Findings Of Fact Respondent, Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU), is a state university located in Tallahassee, Florida. Dr. Frederick S. Humphries is the President at FAMU. Dr. Richard A. Hogg is the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs at FAMU. The University offers a liberal arts education with majors in many areas, including physics. The University also offers masters and doctoral programs, as well as post-doctoral programs. Physics is one of the departments which offers post-doctoral opportunities. The Physics Department operates under the College of Arts and Science at FAMU. Dr. Aubry M. Perry is the Dean of the College of Arts and Science at FAMU. Dr. Charles A. Weatherford is a Professor of Physics and Chairman of the Physics Department. Neither faculty or staff members of the University can hire Petitioner for employment at FAMU. Such personnel however, could recommend that Petitioner be employed at FAMU. Only Dr. Humphries and Dr. Hogg had authority to hire Petitioner for employment at FAMU and to establish the terms and conditions of that employment. A breakdown of the courses taught in the Physics Department are as follows. General Physics is a Calculus based physics course for science and engineering majors and is extremely rigorous. The General Physics course is an extremely high visibility course and is the most important course in the Physics Department for which professors have to do the best job. Consequently, the strongest professors are going to teach this course. College Physics is a non-calculus based course that is taken principally by allied health majors and by biology majors who are not going into graduate biology study. College Physics is no nearly as rigorous as the General Physics course. Elements of Physics is also non-Calculus based service course required by FAMU to fulfill the requirements of general education. This course is below College Physics and basically requires simple Algebra and Trigonometry. Students enrolled in Elements of Physics are traditionally Pharmacy, Business and Architecture majors. Physical Science is the lowest level course in the Physics Department. This course is a service course for non-science majors. The Physical Science course encompasses several disciplines including physics, chemistry, geology, metorology, astronomy, earth science, and oceanography. The course is non- rigorous and requires very elementary Algebra and Trigonometry skills. The post-doctoral (post-doc) opportunities offered in the Physics Department are usually ties to grants or contracts for research which the University has received from a third party. The purpose of creating post- doctoral opportunities is to provide an opportunity for doctoral graduates to get experience that will enhance that person's resume and opportunity for getting a job in academia or elsewhere. Post-doc work enables a doctoral graduate to do research and develop research experience in the graduate's chosen filed of physics. Such research associates or adjunct professors are generally at the University under a specific grant or contract which pays that persons salary. In short, the position and money for post-doc come from a specific grant or contract. Therefore, once the grant or contract expires or is terminated the post-doc position expires or is terminated. Importantly, every grant or contract has a primary investigator (PI) responsible for contract administration and compliance. These PI's are responsible for the ultimate allocation of funds for work or activities which support the research contemplated under a given contract. However, these PI's cannot employ any post-doc, but can only recommend such employment and demonstrate that the position is provided and paid for in the contract or grant for which the PI is responsible. Relevant to this proceeding, were one contract and one grant for research between FAMU and the United States Air Force and FAMU and the United States Army, respectively. Petitioner, Indira Khurana, is a native of India. She received her Bachelors and Masters Degrees from Meerut University in India. In 1988, Petitioner received a Ph.D. in Physics from Roorkee University in India, specializing in Anatomic and Molecular Physics. After she had received her Ph.D., she worked as post-doctoral student for two (2) years and then lectured at Birla Institute of Technology and Science in India during the period of February, 1990, to July 1991. Between July, 1991, and January, 1992, Petitioner was with her husband in Vancouver, Canada and did not work. During Petitioner's stay with her husband in Vancouver, Petitioner was looking for another post-doc position in physics. In October of 1991, Petitioner wrote a letter to Dr. Ashok Jain applying for employment at FAMU and enclosed here curriculum vitae. Dr. Jain was then a Professor of Physics in the Physics Department on a tenure track. Petitioner wrote Dr. Jain because she saw a paper in the library that was published by Dr. Jain and Dr. Baluga and was interested in the work they were performing. Petitioner did not know Dr. Jain before coming to FAMU. However, she did know Dr. Baluga. In 1991, Dr. Jain was the Principal Investigator (PI) on a U.S. Air Force contract and a co-PI on a U.S. Army grant. In a letter dated October 8, 1991, Dr. Jain responded to Petitioner's letter and thanked Petitioner for her initial letter of inquiry and the enclosed vitae. Dr. Jain did discuss in the letter the possibility of a post doctoral position in April-May, 1992, or earlier. Dr. Jain did not mention in his letter that Petitioner would be employed for a period of two years at FAMU and indicated that Petitioner would be recommended for the position. Dr. Jain did not have authority to hire Petitioner for employment at FAMU. Dr. Jain could only recommend that Petitioner be hired at FAMU. Petitioner testified that later, in November of 1991, she received two (2) letters from Dr. Jain in the same envelope. The envelope was postmarked on November 7, 1991. One letter was dated November 1, 1991, and was written to Petitioner from Dr. Jain. The other letter was dated November 12, 1991, addressed to Dr. Eva C. Wanton, Dean, School of General Studies, FAMU, from Dr. Charles A. Weatherford, Professor and Chairman, Physics Department, College of Arts and Science, FAMU. Petitioner testified that it takes four (4) to five (5) days for mail to reach Vancouver, Canada, from Tallahassee, Florida, and that because the envelope was postmarked November 7, 1991, the two (2) aforementioned letters probably were received by her on November 12, 1991. Petitioner asserted that she did not discuss the contents of either of the letters with Dr. Jain. In the letter dated November 1, 1991, Dr. Jain indicated that a Research Associate Fellowship position was available which would be funded by the U.S. Air Force contract and U.S. Army grant. The amount of the fellowship was listed to be $23,000 for twelve (12) months. Dr. Jain did not mention in the November 1, 1991, letter that Petitioner would be employed with FAMU for a period of two (2) years. Dr. Jain did ask that Petitioner indicate whether she would accept the fellowship in writing as soon as possible and also indicate when she could join the Physics Department at FAMU. The November 12, 1991, letter to Dr. Wanton from Dr. Weatherford was for the sole purpose of supplying information to Dr. Wanton's office to begin the process of applying for a J1 visa for Petitioner. A J1 visa would permit Petitioner to enter the United States as long as she worked in a post-doc position at FAMU. The letter was prepared by Dr. Jain for Dr. Weatherford's signature and eventual approval by Dr. Perry. Dr. Weatherford signed the letter without seriously examining its contents. However, the evidence was clear that the letter was not an offer of employment to Petitioner or intended to be part of an employment contract involving Petitioner. Dr. Eva C. Wanton, Dean of School of General Studies, serves as the Responsible Officer for the Visiting Scholars Program at FAMU. As the Responsible Officer, Dr. Wanton prepares forms to invite scholars, students, and researchers to FAMU from foreign countries. Dr. Wanton has been the Responsible Officer at FAMU for twenty (20) years. Dr. Wanton's office assisted the Physics Department in obtaining a J1 visa for Petitioner. In order to obtain a J1 visa from Dr. Wanton's office, a letter must: (1) be submitted from the person wanting to invite the scholar, student or researcher to FAMU; (2) be signed by the dean of college or school inviting the individual; and (3) contain certain information that Immigration requires on the IAP-66 form such as place of birth, date of birth, the person's title in the country the individual is coming from. The IAP-66 forms are kept in a locked location in Dr. Wanton's office and are serially numbered for tracking purposes. Such security is necessary because the forms if stolen can be used by any person to gain entry to the United States. Once this letter is submitted in the manner described above, Dr. Wanton's office then can complete the IAP-66 form which is necessary to obtain a J1 visa. The November 12, 1991, letter met these criteria. The IAP-66 form is issued to the individual prior to the beginning of employment and is used to bring the individual into the United States. The IAP- 66 form is an immigration document not an employment document or contract. Dr. Wanton's office can only process and issue initial IAP-66 forms for a one (1) year period. The forms can be renewed up to three (3) years. However, Dr. Wanton's office only renews the form on an annual basis. One reason for the annual issuance and renewal of the IAP-66 forms is that FAMU only receives funding for research contracts and grants one year at a time. Dr. Wanton's office fills in the information on the IAP-66 form based on the letter requesting the J1 application. Dr. Wanton testified that the information contained in the request letter is used in filling out the IAP-66 form except for the employment period. Dr. Wanton also testified that the copy of the November 12, 1991, letter which Petitioner allegedly received but did not carry the actual signature of Dr. Perry, Dean of the College of Arts and Science, would not have been accepted by her office and would have been returned to Dr. Weatherford to obtain Dr. Perry's signature. The original version of the November 12, 1991, letter with Dr. Perry's actual signature does not indicate that he approved the contents of the letter but that he approved Petitioner to be considered for a J1 visa. After the IAP-66 form was completed for Petitioner, the form was picked up by someone from the Physics Department. The Physics Department was responsible for getting the IAP-66 form to Petitioner. The Physics Department did not receive the original or a copy of the November 12, 1991, letter from Dr. Wanton's office. The original letter was retained by Dr. Wanton's office. Petitioner explained that she though she was entitled to two (2) years of employment based on the copy of the November 12, 1991, letter from Dr. Weatherford to Dr. Wanton but which was not signed by Dr. Perry. However, Petitioner provided no substantial, competent evidence that she received the copy version of the letter dated November 21, 1991, from Dr. Weatherford to Dr. Wanton absent Dr. Perry's signature in the envelope postmarked November 7, 1991. Petitioner's assertion that she received that letter as previously indicated is not credible given the date on the letter, the mail time between Tallahassee and Vancouver the postmark of November 7, 1991, on the envelope and the fact that the November 12, 1991, letter was time-stamped received in the School of General Studies on November 13, 1991, at 1:33 p.m. Petitioner did received a copy of the version of the November 12, 1991, letter containing Dr. Perry's signature from Dr. Wanton's office in April of 1992. In any event, Petitioner, was under the mistaken impression that her research fellowship would be for two years. That impression came solely from Dr. Jain, who FAMU learned after the events of this case occurred had a tendency to overstate his authority and to think he had more authority than he, in fact, had. On the other hand, Petitioner acknowledged that she neither signed nor received a formal employment contract with FAMU that covered a period of two (2) years. Petitioner's counsel also stipulated to the fact that Petitioner had no formal employment contract with FAMU for a period of two (2) years. Petitioner testified that neither Dr. Humphries nor Dr. Hogg made her an offer of employment for a period of two (2) years. Further, Petitioner indicated that she provided a response to Dr. Jain's letter to her dated November 1, 1991, and to Dr. Weatherford's letter to Dr. Wanton dated November 12, 1991. Petitioner claimed that she sent two (2) letters of acceptance but that she did not have a copy of the first letter of acceptance. Petitioner also claimed that her letter to Dr. Jain, dated November 16, 1991, was the second letter of acceptance. In the November 16, 1991, letter, Petitioner indicated that she would fill the post-doc position in the first week of January, 1992. The letter did not mention a term of employment. No substantial, competent evidence was presented to support Petitioner's allegation that she had indeed sent two (2) letters of acceptance. Petitioner received an IAP-66 form from FAMU that covered a one year employment period of January 1, 1992, to December 31, 1992. Petitioner had to have this form and information to enter into the United States. The IAP-66 form listed the amount of Petitioner's salary to be $23,000.00 per year. Petitioner arrived in the United States on January 7, 1992, and started work at FAMU on the following day. Petitioner was issued and signed four (4) different formal employment contracts to cover the period of employment from January 7, 1992, to December 31, 1992, as a Research Associate. The aforementioned contracts expired by virtue of their own terms. These formal employment contracts had the appropriate approval signature of Vice President of Academic Affairs and Provost Richard Hogg, and recommending signatures of Dr. Franklin Hamilton, Dr. Aubrey Perry and Dr. Charles Weatherford. Petitioner was an Other Personal Services (OPS) employee who was paid $15.00 an hour. Petitioner also signed the FAMU Employment Eligibility Verification 1-9 Form, which stated that Petitioner's employment eligibility expired on December 31, 1992. As acknowledged by Petitioner and stipulated to by Petitioner's counsel, Petitioner received no benefits at FAMU other than her paycheck while employed. The evidence was clear that Petitioner was fully aware that FAMU's obligation to employ her ceased on December 31, 1992, even though she may have initially hoped for a longer term of employment before she came to the United States. On August 31, 1992, Petitioner filed a written complaint with the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs at FAMU. At that time the director of the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs at FAMU, was Ms. Mary R. Vaughn. Petitioner alleged that she had been sexually harassed by Dr. Jain. When Petitioner filed her complaint, she received from Ms. Vaughn a copy of Rule 6C3- 10.103, Florida Administrative Code, Discrimination and Harassment Complaint Procedures. Ms. Vaughn also provided Petitioner with FAMU's Policy Statement on Non-discrimination. FAMU's Policy Statement on Non-discrimination was also posted in the Physics Department and observed by Petitioner. Subsequently, Petitioner wrote a letter dated October 7, 1992, to Ms. Vaughn alleging that "retaliatory actions" had been taken against her since she had filed her complaint against Dr. Jain. The two (2) "retaliatory" issues mentioned in Petitioner's letter concerned her mail-slot and library photocopy card both of which had been taken away from her. The letter mentioned also the issues of the continuation of Petitioner's formal employment contract beyond December, 1992, that a salary balance of $600.00 was due to her, and that Dr. Jain had fraudulently charged $21.66 to her husband's telephone number in Vancouver, Canada. In conducting the investigation of Petitioner's complaint of sexual harassment and retaliation, Ms. Vaughn prepared one (1) report and submitted that report to Dr. Humphries pursuant to Rule 6C3-10.125, Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Vaughn's report addressed Petitioner's sexual harassment complaint and retaliation complaint. Ms. Vaughn found that Dr. Jain had sexually harassed Petitioner. She did not find that any retaliatory action had been taken by anyone in the Physics department other than Dr. Jain regarding her library card. Ms. Vaughn made several recommendations including that: (1) disciplinary action be taken against Dr. Jain in the manner of formal disciplinary action and that he be non-renewed as a professor; (2) Dr. Weatherford assume supervisory responsibility of Petitioner; (3) Petitioner's employment as a Research Associate be continued from January 1, 1993 to June 18, 1993, at a rate of $15.00 per hour; (4) Petitioner be provided with appropriate documentation to obtain a work visa extension through June 18, 1993; (5) Petitioner be re-issued a library photocopy card; (6) Petitioner be reassigned a mail-slot in the Physics Department; (7) Petitioner be paid the sum of $600.00; and (8) Petitioner pursue external remedies available to her by her telephone service carrier for appropriate credit to her personal telephone account. Ms. Vaughn prepared and signed a letter for Dr. Humphries dated December 16, 1992, which indicated that the University had determined that Petitioner's sexual harassment complaint had merit. Before signing the letter, Ms. Vaughn discussed the contents of the letter with Dr. Humphries. Dr. Humphries adopted the aforementioned recommendations contained in Ms. Vaughn's report in an attempt to be "more than fair" to Petitioner even though continuation of employment was not required. The December 16, 1992, letter outlines the actions that were taken to provide further remedy and to settle of Petitioner's complaint as based upon Ms. Vaughn's recommendations including the non-renewal of Dr. Jain. FAMU decided to non-renew Dr. Jain rather than terminate him because the process is easier than firing. Dr. Jain denied the sexual harassment and contested his non-renewal and more than likely would have contested any dismissal for the same reasons. FAMU's decision was upheld through the appeal including arbitration. However, irrespective of FAMU's decision to no-renew Dr. Jain as opposed to dismissal, Dr. Jain would have remained at FAMU pending the outcome of his employment litigation. In short, the fact that Dr. Jain remained at FAMU for a short time while Petitioner was still at FAMU was not a retaliatory action on the part of FAMU and FAMU attempted to alleviate the situation by placing Dr. Weatherford in a supervisory position over Petitioner. Dr. Weatherford wrote a letter evaluation of Petitioner, dated November 2, 1992, which was generated at Ms. Vaughn's request. In the letter, Dr. Weatherford evaluated Petitioner's work-performance on the U.S. Air Force contract for the year of 1992. This letter was based on an interview with Petitioner conducted by Dr. Weatherford to determine her knowledge of electron molecule scattering. Both Dr. Weatherford and Petitioner stated that the letter was a fair evaluation. The letter did factor into Ms. Vaughn's recommendation to extend Petitioner's employment on a review of the U.S. Air Force contract under which Petitioner was hired. The Army grant had expired. The U.S. Air Force contract required that technical effort must be completed no later than June 18, 1993. Petitioner was providing technical effort on the U.S. Air Force contract. Therefore, it was appropriate for Petitioner to continue her employment under that contract until its termination date on June 18, 1993. The fact that Petitioner was not extended further was not retaliatory since Petitioner was never entitled to employment beyond the term of the contracts she signed with FAMU and certainly not beyond the term of the remaining Air Force contract under which she had been employed in a post-doc capacity. There is simply no adverse employment action when an employment contract expires by its own terms. Petitioner's employment with FAMU was extended from January 1, 1993, to June 18, 1993. Petitioner also received a J1 visa for this period of time. Furthermore, Petitioner provided no substantial, competent evidence that Dr. Jain had authority to bind FAMU to employ Petitioner for a period of two (2) years. Dr. Jain and Dr. Weatherford could only recommend Petitioner for employment at FAMU. Petitioner also recognized that Dr. Jain alone could not hire her and that Dr. Jain had to get approval from others before she could be hired. Consequently, Petitioner suffered no adverse employment action because once Petitioner's formal employment contract came to an end the employment relationship between FAMU and Petitioner ceased to exist. Petitioner provided no competent, substantial evidence that she was retaliated against because her mail-slot was taken away. The mail-slot was not a guaranteed coemployment benefit, but was provided for the benefit of the University in its mail distribution system. In addition, the mail-slot was taken away. The mail-slot was not a guaranteed employment benefit, but was provided for the benefit of the University in its mail distribution system. In addition, the mail-slot issue was cured by Dr. Weatherford's letter dated November 5, 1992, to Petitioner indicating that her mail-slot had been reassigned due to a mail-slot shortage. The shortage was not shown to be pre- textual and is a valid reason for distributing scarce University resources. Additionally, the evidence was clear that Petitioner had indicated to the Physics Department secretary that she was worried that Dr. Jain was reading or tampering with her mail. The secretary volunteered to keep Petitioner's mail locked in her desk drawer instead of in a mail slot. Petitioner acquiesced in this action and ceased to use her mail slot for a short time. After her disingenuous complaint regarding the lack of a mail slot, Petitioner acknowledged that her mail slot was returned. Given these facts, the evidence was clear that no retaliatory action occurred in regards to Petitioner not having a mail slot for a short period of time. There was no substantial evidence which demonstrated that the remaining allegations of retaliatory actions contained in Petitioner's letter to Ms. Vaughn occurred because of retaliation on the part of FAMU. The $600.00 shortage in pay was not due to any retaliation and was paid. Admittedly, Dr. Jain attempted to reduce Petitioner's salary when she would not comply with his sexual requests. However, these efforts were part of the original sexual harassment complaint, were stopped and cannot be attributed to FAMU. As testified to by Petitioner and stipulated to by Petitioner's counsel, Petitioner's salary was not reduced while employed at FAMU. Petitioner's bi- weekly salary was $1,200.00 for the period of January 1, 1992, to June 18, 1993. Petitioner was paid $45,720.00 while employed at FAMU, which is $280.00 short of what she would have been paid if she had worked two (2) years for $23,000.00 for twelve (12) months. Petitioner also admitted to the fact that she was paid more money than originally agreed upon after her arrival to FAMU and that she was paid more money than $23,000.00 for twelve (12) months. The retaliation by Dr. Jain involving the phone call was personal retaliation on his part and was neither sanctioned nor condoned by FAMU and is not attributable to FAMU. Moreover, these issues were addressed and resolved in FAMU's handling and resolution of Petitioner's complaints to Ms. Vaughn. FAMU took appropriate action for an employer who has had such complaints brought to its attention and took appropriate steps to remedy the situation once it was aware of Dr. Jain's activity. No retaliatory action can be attributed to FAMU. In fact, Petitioner, wrote a letter dated January 4, 1993, to Ms. Vaughn. In that letter, Petitioner stated "Thank you very much for settling the matter and helping me in every way. I wish you a very happy new year." The matter that Ms. Vaughn had settled with reference to Petitioner was the sexual harassment complaint and the retaliation complaint. After January 4, 1993, Petitioner did not indicate to Ms. Vaughn that she was not satisfied with the decision rendered as a result of her sexual harassment complaint and retaliation complaint. Other than the aforementioned complaints, Petitioner stated that she did not file any formal complaints with Ms. Vaughn's office even though she was aware of the process. Petitioner wrote Dr. Weatherford a letter dated January 13, 1993, and indicated that she was interested in filling any openings of regular physics faculty positions available in the Fall of 1993. Petitioner admitted to the fact that she did receive a reply from Dr. Weatherford regarding her letter dated January 13, 1993, in which she requested consideration for a regular faculty position. Later, Petitioner met with Dr. Weatherford allegedly said that "University does not want to hire you." However, Petitioner provided no substantial, competent evidence that she was retaliated against because of an alleged statement by Dr. Weatherford. Petitioner's assertion is not credible given the testimony by Dr. Weatherford and Ms. Sonja Richardson, the Physics Department secretary, that the phrase "university does not want to hire you" is not consistent in the manner in which Dr. Weatherford speaks and was apparent from listening to Dr. Weatherford at hearing. Additionally, Dr. Weatherford denies making such a statement. Subsequently, Petitioner wrote Dr. Weatherford another letter dated April 2, 1993, stating among other things that she wanted to be considered for an adjunct faculty position in the Fall of 1993, and requested that her Research Associate assignment be extended until the beginning of Fall of 1993. In a letter dated April 5, 1993, Dr. Weatherford informed Petitioner that the regular physics faculty positions had not been released by the administration of FAMU and that, if those positions were released, she would be considered for such a position. Dr. Weatherford also explained that Petitioner's Research Associate position could not be extended beyond June 18, 1993. Dr. Weatherford further stated that Petitioner would be considered for an adjunct position for the Fall Semester of 1993. Petitioner admitted to the fact that she did receive Dr. Weatherford's letter dated April 5, 1993, and the he did in fact respond to her letter dated January 13, 1993. Petitioner testified that she taught for three (3) semesters at the Birla Institute of Technology and Science in India beginning February of 1991. While at Birla, Petitioner taught electronics, mathematical physics, optics and rail motion, physical science, and had three (3) labs. During her employment at FAMU, Petitioner testified that she taught two (2) labs in the Spring of 1992, and one (1) course and one (1) lab in the Fall of 1992, and two (2) labs in the Spring of 1993. Petitioner explained that she taught College Physics I and II, and Physical Science Lab repeatedly. Petitioner noted that there was a difference between a course and a lab. Petitioner admitted that the courses and labs she taught were lower level Physics. Petitioner's teaching experience only spanned six (6) semesters. In March of 1993, Dr. Robin Kennedy filled a tenure-track position in the Physics Department. Dr. Kennedy was a former post-doc of Dr. Jack Crow who is the Director of the High Magnetic Field Laboratory. Dr. Kennedy had been at FAMU for at least three (3) years prior to March of 1993. While at FAMU, Dr. Kennedy worked both as a post-doc and adjunct instructor. Furthermore, Dr. Kennedy established FAMU's Condensed Matter Laboratory. Petitioner introduced no evidence or testimony that she applied for this position. Furthermore, Petitioner failed to provide any substantial, competent evidence that she was more qualified than Dr. Kennedy to fill this position or that she suffered retaliation by not being hired to this position. In the Fall of 1993 no regular faculty positions were available. Petitioner provided no testimony or evidence to demonstrate otherwise. In the Fall of 1994, three (3) regular faculty members were hired including Dr. Mogus Mochena, Dr. Edsel Ammons and Dr. Marion Encinosa. Dr. Mochena was a post-doc at FAMU for at least a year and a half. Dr. Mochena worked part of his time directly with Dr. Weatherford. Dr. Mochena worked part of his time directly with Dr. Weatherford. Dr. Mochena taught as a Graduate Assistant at the University of California, Davis. Dr. Mochena taught General Physics at FAMU. Dr. Ammons has taught approximately twenty (2) years, with an extensive background in education. Half of Dr. Ammons twenty (2) years of teaching has been as a Ph.D. Dr. Ammons came for Ohio State University and was a post-doc with Dr. Ken Wilson. Dr. Wilson is a Nobel Prize winner. Dr. Ammons was recommended highly by Dr. Wilson. Dr. Ammons also had a favorable recommendation from Dr. Howard Isenburg of the National Science Foundation. Dr. Encinosa taught at FAMU in the early 1980's for three (3) or four (4) years and then returned in the late 1980's. By 1994, Dr. Encinosa had been at FAMU for some five (5) or six (6) years. Dr. Encinosa was and is an outstanding teacher. Because of his ability, he and Dr. Michael Threapleton were the only adjuncts who were allowed to teach a senior level physics course. The senior level physics course is above General Physics in course difficulty for teaching. While at FAMU, Dr. Encinosa has also taught Quantum Mechanics, Nuclear Physics, Statistics and an honors section of General Physics. During the Fall of 1993, Dr. Encinosa was a Visiting Assistant Professor. Petitioner introduced no evidence or testimony that she applied for those positions. Furthermore, Petitioner provided no substantial, competent evidence that she was more qualified than Dr. Mochena, Dr. Ammons or Dr. Encinosa to fill those positions, or that she suffered retaliation by not being hired to those positions. In hiring individuals to adjunct positions, Dr. Weatherford testified that he has to make an estimate, probable a month or two (2) months before each semester starts of what courses will be offered in the Physics Department. Individuals hired to adjunct positions are OPS employees. Providing such an estimate is complicated by the fact that FAMU and FAMU/FSU Engineering School continue to expand at a tremendous rate. Another factor that Dr. Weatherford has to consider is that he does not know, initially, how much money will be available to hire the OPS adjunct instructors. Dr. Weatherford also does not know what classes will materialize because class offerings are determined by the demand of the students taking the class or classes. Dr. Weatherford sends his estimates to Dr. Perry, Dean for the College of Arts and Sciences, who either accepts or rejects the estimate. Once a schedule of courses is finally completed and accepted, Dr. Weatherford explained that he has to get instructors aligned for the adjunct positions. Individuals are required to fill out formal applications forms and apply for the positions. A curriculum vitae is not an appropriate substitute for completing the formal application and is only a supporting document. Sometimes the paperwork has been completed and people do not get paid because the classes did not make. There have also been times when individuals have been selected to teach a course but cannot be found once classes are started. Consequently, the process in hiring adjunct instructors to teach in the Physics Department is precarious, at best. If Petitioner had applied for an adjunct instructor position, her employment could not have been verified until the projected need for a course or courses had been sufficiently determined. For the Summer Semester of 1993, Dr. Snezana Dalafave, Dr. Peter William and Dr. Mario Encinosa were hired as adjunct instructors to teach in the Physics Department. Regular faculty members have first dibs on adjunct instructor position and were also hired to teach during the Summer of 1993. Dr. Dalafave had been an adjunct instructor for at least a year. Dr. Dalafave was teaching about fourteen (14) to fifteen (15) contact hours. Fourteen (14) to fifteen (15) contact hours is considered full time. Dr. William taught as an adjunct for the first time at FAMU in the Fall of 1992. Before coming to FAMU, Dr. William had post-doc experience and had been working several years at the Super Computer Research Institute (SCRI). Dr. William received very high recommendations of the director of SCRI. Petitioner provided no substantial, competent evidence that she was more qualified than Dr. Dalafave, Dr. William, Dr. Encinosa or other regular faculty members to be hired as an adjunct instructor in the Physics Department for the Summer of 1993, or that she suffered retaliation by not being hired to any of these adjunct instructor positions were available after June 18, 1993, for the Summer Semester of 1993. Seven (7) adjunct instructors were hired in the Fall of 1993. Not all of the post-docs were Ph.D. holders but the majority of them were. The adjunct instructors hired were Dr. Salah Aziz, Dr. Mario Enciosa, Ms. Allison Haydel (Ph.D. student at FSU), Dr. Snezana Dalafave, Dr. Romision Nair, Dr. Z. Xiexu, and Dr. Michael Threapleton. All of these individuals had taught at FAMU in the Physics Department before the Fall of 1993 and had more teaching experience than Petitioner. Dr. Dalafave had taught full time for a full year at FAMU. Dr. Xiexu and Ms. Haydel had taught at FAMU for two (2) years. Dr. Aziz had four (4) years teaching experience at FAMU. Dr. Nair had taught at least five (5) years at FAMU. Dr. Threapleton had been teaching for five (5) years at FAMU. Dr. Encinosa had taught more than five (5) years at FAMU. None of the adjunct instructors who were hired in the Fall of 1993 were less qualified than Petitioner. Petitioner provided no substantial, competent evidence that she was more qualified than Dr. Aziz, Dr. Encinosa, Ms. Haydel, Dr. Dalafave, Dr. Nair, Dr. Xiexu or Dr. Threapleton as an adjunct instructor in the Physics Department for the Fall of 1993, or that she suffered retaliation by not being hired to any of these adjunct instructor positions. In sum, Petitioner presented no substantial, competent evidence that she was more qualified or senior than others who were hired to fill an adjunct or regular faculty position in the Physics Department in 1993 or 1994. Petitioner provided no substantial, competent evidence that Dr. Weatherford retaliated against her by accusing her of making international personal telephone calls from the Physics Department. The alleged accusation occurred in a November 2, 1992, letter from Dr. Weatherford to Ms. Vaughn. The letter was generated at the request of Ms. Vaughn for Dr. Weatherford to respond to Petitioner's letter of October 7, 1992, complaining of retaliation over phone calls by Dr. Jain charged to her husband. In order to respond, Dr. Weatherford reviewed the Department's phone records and noted many calls to the Vancouver area. The letter does mention Dr. Weatherford's concern about telephone calls made to Vancouver, the letter is not accusatory in nature. Furthermore, Petitioner admitted that she had made some personal telephone calls from the Physics Department and would reimburse FAMU for those charges. Petitioner also agreed that Dr. Weatherford's concerns were founded. Given these facts, no retaliation can be inputted to Dr. Weatherford and FAMU regarding alleged accusations of improper phone calls. Finally, Petitioner provided no substantial, competent evidence that she was retaliated against because she "was not allowed to attend an academic meeting at Reno." In fact, Petitioner testified that she could have gone to Reno, Nevada, if she had secured funding to cover the expenses of her trip or had paid for the trip herself. In short, the Petitioner was not prevented from going to Reno, Nevada and attending the conference. Petitioner's assumption that her trip to Reno would be funded through some grant or contract is unfounded especially when Petitioner did not even know whether funds were available at all to cover the expenses of such a trip. Dr. Weatherford testified that when Petitioner asked him about going to Reno he responded that he did not have access to funds to pay for her trip. As indicated by Petitioner in her testimony, attending academic meetings was not part of the employment agreement that she had with FAMU and was not a benefit of employment. Additionally, the lack of funds is a legitimate reason not to send someone to Reno, Nevada for an academic conference. Although Petitioner stated that she did not get a reference letter from Dr. Weatherford, Petitioner did list Dr. Weatherford as a reference on her Curriculum Vitae. Dr. Weatherford testified that he never wrote any letters of recommendation for Petitioner because she never asked him to do so. Petitioner failed to provide any substantial, competent evidence to rebut Dr. Weatherford's testimony. Petitioner, however, did receive a letter of recommendation from Ms. Vaughn, Executive Assistant to the President and Director of FAMU Equal Opportunity Programs per Petitioner's written request. Petitioner acknowledged that Ms. Vaughn gave her a good reference letter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of Record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations denying and dismissing the Petition of Relief filed by Indira Khurana in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED: this 31st day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The facts contained in paragraphs 1-14 and 16-35 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 15 and 36 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 11-12, 17 and 32 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 3, 9, 10, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraphs 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30, 31, 33, 34 and 35 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraphs 28 and 29 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are irrelevant and immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: David Brooks Kundin, Esquire 906 Thomasville Road Post Office Box 430 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Bishop C. Holifield, Esquire Avery D. McKnight, Esquire Florida A & M University Office of the General Counsel 300 Lee Hall Tallahassee, Florid 32307 Ronald M. McElrath Executive Director 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact On or about September 25, 2010, Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination against Respondent with the FCHR. Pursuant to the FCHR's procedure, an investigation of the matter was completed, that resulted in a Notice of Determination: No Cause. Essentially, the FCHR found that based upon the allegations raised by Petitioner there was no reasonable cause to believe an unlawful employment practice occurred. Thereafter, Petitioner elected to file a Petition for Relief to challenge the determination, and to seek relief against Respondent for the alleged violation. The FCHR forwarded the matter to DOAH for formal proceedings. DOAH issued a Notice of Hearing on April 15, 2011, that was provided to all parties at their addresses of record. It is presumed, the parties received notice of the hearing date, time, and location. In fact, counsel for both parties did appear. Prior to the hearing, the parties engaged in discovery and Petitioner participated in a deposition on or about May 24, 2011. It is undisputed that Petitioner knew or should have known of the hearing date, time, and place.
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 claim of discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 W. John Gadd, Esquire The Law Offices of W. John Gadd 2727 Ulmerton Road, Suite 250 Clearwater, Florida 33762 Glenn Michael Rissman, Esquire Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler, Alhadeff & Sitterman, PA 200 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 2100 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this matter is whether the Petitioner was terminated from employment with the Respondent because of her race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black female and is a member of a protected class. Respondent employed Petitioner at the time of the alleged discrimination. Petitioner was employed by Respondent for approximately three and a half months, from her date of hire on December 17, 1994, through her date of termination on March 30, 1995. She was fired for insubordination. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA). Her responsibilities as a CNA included taking care of patients and cleaning the facility. Her direct supervisor was Barbara Jean Gossett. Petitioner claims she was fired because of her race, alleging disparate treatment. To support this allegation, Petitioner cited an example of a white female who was having problems with her baby, whom Petitioner testified was sick, and that the white employee would come in for work when she was ready. Petitioner alleges the employee often reported late for work. Petitioner does not know the name of the employee, does not know who the white female talked to about reporting to work, and was not involved in any decision about whether the white female could or could not report late as a result of her child's ailments. Petitioner presented no other evidence or documents to support this allegation. Petitioner, when asked for any other basis for her claim of discrimination, cited an example of a woman who she claims never did what she was required to do, although she said the woman was in charge. Petitioner presented no other evidence or documents to support this allegation. Petitioner also alleges she was fired because of her race based on the way her supervisor, Barbara Jean Gossett, acted toward her. Petitioner also cited the varying way her supervisor verbalized instructions to the black and white staff. During examination by Respondent's counsel, Petitioner acknowledged receipt of Respondent's employee handbook on her first day of employment. She acknowledged that the purpose of the handbook is to notify employees of the rules and expectations and also to provide notice of behaviors that would lead to discipline or termination. She admitted that, based on the handbook, she knew what kind of behaviors were appropriate and what were considered inappropriate. She admitted that in the setting of a nursing home, punctuality was important. Petitioner admitted that there was a progressive disciplinary schedule in place for tardiness. She further admitted that under the schedule in place during her employment, an employee who was late seven or more times in a 90-day period would be fired. The supervisor, whom Petitioner claims was racist, however, did not fire Petitioner as the policy permitted. In fact, that same supervisor recommended a discretionary merit increase for Petitioner. Petitioner's performance evaluations show that as of March 14, 1995-approximately three months into her employment- she had been tardy nine times, absent three times, and had a performance rating below standard, which was the lowest rating permitted by the evaluation form. On March 29, 1995, Petitioner refused to clean an assigned work area during her shift. The employee handbook Petitioner received lists refusing a job assignment as number one on the list of behaviors that can lead to immediate termination and for which there is no progressive disciplinary schedule (as there is for tardiness and certain other offenses). As noted, Petitioner was fired for this incident. Finally, Petitioner admitted that she signed her Charge of Discrimination on June 18, 1996, and that it was filed June 20, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the 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. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of October, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER 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 11th day of October, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Joann Annichianrico Tandem Healthcare, Inc. Cherrington Corporate Center 200 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 360 Moon Township, Pennsylvania 15108 Josephine Hayes Davis Route 4, Box 4699-M Monticello, Florida 32344 James Garrity, Esquire McConnaughay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street Post Office Drawer 229 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0229 Azizi M. Dixon, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issues in this case are whether, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Respondent terminated Petitioner on the basis of her sex or age, or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity; and whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment based on her sex or age.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Frito-Lay, Inc. ("Frito-Lay"), makes and sells snack foods, including many familiar brands of chips. Petitioner Frances G. Danelli ("Danelli") is a former employee of Frito-Lay. Frito-Lay initially hired Danelli in or around 1998 as a packer for its West Valley, Utah, plant. When Danelli's husband was transferred to Florida, she took a job for Frito-Lay in Pompano Beach, Florida, and later moved to the company's West Palm Beach Distribution Center as a route sales representative ("RSR"). Danelli worked in Florida as a Frito-Lay RSR for more than 15 years, and her routes eventually included such large stores as Publix, Walmart, Winn-Dixie, and Target.1/ RSRs sell and deliver Frito-Lay products to retail stores, and these stores, in turn, sell the products to consumers. RSRs are responsible, as well, for presenting the company's products to shoppers in the best way possible to increase sales. So, RSRs not only sell and deliver products to stores, but they also unload the products, stock the shelves, set up displays, and remove unsold items whose sell-by dates have expired. RSRs are paid an hourly wage plus commissions. RSRs are required to compete for sales against other companies' vendors, who (like Frito-Lay's personnel) are trying to place as many of their products as possible onto the shelves of the snack food aisle. Shelf space is essential for growing sales, and competition for product placement can be fierce. There is no dispute that Danelli's performance as an RSR was fine, perhaps even exemplary. Frito-Lay considered her to be a good employee. Danelli went to work early each morning, usually arriving at the warehouse by 4:00 a.m. so that she could get to her first store by 5:00 a.m., which would give her a head start on other vendors. When Danelli got to the warehouse, she would clock in on her handheld computer, which she also used to track the goods she delivered to each store. Upon returning to the warehouse, she had paperwork to complete and print from the handheld computer. In 2013, Frito-Lay started requiring drivers of delivery trucks over a certain size, including RSRs such as Danelli, to comply with U.S. Department of Transportation ("DOT") regulations. As relevant, these regulations require an RSR to take at least a ten-hour break before driving a commercial vehicle, and they prohibit an RSR from driving a commercial vehicle after 14 consecutive hours on duty. Frito-Lay programmed its employees' handheld computers so that an employee subject to the DOT regulations would receive a conspicuous warning if he or she attempted to clock in to work less than ten hours after last going off duty. As Danelli testified at hearing, if the computer told her to wait, she would go to the warehouse, pick up some product, fix her truck, and then sign in when the handheld said she could go. Evidently, however, to get the warning, an employee needed to log on as a "regulated" employee; if, by mistake, a "regulated" employee logged on as "non-regulated," she would not get the warning. Danelli found it difficult to comply with the DOT regulations, which led to Frito-Lay's imposing discipline against her in accordance with the company's Corrective Action Process set forth in its Sales National RSR Handbook, which governed Petitioner's employment. The handbook prescribes a process of progressive discipline that begins with "coaching," which is a form of pre- discipline. As the name suggests, a "coaching" is, essentially, a nondisciplinary intervention whose purpose is to correct an issue before the employee's conduct warrants stronger measures. If coaching is ineffective, the Corrective Action Process calls for increasingly severe steps of discipline. The steps of discipline consist of a Step 1 Written Reminder, a Step 2 Written Warning, a Step 3 Final Written Warning, and a Step 4 Termination. The particular discipline to be imposed depends upon the severity of the infraction and the step of discipline, if any, the employee happens to be on when the infraction is committed. Steps of discipline remain "active" for six to nine months, depending on the step. If the employee does not commit any further disciplinary infractions during the active period, the step "falls off." If the employee commits another disciplinary infraction within the "active" period, however, he or she moves to the next disciplinary step in the Corrective Action Process. On June 5, 2014, after having previously been coached to maintain compliance with the DOT regulations, Danelli received a Step 1 Written Reminder for four violations of the 10-hour rule. She did not appeal this discipline. On July 25, 2014, Danelli received a Step 2 Written Warning for a new violation of the 10-hour rule. Once again, Danelli did not appeal the discipline. On October 7, 2014, Danelli was given another coaching, during which she was informed that (i) an investigation into her DOT hours was in process, and (ii) the company was concerned that she might be getting assistance on her route from her husband in violation of the RSR Performance Standards. On January 27, 2015, Danelli received a Step 3 Final Written Warning for violating the 14-hour rule. She did not appeal this discipline. Under the Corrective Action Process, a Step 3 Final Written Warning remains "active" for nine months and is the final step prior to a Step 4 Termination. On May 2, 2015, Danelli committed another DOT violation. Because she was already on a Step 3 Final Written Warning, she was suspended pending further investigation. Danelli maintains that this violation, and others, resulted from her making a simple mistake with the handheld computer, namely failing to log on as a "regulated" employee, which cost her the electronic warning she otherwise would have received. She points out, too, that in this instance, the violation was minor, merely clocking in ten minutes early. These arguments are not wholly without merit, and if Frito-Lay had fired Danelli for a single, ten-minute violation of the DOT regulations, the undersigned would question the company's motivation. But that is not what happened. Danelli did not just violate the ten-hour rule once or twice, but many times, after multiple warnings, and in the face of increasingly serious disciplinary steps. Further, Frito-Lay did not terminate Danelli's employment over this latest violation of the ten-hour rule, even though it would have been justified in doing so within the parameters of the Corrective Action Process. Instead, the company placed Danelli on a Last Chance Agreement. Last Chance Agreements are not specifically provided for in the Corrective Action Process but are used, at the company's discretion, as a safety valve to avoid the occasional unfortunate termination that might result from strict adherence to rigid rules. In this regard, the agreement given to Danelli, dated May 15, 2015, stated as follows: We strongly considered [terminating your employment]. However, due to the unique facts and circumstances involved here, as well as your 15 years of service with the Company, the Company is willing to issue this Last Chance Warning. This step is over and above our normal progressive disciplinary process, and is being issued on a one-time, non-precedent setting basis. . . . [A]ny subsequent violations by you may result in discipline up to and including immediate termination. More specifically, any future violations [of the DOT regulations] will result in your immediate termination. As Danelli put it, the Last Change Agreement was a "sign of grace" from Frito-Lay. By its terms, it was intended to be "active and in effect for a period of 12 months." The undersigned pauses here to let the Last Chance Agreement sink in, because the fact that Frito-Lay did not fire Danelli in May 2015 when——for objective, easy-to-prove reasons, after a by-the-book application of progressive discipline——it clearly could have, is compelling evidence that the company was not harboring discriminatory animus against Danelli. After all, if Frito-Lay had wanted Danelli gone because of her age or her gender, why in the world would the company not have jumped at this golden opportunity, which Danelli had given it, to fire her with practically no exposure to liability for unlawful discrimination? The irony is that by showing mercy, Frito-Lay set in motion the chain of events that led to this proceeding. In or around November of 2015, Danelli underwent surgery, which required her to take some time off of work. For several years before this leave, Danelli's route had consisted of a Super Walmart and two Publix stores. When she returned, the Super Walmart had been assigned to another RSR, and to make up for its loss, Danelli's supervisor, Stanley Gamble, put a third Publix grocery on Danelli's route, i.e., Publix #1049 located in Tequesta, Florida. Danelli was acquainted with one of the managers at the Tequesta Publix, a Mr. Morgan. On her first day back, Danelli and Mr. Gamble went to that store, where Mr. Morgan told Mr. Gamble that he was "glad Frances is here." Mr. Morgan had complained to Mr. Gamble about the previous RSR, who left the store "all messed up," according to Mr. Gamble. Danelli also met Sarah Oblaczynski, the store's "backdoor receiver," which is the Publix employee who checks in merchandise. On her new route, Danelli usually went to the Tequesta store first, early in the morning. She soon ran into a vendor named Tony who worked for Snyder's of Hanover ("Snyder's"), a snack food company that competes with Frito-Lay. From the start, Tony was nasty to Danelli and aggressive, telling her that "there is no space" for two vendors. Tony was possessive about shelf space within the store, as well as the parking space close to the store's loading dock. Danelli thought, because of Tony's behavior, that he might be using drugs. On Tuesday, April 6, 2016, Petitioner had an argument with Tony over the shelf space that the store manager previously had awarded to her for the display of Frito-Lay products. Tony asserted that he had been promised the same space and said to Danelli, "You're going to take that stuff out of the shelf." Danelli told him, "No, Morgan said that's still my space." At this, Tony began cursing and pushed Danelli's cart into her, yelling, "That fucking Morgan!" Danelli later spoke to Mr. Morgan, who assured Danelli that the shelf space in question was hers and said he would leave a note to that effect for Ms. Oblaczynski. There is a dispute as to when Danelli reported the forgoing incident to Frito-Lay. She claims that, before the end of the day on April 6, she told Mr. Gamble, her supervisor, all about the matter, in detail, and requested that someone be assigned to accompany her on her route the next day because Tony planned on taking her shelf space. According to Danelli, Mr. Gamble just laughed and said he did not have anybody to help her. Mr. Gamble testified, to the contrary, that Danelli had neither reported the April 6, 2016, incident to him nor asked for any assistance. (Danelli admits that she did not report the incident to Mr. Canizares, sales zone director, or to Human Resources ("HR")). Without written documentation regarding this alleged discussion, it is hard to say what, if anything, Danelli reported on April 6, 2016. It is likely that Danelli did complain to Mr. Gamble about Tony on some occasion(s), and might well have done so on April 6. What is unlikely, however, is that Danelli notified Mr. Gamble that she felt she was being sexually harassed by Tony. Tony's boorish and bullying behavior, to the extent directed at Danelli, seems to have been directed to her qua competitor, not as a woman. At the very least, the incident is ambiguous in this regard, and one could reasonably conclude, upon hearing about it, that Tony was simply a jerk who resorted to juvenile antics in attempting to gain the upper hand against a rival vendor. The undersigned finds that if Danelli did speak to Mr. Gamble about Tony on April 6, he—— not unreasonably——did not view the incident as one involving sexual harassment. As far as Mr. Gamble's declining to provide Danelli with an escort, assuming she requested one, his response is reasonable if (as found) Mr. Gamble was not clearly on notice that Danelli believed she was being sexually harassed. Danelli, after all, was by this time an experienced and successful RSR who undoubtedly had encountered other difficult vendors during her career. Indeed, as things stood on April 6, a person could reasonably conclude that Danelli in fact had the situation under control, inasmuch as Mr. Morgan had clearly taken Danelli's side and intervened on her behalf. What could a Frito-Lay "bodyguard" reasonably be expected to accomplish, which would justify the risk of escalating the tension between Tony and Danelli into a hostile confrontation? During the evening of April 6, 2016, Danelli talked to her husband about the problem at Publix #1049, and they decided that he would accompany her to the store the next morning before reporting to his own work, to assist if Tony caused a scene. On April 7, 2016, Danelli's husband drove to Publix #1049 in his own vehicle. Although no longer an employee of the company, Danelli's husband entered the store wearing a Frito-Lay hat, and he stayed in the snack aisle while Danelli went to the back to bring the order in. Ms. Oblaczynski, the receiver, presented Tony with a note from Mr. Morgan stating that Danelli's products and sales items were assigned to aisle one. In response, Tony started swearing about Mr. Morgan and the denial of shelf space, made a hand gesture indicative of a man pleasing himself, and told Ms. Oblaczynski that "they can take a fly[ing] F'n leap." Tony had made this particular hand gesture about Mr. Morgan on a number of previous occasions, in front of both men and women. Mr. Danelli left to go to work once Danelli's product was placed, and she left to go to the next store on her route. When Danelli returned to the warehouse, she went to Mr. Gamble's office and told him about the April 7, 2016, incident. According to Danelli, Mr. Gamble laughed in response. Danelli asked Mr. Gamble if the company would conduct an investigation, and he said yes. She recalls that every day thereafter, she asked Mr. Gamble if he had heard anything because she thought "we [Frito-Lay] were investigating" and that HR was on top of it. Danelli admits, however, that she "intentionally" did not tell Mr. Gamble that her husband had accompanied her to Publix #1049 to assist her in the store that morning. She did not report this detail because she knew it was "bad." In conflict with Danelli's account, Mr. Gamble testified that Danelli did not report that Tony made a sexual gesture in front of her or used coarse or profane language in her presence on April 7, 2016. The undersigned finds that Mr. Gamble most likely did not laugh at Danelli or otherwise treat her dismissively upon hearing her report of the incident. If Mr. Gamble had believed the matter were so trivial or amusing, he would not likely have agreed to investigate. The undersigned finds, further, that however Danelli described the incident, she did not make it clear to Mr. Gamble that she perceived Tony's behavior as a form of sexual harassment. Danelli did not make a formal written complaint to that effect at the time, and the situation at Publix #1049 was, at the very least, ambiguous. More likely than not, Mr. Gamble viewed the troublesome vendor from Snyder's as an unwelcome business problem to be dealt with, not as a perpetrator of unlawful, gender-based discrimination. To elaborate, putting Tony's "sexual gesture" to one side momentarily, the rest of his conduct, even the cursing, while certainly objectionable, is not suggestive of sexual harassment; it is just bad behavior. Tony's temper tantrums and outbursts no doubt upset Danelli and others, but that does not turn them into gender discrimination. Further, Danelli seems to have handled the situation well until she resorted to self-help on April 7, 2016. The responsible Publix employees were already aware of the problem, and in due course, they complained to Snyder's, which unsurprisingly removed Tony from that store. Meantime, had Danelli felt physically threatened or afraid as a result of Tony's more aggressive antics, she (or Publix) could have called the police; this, indeed, would have been a safer and more reasonable alternative to bringing along her husband or another civilian for protection, which as mentioned above posed the risk of provoking a fight, given Tony's volatility. Ultimately, it is Tony's "sexual gesture" that provides a colorable basis for Danelli's sexual harassment complaint. But even this gives little grounds for a claim of discrimination, without more context than is present here. To be sure, the "jerk off gesture" or "air jerk" is obscene, and one would not expect to see it in polite company or in the workplace. Yet, although it clearly mimics a sexual practice, the air jerk is generally not understood as being a literal reference to masturbation. That is, the gesture is not typically used to convey a present intention to engage in masturbation or as an invitation to perform the act on the gesturer. Rather, the jerk off gesture usually signifies annoyance, disgust, disinterest, or disbelief. As with its cousin, the "finger" (or bird) gesture, the sexual connotations of the air jerk are (usually) subliminal. Here, there is no allegation or evidence that Tony's jerk off gesture was undertaken in pursuit of sexual gratification or was intended or perceived as a sexual advance on Danelli (or someone else)——or even as being overtly sexual in nature. (Obviously, if the evidence showed that, under the circumstances, Tony was, e.g., inviting Danelli to participate in sexual activity, this would be a different case. The undersigned is not suggesting, just to be clear, that the air jerk gesture is inconsistent with or could never amount to sexual harassment, but only that it is not unequivocally a sign of such harassment, given its commonly understood meanings.) To the contrary, it is clear from the surrounding circumstances that Tony made the gesture to indicate that he regarded Mr. Morgan's note as pointless and annoying. It was roughly the equivalent of giving them the bird, albeit arguably less contemptuous than that. For these reasons, the undersigned finds it unlikely that, assuming Danelli described the gesture (which is in dispute), Mr. Gamble thought Danelli was complaining about sexual harassment, as opposed to a very difficult vendor. On April 13, 2016, Mr. Gamble visited Publix #1049 and spoke to Ms. Oblaczynski about the situation. During this conversation, Ms. Oblaczynski stated that the "Frito-Lay people" did nothing wrong. She further specified that "the person [Danelli] had with her did nothing wrong." After speaking with Ms. Oblaczynski, Mr. Gamble met with Danelli while she was servicing her second account. Right off the bat, Mr. Gamble asked Danelli who was with her at Publix #1049 on April 7, 2016. She eventually admitted that her husband was with her in the store that day. Aware of the seriousness of her offense and the active Last Chance Agreement, Danelli asked Mr. Gamble, several times, if she would be fired. That same day, Mr. Gamble called Carlos Canizares to tell him what he had learned. Mr. Canizares instructed Mr. Gamble to stay with Danelli while she finished servicing her accounts and then to obtain a written statement from her about the incident. Later on April 13, 2016, Danelli provided a written statement in which she confirmed that her husband had been working with her at Publix #1049 the previous week. Danelli has since described this statement as a "full written account of the harassment [and] rude sexual gestures." Danelli knew, of course, that HR would review her statement, and yet she said nothing therein about having complained to Mr. Gamble or any supervisor about harassment generally or Tony in particular; about Tony's use of course or improper language; or about having requested an escort to help keep Tony in line. On the instructions of the company's HR department, Mr. Gamble conducted an investigation into the "rude sexual gesture" about which Danelli had complained. Specifically, he called Mr. Morgan, the Publix manager, and asked him about the incident. Mr. Gamble also requested that he be allowed to review any videotapes and documents concerning the incident. Mr. Morgan informed Mr. Gamble that Publix was investigating the matter. Mr. Gamble's request to allow Frito-Lay access to Publix videotapes and documents was, however, turned down. Tony's boorish behavior aside, the fact remained that Danelli, without prior approval, had allowed a non-employee to perform work or services for Frito-Lay at one of the stores on her route, which the RSR Performance Standards specifically prohibit without express authorization. RSRs who are found to have permitted non-employees to accompany them on their routes are either discharged or issued multiple steps of discipline, as Danelli knew. Because Danelli violated this rule while on an active Last Chance Agreement, Frito-Lay decided to terminate her employment. On April 26, 2016, Mr. Canizares met with Danelli to inform her that she was fired. Danelli timely appealed her termination pursuant to the company's Complaint and Appeal Procedure, electing to have her appeal decided by a neutral, third-party arbitrator. The arbitration hearing took place in January 2017. Three months later, the arbitrator ruled that Danelli's termination had been proper and carried out in accordance with Frito-Lay's employment policies. Danelli does not presently deny that she violated the DOT regulations and the company policy forbidding the use of non-employees as helpers while on duty, nor does she dispute that Frito-Lay had sufficient grounds for imposing the disciplinary steps leading to the Last Chance Agreement. Indeed, she does not contend that it would have been wrongful for Frito-Lay to have fired her in May 2015 instead of offering the Last Chance Agreement. Her position boils down to the argument that because Frito-Lay could have exercised leniency and not fired her for bringing her husband to work at Publix #1049 (which is probably true2/), its failure to do so can only be attributable to gender or age discrimination. Put another way, Danelli claims that but for her being a woman in her 50s, Frito-Lay would have given her another "last chance." This is a heavy lift. As circumstantial evidence of discrimination, Danelli points to the company's treatment of another RSR, a younger man named Ryan McCreath. Like Danelli, Mr. McCreath was caught with a non-employee assisting him on his route. Unlike Danelli, however, Mr. McCreath was not on any active steps of discipline at the time of the incident, much less a Last Chance Agreement. Although Mr. McCreath's disciplinary record was not unblemished, Frito-Lay did not terminate his employment for this violation of the RSR Performance Standards. Instead, he received three steps of discipline and was issued a Final Written Warning. Mr. McCreath's situation is distinguishable because he was not under a Last Chance Agreement at the time of the violation. Moreover, it is not as though Mr. McCreath got off scot-free. He received a serious punishment. Danelli could not have received a comparable punishment for the same offense because she was already beyond Step 3; her record, unlike his, did not have room for the imposition of three steps of discipline at once. The McCreath incident does not give rise to a reasonable inference that Frito-Lay unlawfully discriminated against Danelli when it terminated her employment for committing a "three-step violation" while on an active Last Chance Agreement. There is simply no reason to suppose that if Danelli, like Mr. McCreath, had not had any active steps of discipline when she violated the rule against having non- employees provide on-the-job assistance, Frito-Lay would have terminated her employment for the April 7, 2016, infraction; or that if Mr. McCreath, like Danelli, had been on a Last Chance Agreement when he violated the rule, Frito-Lay would have issued him a Final Written Warning in lieu of termination. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no persuasive evidence that any of Frito- Lay's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Danelli, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by age- or gender-based discriminatory animus. Indeed, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of unlawful age or gender discrimination could be made. There is no persuasive evidence that Frito-Lay took any retaliatory action against Danelli for having opposed or sought redress for an unlawful employment practice. There is no persuasive evidence that Frito-Lay committed or permitted sexual harassment of Danelli or otherwise exposed her to a hostile work environment. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that Frito-Lay did not discriminate unlawfully against Danelli on any basis.
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 Frito-Lay not liable for gender or age discrimination, retaliation, or creating a hostile work environment. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 11th day of July, 2018.
The Issue The issue is whether this case should be dismissed based on Petitioner's failure to appear at the hearing and apparent intent to withdraw her request for an administrative hearing.
Findings Of Fact The Notice of Hearing in this case was issued on May 22, 2012, setting the hearing for July 17, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., by video teleconference at sites in Tallahassee and Fort Myers, Florida. Also, on May 22, 2012, an Order of Pre-hearing Instructions was entered. Respondent timely complied with the pre-hearing requirements by filing a witness list and exhibit list and tendering its proposed exhibits, all of which were served on Petitioner. Petitioner did not file or exchange a witness list, exhibit list, or proposed exhibits. Petitioner spoke by telephone with a secretary at DOAH on July 16, 2012, the day before the scheduled hearing, and indicated that she had sent a letter withdrawing her hearing request; however, to this day, no such letter has been received. Petitioner was advised to send another written statement confirming that she was withdrawing her hearing request, and she indicated she would do so by facsimile that day. However, no such facsimile was received by DOAH. After hours on July 16, 2012, a typed, but unsigned letter, was sent by facsimile to counsel for Respondent. The letter appears to have been sent by Petitioner and states that she wished to cancel the hearing scheduled for July 17, 2012. Petitioner did not make an appearance at the scheduled hearing at the start time or within 25 minutes after the scheduled start time. While it would have been better practice for Petitioner to file a written, signed statement with DOAH to withdraw her hearing request, it is found that Petitioner intended to withdraw her hearing request, and that is why Petitioner did not appear at the scheduled hearing. Petitioner should have made her intentions clear sufficiently in advance of the scheduled hearing to avoid the inconvenience and expense of convening a hearing by video teleconference and assembling all of those who were prepared to go forward.
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 in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Todd Evan Studley, Esquire Florida Department of Corrections 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Natalie Goldenberg Post Office Box 7388 Fort Myers, Florida 33911
The Issue Whether Respondent Gulf Coast Community College (Respondent or the College) violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes, by subjecting Petitioner Derek A. Robinson (Petitioner) to discrimination in employment or by subjecting Petitioner to adverse employment actions in retaliation of Petitioner’s opposition to the College’s alleged discriminatory employment practices.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. The College is a public institution of higher education located in Panama City, Florida. In 1998, Petitioner was hired by the College to work in its custodial department as a custodian. Petitioner held that position until his termination on February 11, 2009. The College's custodial department is part of the College's maintenance and operations division (collectively, ?Maintenance Division?) managed by the campus superintendent. The two other departments within the Maintenance Division are the maintenance and grounds departments. During the relevant time period, there were approximately 40 to 50 employees in the Maintenance Division. Of those, there were approximately 21 to 28 custodians in the custodial department. Most of the custodians were African-Americans and there were only three Caucasian custodians. The Caucasian custodians were Tom Krampota, Josephine Riley, and Tommy Gillespie. Custodial staff typically work shifts beginning at 2:00 p.m. and ending at 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. They are generally assigned housekeeping duties for a specific building. In addition to Monday through Friday, the College is also open on most weekends. Prior to 2001, the College began designating one employee to work a non-rotating weekend shift. Unlike other custodians, the designated weekend custodian worked from 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Fridays and 6:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. The weekend custodian was not assigned to a particular building, but rather worked in various buildings as needed and was to be available to open doors to campus buildings during weekend hours. Petitioner was the designated weekend custodian from 2001 until his duties were changed in September 2008. Dr. John Holdnak, who worked for the College for 26 years in various capacities, including four years as Director of Human Resources, was the one who established the position of designated weekend custodian. Dr. Holdnak served as the College's Vice-President for Administration Services for his last eight years of employment with the College until leaving in July, 2008. As vice-president, Dr. Holdnak reported directly to the president of the College, Dr. James Kerley. Sometime prior to 2008, Dr. Holdnak observed that the departments in the Maintenance Division were underperforming, not adequately supervised, and failing to meet expectations. Dr. Holdnak observed that the Maintenance Division employees took excessive breaks and showed lack of effort in their work. For example, mold was found in some of the classrooms, an open window with a bird's nest was found in another, maintenance orders were backlogged, and Dr. Holdnak received a number of complaints from faculty and College employees regarding the Maintenance Division's level of service. As a result of Dr. Holdnak's observations, the College removed the campus superintendent from his position because of the superintendent's inability to manage line supervisors, provide leadership, or supervise personnel. After that, Dr. Holdnak personally supervised the Maintenance Division for a time in order to assess and develop a solution to the problem. Based upon Dr. Holdnak's assessment, the College sought applications for a new campus superintendent who could change and clean-up the culture of the Maintenance Division. At the time, the three department supervisors within the Maintenance Division were: Carlos "Butch" Whitehead for maintenance, Dan Doherty for custodial, and Ronny Watson for grounds. All three supervisors were Caucasian. The vacancy for the campus superintendent position was advertised. Dr. Holdnak encouraged John Westcott to apply for the campus superintendent position because he had previously worked with Mr. Westcott on a College construction project and was impressed with his vigor and work ethic. Mr. Westcott, a Caucasian, applied. So did custodial department supervisor, Dan Doherty, and three other candidates. Mr. Westcott disclosed on his application that he had been convicted of a felony twenty years prior to his application. Dr. Holdnak determined that Mr. Westcott's prior conviction would not impact his candidacy for the position. The applicants were screened by a selection committee composed of a number of College employees from various divisions, including Petitioner. Of the five applicants who applied, the selection committee's first choice was John Westcott, who was qualified for the position. Petitioner did not agree with the selection committee's first choice and was not impressed with Mr. Westcott during the screening process because Mr. Westcott referred to himself as the "terminator." Based upon the selection committee's first choice and the conclusion that Mr. Westcott satisfied the necessary criteria to change the Maintenance Division's culture, Dr. Holdnak recommended that the College hire John Westcott as the new campus superintendent. John Westcott was hired as campus superintendent in January 2008. Once Mr. Westcott was hired, Dr. Holdnak specifically directed him to take control of his departments, ?clean up the mess? and hold his mid-level supervisors responsible for their subordinates' results. Dr. Holdnak instructed Mr. Westcott to take a hands-on approach, physically inspect and visit the buildings to ensure cleanliness, increase effectiveness, stop laziness, and decrease work order backlogs. During his tenure, Mr. Westcott increased productivity and reduced backlogs. Mr. Westcott took more initiative than previous superintendents with cleaning and maintenance, and he conducted weekly walkthroughs. While Mr. Westcott was campus superintendent, the backlog of 400 work orders he had inherited was reduced to zero. During Mr. Westcott's first month as campus superintendent, he had an encounter with a Caucasian employee named Jamie Long. On January 31, 2008, Mr. Westcott issued a written memorandum to Mr. Long as a follow-up from a verbal reprimand that occurred on January 28, 2008. The reprimand was Mr. Westcott's first employee disciplinary action as campus superintendent. According to the memorandum, the reprimand was based upon Mr. Long's confrontation and argument with Mr. Westcott regarding the fact that Mr. Westcott had been ?checking-up? on him. According to the memorandum, Mr. Westcott considered "the manner in which [Mr. Long] addressed [him as] totally inappropriate and could be considered insubordination." Mr. Long disputed Mr. Westcott's version of the incident and later sent a letter to College President Dr. Kerley dated June 23, 2008, complaining about "the alleged incident of insubordination" and the "almost non-stop harassment by John Westcott." There was no mention or allegation in the letter that John Westcott was racist or had discriminated against anyone because of their race. After Dr. Holdnak left the College in July 2008, John Mercer assumed his responsibilities. Mr. Mercer, like Dr. Holdnak, had the perception that custodial work was below par based on complaints and personal observations. He therefore continued to direct Mr. Westcott to address these deficiencies to improve the custodians' performance. Petitioner was the designated weekend custodian when Mr. Westcott was hired. In February 2008, Dr. Holdnak discovered a problem with the amount of paid-time-off Petitioner received as a result of his weekend schedule. The problem was that if a holiday fell on a weekend, Petitioner would take the entire weekend off, resulting in a windfall of 37.5 hours in additional paid-time- off for Petitioner over other employees because his work hours on the weekends were longer. In order to correct the problem, in approximately March 2008, Petitioner was placed on a similar holiday pay schedule as all other employees. At the time, the then-director of the College's Department of Human Resources, Mosell Washington, who is an African American, explained the change to Petitioner. According to Mr. Washington, Petitioner was not happy about the change in his holiday pay schedule. Petitioner, however, does not blame Mr. Westcott for initiating the change. Because of the change in his holiday pay schedule, Petitioner was required to work or use leave time for the additional working hours during the Fourth of July weekend in 2008. Petitioner called and asked to speak with Mr. Westcott regarding the issue. During the phone call, Petitioner used profanity. After being cursed, Mr. Westcott hung up the phone and then advised Mr. Washington, who told Mr. Westcott to document the incident. The resulting written reprimand from Mr. Westcott to Petitioner was dated July 11, 2011, and was approved by Mr. Washington. When Mr. Washington presented Petitioner with the written reprimand, Petitioner refused to sign an acknowledgement of its receipt and abruptly left the meeting without any comment. Petitioner did not tell Mr. Washington that he believed he was being targeted or discriminated against because of his race. In addition to setting forth Mr. Westcott's version of what occurred, the written reprimand advised Petitioner that the College had a grievance procedure, and also stated: I have an open door policy and will gladly address any concerns you may have whether personal or job related. If you have a grievance, tell me, but in the proper manner and in the proper place. Petitioner did not take advantage of either the College's grievance procedure or Mr. Westcott's stated open door policy. The College maintains an anti-discrimination policy and grievance policy disseminated to employees. The College's procedure for employee grievances provides several levels of review, starting with an immediate supervisor, then to a grievance committee, and then up to the College's president. Under the College's anti-discrimination policy, discrimination and harassment based on race or other protected classes is prohibited. Employees who believe they are being discriminated against may report it to the Director of Human Resources. Likewise, harassment is prohibited and may be reported up the chain of command at any level. Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the College handbook and policies on August 17, 2007. In addition, both the College President, Dr. Kerley, and Vice President, John Mercer, maintain an ?open door? policy. After receiving the July 11, 2008, written reprimand, Petitioner spoke to both Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer, at least once, on July 15, 2008. Petitioner, however, did not tell them that he had been discriminated against because of his race. In fact, there is no credible evidence that a report of race discrimination was ever made regarding the July 11, 2008, written reprimand prior to Petitioner's termination. Petitioner, however, did not agree with the July 11, 2008 written reprimand. After speaking to Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer, Petitioner met with Jamie Long, the Caucasian who had earlier received a write-up from Mr. Westcott, for assistance in preparing a written response. The written response, dated August 4, 2008, and addressed to Mr. Washington, Mr. Westcott, and Mr. Mercer, stated: On July 25, 2008, I was called into Mosell Washington's office and was given a written letter of reprimand from John Westcott, the Campus Superintendent, which states that on July 3, 2008, I had used profanity in a phone conversation with him regarding my 4th of July work schedule. From the schedule that I received in February, from Mosell Washington, I believed I was off that weekend. I am writing this letter to dispute Mr. Westcott's version of our conversation and to protest the letter of written reprimand. Mr. Westcott says in the reprimand that I was insubordinate to him and had used profanity. I did not use profanity, and I do not believe that I was insubordinate in any manner to him during our brief conversation. I feel that my work record and my integrity speaks for itself. I have never been insubordinate, or been a problem to anyone until John Westcott, and had I known that I was supposed to be on the job that weekend, I would have been there. Mr. Washington, Mr. Westcott, and John Mercer all deny receiving the written response. In addition, contrary to the written response, at the final hearing, Petitioner admitted that he used profanity during the call and said ?ass? to Mr. Westcott. Moreover, the written response does not complain of race discrimination, and Dr. Kerley, Mr. Mercer, Dr. Holdnak, Mr. Washington, and Mr. Westcott all deny that they ever received a complaint of race discrimination regarding the incident. Evidence presented at the final hearing did not show that the written reprimand given to Petitioner dated July 11, 2008, was racially motivated, given in retaliation for Petitioner’s statutorily-protected expression or conduct, or that a similarly-situated non-African-American who used profanity to a supervisor would not be subject to such a reprimand. Mr. Westcott generally worked a more traditional Monday through Friday schedule and, because of Petitioner's weekend work schedule, had minimal contact with Petitioner. In fact, Mr. Westcott would not usually be on campus with Petitioner, except Fridays, and the two men rarely spoke until Petitioner's work schedule was changed in September 2008. During the weekends that he worked at the College, Petitioner was on-call and expected to return communications to his pager or mobile phone, even during his lunch breaks, regardless of his location. On Friday, August 22, 2008, after receiving a request from faculty member Rusty Garner, Petitioner’s supervisor Dan Doherty asked Petitioner to clean the music room floor. On Sunday afternoon, August 24, 2008, Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott were working when they received word from Mr. Garner that the music room floor had not been cleaned. After unsuccessful attempts to reach Petitioner by cell phone and pager, both Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott drove around the College campus to find him. They were unsuccessful. The reason Petitioner could not be reached was because he had left campus and had left his telephone and pager behind. According to Petitioner, he was on lunch break. Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott found another employee, Harold Brown, to help prepare the music room for Monday. Mr. Mercer was upset because he had to take time out from his own work to find someone to complete the job assigned to Petitioner. That same afternoon, Mr. Mercer reported the incident by e-mail to Mr. Washington and requested that appropriate action be taken. On August 27, 2008, Petitioner’s supervisor, Dan Doherty, issued a written reprimand to Petitioner for the August 24th incident. No evidence was presented indicating that the written reprimand was racially motivated, or that a similarly situated non-African-American who could not be located during his or her shift would not be subject to such a reprimand. In September 2008, Dr. Kerley unilaterally determined that no single employee should work his or her entire workweek in three days. He believed this schedule was unsafe, and not in the best interests of the college. He therefore directed Mr. Westcott and Mr. Mercer to implement a rotating schedule for the weekends. Mr. Westcott was not in favor of the change because it meant additional scheduling work for him to accommodate new rotating shifts. No credible evidence was presented that the schedule change was because of Petitioner’s race, or made in retaliation for Petitioner’s statutorily-protected expressions or actions. From August 27, 2008, through January 2009, there were no other disciplines issued to Petitioner or reported incidents between Petitioner and Mr. Westcott. In December, 2008, a group composed of most of the custodial employees, including Petitioner, conducted a meeting with the College's president, Dr. Kerley, and vice-president, Mr. Mercer. The group of custodians elected their new supervisor James Garcia, an Asian-Pacific Islander, as their spokesperson for the meeting. The custodians' primary purpose for the meeting was to address complaints regarding Mr. Westcott’s management style, his prior criminal conviction, and approach with employees. They felt that Mr. Westcott could not be pleased. Various concerns about Mr. Westcott expressed by the employees were condensed into three typed pages (collectively, ?Typed Document?) consisting of two pages compiled by Jamie Long and his wife Susan Long which contained 12 numbered paragraphs, and a third page with six unnumbered paragraphs. Mr. Garcia did not transmit the Typed Document to the president or vice- president prior to the meeting. Neither Jamie Long nor his wife attended the meeting. During the meeting, Mr. Garcia read several of the comments from the Typed Document and Dr. Kerley responded to each comment that was read. Mr. Garcia did not read through more than the first five of the 12 items listed on the Typed Document. The Typed Document was not reviewed by the president or vice-president and they did not retain a copy. Petitioner asserts the comment listed in paragraph 9 on the second page of the Typed Document constitutes a complaint or evidence of racial animus. Although not discussed at the meeting or reviewed by Dr. Kerley or Mr. Mercer, paragraph 9 states: During a recent candidate forum, Westcott used the term ?black ass? in regard to School Superintendent James McCallister. This was heard by at least two witnesses. Q. Are such racial slurs and inappropriate, unprofessional behavior condoned and acceptable? Mr. Westcott denies making the alleged statement referenced in paragraph 9 of the Typed Document. No evidence of other racial remarks allegedly made by Mr. Westcott was presented. There is no evidence that the College or its administration condoned the alleged statement. President Kerley, Vice President Mercer, and Mr. Washington all gave credible testimony that they were not made aware of the statement and that, if the statement in paragraph 9 of the Typed Document or any alleged racial discrimination by Mr. Westcott had been brought to their attention, immediate action would have been taken. As a result of custodial employees’ complaints about Mr. Westcott’s management style, Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer required Mr. Westcott to attend several sessions of management training. In addition, Dr. Kerley counseled Mr. Westcott against using harsh tactics and rough language that may be acceptable on a construction site, but were not appropriate on a College campus. On February 9, 2009, Mr. Westcott observed both Petitioner and a co-worker leaving their assigned buildings. He asked their supervisor, Mr. Garcia, to monitor their whereabouts because he thought that they appeared to not be doing their jobs. Mr. Westcott also told Mr. Garcia that, although the two workers may have had a legitimate reason for walking from their assigned buildings, he had not heard anything on the radio to indicate as much. The next day, on February 10, 2009, Mr. Garcia told Petitioner that Mr. Westcott had wanted to know where they had been headed when they left the building the day before. Petitioner responded by saying that if Mr. Westcott wanted to know where he was, Mr. Westcott could ask him (Petitioner). Later that day, Petitioner spoke to Mr. Washington on campus. Petitioner was very upset and said to Mr. Washington, ?What’s wrong with Westcott? He better leave me alone. He don’t know who he’s messing with.? Later that same afternoon, Petitioner had a confrontation with Mr. Westcott. According to a memorandum authored that same day by Mr. Westcott: I [John Westcott] had stopped outside the mailroom to talk with Beth Bennett. While talking with her I observed Derek [Petitioner] leave Student Union West. After seeing me, he returned to Student Union West and waited outside the door. Beth walked toward the Administration building and I headed through the breezeway. Derek approached me and said that he had heard that I wanted to ask him something. I asked him what he was talking about. He said that I wanted to ask him where he was going the evening before. I said ok, where were you going? Derek said that it was ?none of my f_ _ _ ing business.? I told him that since I was his supervisor, that it ?was? my business. At this time, he stepped closer to me in a threatening manner and said ?if you don’t stop f_ _ _ ing with me, I’m going to f_ _ _ you up.? I told him that if he would do his job, that he wouldn’t have to worry about me. He replied ?you heard what I said--- I’ll f_ _ _ you up?, as he walked back into SUW. I left the breezeway and went to John Mercer’s office to report the incident. Mr. Westcott’s testimony at the final hearing regarding the incident was consistent with his memorandum. While Petitioner’s version of the confrontation is different than Mr. Westcott’s, at the final hearing Petitioner admitted that Mr. Westcott had a legitimate question regarding his whereabouts and that he failed to answer the question. And, while he denied using the specific curse words that Mr. Westcott attributed to him, Petitioner testified that he told Mr. Westcott to leave him the ?hell? alone because he was doing his job. While there is no finding as to the exact words utilized by Petitioner to Mr. Westcott, it is found, based upon the testimonial and documentary evidence, that on the afternoon of February 9, 2009, Petitioner was confrontational towards Mr. Westcott, that Petitioner refused to answer a legitimate question from Mr. Westcott, that Petitioner demanded that Mr. Westcott leave him alone even though Mr. Westcott had a legitimate right to talk to Petitioner about his job, and that Petitioner used words that threatened physical violence if Mr. Westcott did not heed his warning. After Mr. Westcott reported the incident to Mr. Mercer, both Mr. Mercer and Mr. Westcott went to Dr. Kerley and advised him of the incident. Dr. Kerley believed the report of the incident and that Petitioner had threatened Mr. Westcott. Mr. Washington was then informed of the incident. After reviewing Petitioner’s employment history, including Petitioner’s recent attitude problems, as well as Mr. Washington’s own interaction the same day of the latest incident, Mr. Washington concluded that Petitioner should be terminated. Mr. Washington gave his recommendation that Petitioner be terminated to Dr. Kerley, who adopted the recommendation. The following day, February 11, 2009, Mr. Washington called Petitioner into his office and gave him a memorandum memorializing Petitioner’s termination from his employment with the College. The memorandum provided: This memorandum is written notification that because of a number of incidents which the administration of the college deems unprofessional, adversarial, and insubordinate, you are hereby terminated from employment at Gulf Coast Community College, effective immediately. At the time that he presented Petitioner with the memorandum, Mr. Washington provided Petitioner with the opportunity to respond. Petitioner told Mr. Washington, ?It is not over.? Petitioner did not state at the time, however, that he believed that his termination, change of schedule, or any disciplinary action taken against him were because of racial discrimination or in retaliation for his protected expression or conduct. Further, at the final hearing, Petitioner did not present evidence indicating that similarly-situated non-African- American employees would have been treated more favorably than was Petitioner for threatening a supervisor. Further, the evidence presented by Petitioner did not show that the decision to terminate him was based on race or in retaliation for protected expression or behavior, or that the facts behind the reason that Petitioner was fired were fabricated. Following his termination, Petitioner met with both Dr. Kerley and Mr. Mercer and apologized for acting wrongly. The empirical record evidence of discipline against College employees in the Maintenance Division during Mr. Westcott’s tenure does not demonstrate a tendency by Mr. Westcott or the College to discriminate against African- American employees. The majority of disciplines and the first discipline taken against Mr. Long by Mr. Westcott were administered to Caucasians. In total, Mr. Westcott only reprimanded five employees. Of these, three were Caucasian -- Mr. Long, Mr. Whitehead, and Mr. Doherty. Despite the fact that the majority of the custodians were African-American, only two African-Americans were disciplined -- Petitioner and Harold Brown. During Mr. Westcott’s employment, the only two employees who were terminated were Petitioner and a white employee, Mark Ruggieri. Excluding Petitioner, all African-American witnesses testified that Mr. Westcott treated them equally and not one, except for Petitioner, testified that they were treated differently because of their race. The testimony of Petitioner’s African-American co-workers is credited over Petitioner’s testimony of alleged discrimination. Harold Brown’s discipline was based upon the fact that he gave the College’s master keys to an outside third-party contractor. Although Mr. Brown disagreed with the level of punishment he received, in his testimony, he agreed that he had made a mistake. Mr. Brown further testified that he did not believe African-Americans were targeted. According to Mr. Brown, Mr. Westcott did not discriminate against him because of his race, and ?Westcott was an equal opportunist as far as his behavior? and ?seemed agitated towards everybody when he was in his moods.? Mr. Garcia was the lead custodian when Petitioner was terminated and is currently the College’s custodial department supervisor. While several employees told Mr. Garcia that they did not like Mr. Westcott’s management style, Mr. Garcia never heard a racist comment and testified that Mr. Westcott was strict and threatened the entire custodial and maintenance staff. Butch Whitehead believes that Mr. Westcott attempted to get him and his maintenance crew ?in trouble.? He had no personal knowledge of the manner in which Mr. Westcott treated Petitioner. Mr. Whitehead's testimony does not otherwise support a finding that Mr. Westcott was a racist or that the College discriminated against Petitioner because of his race. Tom Krampota, a Caucasian and longtime employee and former supervisor, agreed that Mr. Westcott was firm with all custodians and complained about everybody, but was not a racist. Lee Givens, an African-American, testified that his custodial work was monitored because Mr. Westcott took issue with dust and cleanliness, but that if he did his job Mr. Westcott did not bother him. Mr. Givens did not testify that he felt discriminated against because of his race, but rather stated that Mr. Westcott made the job hard for ?all the custodians.? Horace McClinton, an African-American custodian for the College, provided a credible assessment of Mr. Westcott in his testimony which summarized how Mr. Westcott treated all of his subordinates: There were certain things that he wanted us to do that we should have been doing already, and he was just there to enforce it . . . he did not think anybody was doing their job . . . . He was put there to make sure we were doing our job . . . . I don't think he was a racist. Mr. McClinton further testified that all Maintenance Division employees, including Caucasian supervisors, were afraid of Westcott because it was ?his way or the highway.? Latoya ?Red? McNair testified that he was being monitored like the other custodians but did not believe it was because of race. Just as Petitioner’s co-workers’ testimony does not support a finding that Mr. Westcott was a racist, Dan Doherty’s deposition testimony does not support a finding that Mr. Westcott’s actions against Petitioner were because of race. A review of Mr. Doherty’s deposition reflects that Mr. Doherty has no first-hand knowledge of actual discrimination. Mr. Doherty stated, ?I don't know? when asked how he knew Westcott was motivated by race. Nevertheless, according to Mr. Doherty, five African-Americans were singled out, including Petitioner, Mr. McClinton, Mr. Givens, Mr. McNair, and Mr. Brown. Two of these alleged ?victims? outright denied that Mr. Westcott treated them unfairly because of race. The others did not testify that they believed Mr. Westcott treated them differently because of race. Mr. Doherty testified that besides the five identified, the remaining African-Americans were not criticized or targeted. Mr. Doherty also conceded that it was possible that Mr. Westcott just did not like the five custodians. Further, despite the fact that Mr. Doherty was written up by Mr. Westcott more than any other employee, including Petitioner, Mr. Doherty never reported Mr. Westcott for discrimination and did not state in his exit interview from the College that Mr. Westcott was a racist or complain that race was an issue. Rather than supporting a finding that Mr. Westcott was motivated by race, Mr. Doherty’s testimony demonstrated that the problems he had with Mr. Westcott were similar with those pointed out by others—-namely, that Mr. Westcott had a prior criminal conviction, had a harsh management style, and closely scrutinized all workers. While Petitioner and Mr. Long contend that they raised the issue of discrimination with the College's management, the College's president, vice-president, director of human resources, former vice-president, and superintendent all deny receiving a report of discrimination or that any employment action was based on race or in retaliation. Mr. Long’s testimony that he complained of race is not substantiated because he did not witness any discrimination first hand. He also never documented his alleged concerns about racial discrimination prior to Petitioner's termination. In addition, in his testimony, Mr. Long admitted that he never heard Mr. Westcott use a racially discriminatory term. Likewise, Petitioner never documented alleged discrimination until after being terminated. Considering the evidence presented in this case, and the failure of Petitioner and Mr. Long to document alleged complaints when an opportunity was presented, it is found that the allegations of reported complaints of discrimination by Mr. Long and Petitioner are not credible. Further, the testimony from Petitioner’s co-workers and supervisors, which indicates that Mr. Westcott was harsh with all employees but not racially discriminatory, is credited. It is found that Petitioner did not show that any employment action by the College or Mr. Westcott against him was based on race. Rather, the evidence presented in this case demonstrates that Petitioner was not targeted or treated differently from any other employees based upon race. The evidence also failed to show that Petitioner was retaliated against because of his protected expression or conduct. In sum, the evidence did not show that Petitioner was subject to racial discrimination or wrongful retaliation, and Respondent proved that Petitioner was terminated for engaging in a pattern of unprofessional, adversarial, and insubordinate behavior, including a threat to his supervisor’s supervisor, John Westcott.
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 6th day of December, 2011, 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 6th day of December, 2011.
The Issue Whether petitioner suffered sexual harassment for which respondent is answerable, or whether, on account of her sex, respondent discriminated against her by paying her unequal wages, or whether, in terminating her employment, respondent retaliated against her on account of statutorily protected activity?
Findings Of Fact In April, of 1982, the year after her 19-year marriage to a Mr. Powell, whose surname she originally kept, came to an end, petitioner Gloria Patricia Hord, as she has been known since her remarriage in August of 1984, began work for respondent Bell Aerospace Textron, which has since become the Textron Marine Systems Division of Textron, Inc. (Textron). A defense contractor that builds landing craft air cushion vehicles and trains Navy personnel to operate them, Textron employs perhaps 130 persons in Panama City alone. Textron has a written policy against sexual harassment by or of its employees. As Textron's director of logistics at its Panama City facility, George Gust Alepakos, told the petitioner she was hired on April 3, 1982. Robert L. Ormsby and Albert Eugene "Bud" Small, the supervisor of inventory control who, as her immediate supervisor, shared an office with her when she began, had already interviewed her. Bell hired her as a clerk, general class III in labor grade N-6. The duties of general class III clerks are: Under general supervision, performs a variety of clerical work, where there is individual responsibility for the accuracy and completeness of important records and where decisions within the limits of policies or rules are required. Performs duties such as or similar to the following: supervises and works with a small group of clerks; sets up and maintains record systems of a widely varying nature, including secret or confidential material or information; prepares and issues reports as required; contacts other personnel as necessary in maintaining accurate records; reads reports, correspondence, publications, etc., and abstracts therefrom information pertaining to a particular subject; may perform miscellaneous duties relate dot office work, such as filing, operating various machines, etc. (sic). Respondent's Exhibit No. 23. According to Bell's job description, "demonstrated supervisory ability", is a desirable qualification for general class III clerks. In addition to processing receipts and keeping inventory logs, Patty Powell, as her co-workers then called her, typed and did other secretarial chores for Textron. She worked in a trailer which housed other offices and other workers, including Carol Bjorgan, Robert L. Ormsby, Monica Mitchell, Mike Pate, Mike Smith, Betty Brandon, and George Alepakos, to whom Mr. Small reported. Mr. Alepakos was in the adjoining office. Witnesses described Mr. Alepakos as personable, fun loving, happy go lucky, warm, friendly, outgoing, talkative, loud, sometimes grouchy, displaying a temper at times without being a screamer, dedicated, conscientious, a hard worker and a firm manager. He looked at the hearing to be in his sixties. The time Ms. Powell told him he reminded her of her grandfather, he said she had hurt his feelings. One day as Ms. Powell, then 36 years old, was typing, Mr. Alepakos stood behind her and placed his hands on her shoulders, watching her finish a memorandum. Mr. Alepakos invited Ms. Powell to lunch on several occasions. He regularly took employees in his group to lunch, both male and female, individually and in groups. Conversations at lunch were "business-related" and "very professional" at first. The third or fourth time they ate lunch together, however, Mr. Alepakos professed his love for Ms. Powell. Thereafter, when Mr. Small left the office, Mr. Alepakos would stop in. Within a week of declaring himself at lunch, he said, "I really mean it." He told her she would grow to love him, would learn to, and began leaving notes for her, typically like the one that said, "I love you," signed "George ." She "tried to laugh it off," questioning his sincerity. He was married, and she had a boyfriend. Beginning in the summer of 1982, he asked her almost daily for lunch. He telephoned to inquire, "Have I told you today that I love you?" Sometimes she went to lunch with him during this period, but more often she declined. He promised to behave if she accepted his invitations for lunch, but, in Ms. Powell's view, he welshed on these promises. She had mixed feelings about George Alepakos. She discussed with Carol Bjorgan the possibility of a relationship with him. By this time, her boyfriend Chip McDill had left her in the lurch. It would be nice to have someone older to take care of her, she mused aloud; and she felt she would be better off materially. Never once did she complain to Carol Bjorgan about Mr. Alepakos' romantic interest in her. She left him notes. One note, signed "Patty" and written on notepaper depicting two smiling bees among azalea blossoms, read, "Have a wonderful vacation, then hurry back." Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. One night she and Carol were drinking during "happy hour." Saying she wanted to talk to George, she telephoned his home, but hung up when his wife answered. She sometimes seemed to boast about Mr. Alepakos' taking her to lunch, asking, "Guess who I'm going to lunch with?" At Peddlers Alley one night, Mlles. Hord and Bjorgan met Mr. Alepakos for drinks. When they arrived, Ms. Hord playfully pretended to sit in Mr. Alepakos' lap, and said to Ms. Bjorgan, "We can handle it from here." In December of 1982, both Mr. Alepakos and Ms. Powell attended a party at a bar or restaurant. Mr. Alepakos "didn't think much" of her going out with the 23-year old man who escorted her to the party, danced with her, kissed her while they were on the dance floor, and, later in the evening, wrestled with her in the back seat of an automobile parked outside the establishment. He felt that "it looked bad for the company." The next morning, he called her into his office, told her she had "fallen off [her] pedestal," and that somebody had said she had behaved like a slut. Over the Christmas holidays she was in the hospital, and afterwards visited her mother in Atlanta. Mr. Alepakos called her there at the number she had given him, to ask about her health and to learn when she was coming back to work. On her return she talked things over with Mr. Small, her immediate supervisor, although she never told him about Mr. Alepakos' touching her. He advised her to decline the luncheon invitations and avoid Mr. Alepakos as much as possible. He spoke to Mr. Ormsby about the matter, at her request. In deference to Ms. Powell, who asked that nobody say anything to Mr. Alepakos, Mr. Small spoke to Mr. Ormsby "off the record." At some point, Mr. Alepakos called on Ms. Powell at the apartment she had recently moved into at Panama City Beach. She had invited him. When he arrived he found her with her daughter and stayed only about 20 minutes. Eventually Patty Powell went herself to Mr. Ormsby, and Mr. Ormsby took the matter up with Clarence L. Forrest, then the vice-president in charge of Textron's Panama City operations. Messrs. Ormsby and Forrest decided to transfer Ms. Powell to a general secretarial and word processing assignment in "the training trailer." The transfer was "lateral" in the sense that neither Ms. Powell's official job description nor her labor grade changed. In her new situation, she was involved in the production of training manuals. Bell hired two other word processing clerks to assist in this effort, Diane Ansell and April Dawn Day. Ms. Powell had recommended both Ms. Ansell and Ms. Day. She helped train them when they began. Even after they had learned the ropes, she gave them work to do which she proofread afterwards. If she was out, Ms. Ansell would assume these duties. Ms. Powell wrote out evaluations for Ms. Ansell and Ms. Day, although she never signed them. She did once sign an overtime authorization form, but Mr. Forrest sent it back for Mr. Higgins' signature and resubmission. She assumed her new duties in February of 1983, but invitations to lunch and expressions of affection continued after the transfer. One afternoon, just after Ms. Powell left the office, Mr. Alepakos said to Diane Ansell, "I love that girl," referring to Ms. Powell. After she told Mr. Ormsby that Mr. Alepakos would not leave her be, Mr. Forrest instructed Mr. Alepakos to cease and desist from any activity involving Ms. Powell unrelated to professional requirements, and directed him to communicate with her, if at all, through third parties. During the ensuing eight or nine months, Mr. Alepakos avoided Ms. Powell entirely. He "went the other way around when he saw her coming." In the fall of 1983, however, they were both at an office party at the Long Glass. She grabbed his shirt and led him into another room, where she asked him why he had been avoiding her. According to a friend and co-worker, petitioner was not "an outward flirt," except when she drank. Encouraged by the evening's events, Mr. Alepakos resumed his attentions. He telephoned several times a day, unless he was angry, and they began lunching together again. At various times, she told him she was at the point of reconciliation with her ex-husband, that she was seeing a boyfriend, and that she was gay. But she accepted a good many of his luncheon invitations, which was enough to inspire him to several proposals of marriage. In November of 1983, Ms. Powell came to work early one morning and made her way in the still dark trailer to the word processing room. Suddenly Mr. Alepakos, whom she had not seen nor expected to be there, embraced her and tried to kiss her. When the lights came on, he said, "I'm sorry", and left. During this period, Ms. Powell worked under the immediate supervision of Frank Higgins, who left civilian employment with the Navy and began with Textron in August of 1983. In early December of that year, Ms. Powell spoke to Mr. Higgins about Mr. Alepakos. After a second conversation on the subject, on February 9, 1984, Mr. Higgins stated, in a "Memo For the Record": FOR BACKGROUND, PATTY IS AN EXTREMELY QUIET, SHY PERSON WITH A RATHER "FRAGILE" QUALITY. SHE IS A DEDICATED PROFESSIONAL IN HER APPROACH TO HER JOB. SHE HAS NEVER APPEARED TO PROJECT (AVERT OR OTHERWISE) HER SEXUALITY AT WORK, DRESSES CONSERVATIVELY - AN IDEAL FEMALE WORKER IN TERMS OF NOT BEING INVOLVED TO ANY EXTENT WITH HER MALE CO- WORKERS OTHER THEN PROFESSIONALLY. SHE HAS NOT AND PROFESSES NO[T] TO WANT TO DATE ANYONE FROM WORK. GEORGE IS APPARENTLY "LEANING" ON HER AT WORK TO THE POINT SHE'S BECOMING EMOTIONALLY FRAZZLED OVER IT. HE PROFESSES TO BE IN LOVE AND "WANTS HER." GEORGE IS INSANELY JEALOUS OF HER BEING SURROUNDED BY ALL THESE MEN AND TOLD HER THAT DAVE STULTS, BOB NISSLEY AND MYSELF ARE OR MAY WANT TO BE ROMANTICALLY INVOLVED. HE CALLS HER SEVERAL TIMES SOME DAYS, SOMETIMES ASKING HER TO COME TO HIS OFFICE WHERE "COMMENTS ARE MADE" TO HER. SHE IS AFRAID NOT TO GO OVER TO HIS OFFICE - APPARENTLY FEELS GEORGE IS A POWER BROKER AND IF SHE GETS HIM MAD, HE'LL TAKE IT OUT ON TRAINING BY NOT SUPPORTING OUR NEEDS. PATTY SAYS SHE HAS TRIED EVERY CONCEIVABLE APPROACH TO TELL GEORGE SHE IS NOT INTERESTED IN HIM AND HE'S ANNOYING HER & SHE WANTS IT STOPPED. YET HE REFUSES TO LEAVE HER ALONE. I TOLD HER THAT SHE NEEDS TO THREATEN HIM WITH HARASSMENT CHARGES & BE WILLING TO FOLLOW UP ON THEM TO THE BITTER END - IF GEO. KNEW SHE WAS SERIOUS AND HIS JOB WAS IN DANGER, I HOPE HE WOULD BE PRUDENT ENOUGH TO BACK AWAY. PATTY SEEMS RELUCTANT TO PRESS CHARGES FOR FEAR THAT SHE WILL END UP BEING FIRED AND PERCEIVED AS THE CAUSE OF THE PROBLEM. SHE FEELS CASEY WILL PROTECT GEORGE AND WOULD CONSIDER GEO. MORE IMPORTANT TO BELL THAN PATTY. IN PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS WITH CASEY DATING BACK TO DECEMBER, I TOO SENSED THAT EITHER CASEY WASN'T BE[ING] OBJECTIVE OR FAIR IN HIS ASSESSMENT OF PATTY OR THAT POSSIBLY GEORGE HAD BEEN FEEDING CASEY LIES AND INNUENDO ABOUT PATTY'S POTENTIAL INVOLVEMENT WITH PERSONNEL IN TRAINING. THE APPARENT STRATEGY IS TO CAST DOUBTS ABOUT PATTY'S CHARACTER SUCH THAT IF HIS SITUATION EVER BOILED TO THE SURFACE HE COULD BLAME IT ON HER TO SAVE HIS JOB. I BELIEVE THERE IS ENOUGH INFO AVAILABLE TO HAVE GEO. REPRIMANDED OR FIRED OVER THIS. THERE ARE SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEEN OR HEARD GEO. MAKE APPROACHES TO HER WHO I'M SURE WOULD COME FORWARD TO SUPPORT PATTY'S POSITION. SINCE THE DISCUSSION WAS OFF THE RECORD I AGREED NOT TO APPROACH CASEY YET. I OFFERED TO SPEAK WITH GEO. BUT IF HE PERCEIVES ME AS A COMPETITOR FOR PATTY, HE OBVIOUSLY WOULD MISCONSTRUE MY INTENTIONS. I DO INTEND TO SPEAK TO LENNY MORGAN "OFF THE RECORD" NEXT WEEK IN NEW ORLEANS TO GAIN SOME ADDITIONAL INSIGHT IN HANDLING THIS ISSUE. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. In a second "Memo For The Record," Mr. Higgins reported discussing the situation with Mr. Morgan, and summarized the latter's advice. * * * LENNY'S BOTTOM LINE WAS AS I SUSPECTED - DON'T LEAVE IT SIMMERING TAKE FIRM ACTION. BRING IT TO CASEY'S ATTENTION. LENNY INDICATED HE WOULD BE GLAD TO COME OVER AND BECOME DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN SOLVING THIS. * * * Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. Although Mr. Higgins never showed these memoranda to "Casey" Forrest, who only learned of them after the present proceedings began, he did mention the situation to Mr. Forrest, who indicated that he wondered whether there was a "problem on both sides," but agreed to speak to Mr. Alepakos. By the time Mr. Higgins left Panama City, in July of 1984, he thought the situation had been resolved. About this time, Ms. Powell told Mr. Alepakos she planned to remarry. He responded that he would be there, if it did not work out. He said he still loved her, and he did not stop asking her out, although, after she became Mrs. Hord, she consistently declined. He continued to declare his love. Mrs. Hord again complained, this time to B. L. Nissley, Textron's director of training documentation, on or about December 15, 1985. Her complaint notwithstanding, she sent Mr. Alepakos a poinsettia for Christmas. At some point, she left a note on his desk, saying "Missing you, P.H." By a memorandum dated January 29, 1985, Mr. Nissley asked Mr. Forrest for a formal investigation "to assure that this problem be resolved once and for all." Respondent's Exhibit No. 6. On January 31, 1985, Mr. Forrest interviewed Mrs. Hord in Mr. Ormsby's presence. She reported the frequent invitations to lunch and a suggestion by Mr. Alepakos that they take a vacation together, but said nothing about his touching her. Messrs. Forrest and Ormsby also interviewed Mr. Alepakos. They decided it might be well for a disinterested third party to investigate, and asked Textron's Mr. Morgan to come over from New Orleans for the purpose. Mr. Morgan interviewed Mrs. Hord for two and a half hours on February 10 or 11, 1985. In answer to his questions, Mrs. Hord said that Mr. Alepakos had not asked her for sexual favors, and had not behaved vulgarly, lewdly or indecently. Nor did she advert to the early morning incident in the trailer, which Mr. Alepakos admitted at hearing, while denying any attempt to kiss her. When Mr. Morgan asked her if Mr. Alepakos had ever touched her, or tried to kiss her or to force himself on her, she answered no. Mr. Morgan asked Mrs. Hord to name others who could support her claim of harassment. She gave him only one name, Ms. Ansell's. Mr. Morgan also interviewed George Alepakos at length, and asked him to name others who could support his assertions. Mr. Alepakos gave him some five names. After interviewing these people and Ms. Ansell, Mr. Morgan returned to New Orleans and stated his conclusions in a memorandum dated February 15, 1985. Mr. Forrest wrote Mr. Alepakos a memorandum advising him that his "conduct in the matter lacked professionalism and good judgement." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 6. He was "warned to confine ... communications and relationships with Mrs. G. Hord to a professional/business environment." Id. This February 25, 1985, memorandum raised "the possibility of termination of [Alepakos'] employment," id. in the event "the cited harassments reoccur[ed]." Id. But the phrase "cited harassments" was a reference to the February 15, 1985, memorandum, Respondent's Exhibit No. 6, in which Mr. Morgan stated: Since the evidence indicates that the relationship was two sided, I find it difficult to describe the activity of Mr. Alepakos as one of harassment. Respondent's Exhibit No. 6, p. 2. Mr. Forrest did not warn or reprimand Mrs. Hord because he felt a supervisor or manager had a different responsibility in matters of this kind than an employee under supervision. At no time, did Mr. Alepakos tell her off color stories, show her pornographic photographs, explicitly solicit sexual favors, or make obscene gestures to or from Mrs. Hord. It fell to Messrs. Ormsby and Nissley to relay the results of Mr. Morgan's investigation to Mrs. Hord. The three of them gathered in Mr. Nissley's office, and he furnished her a copy to read. She had gotten part way through when she exclaimed, "That's a lie. I never sent him flowers. I never left notes on his desk." She threw down the report, and left the office, despite Mr. Nissley's telling her to stay. She dismissed the February 15, 1985, memorandum as a "bunch of bullshit." Mr. Nissley spoke to her afterwards and told her that he would not tolerate vulgar outbursts in the future. She telephoned Mr. Morgan and complained to him about the result of the investigation. She told him she did not think the report was fair or that it reflected what had happened. She became upset and characterized the report as "bullshit." To this he replied, "Wait a minute. I'll answer any question you want to ask." But she hung up the telephone. On January 30, 1985, Mrs. Hord had asked to take a leave of absence. Her request approved, she began thirty days' leave soon after she learned the results of Mr. Morgan's investigation. Upon her return, Mr. Nissley told her about the results of her annual evaluation, and informed her she had been given a raise of $.20 per hour. The $.20 raise took effect March 16, 1985. With the raise, Mrs. Hord was paid $7.90 per hour, a dollar an hour more than Diane "Dee" Ansell was paid. And Ms. Ansell was paid more than April Dawn Day, the third word processing clerk who helped produce training materials for Navy personnel. Mrs. Hord requested a meeting with Mr. Forrest to discuss the raise, which brought her salary to the highest authorized for her position; it was the same amount as the raise the other two word processing clerks in the training program received. But, since she was paid more than they were, the raise represented a smaller percentage of increase, and she objected. On the morning of March 27, 1985, when Mrs. Hord met with Mr. Forrest, Messrs. Ormsby and Nissley were also present. She told them Bell could keep the raise. Mr. Forrest began to explain the mechanics of Bell's merit raise system, when Mrs. Hord interrupted, "It's a bunch of bullshit. You can do anything you want." As she started to leave, Mr. Forrest told her to stay, but she refused. At one point, she called her bosses "jackasses." According to Mr. Forrest's secretary, who was outside, she "had a wild look" as she slammed the door on her way out. Before they dispersed, Mr. Forrest and the others decided to terminate her employment, unless Mr. Morgan advised against it. Mr. Forrest thought her language "unbecoming a lady." He certainly would not have expected a woman to use such language, and it did not affect him in the same way as it would have, if a man had used the same language. On the other hand, he would not have expected any of Bell's Panama City employees to use language of this kind in such a setting. Mr. Forrest testified under oath that Mrs. Hord was not fired because he found her language the more offensive on account of her femininity. Apprised of the situation, Mr. Morgan consulted a New York lawyer, then told management in Panama City he had no objection to firing Mrs. Hord. Mr. Ormsby then caused a memorandum to be addressed to Mrs. Hord, notifying her that her employment was "terminated as of this date (27 March 1985), for gross disrespect, incertituded (sic), premeditated and continued disregard for all levels of Management ... so as to challenge the management of this company and to incite disrespect of other employees ...." Respondent's Exhibit No. 10.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss Gloria Hord's petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of September, 1987. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 2, the evidence showed that she worked as an acting supervisor for Columbia Research but not, as far as the hearing officer's notes reflect, for CSC. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 3, the evidence showed that Mr. Small interviewed her first. Mr. Alepakos, as his supervisor, could presumably have overruled Mr. Small's choice even if Mr. Small made the "basic decision" to hire. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 4 has been adopted, in substance, except that the evidence did not establish that he placed his hands on her shoulders more than once. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 9 and 10, the evidence did not reveal any sexual advances at this point, aside from declarations of love, which were not entirely unwelcome. Except for the last sentence, petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 11 has been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to the final sentence of No. 11 and the word "Again" in No. 13, it was not clear from the evidence that she went to Mr. Ormsby before Christmas. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 12, Mrs. Hord did not always go "to great lengths to avoid contact with Mr. Alepakos during this time period." She not infrequently accepted his invitations to lunch. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 14 has been rejected as against the weight of the evidence. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 16 has been adopted, in substance, insofar as material, except that Mr. Alepakos was not put on any formal probation. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact Nos. 21 and 22, the evidence showed that he resumed his attentions because of her advances. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 27, the evidence showed that he called, but not that he called frequently. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 28, he did not come by uninvited. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 31, he said she needed to see a doctor but not, in so many words, that the marriage would fail. With respect to petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 34, nobody placed limits on Mr. Morgan's investigation. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 35 has been rejected as contrary to the evidence. She was not told she would be reprimanded for making good faith complaints. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, the first two sentences of No. 38, Nos. 40, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 70 and 72 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 4, she lived at Panama City Beach at one point. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 9 and 10 are immaterial or subordinate. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 11 is rejected. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 12, Ms. Bjorgan's testimony was that she was not sure Mrs. Hord wanted to see him that night. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 14 has been accepted, in substance, insofar as material, except for Small's suggested advice to change her manner of dress. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 25, Mrs. Hord was ambivalent about Mr. Alepakos before as after the incident. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 27 is rejected. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 28 blows a single incident out of proportion. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 30 is rejected. The final sentence of respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 38 is rejected, as is No. 39 to the extent it proceeds on the assumption there was any hiatus. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 44 has been adopted, in substance, except that the evidence did not establish that the poinsettia was flowering. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 57, the epithet was "jackasses." With respect to respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 59 and 64, Alepakos had no input, but the fact of her complaints was considered and inspired the call to Morgan. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 63 is immaterial, except that Alepakos' attentions did not cause great mental stress. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 67, his overtures were romantic. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 68, he did propose marriage. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 69 has been adopted, in substance, insofar as material, except for the final clause of the final sentence which is rejected. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 71 is immaterial or subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Alvin L. Peters, Esquire 36 Oak Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 William B. deMeza, Jr., Esquire Holland and Knight Post Office Box 241 Bradenton, Florida 33506 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue Whether Respondent, McDonald's Corporation, discriminated against Petitioner, Carolyn Hadley, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2000).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female who worked at the Cocoa Beach, Florida, McDonald's restaurant from October 1, 2000, until March 17, 2001. She voluntarily terminated her employment. Respondent owns and operates restaurants and is subject to Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2000). Respondent has an extensive, well-conceived, "Zero Tolerance" policy which prohibits unlawful discrimination. This policy is posted in the workplace, is distributed to every employee at the time he or she is employed, and is vigorously enforced by management. There are published procedures which can be easily followed by an employee who believes that he or she has been the victim of unlawful discrimination. Petitioner did not avail herself of Respondent's "Zero Tolerance" policy. Petitioner complains of two isolated instances of what the evidence clearly shows to be workplace "horseplay" as the basis of her unlawful employment discrimination claim. On one occasion, a shift manager placed a promotional sticker on Petitioner's forehead. The second involved ice cream being placed on Petitioner's face. The evidence reveals that the "horseplay" complained of was typical of this workplace and not race or sex based. Practical jokes, food fights, ice down shirt backs, and similar activities, while not encouraged by corporate management, were a part of the routine at this restaurant. Petitioner was not the singular focus of the "horseplay"; it involved all employees. There is no evidentiary basis for alleging that it was racial or sexual in nature, as it involved employees of differing races and sexes. Approximately a month after the latest of the incidents complained of, on March 17, 2001, Petitioner voluntarily terminated her employment. Six months later, in September, 2001, Petitioner complained to Dexter Lewis, an African-American corporate employee who is responsible for investigating claims of unlawful workplace discrimination, about the two incidents. She claimed that she had been embarrassed by the incidents but did not suggest to him that they had been racially or sexually motivated. Mr. Lewis investigated the alleged incidents; he confirmed that the incidents had occurred and that similar incidents were widespread, but not racially or sexually motivated; he reprimanded the store manager and shift manager for their unprofessional management.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's Petition for Relief be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 September, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Carolyn Hadley 135 Minna Lane Merritt Island, Florida 32953 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cynthia Brennan Ryan, Esquire Holland & Knight, LLP Post Office Box 1526 Orlando, Florida 32802-1526 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by subjecting Petitioner to gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Southgate is a student housing and dining facility located in Tallahassee, Florida, near the campuses of Florida State University, Florida A&M University, and Tallahassee Community College. On September 16, 2004, Southgate hired Petitioner Devon Rozier as a dishwasher in the cafeteria dish room. The cafeteria is open seven days a week and currently employs approximately 34 employees, some part-time and some full-time. Petitioner had just turned 16 years old when Ken Mills hired him based upon a long-standing relationship with Petitioner's father, who had worked at Southgate for many years and was an exemplary employee. Petitioner worked as a part-time employee on the night shift, 3:30 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., for a total of 20-25 hours per week. Petitioner later received a promotion out of the dish room to the grill, and also worked other positions such as attendant and greeter. Petitioner also worked in various positions to assist as needed, as did other employees in the cafeteria. At the beginning of his employment, Petitioner exhibited good performance. As time progressed, Petitioner's performance began to decline, and he openly disrespected management. Various disciplinary techniques were employed by his supervisors in efforts to improve his performance, but the improvements always proved to be short-lived. On April 30, 2009, Petitioner and his supervisor, Rasheik Campbell, had an altercation, and Petitioner left the facility. Mr. Campbell warned Petitioner before he left the facility that such action would constitute job abandonment. Despite Mr. Campbell's warning, Petitioner left the facility. Mr. Campbell took the position that Petitioner abandoned his employment with Southgate. Petitioner was no longer placed on the schedule. On May 4, 2009, Southgate sent Petitioner a letter confirming his resignation. As months passed, Petitioner made attempts to regain his position with Southgate by calling his supervisors Mr. Campbell and Mr. Jason McClung. When his attempts were met with resistance by his supervisors, Petitioner bypassed them and went directly to Ken Mills, Southgate's General Manager and Petitioner's former supervisor. Petitioner presented his case to Mr. Mills in July and August 2009, regarding his desire to return to work. Mr. Mills had previously intervened on Petitioner's behalf, out of respect for Petitioner's father, to help him keep his job when difficulties with management had arisen. This time, Mr. Mills instructed Petitioner that Mr. McClung and Mr. Campbell were his direct supervisors and that they had ultimate responsibility regarding his desired return to work at Southgate. In August 2009, at the request of Mr. Mills, once again doing a favor for Petitioner based upon the long-standing work history of Petitioner's father at Southgate, Mr. Mills, Mr. McClung, and Mr. Campbell met with Petitioner and his mother, Jennifer Rozier. At the meeting, they discussed Petitioner's request to return to work at Southgate. During the meeting, Mr. McClung and Mr. Campbell did not feel that Petitioner exhibited any improvement in his behavior and respect for authority. As a result, Mr. McClung and Mr. Campbell chose not to re-hire Petitioner. Petitioner claims the following conduct he witnessed while working at Southgate was discriminatory: a) females were allowed to sit down at tables and eat while on the clock; b) females were allowed to use the computer while on the clock; and c) Petitioner was required to perform the females' work when they failed to show up or wanted to leave early. Petitioner further claims that his firing was retaliatory based upon one complaint he made to Mr. Campbell in February 2009 about having to perform the tasks of others who failed to come to work. Other employees, including Jodece Yant, Petitioner's girlfriend, and Darnell Rozier, Petitioner's own brother, testified that both males and females could be seen eating or using the computer while on the clock, and all were told to perform others' tasks when they failed to come to work or left early. Petitioner conceded that on occasion he engaged in the same behaviors he alleges to be discriminatory. Petitioner obtained a full-time job at Hobbit American Grill on January 21, 2010, and, as of the date of the hearing, continued to work there. His rate of pay at Hobbit American Grill is currently $7.25 per hour, and he testified he is better off there than at his former employer, Southgate. Petitioner is currently earning the same hourly wage ($7.25) as he was earning when employed at Southgate. Southgate had policies and procedures in force that prohibited, among other things, discrimination on the basis of gender or any other protected characteristics. Southgate's policies and procedures also prohibited retaliation. Petitioner received a copy of the employee handbook, which contained Southgate's anti-discrimination policies and was aware that Southgate had such policies in place.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Desiree C. Hill-Henderson, Esquire Littler Mendelson, P.C. 111 North Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1250 Orlando, Florida 32801 Micah Knight, Esquire 123 North Seventh Avenue Durant, Oklahoma 74701 Devon A. Rozier 7361 Fieldcrest Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32305 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race, subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment, or retaliated against Petitioner in violation of the Hillsborough County Human Rights Ordinance 00-37, Section 4(1)(a)(1).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an aggrieved person within the meaning of Hillsborough County Human Rights Ordinance 00-37, Section 16. Petitioner is an African-American female and filed a complaint with the Board alleging that Respondent engaged in race, color, and gender discrimination; retaliation; and the creation of a hostile work environment. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 16. Respondent operates a car dealership and is in the business of selling and servicing new and used automobiles and trucks in several states, including Florida. Respondent was not Petitioner's employer. Petitioner was a temporary worker during the relevant period, and her employment contract was with an employment agency. No written employment contract existed between the parties to this proceeding. The employment agency paid Petitioner, and Respondent paid the employment agency. The employment agency assigned Petitioner to Respondent from January 13 through January 23, 2004. Other than Petitioner’s uncorroborated testimony, there is no written or other evidence that Respondent intended Petitioner’s temporary assignment either to become a permanent position or to last for six weeks. The fact-finder finds the testimony of Petitioner to be less than credible and persuasive. From January 13 until January 21, 2004, Petitioner worked at Respondent's Tampa office at Lexus of Tampa Bay located on North Dale Mabry Avenue, Tampa, Florida. Respondent transferred Petitioner to its office at Lexus of Clearwater, Florida, on January 21, 2004, and terminated the assignment from the employment agency on January 23, 2004. The termination of assignment occurred in Pinellas County, rather than Hillsborough County, Florida. Petitioner began her assignment at Lexus of Tampa Bay on January 13, 2004, as a receptionist. Respondent paired Petitioner with Ms. Mary Ann Browne, a full-time receptionist and Caucasian female. Respondent charged Ms. Browne with training Petitioner in the responsibilities of a receptionist. Petitioner alleges that Ms. Browne engaged in unprofessional conduct during the 10 days she trained Petitioner. The unprofessional conduct, according to Petitioner's testimony included "racial undertones." For example, Ms. Browne asked Petitioner why, "Black people are all family, cousins, sisters, brothers." Petitioner responded, "Don't ask me. I wouldn't be that black." Ms. Browne allegedly stated aloud that two female employees who hugged in greeting each other were lesbians. Ms. Browne allegedly called another African-American employee a "pimp" and referred to an Hispanic employee as a "macdaddy." The fact-finder does not know the meaning of the term "macdaddy," or even how to spell the term, and the record does not provide an adequate definition or spelling. Ms. Browne allegedly referred to homosexual customers as "flamers." Finally, Ms. Browne allegedly engaged in threatening physical behavior by tossing items at Petitioner across the reception desk. No one but Petitioner heard the alleged racial and sexist comments by Ms. Browne or witnessed the physically aggressive behavior. The preponderance of evidence does not establish a prima facie showing of discrimination or retaliation. Nor does the preponderance of evidence show that Respondent subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment. Finally, a preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent engaged in a discriminatory practice. The evidence of Ms. Browne's conduct consists of Petitioner's testimony and a diary that Petitioner created contemporaneously with the acts Petitioner attributes to Ms. Browne. No other employees at Lexus of Tampa Bay witnessed the events evidenced in Petitioner's testimony and diary. Ms. Browne left her employment with Respondent in the fall of 2004 and did not testify. Ms. Toni Davis, now Ms. Toni Scotland, was a receptionist during part of the relevant time but was not present during the entire time because she was being promoted to a position in accounting. Ms. Scotland did not recall any improper behavior by Ms. Browne in 2004. The Investigative Report based its recommendation of a finding of cause on statements attributed in the Report to then Ms. Davis and the documentation of the disciplinary action taken by Respondent against Ms. Browne. However, Ms. Scotland testified that she did not recall being contacted by an investigator for the Board and denied making any statements to the investigator. The investigation took approximately 3.5 years to complete because the investigator is the only investigator for the Board and because the investigator suffered a heart attack during the investigation. At the hearing, the testimony of the investigator concerning statements he attributed to Ms. Scotland, also Ms. Davis, was vague and sparse and is less than credible and persuasive. A preponderance of the evidence does not show that Respondent is responsible for the acts Petitioner attributes to Ms. Browne. Petitioner complained to her employment agency about the conduct of Ms. Browne. The employment agency notified Respondent, and Ms. Helene Ott, the supervisor at the time, interviewed both Petitioner and Ms. Browne on January 19, 2004. The only complaint made by Petitioner to Ms. Ott on January 19, 2004, was that Ms. Browne went to the break room to bring back a drink in separate disposable drink cups for Ms. Browne and Petitioner. Upon returning with the drinks, Ms. Browne told Petitioner that Ms. Browne had spit in Petitioner's cup. Petitioner did not tell Ms. Ott that Petitioner witnessed Ms. Browne spit in the cup. Petitioner's version of events changed at the hearing. Petitioner testified that she saw Ms. Browne spit in Petitioner's cup. Petitioner testified that Ms. Browne offered to refill the cup Petitioner already had on the receptionist desk, grabbed the cup, stood, drew up a large volume of spit from deep in Ms. Browne's throat, and let the long volume of liquid drop into Petitioner's cup in full view of Petitioner. Petitioner further testified in tears that she stated repeatedly to Ms. Browne, "Give me back my cup!" The foregoing testimony of Petitioner is less than credible and persuasive. The fact-finder is not persuaded that any reasonable person would have wanted Ms. Browne to return the cup. The cup was a disposable cup from the vending area which was of no value to Petitioner. Petitioner did not relate this version of the events to Ms. Ott when Ms. Ott investigated Petitioner's complaints on January 19, 2004. The version of events that Petitioner related to Ms. Ott on January 19, 2004, is consistent with the contemporaneous account by Mr. Browne. When Ms. Ott interviewed Ms. Browne on January 19, 2004, Ms. Browne admitted that she told Petitioner she had spit in Petitioner's cup when Ms. Browne returned from the vending area to the reception desk with Petitioner's drink. Ms. Browne also admitted to engaging in offensive language, offensive commentary about customers, and unprofessional conduct. A preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent created or fostered a work environment that was hostile toward Petitioner. On January 19, 2004, Ms. Ott issued a written counseling/final warning to Ms. Browne for her use of “offensive language, offensive commentary about customers, and unprofessional conduct.” The disciplinary action advised Ms. Browne that any further misconduct would result in the termination of her employment. On January 20, 2004, Ms. Ott interviewed Petitioner again concerning additional complaints from the employment agency. Petitioner told Ms. Ott that Ms. Browne used vulgar and unprofessional language, but Petitioner did not state to Ms. Ott that Ms. Browne made racial or sexist comments. On January 21, 2004, Ms. Ott needed to fill another temporary vacancy at Lexus of Clearwater. Ms. Ott asked Petitioner to go to Clearwater, and Petitioner went to the Clearwater office voluntarily. Respondent ended the employment agency assignment on January 23, 2004. Ms. Ott described Petitioner’s performance as “very good." On January 23, 2004, Ms. Ott offered to write a letter of reference for Petitioner. Ms. Ott told Petitioner that Ms. Ott would consider Petitioner for a position at Lexus of Tampa Bay or Lexus of Clearwater if the need arose.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the final order issued in this proceeding should find that Respondent is not guilty of the allegations made by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 2008, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Leslie P. Stokes 4714 Pleasant Avenue Palm Harbor, Florida 34683 Gail P. Williams Hillsborough County Post Office Box 1110 Tampa, Florida 33601-1110 Andrew Froman, Esquire Alva L. Cross, Esquire Fisher & Phillips LLP 401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2525 Tampa, Florida 33602
