers while working.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Employment Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2007.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed discriminatory employment practices against Petitioner in violation of Chapter 70 of the Pinellas County Code as alleged in the Complaint, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner is a 44-year-old African-American male. FMS is a package delivery company that does business in Pinellas County. According to Petitioner, FMS has more than 100 employees. FMS was provided due notice of the date, time, and location of the final hearing in this case, but no appearance was made on its behalf. Petitioner’s Job Duties and Salary at FMS Petitioner started working for FMS in late 1999 or early 2000 as a “driver.” Petitioner’s primary job responsibility was to drive a delivery truck along a designated route to deliver and pick up packages. Petitioner was also responsible for loading the to- be-delivered packages on his truck in the morning and then unloading any picked-up packages from his truck in the evening. Petitioner worked Monday through Friday. His shift started at 7:00 a.m. each day. Petitioner’s gross pay was initially $650 every two weeks, but at some point Petitioner's salary was increased to $750 every two weeks.1 Petitioner did not receive health or dental insurance or other benefits. Failure to Switch Trucks as Directed (Complaint, Count III) Chronologically, the first event alleged in the Complaint as a basis of Petitioner’s discrimination claim started on the morning of Friday, February 8, 2002, when Petitioner’s boss, Tom Aliotti, directed Petitioner to switch trucks with another driver named Eddie. Later that day, Mr. Aliotti told Petitioner that he would switch the trucks over the weekend. As a result, Petitioner and Eddie did not switch the trucks on Friday. The trucks were not switched over the weekend, and on the morning of Monday, February 11, 2002, Mr. Aliotti again directed Petitioner to switch trucks with Eddie. Petitioner did not switch the trucks on Monday morning as directed by Mr. Aliotti because he was too busy preparing to run his delivery route. Petitioner testified that Eddie was equally responsible for the trucks not getting switched because he could not switch trucks with Eddie without Eddie’s participation; however, it is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony what specifically Eddie did or did not do in regard to switching the trucks. After Petitioner failed to switch the trucks on Monday as directed, he was given a written reprimand for insubordination by Mr. Aliotti. The written reprimand, which is referred to as a Counseling Sheet (see Exhibit P4), stated: “[Petitioner] will switch trucks tonite [sic] 2/11/02 or [he] will not be working 2/12/02. Day off without pay.” Petitioner testified that he did not switch the trucks even after the directive on the Counseling Sheet. It is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony whether he was suspended without pay on February 12, 2002. According to Petitioner, Eddie was not reprimanded for the incident. It is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony whether a reprimand was appropriate for Eddie because it is unknown whether Mr. Aliotti also told Eddie to switch the trucks and, as stated above, it is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony what specifically Eddie did or did not do to frustrate the truck switching. Eddie, like Petitioner, is an African-American male. Attendance Issues in March 2002 (Complaint, Counts I and II) The other allegations of discrimination in the Complaint relate to discipline imposed on Petitioner for his unexcused absences from work on several occasions in March 2002. Petitioner submitted a written request for a half-day of leave on Friday, March 1, 2002, in which he stated that he needed to “go out of town to attend a funeral” because of a “death in [his] family.” See Exhibit P1, at page 3. That request was approved, and Petitioner was expected to be back at work on Monday, March 4, 2002. Petitioner attended the funeral of his brother in Largo, Florida, on Saturday, March 2, 2002. Later that same day, he traveled to Madison, Florida, to attend funeral services for his uncle. See Exhibits P2 and P3. For reasons that are unclear in the record, Petitioner did not return to work on Monday, March 4, 2002, as he was expected to do. If a driver was going to be unexpectedly absent from work, he or she was required to let the boss know before 7:00 a.m. so that a substitute or “on-call” driver could be contacted to take over the absent driver’s route. Getting another driver to take over the absent driver's route was important to FMS because some of the packages that the company delivers have to get to the customer by 10:30 a.m. Petitioner understood the importance of this requirement. According to Petitioner, he tried to call his boss before 7:00 a.m. on Monday to let him know that he would not be coming into work, but he was not able to reach his boss until several hours after 7:00 a.m. Petitioner did not produce any credible evidence to corroborate his testimony that he attempted to call his boss prior to 7:00 a.m. on Monday, and the documents introduced by Petitioner include conflicting statements as to whether Petitioner ever called on that date.2 Nevertheless, Petitioner’s testimony on this issue is accepted. When Petitioner returned to work on Tuesday, March 5, 2002, he was suspended for the day and, according to Petitioner, his delivery route was taken away. The Warning Letter that was received into evidence (Exhibit P1, at page 1) references the suspension, but not Petitioner’s route being taken away. According to Petitioner, his delivery route was given to a white female, whose identity Petitioner did not know. Thereafter, Petitioner was given menial tasks such as sweeping the floor and taking out the trash, although he also helped load packages onto the delivery trucks in the morning. Petitioner submitted a written request for leave on March 19 and 20, 2002, because he planned to be in Kentucky on those dates. Petitioner stated in the request that “I will be back to work on the [sic] 3-21.” See Exhibit P1, at page 2. The leave requested by Petitioner was approved, and he was expected to be back at work on March 21, 2002. Petitioner got a “late start” on his drive back from Kentucky, which caused him to miss work on March 21, 2002. According to Petitioner, he used his cellular phone to call his boss before 7:00 a.m. on March 21, 2002, to let him know that he would not be coming into work, but he was not able to reach his boss until 7:30 a.m. Petitioner did not present any credible evidence, such as his cellular phone records, to corroborate his claim that he attempted to call prior to 7:00 a.m. Petitioner’s testimony on this issue was not persuasive. The record does not reflect what, if any, discipline Petitioner received for not calling prior to the start of his shift to report that he would not be coming into work on March 21, 2002. Petitioner’s pay was not reduced at any point during his employment with FMS even though, according to Petitioner, his primary job duties were changed from driving a delivery truck to sweeping the floors and taking out the trash. Petitioner continued to work at FMS until April or May 2002 when he was injured on the job while lifting a box. Petitioner’s Post-FMS Activities and Employment After his injury, Petitioner could not and did not work for approximately one year. During that period, Petitioner collected workers' compensation at the rate of $500 every two weeks.3 Approximately one year after his injury, Petitioner’s doctor allowed him to return to work on “light duty.” Thereafter, in April or May 2003, Petitioner tried to return to work with FMS but, according to Petitioner, he was told that there were no available “light duty” positions. That effectively ended Petitioner’s employment relationship with FMS. The Complaint does not allege that FMS’s failure to re-hire Petitioner was a discriminatory employment practice, nor is there any credible evidence in the record that would support such a claim. From April/May 2003 to approximately March 2004, Petitioner held only one job. He worked for approximately one week cleaning floors at a nursing home, but he left that position because of his back problems. After leaving the floor cleaning job, Petitioner did not actively look for other employment. He briefly attended a training class to become a security guard, but he did not complete the class after learning that he would not be able to be licensed as a security guard “because of his prior record.” In approximately March 2004, Petitioner was hired by a former acquaintance to work as a driver for a mortgage company. In that position, Petitioner is paid $11 per hour and he typically works 40 hours per week, which equates to gross pay of $880 every two weeks. As of the date of the hearing, Petitioner was still employed by the mortgage company. Lack of Evidence Regarding Similarly Situated Employees Petitioner presented no credible evidence regarding any “similarly situated” employees, i.e., employees who engaged in conduct that was the same as or similar to that for which Petitioner was disciplined.4 Although Petitioner testified that he “had heard” of situations where other employees had “put a manager off,” rather than immediately doing what the manager told them to do, he was not able to offer any specific examples of such insubordination. Petitioner also presented no credible evidence regarding how other employees (of any race) were disciplined for conduct that was the same as or similar to that for which Petitioner was disciplined.5
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint against FMS. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was hired and began work with DPR on August 22, 1989, in the position of Information Specialist II. The job duties for that position are contained in Respondent's Exhibit 1. Petitioner was terminated on February 5, 1990, before the expiration of her probationary term under the Career Service System. On November 30, 1989, Randy Reid was hired as a public information specialist and worked with Petitioner. It is uncontroverted that Ms. Reid and Petitioner had a personality conflict. Effective January 25 or 26, 1990, Ms. Reid was promoted to the position of Public Information Supervisor, a position to which Petitioner was directly responsible. Before that time, Petitioner had made Ms. Reid aware that the duties which she was performing were not the duties for which she had been hired. Specifically, Petitioner wanted to cover board meeting and to write. Instead she was spending much of her time responding to telephone requests for information. Ms. Reid initiated the paper work to promote Petitioner to the position of Information Specialist III. According to Respondent's Exhibit 2, Petitioner would have been performing the duties for which she had expressed an interest. She would also receive a pay increase. When Ms. Reid informed Petitioner of this promotion, Petitioner was unhappy because she did not want to begin an new probationary period. Petitioner made the situation more difficult by refusing to take directions from Ms. Reid unless the instructions were given by Ms. Reid in writing. Petitioner also responded inappropriately to reporters' requests for information. Instead of advising that certain confidential information was not available, Petitioner, having been a reporter herself for 15 years, expressed empathy with the reporters' dilemma and frustration with not being able to get the information the reporters sought. The information was confidential and Florida Statutes expressly prohibit disclosure. On February 2, 1990, an incident occurred during which Petitioner was insubordinate to Ms. Reid. Petitioner raised her voice and told Ms. Reid that she would not take verbal directions from her. Petitioner then left her work place and went to the personnel office to complain about Ms. Reid's alleged verbal abuse. Based on this incident and the other problems experienced between Ms. Reid and Petitioner, Ms. Reid recommended to the DPR Assistant Secretary that Petitioner be terminated. When Petitioner returned to her work place, Ms. Reid took her to the Assistant Secretary's office. Petitioner was given the option to resign or be terminated. She was very agitated when the Assistant Secretary presented her with that option. She was given the upcoming weekend to make her decision. Petitioner returned to work the following Monday morning, February 5, 1990. She refused to resign and she was terminated. The parties stipulate that Petitioner is over the age of forty and is of French origin. Petitioner's position of Information Specialist II was filled by a person over age forty of American origin. Petitioner alleged throughout this proceeding that Ms. Reid regularly, verbally harassed her by making disparaging comments about her age and national origin. She alleged that Ms. Reid is married to a German man from the Alsace- Lorraine region, which has been the subject of many disputes between the French and Germans. She further alleged that the marital relationship prompted Ms. Reid to harass her in order to please her husband. Finally, Petitioner alleged that Ms. Reid verbally abused her with specific negative comments about her age and French accent. Absolutely no credible evidence was produced by Petitioner to substantiate any of these allegations. It is found that Ms. Reid did not verbally harass Petitioner based on age or national origin. Petitioner did perform her job duties adequately except for the specific instances found herein.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's complaint for age and national origin discrimination. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Liliane Parbot-Johnson Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); and 12 & 14(11). Proposed findings of fact 2, 3, 4, and 15 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 5-11, 13, and 17 are unsupported by the credible, competent and substantial evidence. Proposed finding of fact 16 is irrelevant. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Department of Professional Regulation Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 3(4); 4(3); 5(5); 6(5); and 10(10). Proposed findings 2, 7, 8, and 9 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Liliane Parbot-Johnson Post Office Box 20363 Tallahassee, FL 32316 Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Ronald M. McElrath, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
The Issue Whether Respondent unlawfully terminated the employment of Petitioner, because of his age in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner by terminating him on October 3, 2005, after Petitioner filed a complaint with human resources alleging a hostile work environment.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Leviton Manufacturing Corporation manufactures electrical equipment and components. It is a New York corporation licensed to do business in the State of Florida. Inter allia, Respondent employs a sales force that covers the entire State of Florida. Respondent is an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA"). Respondent has implemented an employee handbook aimed at fostering a work environment that is free from harassment, discrimination and retaliation. Respondent's policies contain reporting and investigation procedures that encourage employees to report any and all incidents of perceived discrimination or harassment, and ensure that all reported incidents are investigated. Petitioner was employed with Respondent from June 1995 until November 2003, and from July 2004 through October 3, 2005. At the time of his termination, Petitioner was 49 years old. Petitioner first began working for Leviton in 1995 as a Service Representative. He received merit pay raises and promotions until November 2003, when Respondent laid-off 150 people in the retail division, including Petitioner. Petitioner was rehired in July 2004, as a Sales Representative. Upon rehire, Petitioner was supervised by District Manager Scott Robbins ("Robbins"). Petitioner presented the testimony of three of Respondent's managers, one retired, who supervised Petitioner for various periods of Petitioner's nine and one-half year career with Respondent. Each of them testified that Petitioner was dedicated and professional in which ever position he was assigned, including two assignments as a manager. Scott Robbins, Petitioner's supervisor immediately prior to Goodman, recommended Petitioner for re-hire as a Sales Representative following a lay-off, and was satisfied with his work in that position. Petitioner also presented the testimony of 12 customers of Respondent, in the territory that he covered between July 2004 and October 2005. Each of them expressed their opinion that Petitioner was an honest, diligent, and professional sales representative for his employer. Respondent presented the testimony of one customer who was not satisfied with Petitioner's performance as a sales representative. In January 2005, District Manager Warren Goodman ("Goodman") replaced Robbins and assumed his territories as well as his role as Petitioner's supervisor. At the time Petitioner was terminated, Goodman was 48 years old. Goodman supervised, and currently supervises, at least, 12 Sales Representatives, the majority of whom are over the age of 40, to wit: Name Age Name Age Roy Boykin 59 Mickey Ferrell 49 Don Yeager 59 Jose Monzon 40 Michael O'Reilly 56 Duane Bishop 38 Dave Lenoir 37 Kevin Bouton 34 Ken Davis 54 Paul Dube 41 Brad Taylor 10. When Goodman 52 took over as District Manager, it became readily apparent that Goodman's management style was distinctly different from Robbins. Goodman is demanding, blunt and aggressive, and closely manages his sales representatives. He expected prompt and accurate responses to his requests from his sales representatives. Petitioner was required to fulfill the same job expectations that were demanded of all other Sales Representatives. It included, but was not limited to, the timely submission of complete and accurate paperwork, client follow up, and travel to specific areas within his designated territory. Petitioner's area extended from Lakeland, Florida, to Thomasville, Georgia. Goodman expected Petitioner to visit customers in his territory at least every three weeks, staying at least two to three days on each trip at each location. Goodman's job as District Manager is to oversee his sales force and to enforce Leviton's guidelines, as he interprets them. Moreover, Goodman is charged with measuring his employees' compliance with Leviton's policies and procedures. Over the course of his tenure, Petitioner failed to abide by company rules and policies, as well as the terms of his employment, as understood by Goodman. On more than one occasion, Petitioner failed to provide expense reimbursements in an appropriate and timely manner. He also failed to travel with the frequency required by his sales position. Additionally, on numerous occasions, Petitioner failed to verify the accuracy of orders he placed for customers. On May 2, 2005, Goodman sent Petitioner an email addressing the importance of administrative responsibility and consistency. Goodman had just reviewed Petitioner's expense reports and noted that they covered a ten-week period, clearly in violation of the requirement that they be submitted within 30 days. Goodman also noted that the expense reports reflected no travel over a two-month period to the Thomasville/Tallahassee area, which composed a large portion of Petitioner's territory. Goodman requested that, thereafter, Petitioner forward his itinerary weekly, attaching as an example a copy of itineraries submitted by Petitioner's colleagues. Petitioner responded, apologizing for the late expenses. He attributed his tardiness in part to a change in his cellular telephone carrier. Petitioner set forth all his travel dates within the northern portion of his territory since his re-hire. The dates provided demonstrated that he was not in compliance with the travel requirements established for all Sales Representatives. Goodman responded and reminded Petitioner of the importance of adhering to guidelines for travel and paperwork submission. He encouraged Petitioner to improve his performance and to do what was necessary to satisfy Goodman's expectations of the proper skills necessary to do his job effectively. On May 9, 2005, Petitioner sent Goodman an email indicating his car was being repaired. The repair estimates attached to the email evidenced that Petitioner had been driving a 12-year-old vehicle, which was not within Respondent's car policy guidelines. Petitioner had reviewed and signed the car policy guidelines on January 12, 2005, and began receiving monthly payments (including retroactive payments), effective February 11, 2005. On May 18, 2005, Petitioner received and signed an Employee Warning. Significantly, Petitioner signed the Employee Warning indicating that he read and understood it. The Employee Warning cited violations for substandard job performance and violations of company policies or procedures, with specific reprimands for: (1) failure to timely submit expense reports; (2) failure to travel as specified and agreed to; (3) sloppy submission of paperwork; (4) lack of involvement with customer; and (5) failure to maintain a proper company vehicle in accordance with company policy. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner purchased a new truck for the purpose of meeting the company vehicle policy. On May 31, 2005, Goodman reviewed numerous quotes submitted by Petitioner for review and renewal. Goodman informed Petitioner that upon review, the quotes prepared by Petitioner were inaccurate and required various revisions and corrections. Some quotes were priced higher than stock; different prices were entered for the same item in a different color (when there should have been no price difference); there were items on quotes that were never purchased; and there was no increase in items ordered/quoted. In August 2005, Goodman advised Petitioner that his sales goals were not ambitious enough and that Petitioner needed to re-evaluate and re-consider his year-end goals. Petitioner indicated that he would do as instructed. In mid-August 2005, Petitioner once again submitted an incomplete quote to Goodman for approval. When brought to Petitioner's attention, he added the items missing from the quote, offering no explanation for this oversight. On August 30, 2005, Petitioner submitted order adjustments to Goodman's administrative assistant for completion. When the request was forwarded to Goodman, he immediately reminded Petitioner that all changes were required to be submitted to him, not his assistant. Moreover, the requested changes contained errors. Goodman requested that Petitioner review the complete order and re-submit it when it was accurate. Three days later, Petitioner still had not acknowledged or responded to Goodman's request. Goodman completed and submitted Petitioner's performance review on July 25, 2005. Due to the fact that no prior goals or skills development were accomplished by Petitioner, his review was deferred until the end of 2005. Based upon his seven-month assessment of Petitioner, Goodman felt that Petitioner only partially met expectations. Rather than precluding a merit increase in salary, Goodman gave Petitioner an opportunity to improve his performance by deferring his review for several months. Petitioner signed this July review, indicating that Goodman discussed the review and appraisal with him. On September 5, 2005, (Labor Day, a holiday) Goodman sent an email to all of his Sale Representatives, which required a response to specific inquiries no later than 5:00 p.m. Petitioner did not respond until September 7, 2005, at 4:15 p.m. This was clearly past the deadline. Goodman reprimanded Petitioner in his responsive email, specifically advising Petitioner that his continued employment was in jeopardy. He invited Petitioner to call Goodman the next day to discuss Petitioner's lack of diligence and timeliness. Only after a telephone call on the morning of September 9, 2005, did Petitioner, for the first time raise the issue of unfair treatment, but he did not raise age as a factor. Petitioner requested, via email, that Goodman assist Petitioner in filing a complaint against Goodman with Leviton's Human Resource Department for creating a hostile work environment. In this same email, Petitioner informed Goodman that Petitioner had involved clients in his grievance by requesting that the clients evaluate Petitioner's performance and provide their input to Respondent. Based upon the preceding client involvement, Goodman advised Petitioner on September 12, 2005, that he was suspended immediately, with pay, pending the outcome of Respondent's investigation regarding Petitioner's inappropriate conduct. Petitioner was therefore instructed to maintain contact with only the Human Resources Department (HR) until further notice. Thereafter, Petitioner corresponded, via email, with Shephard. On September 13, 2005, Petitioner forwarded his May 5, 2005, email exchange with Goodman to Kimberly Shephard, Respondent's Corporate Human Resource Manager. On that same day, Petitioner sent another email to Shephard containing a list of items that were still incomplete and required follow up. In forwarding this lengthy "to do" list, Petitioner demonstrated his inattention to detail and inability to complete administrative tasks. On September 16, 2005, Shephard drafted Petitioner's allegations in memorandum format, the accuracy of which Petitioner verified and signed on September 20, 2005. Goodman was given a copy of the allegations and provided a written response on September 19, 2005, refuting each of Petitioner's allegations. Meanwhile, HR conducted interviews with a random selection of Goodman's employees in the district and noted each employee's assessment of Goodman. Goodman was determined by each of the interviewed employees to provide equal treatment to all employees. The employees interviewed ranged in age from 35 to 58. On or about September 20, 2005, Shephard completed her investigation of Petitioner's complaint and determined that there was no basis that Goodman created an unlawful hostile work environment. Rather, it was determined that Goodman set the same standards for all of his employees; treated them all the same; and that accordingly, there was no basis to conclude Petitioner was singled out. Petitioner was ultimately terminated on October 3, 2005. The reasons cited by Respondent were based on Petitioner's unsatisfactory job performance. The specific reasons given for Petitioner's termination were: (1) his inability to perform the tasks associated with the Sales Representative position; (2) his failure to develop end-users sufficiently; (3) his administrative inadequacies; (4) his failure to meet deadlines and failure to follow instructions; and (5) his choosing to enlist customers in an internal company matter pertaining to Petitioner's poor job performance. Although Respondent determined that Petitioner's involvement of customer's in an internal dispute was grounds for immediate termination, Respondent determined it would investigate Petitioner's complaint prior to taking other action, since it occurred at the same time as the allegations of improper conduct by Goodman. At no time was Petitioner's age raised as a factor in any of the terms and conditions of his employment by Respondent. Nor was it a factor in any work related complaints regarding his deficiencies. Petitioner never informed any member of Respondent's management that he believed he was treated differently during his employment because of his age, or that he had been terminated due to his age. After Petitioner was terminated, Respondent did not hire anyone to replace him. Rather, Respondent re-assigned Petitioner's territory to existing salesmen. Paul Dube ("Dube"), aged 41, inherited the majority of Petitioner's territory. Goodman did not require that Dube travel to, or invest time in customers that only did a nominal amount of business with Respondent. Petitioner attempted to establish that he was unable to respond to several of Goodman's inquiries in a timely manner, or at all, because Petitioner's computer was being repaired by Respondent's IT department. Nevertheless, Petitioner had access to his work email via Respondent's webmail program during this period. Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was terminated by Respondent because of his age. Respondent failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was subject to retaliation after he filed a hostile work environment complaint with Respondent's HR department.
Recommendation Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying Petitioner's Petition for Relief and dismissing his charge with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 2007.
