The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of discriminating in employment against Petitioner on the basis of her race.
Findings Of Fact Respondent hired Petitioner, who is black, as an inspectress on April 11, 1988. An inspectress supervises the work of maids, who are responsible for cleaning the hotel rooms. On July 3, 1988, the housekeeper, Mr. Douglas Knight, who supervised Petitioner, informed her that, due to an excess of personnel, she was no longer needed as an inspectress. He offered her a position as a maid. The record does not reveal whether the change in duties would have resulted in less pay. Petitioner apparently declined the position. When she did so, Respondent terminated her. Although Respondent had received no warnings concerning unsatisfactory job performance, the work of the maids had clearly been unsatisfactory up to the time of her offered reassignment. The white woman who allegedly replaced Petitioner as an inspectress was Mrs. Triplett, who was married to the head maintenance manager of the hotel. Shortly after losing her job elsewhere, she was hired by Respondent around June 9, 1988, to replace the assistant housekeeper, who was on maternity leave until July 6, 1988. Mrs. Triplett was reassigned to the position of inspectress around June 18, 1988, and later promoted to housekeeper about two weeks after Petitioner's departure. Mr. Knight, who hired Mrs. Triplett, was friends with Mr. Triplett and later terminated for inefficiency in performing his work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE 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 16th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Margaret Jones Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Latricia W. Dukes 4189 Tatum Street Orlando, FL 32811 Gale Brandy Ramada Main Gate Resort 2950 Reedy Creek Boulevard Kissimmee, FL 32741
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Clarence E. Burtoft, was hired by respondent, Southern Linen Service, in November, 1982 as assistant general manager at its Daytona Beach plant. Prior to this employment, he had back surgery performed in Augusta, Georgia but the effects of such surgery did not interfere with his job duties. After being on the job for approximately three days, he was told by the regional manager that labor costs needed to be reduced, and that one employee must be laid off. He was also told to shift two female employees from one department to another. There is a dispute between the parties as to what the actual instructions were, and whether they were in fact carried out by Burtoft. Nonetheless, the employer construed Burtoft's actions as not complying with its instructions, and Burtoft was accordingly terminated the following day and told he was not the right man for the job. The back surgery was not related in any respect to the termination and Burtoft himself acknowledged as much. Burtoft's complaint is that his job records at Southern Linen Service contain a notation that he was fired for refusing to follow instructions. He only wants that adverse information removed. 1/ He is not contending that his employer unlawfully discriminated against him, or requesting that his job be reinstated with full back pay. Indeed, it was only after he visited the State employment office that he filed this complaint upon that office's encouragement. At no time was he ever told by any Florida Commission on Human Relations representative that its jurisdiction extended only over certain employment practices, and that any complaint must necessarily be founded on some form of discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition for relief filed by Clarence E. Burtoft be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1984.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondents violated the Florida Civil Rights Act (the Act), as amended, as alleged in Petitioner's Employment Complaint of Discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female. She began employment with Staff Builders around October 2012 and continued working with that entity until she voluntarily resigned around May 2014. As the name implies, Staff Builders is a staffing agency in Lakeland, Florida, that provides temporary staffing for various clients in the Lakeland area. One client is Max- Pak, a manufacturing firm also located in Lakeland. A service agreement has been executed by the two companies to formalize this arrangement. Because the evidence shows that Max-Pak was able to exercise control over the manner in which Petitioner and other temporary employees performed their duties, a joint employer relationship is present. See, e.g., Amarnare v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 611 F. Supp. 344, 349 (D.N.Y. 1984); Washington v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, Case No. 05-2988 (Fla. DOAH Oct. 25, 2005; FCHR Jan. 6, 2006). Before an employee is placed with a client, Staff Builders provides in-house training regarding work rules. Each employee is required to sign a training checklist acknowledging that he/she has received this training. Exhibit 8 reflects that Petitioner received this training on October 15, 2012. As a part of her training, before she was assigned to work at Max-Pak, Petitioner was given a copy of Max-Pak's work rules. See Resp. Ex. 7. Among other things, the rules provide that if an employee is "threatening, intimidating, coercing or interfering with fellow employees at any time," it would "usually lead to the immediate dismissal at the first offense." Employees are expected to follow the work rules of both Staff Builders and their temporary employer. When the underlying incident occurred, Petitioner was working as a temporary employee for Max-Pak in the assembly line. On March 24, 2014, the men's restroom was out of service. This required that both male and female workers use the women's restroom until the men's restroom was restored to service. That morning, Petitioner went to the restroom, knocked on the closed door, and a male voice responded "wait a minute." The person using the bathroom was Tommy Engram, an African- American male who worked as a temporary staffing employee in the shipping and receiving department. Although the testimony describing the incident is quite limited, the more credible evidence shows that when Engram exited the restroom, Petitioner demanded to know why he was using the women's restroom. "Words" between the two ensued, including a comment by Engram that Petitioner should not disrespect him. Petitioner testified that she was insulted by the tone and demeanor of Engram's words, and had she not been a female, he would not have spoken to her in the manner that he did. However, there is no credible evidence that Engram used profanity or words of a sexual nature, or that his remarks were motivated by gender considerations. When Petitioner spotted Engram in her work area a few minutes later, she demanded to know why he was there. The two had further words, and Petitioner told Engram she would have her boyfriend "beat him up." She then telephoned her boyfriend, Kenneth Graham, and told him about the incident. By threatening Engram in this manner, Petitioner violated a Max-Pak work rule that prohibits an employee from threatening or intimidating a fellow employee and was subject to immediate dismissal. That same evening, Engram went to "the trees," a local area frequented mainly by African-Americans where they socialize and drink. Graham was also at the trees that evening, and after he spotted Engram, Graham says they began arguing about the restroom incident and a "fist fight" between the two took place. Engram suggested that the fight was instigated by Graham, and his version of events was corroborated by a witness to the fight, whose statement indicates that Graham initiated the skirmish. See Resp. Ex. 2. Engram's version is accepted as being more credible. The next morning, Engram reported the incident to Ford. After Ford and Max-Pak conferred, Staff Builders advised Petitioner that Max-Pak no longer wanted her as a staffing employee at their plant. This action was taken solely because Petitioner had violated a Max-Pak work rule by threatening Engram with physical harm. There was no evidence that the decision by either Respondent was based on Petitioner's gender. This was not the first time a temporary employee at Max-Pak was asked not to return for violating work rules. Two other Staff Builder workers, both males, were also reassigned to another client after violating the same anti-violence work rules. Petitioner continued working for Staff Builders and was assigned to staff another client in Tampa, where she worked for four or five weeks. After finding a permanent job, Petitioner voluntarily resigned her position with Staff Builders around May 2014. Petitioner's complaint was filed on June 30, 2014. She says it was filed because no one would tell her why she could not return to Max-Pak. However, at no time before the complaint was filed did Petitioner advise either Max-Pak or Staff Builders that she believed her "termination" was because of her sex. In fact, the only person she reported any alleged discrimination to was "Jade," a co-worker whose last name was not given.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner against both Respondents. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 25th day of February, 2015.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by discharging Petitioner because of her age.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, the Pasco County Board of County Commissioners, is a governmental entity, and the Pasco County Library System is one of its departments. Petitioner, a female, was born on July 2, 1955. Respondent first employed Petitioner on or about September 8, 1997, as a Library Assistant II, a paraprofessional position. When Respondent hired Petitioner to this position, she was 42. On April 9, 2001, Petitioner was promoted to a Librarian I trainee position, at the age of 45. On February 4, 2002, Petitioner was promoted to a Librarian I position, at the age of 46, after she earned a Master's Degree in Library Science. The position of Librarian I is an at-will position, meaning that the person serving in such position can be terminated for no cause. Petitioner continued to work in the position of Librarian I until Respondent terminated her on or about March 24, 2005. Prior to 2002-2003, Petitioner's annual evaluations were favorable. Even after Petitioner was promoted to the Librarian I position, her annual evaluations rated her job performance in several categories, as well as her overall job performance, as "meets standards." The rating of "meets standards" indicates that the employee's performance "generally meets the supervisor's expectations on most performance criteria." Notwithstanding Petitioner's overall ratings of "meets standards," in the annual evaluations for 2002-2003 and 2003- 2004, her performance in some categories was rated as "needs improvement." Petitioner's annual evaluation for the period from April 2, 2002, to April 9, 2003 (the 2002-2003 evaluation), rated Petitioner's performance as "needs improvement" in several sub-categories under the following three categories: (1) Application of Professional Skills; (2) Performance of Routine and Special Assignments; and (3) Working Relationship, Communication, and Coordination with Other Personnel. Under each broad category, there were four sub-categories as well as a sub-category for the total rating in that particular category. On Petitioner's 2002-2003 evaluation, under the category, "Application of Professional Skills," Petitioner was rated as "needs improvement" in one sub-category. That sub- category was, "no unnecessary delays are encountered in performing assignments or resolving problems." On the 2002-2003 evaluation, under the category, "Performance of Routine and Special Assignments," Petitioner's performance in all sub-categories was rated as "needs improvement." These sub-categories were as follows: (1) conformance with schedules, standards, and plans does not require close supervision; (2) deviations in instructions, work schedules, and standards are approved by supervisor or corrected; (3) new and additional assignments are readily accepted and performed; and (4) work is of sufficient quality and quantity to meet supervisor's expectations. With regard to the category, "Performance of Routine and Special Assignments," the supervisor's written comments on the evaluation indicated notes that Petitioner should be at her assigned work location at scheduled times, and should obtain approval in advance from her supervisor prior to changing her work location and/or assigned work times. The written comments on the evaluation also stated that Petitioner had difficulty accepting a new supervisor, but indicated that Petitioner was responsible for readily accepting and implementing instructions from her supervisor. The 2002-2003 evaluation rated Petitioner's performance in all the sub-categories under the category, "Working Relationship, Communication, and Coordination with Other Personnel," as needs improvement. The sub-categories were as follows: (1) conflicts or problems in working relationships are usually resolved without intercession of higher authority; (2) needs, problems, and procedures are communicated to affected parties; (3) desired results are accomplished through subordinate and other personnel; and (4) few and only minor problems occur because of inadequate communication and coordination of activities. With reference to the category, "Working Relationship, Communication, and Coordination with Other Personnel," on the 2002-2003 evaluation, Petitioner's supervisor wrote, Petitioner has the propensity for starting projects at the last minute which negatively affects other team members. Furthermore, in the written comments on that evaluation, the supervisor directed Petitioner to communicate regularly with other team members when collaborating on projects and to communicate needs and problems to her supervisor before deadlines. On the 2002-2003 evaluation, under the category, "Other Factors Important to Supervisor," Petitioner's supervisor noted that Petitioner "is encouraged to learn and adapt to change." Petitioner's second annual evaluation (the 2003-2004 evaluation), while employed as a Librarian I, covered the period of April 9, 2003, to April 9, 2004. Petitioner's 2003-2004 evaluation, like her 2002-2003 evaluation, rated her overall performance as "meets standards." However, on the 2003-2004 evaluation, Petitioner's supervisor rated her performance in three sub-categories as "needs improvement." In the 2003-2004 evaluation, the first category in which Petitioner was rated as "needs improvement" was "Application of Professional Skills." The specific sub-category in which Petitioner was rated as "needs improvement" was "no unnecessary delays are encountered in performing assignments or resolving problems." With regard to the category, "Application of Professional Skills," on the 2003-2004 evaluation, Petitioner's supervisor wrote that Petitioner has excellent reference skills, is resourceful and determined to provide good customer service, has highly developed problem solving skills, and has made many helpful and logical suggestions that have benefited the library. However, the supervisor's written comments also noted that, "the strength of some of [Petitioner's] ideas may occasionally make it difficult for [her] to adjust quickly when a decision is made to proceed in a fashion that differs from the way she believes is correct." On the 2003-2004 evaluation, in one of the four sub- categories under the category, "Performance of Routine and Special Assignments," Petitioner's performance was rated as "needs improvement." That sub-category was "new and additional assignments are readily accepted and performed." With regard to the category, "Performance of Routine and Special Assignments," the supervisor's written comments on the 2003-2004 evaluation indicate that Petitioner served as reference support for many branches throughout the county, that her efforts are appreciated by staff and supervisors at those branches, and that her willingness to travel to the various locations on an ever-changing basis is commendable. The supervisor further noted that in addition to her other assignments, Petitioner developed a series of on-line tutorials. However, in addition to the foregoing commendations about Petitioner's work, the supervisor wrote that "there has been occasional reluctance to initiate some assignments in a timely fashion on [Petitioner's] part." The third area in which Petitioner was rated as "needs to improve" was a sub-category under the category, "Working Relationship, Communication, and Coordination With Other Personnel." The specific sub-category under that category in which Petitioner's performance was rated "needs to improve" was "conflicts or problems in working relationships are usually resolved without the intercession of higher authority." With regard to this category, the evaluation notes that Petitioner is a respected member of the Pasco County Library System. However, the evaluation states that Petitioner "is reminded that she should strive to complete her assigned duties in a timely fashion so as not to affect her co-workers in a negative way." Petitioner's 2003-2004 evaluation also made detailed comments in an area designated "Other Areas Important to Supervisor." While acknowledging that Petitioner is an intelligent and thoughtful employee, and that her suggestions are consistently logical and well thought out, the supervisor's written comments on the evaluation stated, "[Petitioner] has been told . . . that she needs to develop her ability to accept and implement decisions that she may not agree with. She has also been told to focus more of her efforts on being a team player rather than defending her own position (no matter how defensible that position may appear)." Petitioner received and signed the 2002-2003 and the 2003-2004 annual evaluations, and was verbally counseled by two of her supervisors. There is no dispute that Petitioner was a competent librarian and well trained for the position. Moreover, Petitioner did a good job on her work-related assignments if they were assignments that she liked, but she tended to ignore assignments that she did not want to do. Such conduct created problems on the job by requiring other employees to do some work-related tasks assigned to Petitioner. Following Petitioner's 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 evaluations, there was an work-related assignment which ultimately culminated in Respondent terminating Petitioner's employment. The assignment was an important, extensive, and comprehensive project that required team work. That assignment, referred to as "weeding," was given to all librarians in or about October 2003. The project required the librarians to "weed" assigned sections in the library by removing outdated and damaged books and materials. New books and materials were to be ordered to replace those outdated and damaged books and materials. Petitioner believed the "weeding" project was a 15- month project with a projected completion date of December 2004. In April 2004, Petitioner's supervisor asked her when she would complete her portion of the weeding project. Petitioner did not respond to her supervisor's question. Instead, Petitioner asked her supervisor if the deadline for completing the project had changed. In August 2004, Petitioner's supervisor again asked her when she would have her assigned weeding project complete. As she had in April 2004, Petitioner responded to this inquiry by asking her supervisor if the "deadline" had changed. Petitioner never gave her supervisor a specific or approximate time when she would complete the project, but only said she would complete the project "soon." This response was non- responsive and gave the supervisor no information regarding how much of the Petitioner's weeding assignment was complete, how much of the assignment remained to be done, or when she would complete the assignment. After Petitioner failed to respond to her supervisor's inquiry about when she would complete the weeding assignment, the supervisor pulled Petitioner off the weeding assignment. He then assigned another librarian to complete Petitioner's weeding assignment that she had not yet completed. That librarian completed Petitioner's assigned weeding in about a day and a half. Based on Petitioner's failing to complete her assignment described in paragraph 25, Petitioner's supervisor conferred with appropriate human resources personnel about terminating Petitioner's employment. Upon completion of the review process, Petitioner's employment was terminated. In a letter dated March 24, 2005, Respondent notified Petitioner that, effective immediately, her services at the Pasco County Library Services were no longer required. The letter did not give a reason for Respondent's termination. Petitioner's employment as a Librarian I was an at- will position. Accordingly, Respondent was under no duty to give Petitioner a reason for her termination and could, in fact, terminate her for no cause. Petitioner alleged that she was terminated in retaliation for following a supervisor's directive that Petitioner terminate the services of a library volunteer. Petitioner also alleged that Respondent terminated her employment, based on her age, in order to bring in younger librarians and to move out the older librarians. Petitioner's allegation that she was terminated based on her age is not supported by the evidence. First, the allegation that her employment was terminated because she followed a supervisor's directive to terminate the services of a library volunteer does not in any way establish that Petitioner was terminated because of her age. Second, although Petitioner alleges that there was an effort to bring in young librarians and to move out the older librarians, the evidence established that there was no interest in or effort to hire only young librarians and fire the older librarians. Rather, there was an effort to promote persons currently in Librarian I positions with the Pasco County Library System, regardless of their age, and to bring in new librarians into the entry level positions. The average age of professional and management staff in the Pasco County Library System is 46, even though the Librarian I is an entry level professional position and may attract younger candidates. The reason Petitioner was terminated as a librarian, with the Pasco County Library System, was because of her job performance and not because of her age.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent committed no unlawful employment practice and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barbara DeSimone Pasco County Board of County Commissioners d/b/a Pasco County Library System 7530 Little Road New Port Richey, Florida 34654 Cyd Johnston Stewart 3801 Allen Road West Virginia, Florida 33541 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Limited Edition Interiors, Inc. (Respondent), committed an act of unlawful employment discrimination and an act of retaliation against an employee, Arlene Matvey (Petitioner), in violation of Pinellas County Code sections 70-53(a) and 70-54(1).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was an interior furnishings retailer located in Largo, Florida, and owned by William S. Miller (Mr. Miller) and Judith L. Miller (Mrs. Miller), a married couple. Mrs. Miller was the president of the company. Mr. Miller was the secretary/treasurer of the company. Both Mr. and Mrs. Miller were generally present at the business. The Respondent was an "employer" pursuant to the definition of the term set forth within the applicable Pinellas County Code provision. On October 31, 2005, the Respondent hired the Petitioner to work as the office manager and bookkeeper in a full-time, salaried position. The Petitioner's duties included tracking various accounts, preparing sales invoices, preparing the payroll, preparing certain tax records, and general office filing. The Petitioner, a single mother, had been unemployed for an extended period prior to being hired by the Respondent. Both Mr. and Mrs. Miller knew that the Petitioner needed the financial support provided by her job. Mr. Miller was the Petitioner's supervisor. Their work areas were in relatively close proximity, with Mr. Miller occupying an office space with a door and the Petitioner occupying a workstation immediately outside Mr. Miller's office. There was a second workstation also located outside Mr. Miller's office, and, on occasion, a third employee was present in the area. A few months after the Petitioner began employment at the Respondent, Mr. Miller began to make remarks about the Petitioner's physical appearance, particularly her "derriere." The remarks were frequent and were heard by other employees. The Petitioner was offended by the remarks and routinely told Mr. Miller to stop. On more than one occasion, Mr. Miller asked the Petitioner to sit on his lap. The Petitioner objected to Mr. Miller's requests and told him so. On at least one occasion, the exchange between Mr. Miller and the Petitioner was overheard by another employee. At various times, Mr. Miller called male employees and the Petitioner into his office to view sexually-suggestive photographs on his computer, some of which were described as pornographic. The Petitioner and other employees objected to the display of photographs and told him that they objected to his showing them the photos. At other times, Mr. Miller called the Petitioner into his office and showed her pornographic images on his computer screen. She felt disturbed by his behavior and told him of her objection. At times during the Petitioner's employment by the Respondent, Mr. Miller made purposeful and inappropriate physical contact with the Petitioner's body. Such contact included attempts to grab the Petitioner by her waist and to rub his clothed genital area against the Petitioner's clothed buttocks. The Petitioner consistently objected to Mr. Miller's behavior and told him of her objections. Other employees observed Mr. Miller's conduct and the Petitioner's objections to his behavior. On one occasion, Mr. Miller called the Petitioner into his office and told her a joke that included his displaying the outline of his penis through his pants, at which time the Petitioner voiced her objection to Mr. Miller. In September 2007, Mr. Miller appeared at the Petitioner's home, and, while there, he exposed his penis to the Petitioner and attempted to entice the Petitioner into sexual activity. He had not been invited to come to her home, and he left the premises when she directed him to do so. At various times during her employment, Mr. Miller asked the Petitioner to expose her breasts to him, and she objected and declined to do so. She eventually complied with the request on one occasion, because she feared losing her job if she refused. Subsequently, Mr. Miller told a male employee that the Petitioner had acceded to his request to see her breasts. The male employee relayed the conversation to the Petitioner, who felt humiliated by the incident. There was no evidence presented at the hearing to suggest that the Petitioner invited or encouraged Mr. Miller's inappropriate behavior. To the contrary, the evidence establishes that the Petitioner routinely told Mr. Miller of her objections to his conduct at the time it occurred. Because the Petitioner had been unemployed prior to being hired by the Respondent and was afraid of losing her job, she did not complain to Mrs. Miller about Mr. Miller's conduct. At the beginning of 2008, the Petitioner advised Mr. Miller that she felt he was "sexually harassing" her. Mr. Miller thereafter began to engage in a pattern of verbal harassment directed towards the Petitioner's job performance. He began to assign tasks to the Petitioner unrelated to her prior bookkeeping or office manager duties. She was assigned to monitor the store inventory, prepare sales tags and attach them to floor samples, dust the store, and clean the kitchen. Mr. Miller routinely criticized the Petitioner's work skills, argued with her about the performance of her duties, and called her "stupid." Prior to January 2008, neither Mr. nor Mrs. Miller had expressed any significant dissatisfaction with the quality of the Petitioner's work as office manager or bookkeeper. There was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that the Petitioner was unable or unwilling to perform the office manager and bookkeeper tasks for which she was hired. Indicative of Mr. Miller's general attitude towards the Petitioner, he used a parrot that was kept at the store to intimidate the Petitioner, who was afraid (perhaps irrationally) of the bird. Mr. Miller clearly knew that the Petitioner was fearful of the bird, yet he would stand behind the Petitioner while she was working and hold the bird near the Petitioner's head, terrifying her. In early 2009, Mr. Miller again called the Petitioner into his office and showed her pornographic images on his computer screen. She again advised him of her objection to his conduct. Prior to 2009, the Petitioner had not talked with Mrs. Miller about her husband's conduct, because the Petitioner remained concerned about losing the job. However, in February 2009, while the two women were both in the store's lunchroom area, the Petitioner advised Mrs. Miller of Mr. Miller's conduct and asked Mrs. Miller to intervene. Mr. Miller had been out of the store for much of February 2009. He returned to work on February 23, 2009, and the Petitioner testified that he left her alone for a few days after his return. However, on March 2, 2009, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner's employment as a salaried, full-time employee, transferred her into an hourly wage position, and reduced her employment hours. She was partially relieved of her bookkeeping responsibilities and was assigned additional store tasks such as moving old boxes and cataloging their contents. The Respondent asserted that the March 2, 2009, action was the result of deteriorating business conditions. The Respondent asserted that the store revenues had declined and that they were required to reduce payroll costs by reducing personnel. The Respondent failed to provide any credible evidence supporting the assertion that deteriorating sales and income were the rationale behind the alteration of the Petitioner's work responsibilities. After March 2, 2009, Mr. Miller routinely continued to criticize the Petitioner's work performance. On July 23, 2009, Mr. Miller and the Petitioner became engaged in a heated discussion in the office area, during which he referred to her as a "fucking c-nt." Although Mr. Miller testified that he did not intend for the Petitioner to hear his insult, he said it loudly enough to be overheard by another employee who was also in the office area. Mr. Miller had previously used the same phrase to refer to other women, including Mrs. Miller. The Petitioner immediately reacted, screaming at Mr. Miller that he could not use the phrase and stating that she would be filing "a complaint" against him. The Petitioner left the office area and went into the store area, loudly protesting Mr. Miller's insult and intending to advise Mrs. Miller of the incident. Because there were customers in the store at the time, Mrs. Miller focused more on calming the Petitioner and not disrupting the store. After speaking briefly with Mrs. Miller, the Petitioner returned to the office area to collect her possessions. Mr. Miller approached the Petitioner and placed his hands in the area of her neck, which caused the Petitioner to feel physically threatened. The Petitioner took her possessions and left the store. The Petitioner next returned to work on July 27, 2009, at which time she was told that she was no longer the office manager and bookkeeper. At the hearing, Mr. Miller testified that the Petitioner was removed from the office because the situation had become volatile. Mrs. Miller testified that, because the Petitioner was argumentative, a decision had been made to remove her from the office. On July 27, 2009, when the Petitioner asked Mrs. Miller why she was no longer the office manager, Mrs. Miller said the Petitioner's job had been changed "because of Bill," meaning Mr. Miller. As of July 27, 2009, the Petitioner had no further office management responsibilities and retained only janitorial and store tasks. The Petitioner was also directed to call the store before coming in to see if she was needed on that day. On some days, the Petitioner was told there was no work for her. On August 14, 2009, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner's employment. There was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that the termination of the Petitioner's employment was related to dissatisfaction with her performance as the Respondent's office manager and bookkeeper, or to the performance of the other tasks that were subsequently assigned. The Respondent asserted that economic conditions caused them to terminate some employees, including the Petitioner, but there was no credible evidence presented to support the assertion. The evidence presented during the hearing established that employees who were terminated were fired for non-performance of their job duties. There was no credible evidence presented at the hearing that the Petitioner's termination or the reduction in her work hours was related to the Respondent's economic condition. At the hearing, employees (both current and former) described Mr. Miller's treatment of women as degrading and humiliating. Employees who worked for the Respondent concurrently with the Petitioner were aware that she was being humiliated by Mr. Miller's behavior. In addition to the Petitioner, Mr. Miller previously assigned janitorial duties to an employee whom he disfavored when he wanted the employee to quit. After the Petitioner's employment was terminated by the Respondent, the Petitioner attempted to obtain another job. During the period of unemployment, the Petitioner received $300.00 per week in unemployment compensation benefits. As of November 9, 2006, the Petitioner earned a bi- weekly salary of $1,600.00 from the Respondent. As of February 1, 2006, the Respondent provided health insurance coverage for the Petitioner as a benefit of her employment and continued such coverage after her termination and through December 31, 2009. As of April 29, 2010, the Petitioner became employed by Gentry Printing Company as a full-time bookkeeper earning $15.00 per hour and working a 40-hour week. On July 17, 2010, the Petitioner received a raise from Gentry Printing Company to $16.00 per hour for the 40-hour week. Gentry Printing Company withholds $22.50 from the Petitioner's weekly income as her contribution to the medical insurance program. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented testimony related to damages. The evidence established that the Petitioner was entitled to an award of $32,745.00 in back pay. The Respondent presented no corresponding evidence or testimony related to damages.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that the Respondent violated Pinellas County Code sections 70-53 and 70-54 and ordering the Respondent to pay the sum of $32,745.00 plus interest at the prevailing statutory rate to the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Falkner, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street, Sixth Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 Robert G. Walker, Jr., Esquire Robert G. Walker, P.A. 1421 Court Street, Suite F Clearwater, Florida 33756 Sherri K. Adelkoff, Esquire 1159 South Negley Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15217 Leon W. Russell, Director/EEO Officer Pinellas County Office of Human Rights 400 South Fort Harrison Avenue, 5th Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 Peter J. Genova, Jr., EEO Coordinator Pinellas County Office of Human Rights 400 South Fort Harrison Avenue, 5th Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice as defined in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 10, 1989, Petitioner, Mark Cleveland, a male, applied through Job Service of Florida, for employment as a telemarketer with Respondent, Sears Roebuck and Company at the Sears store located in Pensacola, Florida. Petitioner had several years of sales experience with at least six months of experience in telemarketing. He also had a good speaking voice as evidenced by the fact that he is currently employed as a disc jockey at a local radio station. Clearly, Respondent was qualified for the telemarketing position. The telemarketer position would enable Petitioner to earn approximately $85.00 a week or $365.50 a month. The telemarketing section at the Pensacola Sears store consisted of virtually all women with perhaps three or four rare male telemarketers. Petitioner had two separate interviews with two different Sears employees responsible for filling the telemarketing positions. During the Petitioner's interviews with the two Sears employees, Petitioner was repeatedly questioned on whether he could work with all women or mostly all women and be supervised by women. Petitioner assured his interviewers that he could since he grew up with six sisters and in general liked working with women. Petitioner left the interview with the information that he would be hired after another supervisor reviewed the applications and that he would be called once the supervisor's review was complete. After several days, Petitioner, being excited about what he thought was going to be his new job, called one of the two women who interviewed him. He was informed that the telemarketing positions had been filled. Later that same day Petitioner discovered that the positions had, in fact, not been filled and that he had been told an untruth. The telemarketing positions were eventually filled by women. Petitioner remained out of work for approximately four months before he was hired as a telemarketer by the Pensacola News Journal. A Notice of Assignment and Order was issued on August 27, 1991, giving the parties an opportunity to provide the undersigned with suggested dates and a suggested place for the formal hearing. The information was to be provided within ten days of the date of the Notice. This Notice was sent by United States mail to the Respondent at the address listed in the Petition for Relief. Respondent did not respond to the Notice. On October 10, 1991, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting the formal hearing for 11:00 a.m., September 11, 1990. The location of the hearing was listed in the Notice. The Notice of Hearing was sent by United States mail to the Respondent at the address listed in the Petition for Relief. Respondent's address and acknowledgment of this litigation was confirmed when Respondent filed its answer to the Petition for Relief with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Even though Respondent received adequate notice of the hearing in this matter, the Respondent did not appear at the place set for the formal hearing at the date and time specified on the Notice of Hearing. The Petitioner was present at the hearing. The Respondent did not request a continuance of the formal hearing or notify the undersigned that it would not be able to appear at the formal hearing. After waiting fifteen minutes for the Respondent to appear, the hearing was commenced. As a consequence of Respondent's failure to appear, no evidence rebutting Petitioner's facts were introduced into evidence at the hearing and specifically no evidence of a nondiscriminatory purpose was introduced at the hearing. 1/ Petitioner has established a prima facie case of discrimination based on his sex, given the fact that Sears tried to mislead him into believing the telemarketing positions had been filled when they had not, the positions were all eventually filled by women and Sears' clear concern over Petitioner's ability to work with women. Such facts lead to the reasonable inference that Sears was engaging in an unlawful employment practice based on Respondent being a male, a protected class, in order to preserve a female work force in telemarketing. Such discrimination based on sex is prohibited under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and Petitioner is entitled to relief from that discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a final order finding Petitioner was the subject of an illegal employment practice and awarding Petitioner $1,462.00 in backpay plus reasonable costs of $100.95 and an attorney's fee of $2,550.00. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 30th day of April, 1992.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent denied Petitioner employment opportunities in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as a part-time employee on or about March 10, 1981. At the time of her employment Petitioner executed a statement acknowledging that the Respondent did not guarantee weeks or hours of employment and that her employment was dependent, in part, upon the demands of the business. Petitioner's job title throughout her employment with Respondent was "warehouse worker." At all times material to this case, Petitioner was assigned to the Orlando distributing center that serves as a warehouse for items shipped to and for Respondent's retail system. During her employment with Respondent, Petitioner received acceptable work evaluations but was not elevated to full-time employment status when job openings occurred. For the first year of her employment, Respondent utilized an employee review form which rated Petitioner on a scale of 1 to 7; the lower number indicated unsatisfactory, the higher number indicated distinguished performance. For that review period, Petitioner received all 4s on her review. The 4 rating evidenced that Petitioner's performance had been consistently good and had met the requirements of the job to which she was assigned. For the review period ending April 1, 1985, the Petitioner received four 4s and one 3. The 3 rating was in the category "working relations" and found her performance to be fair. The 3 rating indicated that for the period reviewed Petitioner's performance was generally satisfactory, but sometimes fell below an acceptable level. Later in 1985, the Petitioner filed an EEOC complaint against the Respondent and alleged that the company had treated her unfairly on account of her sex. Petitioner did not prevail on that complaint. The Petitioner's employee performance review issued on June 10, 1986, the next evaluation after her EEOC complaint, evaluated her performance at all 3s with one 4 in the category of job knowledge. Petitioner did not challenge this review and did not, at that time, allege that the less favorable review had been issued by the company in retaliation for the EEOC complaint. Subsequent to the 1986 review, Respondent's evaluation form was amended to compute an employee's performance on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being the unacceptable end of the scale and 5 indicating distinguished performance. For the review period ending April 12, 1988, Petitioner received all 3s which established that her overall performance again met the employer's expectations. Throughout her tenure with the Respondent, Petitioner sought to increase her work hours. Petitioner complained to the company that work assignments were given unfairly. In June, 1987, Mr. Maupin, manager of the center, issued a notice regarding a change in the scheduling practices for part- time employees. That notice advised employees that the length of service with the company would no longer be the determining factor in assigning part-time hours. The notice provided: "Other factors such as performance, availability when needed and work experience (such as driving skills) will also be considered when determining who will be scheduled." Petitioner continued to be scheduled for work and, in 1988, received the second highest number of hours worked for the center's part-time employees. Petitioner did not receive full-time employment with the Respondent. Two employees who had not worked in the warehouse as long as Petitioner were placed in full-time positions. Petitioner did not offer evidence as to the qualifications of those individuals to perform the work requested of them. The employment history of the individuals chosen by the employer, together with the training, skills and aptitudes of such individuals are all unknown. Petitioner's assertion that she had performed the work in the past and, therefore, was the better qualified to receive the full-time job has not been deemed credible or, in itself, sufficient to prove affirmatively that others chosen by the employer were less worthy of the jobs for which they were selected. To the contrary, the Respondent posted full-time job openings and allowed interested parties to apply for same and be reviewed for employment based upon individual merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's claim against this Respondent as Petitioner has failed to establish that the employer discriminated against her in retaliation for a prior assertion of discrimination. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5133 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant the petition filed in this cause does not allege Petitioner was unfairly disciplined. Paragraph 6 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 7 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as argument, hearsay not corroborated by direct evidence, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 8 is rejected as irrelevant; it is undisputed that Petitioner perceived a bias against her, the evidence in this case does not, however, establish that such bias did exist. An employer's assessment that an employee has a poor attitude does not, of itself, lead to the conclusion that employer will, consequently, unlawfully discriminate against that employee. The first sentence of paragraph 9 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as hearsay unsupported by direct evidence presented in this case or unsupported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 10 is rejected as unsupported by direct evidence presented in this case. Paragraph 11 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 12 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 13 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is accepted. Paragraph 15 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 16 is rejected as speculative, not supported by the evidence in this case. Paragraph 17 is accepted. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is accepted to the extent that the record reflects Petitioner retained an attorney to represent her; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the record. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 9 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 10, it is accepted that all of Petitioner's annual evaluations rated her work as acceptable. Paragraph 11 is rejected as inaccurate or contrary to the weight of the evidence. While Petitioner's reviews remained substantially the same, the forms and evaluation system did change. Important was that Petitioner's work was always deemed acceptable. With regard to paragraph 12, it is accepted that Petitioner worked forty days within the period described. Otherwise rejected as not supported by the record in this case. Paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted but incompletely refers only to the delivery job; Petitioner had expressed an interest in two other jobs available. Paragraph 15 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence or an incomplete statement of fact. Petitioner did seek full-time employment with the Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Heather Morcroft 2431 Aloma Avenue Suite 285 Winter Park, Florida 32791 William E. Curphey Parker, Johnson, McGuire & Michaud 1300 Barnett Plaza 201 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Margaret Jones, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Ronald M. McElrath Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (“Walmart”), discriminated against Petitioner, Ramon Santiago Lopez (“Petitioner”), based upon his national origin or age, and/or terminated his employment in retaliation for engaging in protected activity, in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2016).1/
Findings Of Fact Walmart is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Walmart is a national retailer. Petitioner is a Cuban (Hispanic) male. He was 62 years old when he was hired by Walmart in November 2005 and was 72 years old at the time of his dismissal. Petitioner was initially hired to work at a store in Jacksonville, but transferred to Tampa. In June 2010, Petitioner requested a transfer back to Jacksonville and was assigned to Store 4444 on Shops Lane, just off Philips Highway and I-95 in Jacksonville. The store manager at Store 4444 was Scott Mallatt. Mr. Mallatt approved Petitioner’s transfer request and testified that he “very much” got along with Petitioner. Petitioner confirmed that he never had a problem with Mr. Mallatt. Petitioner testified that when he first started at Store 4444, he had no problems. After about four months, however, he began reporting to a supervisor he recalled only as “Lee.” Petitioner described Lee as “kind of a maniac.” Lee would harass Petitioner and give him impossible assignments to accomplish. Petitioner testified that he complained repeatedly to Mr. Mallatt about Lee’s abuse, but that nothing was ever done about it. Eventually, Petitioner gave up complaining to Mr. Mallatt. Mr. Mallatt testified that Petitioner never complained to him about being discriminated against because of his national origin or age. Petitioner apparently did complain about being overworked, but never tied these complaints to any discriminatory intent on the part of Lee. Petitioner testified that Lee no longer worked at Store 4444 in January 2016. From 2010 to 2015, Petitioner worked from 1:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. in various departments, including Grocery, Dairy, Paper, Pet, and Chemical. In 2015, Petitioner spoke with Mr. Mallatt about working at least some day shifts rather than constant nights. Mr. Mallatt approved Petitioner’s request. In August 2015, Petitioner was moved to the day shift in the Maintenance department. As a day associate, Petitioner typically worked from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Assistant Store Manager April Johnson transferred to Store No. 4444 in October 2015. Petitioner reported directly to Ms. Johnson. On January 14, 2016, Petitioner was scheduled to work from 8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. He drove his van into the parking lot of Store No. 4444 at approximately 7:58 a.m. He parked in his usual spot, on the end of a row of spaces that faced a fence at the border of the lot. Petitioner liked this spot because the foliage near the fence offered shade to his vehicle. Closed circuit television (“CCTV”) footage, from a Walmart camera with a partial view of the parking lot, shows Petitioner exiting his vehicle at around 8:00 a.m. Petitioner testified that he could see something on the ground in the parking lot, 50 to 60 meters away from where his van was parked. The CCTV footage shows Petitioner walking across the parking lot, apparently toward the object on the ground. Petitioner testified there were no cars around the item, which he described as a bucket of tools. Petitioner stated that the bucket contained a screwdriver, welding gloves, a welding face mask, and a hammer. The CCTV footage does not show the bucket. Petitioner crosses the parking lot until he goes out of camera range.3/ A few seconds later, Petitioner returns into camera range, walking back toward his car while carrying the bucket of tools. When Petitioner reaches his van, he opens the rear door, places the bucket of tools inside, then closes the rear door. Petitioner testified that after putting the tools in the back of his van, he went to the Customer Service Desk and informed two female African American customer service associates that he had found some tools and put them in his car. Petitioner conceded that he told no member of management about finding the tools. Walmart has a written Standard Operating Procedure for dealing with items that customers have left behind on the premises. The associate who finds the item is required to take the item to the Customer Service Desk, which functions as the “lost and found” for the store. Mr. Mallatt and Ms. Johnson each testified that there are no exceptions to this policy. Petitioner was aware of the Standard Operating Procedure. On prior occasions, he had taken found items to the Customer Service Desk. Petitioner conceded that it would have been quicker to take the bucket of tools to the Customer Service Desk than to his van. However, he testified that he believed that he could have been fired if he had taken the tools to the desk before he had clocked in for work. Petitioner cited a Walmart policy that made “working off the clock” a firing offense. It transpired that the policy to which Petitioner referred was Walmart’s Wage and Hour policy, which states in relevant part: It is a violation of law and Walmart policy for you to work without compensation or for a supervisor (hourly or salaried) to request you work without compensation. You should never perform any work for Walmart without compensation. This language is plainly intended to prevent Walmart from requiring its employees to work without compensation. Petitioner, whose English language skills are quite limited, was adamant that this policy would have allowed Walmart to fire him if he performed the “work” of bringing the tools to the Customer Service Desk before he was officially clocked in for his shift. Therefore, he put the tools in his van for safekeeping and informed the Customer Service Desk of what he had done. Petitioner was questioned as to why he believed it was acceptable for him to report the situation to the Customer Service Desk, but not acceptable for him to bring the tools to the desk. The distinction he appeared to make was that the act of carrying the tools from the parking lot to the desk would constitute “work” and therefore be forbidden, whereas just stopping by to speak to the Customer Service Desk associate was not “work.” The evidence established that Petitioner would not have violated any Walmart policy by bringing the tools to the Customer Service Desk before he clocked in. He could have been compensated for the time he spent bringing in the tools by making a “time adjustment” on his time card. Mr. Mallatt testified that time adjustments are done on a daily basis when associates perform work prior to clocking in or after clocking out. Petitioner merely had to advise a member of management that he needed to make the time adjustment. Mr. Mallatt was confident that the adjustment would have been granted under the circumstances presented in this case. Petitioner did not go out to retrieve the tools after he clocked in. Mr. Mallatt stated that employees frequently go out to their cars to fetch items they have forgotten, and that Petitioner absolutely would have been allowed to go get the tools and turn them in to the Customer Service Desk. Later on January 14, 2016, Ms. Johnson was contacted by a customer who said tools were stolen off of his truck.4/ Ms. Johnson had not heard anything about lost tools. She looked around the Customer Service Desk, but found no tools there. Ms. Johnson also called out on the store radio to ask if anyone had turned in tools. Finally, the customer service manager at the Customer Service Desk told Ms. Johnson that Petitioner had said something about tools earlier that morning. Ms. Johnson called Petitioner to the front of the store and asked him about the missing tools. Petitioner admitted he had found some tools in the parking lot and had placed them in his vehicle. Ms. Johnson asked Petitioner why he put the tools in his vehicle. Petitioner told her that he was keeping the tools in his car until the owner came to claim them. Ms. Johnson testified that Petitioner offered no other explanation at that time. He just said that he made a “mistake.” Ms. Johnson explained to Petitioner that putting the tools in his vehicle was not the right thing to do and that he should have turned them in to “lost and found,” i.e., the Customer Service Desk. Petitioner was sent to his van to bring in the tools. After this initial conversation with Petitioner, Ms. Johnson spoke with Mr. Mallatt and Mr. Cregut to decide how to treat the incident. Mr. Cregut obtained approval from his manager to conduct a full investigation and to interview Petitioner. Mr. Cregut reviewed the CCTV footage described above and confirmed that Petitioner did not bring the tools to the Customer Service Desk. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Cregut spoke with Petitioner for approximately an hour to get his side of the story. Petitioner also completed a written statement in which he admitted finding some tools and putting them in his car. Mr. Cregut described Petitioner as “very tense and argumentative” during the interview. As the interview continued, Mr. Cregut testified that Petitioner’s reaction to the questions was getting “a little bit more hostile [and] aggressive.” Mr. Cregut decided to try to build rapport with Petitioner by asking him general questions about himself. This tactic backfired. Petitioner volunteered that he was a Cuban exile and had been arrested several times for his opposition to the Castro regime. Petitioner then claimed that Mr. Cregut discriminated against him by asking about his personal life and prejudged him because of his activism. Mr. Cregut credibly testified that he did not judge or discriminate against Petitioner based on the information Petitioner disclosed and that he only asked the personal questions to de-escalate the situation. Mr. Cregut’s only role in the case was as an investigative factfinder. His report was not colored by any personal information disclosed by Petitioner. At the conclusion of the investigation, Mr. Mallatt made the decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment. The specific ground for termination was “Gross Misconduct – Integrity Issues,” related to Petitioner’s failure to follow Walmart policy by bringing the tools to the Customer Service Desk. Mr. Mallatt testified that his concern was that Petitioner intended to keep the bucket of tools if no owner appeared to claim them. Mr. Mallatt credibly testified that had Petitioner simply taken the tools to the Customer Service Desk, rather than putting them in his vehicle, he would have remained employed by Walmart. Walmart has a “Coaching for Improvement” policy setting forth guidelines for progressive discipline. While the progressive discipline process is used for minor and/or correctable infractions, such as tardiness, “serious” misconduct constitutes a ground for immediate termination. The coaching policy explicitly sets forth “theft” and “intentional failure to follow a Walmart policy” as examples of serious misconduct meriting termination. Petitioner conceded that no one at Walmart overtly discriminated against him because of his age or national origin. He testified that he could feel the hostility toward Hispanics at Store 4444, but he could point to no particular person or incident to bolster his intuition. Petitioner claimed that his dismissal was in part an act of retaliation by Ms. Johnson for his frequent complaints that his Maintenance counterparts on the night shift were not adequately doing their jobs, leaving messes for the morning crew to clean up. Ms. Johnson credibly testified that Petitioner’s complaints did not affect her treatment of him or make her want to fire him. In any event, Ms. Johnson played no role in the decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment. Petitioner’s stated reason for failing to follow Walmart policy regarding found items would not merit a moment’s consideration but for Petitioner’s limited proficiency in the English language. It is at least conceivable that someone struggling with the language might read the Walmart Wage and Hour policy as Petitioner did. Even so, Petitioner was familiar with the found items policy, and common sense would tell an employee that he would not be fired for turning in customer property that he found in the parking lot. At the time of his dismissal, Petitioner had been working at Walmart for over 10 years. It is difficult to credit that he was completely unfamiliar with the concept of time adjustment and truly believed that he could be fired for lifting a finger to work when off the clock. Walmart showed that in 2016 it terminated three other employees from Store 4444 based on “Gross Misconduct – Integrity Issues.” All three were under 40 years of age at the time their employment was terminated. Two of the employees were African American; the third was Caucasian. Petitioner offered no evidence that any other employee charged with gross misconduct has been treated differently than Petitioner. At the hearing, Petitioner’s chief concern did not appear to be the alleged discrimination, but the implication that he was a thief, which he found mortally offensive. It could be argued that Mr. Mallatt might have overreacted in firing Petitioner and that some form of progressive discipline might have been more appropriate given all the circumstances, including Petitioner’s poor English and his unyielding insistence that he never intended to keep the tools. However, whether Petitioner’s dismissal was fair is not at issue in this proceeding. The issue is whether Walmart has shown a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Petitioner’s employment. At the time of his dismissal, Petitioner offered no reasonable explanation for his failure to follow Walmart policy. Mr. Mallatt’s suspicion regarding Petitioner’s intentions as to the tools was not unfounded and was not based on any discriminatory motive. Petitioner offered no credible evidence disputing the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons given by Walmart for his termination. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Walmart’s stated reasons for his termination were a pretext for discrimination based on Petitioner’s age or national origin. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that his termination was in retaliation for his engaging in protected activity. The employee who was allegedly retaliating against Petitioner played no role in the decision to terminate his employment. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Walmart discriminated against him because of his age or national origin in violation of section 760.10.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 2018.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Superior Optical Shop (Respondent), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections 760.01– and 509.092, Florida Statutes, by subjecting Petitioner, Janice Jennings (Petitioner), to discrimination in employment and by discharging Petitioner in retaliation for Petitioner’s opposition to Respondent’s discriminatory employment practices.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female. Respondent is a corporation with its corporate headquarters located in Ocean Springs, Mississippi. Respondent operates an optical shop in a Veteran’s Administration (V.A.) Hospital located in Lake City, Florida. At its Lake City location, Respondent fills prescriptions written by eye physicians at the V.A. Hospital, assists patients with choosing frames, and fits patients with their prescription eye glasses. Respondent’s optical shop in Lake City is fast-paced, with a constant stream of patients, averaging 50-to-60 patients a day. If the optical shop is running behind schedule, it is problematic because often physicians at the V.A. Hospital are waiting to see the patients served by the optical shop. In 2009, Petitioner interviewed for a position at Respondent’s optical shop in Lake City, Florida. During her interview, Petitioner advised Respondent that she had competent computer skills and significant experience working in an office environment and with eye doctors. On May 27, 2009, Respondent hired Petitioner as a part- time clerk at the optical shop. Petitioner was terminated prior to working 90 days for Respondent. When Petitioner was hired, two full-time employees worked at the optical shop: office supervisor, Jean Hartup, and optician, Kathleen Denton. Ms. Hartup has been employed with Respondent for approximately five years. Ms. Denton has been with the optical shop for approximately two and a-half years. As office supervisor, Ms. Hartup can be distant with employees and “hard” at times. She can also be “direct” when speaking to employees. Ms. Hartup demonstrates these traits with all of the employees at the optical shop. Ms. Hartup has written up Ms. Denton in the past and the two have had personality conflicts. Both Ms. Hartup and Ms. Denton assisted with training Petitioner. Evidence indicated that Petitioner received adequate training to perform the tasks she was assigned to perform as a clerk. She often had to be re-trained on the same tasks. Respondent’s optical shop in Lake City is a very small room, approximately ten-feet by ten-feet square inside the V.A. Hospital. There are two small desks in the shop and it is very crowded. Petitioner was aware of the small working environment at the time she accepted employment with Respondent as a part- time clerk. Past and present employees at the optical shop have had to share desk space. Sometimes work has to be performed in the hallway because of the small office space. All new hires for Respondent are subjected to a 90-day probationary period. As explained in Respondent’s “Employee Handbook of Office Policies and Benefits,” of which Petitioner was aware: There will be a 90-day probationary period during which time the employer may terminate the employee at any time for any reason or for no reason regardless of any other provision of these policies. Sick leave and personal days are accrued but cannot be used during this period. Respondent’s Employee Handbook of Office Policies and Benefits also provides: [Respondent] does not and will not tolerate any employee discriminating against their work peers for any reason i.e., race, color, religion, sex, national origin or handicap. Any known verifiable discrimination will be grounds for immediate termination. Once on the job, Petitioner was not proficient on the computer and, despite repeated training, failed to show any improvement and was slow in performing her job duties. Because of this, service to patients at the optical shop slowed down and the optical shop was frequently behind, resulting in physicians having to wait for patients being served by the optical shop. Ms. Hartup became frustrated with Petitioner’s unsatisfactory job performance and the resulting delays. In addition, Petitioner began to show a lack of interest in her job and even stated that she “didn’t really need a job; she just wanted to be out of the house.” Despite repeated training and opportunities to improve her work performance, Petitioner failed to improve. Petitioner was given a notebook with information from the American Board of Opticians for review but she failed to read it or return it to Respondent. Prior to the end of her employment with Respondent, Petitioner called Respondent’s corporate headquarters in Mississippi and spoke to Mary Walker. Petitioner complained to Ms. Walker that Ms. Hartup was being too hard, was impatient, and was expecting too much of her. Petitioner did not raise concerns with Ms. Walker that she was being discriminated against based on her race, or that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment because of her race. In fact, there is no evidence that Petitioner ever complained of race discrimination or a hostile work environment based on race discrimination while she was still employed by Respondent. During that first telephone conversation with Petitioner, Ms. Walker suggested to Petitioner that she should talk to Ms. Hartup about the problems. Petitioner assured Ms. Walker that she would. Two days later, Ms. Walker called Ms. Hartup and inquired whether Petitioner had discussed her concerns with Ms. Hartup. Petitioner, however, had not spoken to Ms. Hartup about her complaint. Ms. Walker gave Ms. Hartup the authority to run the optical shop at Lake City, including making hiring and firing decisions. Ms. Walker did not discipline Ms. Hartup because of Petitioner’s complaints. Rather, Ms. Walker told Ms. Hartup to handle the situation regarding Petitioner’s complaints. Ms. Hartup then met with Petitioner and they spoke about Petitioner’s concerns that Ms. Hartup was being too harsh and about Petitioner’s poor work performance. As a result of that meeting, Ms. Hartup felt the situation had been resolved. Petitioner subsequently advised both Ms. Denton, as well as Ms. Walker at Respondent’s headquarters, that the conversation with Ms. Hartup had gone well and that their issues had been resolved. Petitioner’s work performance, however, did not improve. Prior to the end of her 90-day probationary period of employment, Respondent terminated Petitioner from employment for poor work performance, for failing to reach her capabilities as an employee, and because her poor work performance was a detriment to Respondent’s Lake City optical shop. Petitioner testified that, from her point of view, she truly felt as though she had been discriminated against because of her race. That testimony, however, was without further support and was unpersuasive, especially in view of the fact that there is no evidence that Petitioner ever mentioned to anyone during her employment with Respondent that she believed she was being discriminated against. There was otherwise no evidence presented at the final hearing that would support a finding that Respondent’s decision to terminate Petitioner was in retaliation for Petitioner’s complaint against Ms. Hartup. Further, the evidence produced at final hearing does not support a finding that either the manner in which Petitioner was treated during her employment with Respondent, or her termination from that employment, was based on Petitioner’s race. Respondent filled the position of part-time clerk left vacant after Petitioner’s termination by hiring a Native- American male.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner’s Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2010.
The Issue This case concerns the charges made by the Petitioner, City of Clearwater, Florida, against its employee Cleven Wyatt, Respondent, which lead to his termination and dismissal as an employee of that municipality. In particular, through charge one, the Respondent has been accused of violating Rule 14, Section 1(e) of the Civil Service Rules of Clearwater, Florida, by being offensive in his conduct toward a fellow employee. Through charge two, the Respondent is accused of committing a level five offense, within the meaning of the Guidelines for Disciplinary Action, City of Clearwater, Florida, in that he had an unauthorized possession of a knife on City property.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner in this action is a City of Clearwater, Florida, a municipality in the State of Florida which provides governmental services to the citizens within that community. Among its powers is the power to hire and dismiss employees and in keeping with that authority, the City has enacted Ordinance No. 1831 pursuant to Chapter 21153, Special Laws of Florida, 1941. This Ordinance deals with the Career Civil Service System for employees of the City of Clearwater and it sets forth the rights which an employee would have if that employee had been accused of misconduct. In this instance, the Respondent, Cleven Wyatt, has been charged and dismissed from his employment within the Career Civil Service System of the City of Clearwater under the alleged authority set out in the Issues statement of this Recommended Order, pertaining to charges one and two. In association with charge one, it has further been specified that, "at approximately 8:45 a.m., September 25, 1980, Mr. Wyatt, during a verbal exchange between himself and Billy Harbuck, heavy equipment operator, struck Harbuck in the face with his hands and thereafter pulled a knife and threatened Harbuck physically with the knife by using the words, 'I will cut you.'" Further, the specification to charge two states that, "at approximately 8:45 a.m., September 25, 1980, Mr. Wyatt pulled a knife and threatened Mr. Harbuck physically by using the words, 'I will cut you.'" Having been charged with these violations and in keeping with the remedy afforded, the Respondent, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1831, Section 2-38, of the City of Clearwater, Florida, he elected to have a Hearing Officer conduct a formal hearing to determine the accuracy of those charges placed against him. In turn, the City of Clearwater forwarded the case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for consideration. This arrangement was concluded pursuant to the contract between the Division of Administrative Hearings and the City of Clearwater, to provide a Hearing Officer for proceedings of this type. See Subsection 120.65(6), Florida Statutes. On December 15, 1980, the hearing was conducted. The facts in this case reveal that on the morning of September 25, 1980, the Respondent brought his sanitation truck to the transfer station to dump the contents of that vehicle. When he arrived at the transfer station he was approached by another employee, Billy Harbuck, who stepped up to the truck and began a conversation with Wyatt, in which he accused Wyatt of stealing watermelons that were planted in the area of the transfer station. Wyatt then got out of his truck and continued to engage in this conversation which became heated and in the course of the exchange, Wyatt accused Harbuck of "making love" with Harbuck's girlfriend while in the "break-room" of the transfer station. In addition to the verbal intensity of this dispute, there had been finger pointing by both parties and when Wyatt made his remark about Harbuck's alleged amorous adventures, Harbuck struck Wyatt on the shoulder and Wyatt in turn slapped Harbuck in the face. (It was not proven that Wyatt stole the watermelons. The facts did establish that Wyatt's claim related to Harbuck's social life with his girlfriend was a false claim, in that his visit with his companion did net involve sexual intercourse.) Following the physical encounter, the combatants armed themselves. The sequence of their arming was the subject of testimony in this cause in which there was extreme diversity of opinion among the several witnesses who gave testimony. Having reviewed that testimony at length with a view toward the interest in this case held by those witnesses and in particular the combatants and the resulting effect this has had on their creditability, it is unclear which individual armed himself first. However, it is certain that shortly after the blows were struck, Harbuck grabbed a metal stool from the ground. The stool was approximately three feet high and ten inches in diameter. It was also shown that Wyatt took a knife from his pocket and opened it and brandished the knife in the direction of Harbuck. At the time the Respondent and Harbuck took up their weapons, another employee, James Cheatum, stepped between them and grabbed the stool which Harbuck held in his hands and pushed Wyatt away from the affray. When he looked from Harbuck to the direction of Wyatt, he saw the knife in Wyatt's hand. Harbuck being unable to further pursue this circumstance by using the stool, he then grabbed a shovel which was in his vicinity, but was again unable to take further action because he was restrained by Cheatum and a second employee, Grover Wilson. At the time that Harbuck was attempting to pick up the shovel, Respondent still had his knife drawn. Both of the combatants expressed malice through their demeanor at the point where they were armed with the knife, stool and shovel, and both combatants were in fear of their opponent at that juncture. Neither individual attempted to strike the other individual with a weapon. Furthermore, the knife which the Respondent had possession was not a knife which he carried with him as a matter of course. It was a knife given to him by an employee of the City of Clearwater to make repairs on the Respondent's sanitation truck. After that aspect of the circumstance involving the shovel had occurred, the fight ended and at the insistence of the supervisor at the transfer station, the Respondent departed the area. He was later charged with the alleged acts of misconduct.
