The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice based on his age.
Findings Of Fact Currently, Petitioner is a retired, 68-year-old male. He retired from Respondent at the age of 66. Petitioner began his employment with Respondent as a truck driver. The position of truck driver, involves many long hours of driving (sometimes over 56 hours) various interstate and intrastate truck routes, along with some lifting and exposure to diesel fumes. Petitioner attributed a variety of illnesses and health problems to his work as a truck driver. Some of the illnesses and health problems are hypertension and heart blockage and failure, which resulted in the implantation of a pacemaker, carpal tunnel syndrome, polyneuropathy, muscular and autonomic system problems and pathological hyper-insomnia. Petitioner offered no evidence that any of these conditions resulted from his employment with Respondent. Prior to September 9 or 10, 2000, at the age of 64, Petitioner was hospitalized for heart problems. Around September 9 or 10, 2000, Petitioner was released from the hospital. Upon his return to work, he gave his employer a physician’s note indicating that his work duties be limited to 40 hours a week. Petitioner met with Respondent’s transportation manager regarding whether less lengthy routes were available or whether his schedule or work duties could be adjusted. The employer did not have the ability to adjust the length of the routes, but added a second driver to ride and help with the driving on any route that Petitioner drove. Petitioner inquired about office work and was told that if he was interested in such work he needed to apply at the main office to see what was available. In part, because Petitioner liked driving and in part because the lesser number of hours involved in office work would cause Petitioner to earn less, Petitioner elected not to pursue and did not apply for such office work. No adverse employment action was taken against Petitioner, and Petitioner continued to work for Respondent. At some point during this meeting, Petitioner alleges that the transportation manager said, “Why don’t you just retire.” Petitioner offered no specific context for this statement other than it was a general conversation about his health and closeness to retirement age relative to the adjustments that could be made to his driving duties. One isolated statement such as the one above does not demonstrate any intent to discriminate on Respondent’s part based on Petitioner’s age, especially since no adverse employment action was taken against Petitioner and Petitioner continued to work for Respondent. Around January 1, 2001, for medical reasons, Respondent approved a Leave of Absence with pay for Petitioner. In June or July, 2002, Petitioner filed his first workers compensation claim with Respondent. Petitioner’s claim was turned over to Respondent’s workers' compensation insurer, Kemper Insurance Company. Petitioner did not offer any evidence that Kemper was under the direction or control of Respondent in any decisions Kemper made regarding paying or litigating Petitioner’s claim. In any event, Petitioner’s claim was contested. The main reason the claim was contested was that Kemper alleged that Petitioner’s “injuries” were not work-related. Over the years, Petitioner has amended his claim to include, among other health claims, the health problems listed above. Kemper has maintained its defense. During a mediation session on December 11, 2002, at which the employer was not present and in response to an inquiry regarding Kemper’s defense, Kemper’s representative stated that except for the carpal tunnel claim, all of Petitioner’s medical conditions were due to the natural aging process. Petitioner claims this statement demonstrates an intent on his employer’s part to discriminate against him based on his age. Such an isolated statement does not demonstrate such an intent especially since such conditions can be age related, there was no expert medical evidence demonstrating the cause of Petitioner’s health problems, the statement did not come from the employer, and there was no evidence that the insurer was under the direction or control of the employer regarding decisions to litigate or the factual basis for the defenses that the insurer would raise. The workers' compensation litigation continues to date. In the interim, Petitioner remained on a leave of absence with pay until January 1, 2003. He retired thereafter. There was no evidence that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner or that Petitioner suffered any adverse employment action based on his age. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon 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 14th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relation 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Glynda Copeland Qualified Representative Tree of Life, Inc. Post Office Box 410 St. Augustine, Florida 32095-0410 Robert C. Johnson 560 Florida Club Boulevard, Suite 112 St. Augustine, Florida 32084
The Issue Whether Respondent, City of Apopka, Florida, was guilty of an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner, Scott A. Roberts, according to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, based on his "disability"; and whether or not he received "disparate treatment."
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the formal hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is a 47-year-old Caucasian male, who, in November 2004, retired from Respondent's Fire Department as a engineer-paramedic as being permanently and totally disabled. Respondent is a municipality in Orange County, Florida. After Petitioner suffered a job-related injury that resulted in an anterior disc excision and fusion, C5-C6 and C6-C7, he elected to pursue disability retirement. In furtherance of his claim of total disability, he was examined by three physicians, Drs. Portnoy, Rojas, and Goll. Drs. Portnoy and Rojas determined that Petitioner had medical limitations that disqualified him from employment as a firefighter. Dr. Goll, prior to Petitioner's decision to proceed with a disability pension, had opined that he was fit for duty without limitations. Dr. Goll had the same opinion in January 2009. In 2009, Petitioner sought re-employment with Respondent. Incidental to his effort to be re-employed, he had an additional examination by Dr. Portnoy. Dr. Portnoy examines "thousands" of firefighters for Central Florida municipalities and usually conducts examinations for Respondent. Based on Dr. Portnoy's 2009 examination of Petitioner, Dr. Portnoy determined that Petitioner "was not qualified to be a firefighter for the City of Apopka." The National Fire Protection Association Standard 1582 ("NFPSA 1582") is referenced in Subsection 633.34(5), Florida Statutes, dealing with physical qualifications of a firefighter. While not required by statute, this standard is relied on by physicians conducting qualifying examinations. Petitioner's surgery is a basis for disqualification under NFPSA 1582. Respondent accepted Dr. Portnoy's opinion and did not re-employ Petitioner based on that opinion. Kevin Kwader, offered by Petitioner as an individual who received disparate treatment, apparently had cervical surgery; however, it is unclear whether the surgery was as comprehensive as Petitioner's. Mr. Kwader was returned to work by the surgeon who performed the surgery with "no restrictions." He was never evaluated by the physician conducting annual physical examinations for Respondent as "not fit for duty." Petitioner did not seek accommodation for a disability; in fact, he indicated, specifically, that he was not seeking any accommodation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Relief for failure to establish an unlawful discriminatory act by Respondent, City of Apopka, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2010, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Moore, Esquire Moore, Peterson & Zeitler, P.A. Post Office Box 536636 Orlando, Florida 32853-6636 Frank Kruppenbacher, Esquire City of Apopka 120 East Main Street Apopka, Florida 32703 Scott Roberts 2839 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789
Findings Of Fact Born in Rio de Janeiro, petitioner Paul Sergio Inacio emigrated to the United States from Brazil in 1961, when he was still a teenager. He first worked for respondent for a brief time in 1976. On June 6, 1980, he returned to respondent's employ as a journeyman welder mechanic at Crist Electric Generating Plant, a position he still held at the time of hearing. A "mile square with seven generating units" (T.187), the plant is in Florida, as are respondent's headquarters. Several hundred people work for respondent at Crist Electric Generating Plant alone. In "late June, 1980" (T.235) somebody began calling Mr. Inacio "Julio," nicknaming him after a Hispanic character in a television series (Sanford & Son). The actor portraying Julio "used to drag a goat through the living room . . . and acted . . . stupid." T.236; T.64. Despite (or perhaps because of) petitioner's telling people he did not like being called "Julio," the sobriquet caught on. Even during his initial eight-month probationary period, he made his objections known. T.115, 180. He felt freer to press the point, once the probationary period ended, although at least one friend advised him to do so might be counterproductive T.235-6. Mr. Inacio never referred to himself as Julio. T.28, 99-100, 115, 146-7, 180, 194, 198. Once "he almost got in a fight with [a co-worker] because the guy called him my little Puerto Rican buddy Julio." T.28. Before he retired from his employment as a supervisor with respondent, on July 30, 1987, Murdock P. Walley repeatedly addressed, or referred to petitioner in his presence, as "Julio," "wop," "spic," and "greaser." Mr. Walley's last day at work was "in April or along about then." T.472. Behind petitioner's back, Mr. Carnley heard Mr. Walley refer to petitioner as "wetback," "wop" or "the greaser." T. 27. Co-workers have called him "spic," "wetback," and "greaser" to his face, (T.30) as well as behind his back. Mr. Peakman, another maintenance supervisor, testified that he was guilty of a single lapse: I didn't see him and I asked, "Where's Julio?" And then I caught myself, I said, "Excuse me, where's Mr. Inacio?" I corrected myself right then. T.455. In or about January of 1989, (T.271), Jimmy Lavon Sherouse, maintenance superintendent since May of 1987, referred to petitioner as "Julio" at least once, in the break room. Willard A. Douglas, a supervisor of maintenance at the plant since December of 1981, referred to petitioner as "Julio" frequently. Described as abrasive, Mr. Douglas, also known as "Bubba," has "single[d] Paul out." T.46. But it appeared at hearing at least as likely that Mr. Douglas singled petitioner out because of a run-in which had nothing to do with Mr. Inacio's background, as that he discriminated against him on account of national origin. Prior to June of 1989, continuously since 1981 (T.29), Howard Keels, Calvin Harris, Mike Taylor, Ronnie Yates, and Bill Sabata, Control Center supervisors, C. B. Hartley, supervisor over the coal docks, John Spence and David Hansford, both maintenance supervisors at the time, Mike Snuggs, Joe Patterson, Ed Lepley, Tommy Stanley and Dennis Cowan, supervisors of the laboratory department, Dennis Berg and Joe Kight, schedulers, Tom Talty, the assistant plant manager, Joe Lalas and Larry Swindell, both operations supervisors, all called petitioner "Julio" "[t]o his face in [the] presence" (T.27) of Ricky Carnley, a fellow welder mechanic who testified at hearing. T.21-26. Others also heard supervisors call petitioner "Julio." T.79-80, 110, 144-6, 178-9, 195-6, 237-9, 537-8. Not without reason, petitioner came to feel that "(a)nything associated with Hispanic heritage that could come up, I was called at some point or other by practically anybody." T.267. Angelo Grellia, a fellow mechanic who testified "I'm a wop, you know" (T.79) (emphasis added) remembered co-workers calling petitioner a "wop." A newspaper cartoon posted on a bulletin board in the employee break room (not the bulletin board reserved exclusively for management's use) depicted a man using a two-by-four. Petitioner "is known for using two-by-fours a lot to move stuff, pry stuff for leverage." T.34. The cartoon was labelled "Julio." Another time somebody posted a newspaper clipping, a report of a parricide, complete with picture; the killer's name had been lined through and Mr. Inacio's had been substituted. T.112, 158, 179. After two days, a fellow employee took it down (T.158), apparently without Mr. Inacio's ever seeing it. Still another time somebody posted "a National Geographic picture" (T.181) that resembled petitioner "and the caption said, can you guess who this is." T.181. Somebody had guessed and written in "Julio." T.243. According to uncontroverted testimony, white Anglo-Saxon men "were not selected to be the butt of these sorts of jokes." T.159. Over the plant's public address system, in Mr. Talty's presence, Charles Brown referred to petitioner as "Paul Inasshole," a play on his surname. T.25. No other employee was ridiculed in such a fashion, as far as the evidence showed, (T.49) but broadcasts in a similarly offensive vein ("An asshole" "A nasty hole") took place repeatedly over respondent's public address system. T. 24-25, 48-49, 71, 144-146, 163, 240. At all pertinent times, respondent had widely disseminated written equal opportunity and affirmative action policies with the stated "intent . . . to provide all employees with a wholesome work environment." Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. "Company policy prohibits intimidation or harassment of its employees by any employee or supervisor." Id. But, as Barbara Louise Mallory, an "Equal Employment Opportunity representative" (T.477) in respondent's employ, conceded, the "conduct that went on was against [Gulf Power's] policies and against the law." T.484. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 stated that employees "subjected to conduct which violates this policy should report such incidences to their immediate supervisor, a higher level of supervision, or the Company's Equal Employment Opportunity Representative in the Corporate Office." Id. In the present case, both respondent's immediate supervisors and "a higher level of supervision," were well aware of the harassment to which petitioner was subjected, before he officially reported it. Supervisors were themselves guilty of harassment. On February 8, 1988, Mr. Sherouse, the maintenance superintendent, addressed "a routine shift meeting with employees [and] discussed with them the need to refrain from destruction of employees' or company property." Respondent's Exhibit No. 8. Mr. Sherouse "essentially said . . . some employees . . . were being singled out . . . . " T.295. He told employees at the meeting that "such an incident . . . could result in an action up to termination." Id. At the same meeting he "also discussed cartoons and calendars that could be considered . . . racial or sexual harassment . . . [directing that] they must be removed now." Respondent's Exhibit No. 8. These matters were also discussed at an employee information meeting in January of 1989. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. But harassment of petitioner continued. "[Q]uite frequently . . . thick heavy grease would get smeared on his toolbox, underneath the drawers of his toolbox." T.34. The lock on his locker was glued or "zip-gripped" shut several times, and had to be cut to open the locker. Respondent's Exhibit No. He is the only employee (T.39) who had to change clothes because some sort of itching powder was put in his clothes. Somebody put "Persian Blue," a particularly persistent dye, in his glove. At respondent's counsel's behest a list was prepared of "employees who have experienced problems with someone tampering with their tools or person[a]l lockers," Respondent's Exhibit No. 10, during the two years next preceding the list's preparation on August 4, 1989. Of the nine employees listed, seven were white Caucasians whose tools or books had been lost or stolen. 1/ Unlike the native-born men on the list, petitioner and Debbie Mitchell, the only other person listed, were subjected to repeated instances of vandalism and other harassment, including unflattering references in cartoons posted on the bulletin board in the break room. Although petitioner did not request it, management assigned him a new locker, something they did for no other employee. According to a co-worker, petitioner, who once taught welding at Pensacola Junior College, "likes to do a good, clean, responsible job" (T.185) of welding. But, on October 22 and 23, 1988, when petitioner and Millard Hilburn worked on "the #7 bottom ash discharge piping," Respondent's Exhibit No. 21, at Willard Douglas' behest, they failed to stop seepage from the pressurized pipe (which was in use while they worked) by welding, and resorted to epoxy which, in Mr. Douglas' "opinion[,] . . . [was] bad judgement and very poor workmanship." Id. Of 30 or 40 welders respondent employed at Crist, only one or two "still have a clean record. Eventually somebody is going to get a leak." T.202. Petitioner's work record is basically a very good one, although not perfect. Nevertheless Mr. Sherouse, after putting petitioner's name on a list of three "employees who for different reasons are not performing their jobs," Respondent's Exhibit No. 7, summoned petitioner to a conference about his job performance, on January 20, 1989. The other two employees were Scott Allen, whose problem was "attitude . . . distrust, dislike . . . just unbelievable" (T.443; 420) and Ed Lathan who "hadn't been there since June of '87" (T.420) except sporadically "working light duty." T.420. Mr. Sherouse also prepared various memoranda concerning petitioner; and caused other managers to prepare still other memoranda. Only after the January conference was petitioner involved in the repair of a boiler tube that failed. (He welded one end of a replacement piece that may have been improperly sized and had already been welded in place by others.) In contrast to petitioner's involvement in two incidents (only one of which occurred before the filing of the complaint), at least one other welder mechanic working for respondent had made five welds that failed in short order. On April 11, 1989, petitioner was assigned the job of cleaning plugged nozzles on intake screens for units four and five (although ordinarily operators themselves did such routine maintenance.) He first went to the control room for units four and five and asked directions to the intake screens, which are part of the cooling system. Misunderstanding directions, he went to the wrong cooling system intakes, those for units six and seven, instead of those for four and five, and started work without finding a red tag (used to indicate that somebody from operations had "isolated" the equipment) and without placing his own tag on an electrical switch that equipment operators use. He did, however, place tags on valves that had to be opened in order for the system to operate. When Mr. Sherouse heard what had happened he sent Mr. Inacio home from work. Although Mr. Sherouse did not at that time "announce termination or non- termination, pay or no pay" (T.436), petitioner was eventually paid for the time off, which lasted two days during the purported pendency of an investigation, which consisted of "going back and looking at his files." T.437. Without credible contradiction, several people testified that mistaking one piece of equipment for another occurred not infrequently (T.85) at the Crist plant. The evidence showed that much more serious safety lapses had, in general, elicited much milder responses from management. Petitioner was criticized more harshly than non-minority employees for the same or comparable performance. T.31-33, 73-74, 112-120, 130-131, 148-9, 150-4, 186-7, 197, 257- 263. Petitioner's safety record was "better than most." T.424. An Indian who works at the Crist steam plant, Ron Taylor is known as "Indian" or "Chief." T.52. Supervisors referred to Nicholas Peterson as "a damned Greek" (T.111) when he worked at respondent's Crist plant. "From January 1982 until March 1990," just about every supervisor at Crist "refer[red] to some . . . blacks as being niggers." T.135. Objection was sustained to admission of colored Beetle Bailey comic strips crudely altered to depict cartoon characters engaged in oral sex. But Ms. Mitchell testified without objection to other "extremely vulgar cartoons" (T.157) she saw posted on the bulletin boards including one with her name on it. T.159. (When she complained to Mr. Sherouse, he eventually reported back to her that the reference was to a different Debbie.) At Crist Electric "they use the good ole boy theory . . . [i]f you fit into their select group, you're taken in, you're trained . . . you get better selection of jobs. If you're not, you're an outcast." T.136. Petitioner "definitely" got more than his share of "dirty jobs," specifically precipitator work and condenser work. T.183; 85-86, 147-8. Petitioner's "pride was hurt." T.265. He felt humiliated. Unfair criticism affected his morale. T.36. At least one co-worker "could sense . . . that he felt like he was not wanted there." T.37. He considered leaving his employment and even told at least one Gulf Power official that he was doing so. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Discriminatory treatment affected his ability to concentrate, and so his job performance. T.36, 37.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the FCHR order respondent to refrain from harassing or otherwise discriminating against petitioner on account of his national origin. That the FCHR award petitioner reasonable attorney's fees and costs. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1991.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner was terminated from her employment with Respondent for a discriminatory reason.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Sharon Singleton, was employed by Respondent in the Information Technology (IT) Department. Petitioner served, as did other IT employees, under an annual contract. Respondent is the administrative government entity for the public schools of Escambia County, Florida. Contracts of employment are with the Escambia County School Board. Mr. Johnnie Odom supervised Petitioner until the last eight months of her employment. Her supervisor was Kathy Cooper during the last eight months of her employment. For many years, Petitioner and the other technicians used a software program that supported the management of school records that was known as “TERMS.” During the last few years of Petitioner’s employment, the District changed the supporting software program from TERMS to a program known as “FOCUS.” This was a major conversion of software programs that took place over an extended period of time. When the FOCUS program was initiated, Respondent hired three additional technicians to support FOCUS. Petitioner disagreed with the hiring of new technicians to support FOCUS, but acknowledges she was not treated any differently from the other Tech III support staff. Her disagreement was over the hiring of the new technicians, rather than allowing the existing ones to serve as primary support for FOCUS. Petitioner sought a promotion to a higher level position in 2011. The promotion process was administered by a selection committee that interviewed and evaluated candidates. As a result of the competitive selection, Petitioner was not recommended or selected for the promotion. On two prior occasions, Petitioner had sought a promotion, and on both occasions a selection committee ranked and evaluated the candidates. Petitioner was not successful in being selected or promoted on those two prior occasions. For the 2011-2012 school year, Petitioner received unsatisfactory ratings for her administrative/professional techniques and skills, as well as for her professional relationships with staff. The evaluation contained a note stating that Petitioner has difficulty in resolving conflicts with her co-workers and that her supervisor would like to see her resolve conflicts with her co-workers in a more diplomatic manner. Petitioner had received some unsatisfactory or needs improvement marks in her previous years’ evaluations, so 2011- 2012 was not the first time she had received less than satisfactory marks. Nevertheless, following the 2011-2012 annual evaluation, Petitioner received an annual employment contract for the next school year. At the end of the next school year, Petitioner again received an unsatisfactory mark for her professional techniques and skills. She also was cited for needing improvement in other areas. The notes to that evaluation stated Petitioner had improved her relationships with co-workers, but was still having problems adjusting to the new programs that required modernizing her skill set. Despite a few negative marks on her evaluation, Petitioner received an annual contract for the 2013-2014 school year. Petitioner did not dispute the fact that her evaluator and supervisor, Mr. Odom, believed her performance was unsatisfactory. She disagreed, however, with his assessment of her performance. Petitioner believed she had been demoted in the 2013-2014 school year and testified she signed a paper acknowledging a demotion in a disciplinary meeting with the IT department director, Tom Ingram. She did not receive a reduction in salary or benefits, however. Mr. Ingram classified the action taken against Petitioner as a restriction of her duties to Level I telephone support, rather than the more challenging Level II telephone support duties that she had performed in the past. He did not consider this a demotion, but more of a recognition of assigning Petitioner to duties that he believed she could better handle with her skill set. Petitioner testified that Ms. Cooper told her on several occasions she should consider retirement. Petitioner took this as evidence of Ms. Cooper’s belief she was too old to perform her job. Ms. Cooper testified she made the suggestion because Petitioner had an elderly mother who lived in a nursing home and needed assistance. Ms. Cooper was responding to Petitioner having told her she was left with little time to care for her mother when she finished with work. Petitioner acknowledged that her mother was elderly and needed help and that she had told this to Ms. Cooper. During Petitioner’s final eight months of employment, she worked mainly telephone support under the direction of Ms. Cooper, the support manager for the District. Ms. Cooper manages the help desk and IT support staff. She manages two levels of support. Level I support involves matters that can be resolved by telephone, while Level II support is for matters that cannot be resolved in five minutes or less and require more expertise to cure. Ms. Cooper developed concerns about Petitioner’s support performance. She took her concerns to the Director of IT, Mr. Ingram. Similar concerns with Petitioner’s performance had been raised by another support technician, as well. That technician reported that one of the schools to which he and Petitioner had both been assigned, asked that Petitioner not be allowed to return there for support in the future. When Ms. Cooper brought her concerns about Petitioner to Mr. Ingram, he asked that she bring him documentation of her concerns evidencing recent issues concerning Petitioner’s performance. Mr. Ingram met with Petitioner on September 3, 2013, to review her performance. Mr. Ingram’s notes from that meeting document his concern with Petitioner’s performance and he restricted her duties at that time to telephone support because he did not believe she could independently provide on-site support to more schools. His notes further indicate that Petitioner was not satisfied with his conclusions regarding her performance. Mr. Ingram conducted a follow-up interview with Petitioner on September 4, 2013, because Petitioner wanted to share with him the evaluation she had received from Mr. Odom for the 2012-2013 school year. Mr. Ingram told Petitioner he agreed with the evaluation conducted and recorded by Mr. Odom. Mr. Ingram had yet another meeting with Petitioner in March 2014 regarding her performance. With Ms. Cooper present, Mr. Ingram reviewed documentation concerning Petitioner’s unsatisfactory performance. The meeting was held pursuant to a Notice of Consideration of Disciplinary Action served on Petitioner. As a result of the meeting, Mr. Ingram was not confident Petitioner could satisfactorily improve her performance. He believed that Petitioner refused to accept the representative examples he gave her of her unsatisfactory performance. After concluding at the March meeting that Petitioner’s performance would not sufficiently improve, Mr. Ingram decided not to renew Petitioner’s annual contract when it expired in June 2014. Petitioner believed she had been marginalized by her perceived demotion to a Level I telephone support technician. She also was removed from ZENworks, a scheduling program she had previously been involved with over the years, becoming the only employee on the support team that was not allowed to participate in that program. Petitioner believed that all the criticisms of her work by management were hyper-technical, and that she received little, if any, feedback or training during the period for which she was evaluated when the unsatisfactory findings were made. She also attempted to show that others who made errors similar to hers were given promotions. The evidence presented on this point was insufficient to support her claim of disparate treatment. Several retired or long-serving District employees testified that their interaction over the years with Petitioner resulted in responsive and high-quality service from Petitioner. None of these witnesses testified about specific support they received from Petitioner during the last three years of her employment, employing the new FOCUS system, which served as the basis for the non-renewal of her contract. Petitioner testified she should receive damages in the amount of $384,000 as the result of her employment being terminated while she was a participant in the midst of D.R.O.P.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding Respondent did not commit the “unlawful employment practice” alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner’s employment discrimination charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2015, 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 11th day of December, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Ryan M. Barnett, Esquire Whibbs and Stone, P.A. 801 West Romana Street, Unit C Pensacola, Florida 32502 (eServed) Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire The Hammons Law Firm, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 (eServed) Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to an unlawful employment practice on the basis of religion; or in retaliation to his engagement in a lawful employment activity, in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Escambia County, is a political subdivision of the state of Florida that is authorized to carry out county government, pursuant to section 125.01, Florida Statutes (2016). Escambia County is an employer as that term is defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act 1992. Petitioner, Mr. Love, was employed by Blue Arbor, Inc., a staffing agency. Blue Arbor had a contract with Escambia County for temporary labor services. Blue Arbor assigned Mr. Love to a temporary job with Escambia County, Public Works Department, Office of Engineering and Construction, as an engineering project coordinator. The assignment was for one year. Petitioner was assigned to the job from May 26, 2014, until his termination. On January 26, 2015, Escambia County terminated Petitioner’s temporary employment contract. Petitioner was an employee of Escambia County as that term is defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Mr. Love is a Christian. Petitioner timely filed a complaint with the Commission alleging Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by terminating Petitioner on the basis of his religion. As an engineering project coordinator, Petitioner’s job responsibilities included: management of complex projects, ability to prioritize work, and ability to exercise good interpersonal skills with co-workers, supervisors, and the public. Mr. Love earned a Bachelor of Science in Engineering Technology and Construction degree in December 2013. Mr. Love had no prior drainage or roadway experience before working for Escambia County. Mr. Love began working for Escambia County following a storm that was declared a disaster. Due to the disaster, staff was expected to be flexible and able to perform job duties without refusal or hesitation. Respondent asserts that it terminated Petitioner’s contract due to his inability to perform job responsibilities without objection or hesitation, work performance, and disruptive behavior. Mr. Love had multiple supervisors during his eight month tenure at Escambia County. While working at Escambia County, Mr. Love’s supervisors had issues with his work performance and his behavior. Mary Bush, a construction manager, supervised Mr. Love in 2014. Ms. Bush had issues with Mr. Love’s file storage practices and behavior. Ms. Bush testified that Mr. Love saved all his work on a personal computer and was told several times to save his work in the shared folder. Mr. Love refused to save his work on the shared drive on the basis that the documents were his work. During the time Ms. Bush supervised Mr. Love, she experienced two incidents with Mr. Love involving outbursts. On one occasion, Mr. Love was in Ms. Bush’s office seeking review of Mr. Love’s work. Mr. Love stated in a raised voice, “you need to review the report so I can do my job.” On another occasion, Ms. Bush directed Mr. Love to identify his documents using a certain description and explained the importance of the practice. Mr. Love objected on the basis that the practice was an asinine process. Mr. Love was reassigned to another supervisor due to the outbursts involving Ms. Bush. At no point did Mr. Love state that his objection to following directions was based on his religion. Chris Curb, an engineering manager for stormwater, also supervised Mr. Love during his tenure at Escambia County. Despite the direction from Ms. Bush, the file-sharing issue continued. On December 30, 2014, Chris Curb notified Mr. Love by email that his file saving was a “problem.” Mr. Curb advised Mr. Love that his file folder was not a standard subfolder and he needed to save all files in the proper shared subfolders. He explained that file sharing is important so Escambia County could comply with state regulations and records requests. He further explained that Mr. Love was not the sole owner of a project record because other employees would need access to the work. He concluded his email with instructions for Mr. Love to use designated file folders. A third supervisor, Jim Duncan, also had issues with Mr. Love’s work performance and behavior. Similar to his practice under prior supervisors, Mr. Love refused to save his files to the shared file folder. Mr. Love also repeatedly refused to attend mandatory meetings without a direct command. For example, on multiple occasions Mr. Love’s supervisor had to locate and direct him to attend the weekly department meetings. Mr. Love testified that he was reluctant to attend the meetings because he believed they “were unproductive and take up too much time.” Similar to other supervisors, Mr. Love engaged in an outburst with Mr. Duncan. Mr. Duncan was a construction manager when he supervised Mr. Love and thus, was responsible for directing Mr. Love to advance projects from conception to completion. One such project was ENG Flood 414-85, which was also referred to as the Beulah Road at Helms Intersection project (“Beulah-Helms project”). Mr. Love was the project coordinator for the project. In October 2014, Roads, Inc., a construction company, submitted a bid for the Beulah-Helms project. Brett Moylan is the vice-president and chief operating officer of Roads, Inc. The project was a pricing agreement contract. Pricing agreement contracts are contracts where prices are established for a period of one year and are adopted by the Escambia County prior to the award of any specific pricing agreement contract. Pricing agreements have a blackout period and bidding process that also takes place prior to acceptance of the pricing agreement. In December 2015, Mr. Love was in the final stages of the procurement process for the Beulah-Helms project. Roads, Inc. was the lowest bidder on the project. Mr. Love corresponded with Mr. Moylan regarding the documents necessary to approve the project. Mr. Love requested a construction schedule and MOT plan for the project before the work order could be approved. Mr. Moylan asserted in an email that the construction schedule would begin after the purchase order is issued. Mr. Moylan later submitted the MOT plan and signed the work order. On January 22, 2015, Mr. Love sent an email to Mr. Moylan requesting the construction schedule and another signed work order with the appropriate dates. Mr. Love advised Mr. Moylan that he would not begin the project until Mr. Moylan submitted the construction schedule. Although Mr. Moylan explained that he usually did not submit a construction schedule, he ultimately provided the construction schedule to Mr. Love indicating that the project would begin the following Monday and “be substantially complete within 60 days of commencement, and have a completion date within 90 days.” The construction schedule provided by Mr. Moylan was an acceptable schedule. For a reason that was not addressed at hearing, Mr. Love asked Mr. Moylan for the construction schedule again, despite receiving it. Mr. Moylan advised Mr. Love to accept the next lowest bidder. As a result of the email exchange with Mr. Moylan, Mr. Love planned to send Mr. Moylan a follow-up email about accepting the next highest bidder, which would purportedly cost Escambia County an additional $20,000 for the project. Before Mr. Love drafted the email, he called Mr. Moylan to discuss the issues referenced in the email. Mr. Love testified that before he called Mr. Moylan he “drove around the block a couple of times, before he could call Mr. Moylan because [he] knew that the conversation was going to get heated.” Mr. Love described the conversation as heated, and they “cut each other off” during the conversation. Mr. Moylan contacted Mr. Duncan to complain about Mr. Love’s behavior related to the Beulah-Helms project. Mr. Duncan approached Mr. Love to discuss the exchange between Mr. Love and Mr. Moylan. Mr. Duncan directed Mr. Love to award the Beulah-Helms project to Roads, Inc. Mr. Love objected to awarding the contract to Roads, Inc. He testified that his objection was based on his religion because “[he] had an obligation to utilize his moral and ethical judgment which is inherent to [his] religion.” Mr. Love stated that the religious accommodation was based on his request for additional information before he could feel comfortable awarding the project to Roads, Inc. Mr. Love testified that he told Mr. Duncan that he refused to award Roads, Inc., without the construction schedule “based on a matter of principal.” Mr. Love did not say he refused to approve the project based on his religion. He did not say he needed an accommodation for his religion. Mr. Duncan directed Mr. Love not to take any further action until they discussed Mr. Love’s objection with the department manager, Joy Jones. During the conversation, Mr. Love became angry and yelled at Mr. Duncan. Sharon Johnson, a project coordinator, witnessed the exchange between Mr. Love and Mr. Duncan. Specifically, Ms. Johnson observed Mr. Love and Mr. Duncan having the discussion about the Beulah-Helms project. Ms. Johnson described Mr. Love’s demeanor as unhappy and upset. She testified that he raised his voice and yelled at Mr. Duncan. At the same time, Mr. Duncan attempted to calm Mr. Love. Ms. Johnson could not recall the substance of the discussion, but she testified without hesitation that Mr. Love did not mention anything about his religion. Ms. Johnson’s testimony is found to be credible. On January 26, 2015, Escambia County terminated Petitioner’s contract. Joy Jones, the Engineering Department manager, made the final decision to terminate Mr. Love’s contract. Although Ms. Jones did not directly supervise Mr. Love, she was aware of the issues concerning his work performance and behavior through complaints from her staff who directly supervised Mr. Love. After several complaints of angry outbursts, difficulty meeting deadlines, failure to save critical documents to the shared drive, inability to move projects in the process without reluctance, and inability to work with several supervisors, Ms. Jones made the decision to terminate Mr. Love’s contract. Based on the evidence, Respondent has demonstrated that Mr. Love’s termination was based on a legitimate business decision due to poor work performance and disruptive behavior. Approximately one year after his termination, Mr. Love sent an email to the Escambia County Administrator, Jack Brown. The email complained of perceived damage to Mr. Love’s reputation, credibility, and career. Mr. Love did not mention any complaint of religious discrimination or retaliation. In his response to Mr. Love, Mr. Brown explained that “in the project coordinator position staff must examine and thoroughly understand applicable process. Refusal and hesitation to perform job duties affect production, grant reimbursement deadlines, and citizen expectations.” Mr. Love did not explicitly mention anything about his religion or religious discrimination to any of his supervisors before he was terminated from Escambia County.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s discrimination complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 24th day of May, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Benjamin David Love Post Office Box 1132 Gonzalez, Florida 32560 (eServed) Meredith D. Crawford, Esquire Escambia County Board of County Commissioners Suite 430 221 Palafox Place Pensacola, Florida 32502 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practices alleged in the employment discrimination complaint Petitioner filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a very well-credentialed, internationally-recognized cancer researcher who is black and a native of Cameroon. He has been granted lawful permanent residence status in the United States (with an EB-1 classification, signifying that he is an alien with "extraordinary ability"). Petitioner received his Doctor of Medicine degree in 1999 from the University of Yaounde I in Cameroon. He spent the next five years as a post-doctoral fellow at the University of Rochester Medical Center in Rochester, New York.3 He worked in the Department of Orthopaedics (under the supervision of Randy N. Rosier, M.D., Ph.D.) for the first two of these five years and the James P. Wilmont Cancer Center (under the supervision of Dr. Rosier and Joseph D. Rosenblatt, M.D.) for the remaining three years. Petitioner enjoyed a considerable amount of independence, and was "very productive," during his time at the University of Rochester Medical Center. In June 2005, Petitioner began working as a post- doctoral associate assigned to the Viral Oncology (VO) program at UM's Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center (Sylvester) in Miami, Florida. He remained in this position until his termination (which he claims was discriminatorily motivated) in September 2006. Sylvester "serves as the hub for cancer-related research, diagnosis, and treatment at [UM's] Miller School of Medicine" (Miller). The VO program is administratively housed in the Division of Hematology/Oncology of Miller's Department of Medicine. Dr. Rosenblatt, Petitioner's former supervisor at the University of Rochester Medical Center, is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, the Chief of the Division of Hematology/Oncology. According to the Sylvester website, the goals of the VO program include: Investigating the mechanisms of oncogenesis and innate immune subversion in viral associated cancers including those that arise in immunocompromised patients. Devising novel and targeted therapeutic and preventive strategies for viral associated malignancies. Implementing basic and clinical international collaborative studies in developing nations that have a high incidence of these tumors. William Harrington, Jr., M.D., is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, "in charge" of the VO program. Dr. Harrington, who is white, is a 1984 Miller graduate. He has been working for UM since his graduation 24 years ago. For the past 17 or 18 of these years, he has held positions having supervisory authority over other UM employees. As the head of the VO program, Dr. Harrington runs a "small" laboratory (Dr. Harrington's lab) staffed by a post- doctoral associate, lab technicians, and a research nurse (all of whom he directly supervises). Dr. Harrington's lab is a "hundred percent funded by [competitive] peer review grants": four from the National Institutes of Health (NIH); one from the Leukemia Society; and one from the State of Florida. It is "one of the best-funded labs" at UM. In addition to running his lab, Dr. Harrington also sees and treats patients at UM's Jackson Memorial Medical Center (Jackson Memorial). Approximately 95% of his patients are indigent, with a large number of them being of African descent (black). Dr. Harrington "specializes" in viral lymphomas, with a strong emphasis on diseases that occur predominantly in persons of African descent (certain AIDS-related lymphomas, HTLV-related lymphomas, and Burkitt lymphoma). Over the years, Dr. Harrington has had occasion to do work outside the United States, in areas where these diseases are prevalent, including the Afro-Brazilian state of Bahia, where, approximately 12 years ago, he met his wife Tanya, who is of African descent. Dr. Harrington has also "worked with colleagues in Zambia . . . on AIDS-related lymphomas and pediatric Burkitt lymphomas." Approximately seven or eight years ago, Dr. Harrington "sponsored post-doc[toral] trainees from Zambia in his lab." Dr. Harrington was introduced to Petitioner by Dr. Rosenthal. After reviewing Petitioner's "bio-sketch," Dr Harrington interviewed Petitioner and was sufficiently impressed to offer Petitioner an unadvertised post-doctoral position in his lab. Dr. Harrington hired Petitioner because Petitioner had the "skillset" Dr. Harrington was looking for. Dr. Harrington was particularly influenced by Petitioner's background, including publications, in NF-kappaB signaling, which was an "area[] of [Dr. Harrington's] interest." Moreover, Dr. Harrington thought Petitioner was a "smart capable man." At the time he hired Petitioner, Dr. Harrington was aware Petitioner was black and from Cameroon. Neither Petitioner's race, nor his national origin, played any role in Dr. Harrington's hiring decision. As a post-doctoral associate, Petitioner was the "senior lab person" working under Dr. Harrington's supervision. He was expected to assume a "higher level [of responsibility] than other staff personnel in [the] lab . . . in terms of doing a given set of experiments or [other] work." Dr. Harrington and Petitioner initially enjoyed a cordial working relationship. They had "excellent rapport" and even socialized after work hours. At Dr. Harrington's invitation, Petitioner came over to Dr. Harrington's house approximately "every other Friday" and for the Thanksgiving holiday. Although Dr. Harrington did not hire Petitioner specifically to "build[] international research programs," once Petitioner was hired, Dr. Harrington did discuss the matter with Petitioner, and he authorized Petitioner to initiate contact with cancer investigators in Cameroon to explore the possibility of their collaborating with Dr. Harrington on a project involving NF-kappaB signaling and Burkitt lymphoma. After having received Dr. Harrington's authorization, Petitioner "made contact with some of [his] mentors back in Cameroon, all [of whom were] involved in [Cameroon's] national cancer control program." On July 13, 2005, Dr. Harrington himself sent an e- mail to these Cameroonian investigators, which read as follows: Thank you Dr. Mouelsone for your response. I was considering putting together a project on Burkitt lymphomas that would principally be a study on the biology of the tumor in endemic and HIV associated cases. We would collaborate with investigators in Brazil and Africa. The study would be focused on targets that could be exploited in novel therapies as well the role of ebv [Epstein Barr virus] in different types of tumors. We already have IRB approval for collection of residual lymphoma specimens as well as protocols for the processing that would be required. A challenge in any grant is keeping the project focused and attractive scientifically for the reviewers. The participating center would have to have the capability to identify and consent patients as well as processing and storage . . . . Therefore one would need reagents, a research nurse (maybe 50%) salary and liquid nitrogen dewar as well as some support for a PI. Maybe I could send everyone the aims of a recently submitted grant to see if it would be possible. I could send our informed consent document since it broadly covers all viral associated tumors. I am attaching a recent article and I sincerely appreciate your help. I also am a fan of the Cameroon's football team the "indomitable lions." Dr. Harrington ultimately determined to collaborate exclusively with the Brazilian investigators, with whom he had a longstanding professional relationship, and not with the Cameroonian investigators, on this particular project. During the first several months of Petitioner's employment, he engaged in research involving NF-kappaB signaling. He also helped write an article (entitled, "Zidovudine: A Potential Targeted Therapy for Endemic Burkitt Lymphoma") that was published in the East African Medical Journal. When presented with the draft of the article that Petitioner had prepared, Dr. Harrington commented to Petitioner (by e-mail dated July 28, 2005), "[T]his is better than the one I wrote." Petitioner also contributed to the preparation of a successful NIH grant application submitted on September 1, 2005, by Dr. Harrington (as Principal Investigator/Program Director) seeking funding for his lab, as well as for collaborators in Brazil and at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, to "investigate in primary BLs [Burkitt lymphomas] the form of EBV [Epstein Barr virus] latency and its relationship to NF- k[appa]B"; to "determine the susceptibility of primary tumor cell lines to antiviral apoptosis"; and to "investigate commonly available, inexpensive agents that are known to induce the EBV lytic cycle and potentiate phosphorylation of AZT [azidothymidine, also known as Zidovudine]." The grant application was "based on . . . work that had been done [prior] to [Petitioner's coming to work in Dr. Harrington's lab]." The following individuals were listed as the "key personnel" on the grant application: Dr. Harrington; Iguaracyra Araujo, M.D., of Brazil; Jose Barreto, M.D., of Brazil; Carlos Brites, M.D., Ph.D., of Brazil; Dirk Dittmer, Ph.D., of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and Isildinha Reis, Ph.D., of UM. The following statements were made on the grant application concerning Dr. Reis' and Petitioner's anticipated roles in the proposed project: Isidinha Reis, Ph.D. (Biostatistician) will be in charge of the statistical component of this project including periodic analysis of data pertaining to this grant. She will participate in phone conferences with Ms. Shank and Luz. She will be particularly important for the conduct of this study since she is Brazilian by birth and fluent in Portuguese. 7.5% support is requested. Valentine Andela (Post Doctoral Fellow) will be in charge of all the day-to-day laboratory aspects of Dr. Harrington's component of the project. This includes receipt of isolates shipped from Brazil and then forwarding them to Dr. Dittmer, cell culture, DNA and RNA preparation and hybridization, EMSA and immunoblot analysis, cryopreservation of samples, etc. 50% support is requested. In the fall of 2005, Dr. Harrington discussed with Petitioner an article published in a "science magazine" that reported on Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) microRNAs, which, at the time, was a relatively unexplored area of research and one in which Dr. Harrington "definitely [did] not" have any "expertise." During the discussion, Petitioner expressed an interest in studying EBV microRNAs. Dr. Harrington "agreed [this] would be an interesting project to pursue," and he "thought [Petitioner] could do a good job" on it. With Dr. Harrington's approval, Petitioner thereafter started his research of EBV microRNAs, a project that consumed most of his work time during the remainder of his employment with UM. The project included helping draft a manuscript detailing the findings of the research. The experiments that Petitioner did as part of the project were on tumor samples that had been "collect[ed]" and "intial[ly] analy[zed]" by Brazilian investigators with whom Dr. Harrington had collaborated with in the past. In November 2005, Petitioner advised Dr. Harrington that he was considering participating in a clinical residency program, and Dr. Harrington "agreed to help [Petitioner] out" in any efforts he might make to seek a residency position. At Petitioner's request, Dr. Harrington wrote a letter of reference (dated November 16, 2005), "highly recommending" Petitioner for such a position. Dr. Harrington indicated in his letter, among other things, that in the "relatively brief time" that Petitioner had worked for him, Petitioner had "exceeded [Dr. Harrington's] expectations and made novel findings in the area of lymphoma and Epstein Barr virus." In addition to writing this letter of reference, Dr. Harrington, on Petitioner's behalf, contacted Stephen Symes, M.D., who at the time was the "head of the [Jackson Memorial medical] house staff program." Dr. Symes told Dr. Harrington that the "logical thing for [Petitioner] to [first] do [was] . . . a clinical rotation" at a teaching hospital, such as Jackson Memorial (during which he would act as either an observer or as an actual member of a medical team). Petitioner had planned to participate in a two-week clinical rotation at Jackson Memorial in December 2005, but had to change his plans because, when December came, he was still immersed in the EBV microRNA research project he had undertaken and had no time to do the rotation. Dr. Harrington was pleased with the quality of the work that Petitioner was doing on the project. In an e-mail he sent Petitioner on March 6, 2006, Dr. Harrington stated that he was "really excited about [Petitioner's] work," which he described as "novel and probably the best thing to come out of [his] little lab." On or about March 20, 2006, Dr. Harrington provided Petitioner with his written annual performance evaluation. He gave Petitioner an overall rating of "exceeds standards," with Petitioner receiving an "exceeds" rating in the categories of "Job Knowledge," "Supervision Required," "Quality of Work," "Adaptability," "Customer Service," and "Safety," and a "meets" rating in the category of "Time Management." Dr. Harrington made the following handwritten comment on the evaluation with respect to the latter category: I would like him to maintain more regular hours but his work is outstanding. Dr. Harrington felt compelled to make this comment because, although he "liked the work [Petitioner] was doing," "there were issues [regarding Petitioner's] disappearing for long periods of time [from Dr. Harrington's lab without telling Dr. Harrington where he was] and [Dr. Harrington] thought that this was becoming problematic." These "unexplained absences" from the lab were becoming more frequent and Dr. Harrington felt like Petitioner was "pushing the envelope." The improvements that Dr. Harrington had hoped to see in Petitioner's attendance did not materialize, and the relationship between the two deteriorated precipitously. On March 29, 2006, following a confrontation he had with Dr. Harrington, Petitioner sent an e-mail to Dr. Harrington, in which he advised: I did not mean to be rude this afternoon and you are absolutely right in pointing out that I am tense and consequently reactive. All things considered, I am putting undue pressure on myself. I am pretty much accepted in the Master of Arts in International Administration (MAIA) program at the UM. It is a professional degree program that puts a lot of weight on a practicum of the degree candidate[']s choice. I had proposed to implement the strategy articulated in the attached manuscript, which was previously funded in 2003 by an NCI-UICC grant for international cancer research and technology transfer. I am going to commit[] to the MAIA program, get it done in a year, and then reassess. I can go on to work in international developmental aid or go on to do a residency. If I was pushing for a tenure track faculty position, it is in part because I wanted to pursue the first option, but do it gradually over 3 years under your wing. Of course, I was counting on that plan being in line with your grand scheme, i.e. developing international programs. Dr. Harrington responded that same day by sending Petitioner the following e-mail: Ok I can help you with letters etc. I understand and that sounds like a good program. I want to expand these studies to Africa and hopefully in the future we can work together. I need your help on this paper. I think you have done very nice work. Things are pretty tough in the academic arena these days. A few days later, on April 1, 2006, Dr. Harrington, upset with what he felt was Petitioner's continuing lack of respect for his supervisory authority over the operation of the lab, sent Petitioner an e-mail, in which he stated the following: I have given this some thought and I don't think that this is working out with you. I am tired to see that you have simply disappeared without even a word to me and although you do very nice work it isn't worth it to me at this point. I also did not like the way you simply dismissed the fact that I had to do the work as outlined in the grant. I have tried very hard to go out of my way to accommodate you but at this point I feel that I have no authority at all. I want you to sit down on Monday and give me all the data for this paper, raw and otherwise. I also received all the pictures from Iguarcyra and the tumors are on the way. If you don't want to finish this then I will send everything to [D]irk. It is too bad because there is a lot we could have accomplished. Later that month, on April 28, 2006, reacting to another instance of Petitioner's being away from the lab when he was expecting Petitioner to be there, Dr. Harrington sent the following e-mail to Petitioner: I have been waiting around here to look at the figures. If you don't come in you should call, or if you leave for the majority of the day, you should call. I have spoken to you about this to no avail. You are a smart guy but am sick of this. Finish your paper and find another job. You will have to leave the computer here too. I will not ask for a raise for you nor a faculty position. Dr. Harrington sent Petitioner a follow-up e-mail the next day, which read as follows: I really am disgusted. You have thrown away everything this year, both for you and me. Your unstable behavior makes me question everything you have done also and so I will have to cancel submitting this paper until Lan[4] or JC can repeat some of the work. You are throwing away your tuition benefits also and have adversely affected everyone, most of all yourself. I have contacted the appropriate ones about this. I strongly urge you to do all I have outlined below.[5] I will not consider anything else. In an April 30, 2006, e-mail to Dr. Harrington, Petitioner responded: I will let the facts speak for themselves. Prior to joining your lab, I spent over five years working in a highly interactive and competitive environment. My record is infallible. You have in fact benefited tremendously from my intellect, my experience and especially my poise. I trust you would assemble an ethics committee to probe my work. I expect a letter of termination in due form and I would transfer all of the research material accordingly. This e-mail generated the following response from Dr. Harrington, which was communicated to Petitioner later that day by e-mail: Poise, what a joke. If you walk off with the data and th[]e computer I will call security. The morning of May 2, 2006, Petitioner sent the following e-mail to Dr. Harrington: Dear Dr. Harrington: Per your request, I will transfer everything to Lan no later than next week, Monday the 8th. This was all a set up anyway, to bog me down in the lab. So I would not make a fuss about any of this. I will put this all behind me. Nonetheless, I have backed up every relevant document that exonerates me from any denigration. In a way, I should thank you for throwing me out to the world and bringing me to face my fears. So thank you. Valentine Dr. Harrington replied a little more than a hour later, stating in an e-mail to Petitioner: I have always t[h]ought that you were the smartest person that has worked for me. Your work is really beautiful and I certainly could not have done it. I am very disturbed over this and I don't see why you could not level with me. Your behavior at times was just too much, not your demeanor but the fact that you simply went on mental walkabouts and disappeared. You have to get a grip on your ego and not wear it on your sleeve. I had really thought we could have basically kicked ass in this area but I don't think that you realize the precarious nature of this business and that you have to be careful about straying into something or somebody that will leave you []no[] grant money. Valentine you can ask Joe. I spent most of my time bragging about your work to everyone. If you are smart, which you obviously are, then you don't have to go around telling that to people, they know. The most important thing is that you get along with people and when you would just not show up without even calling it really pissed me off. It was telling me that I am not even worth a phone call. I can be a real asshole, again ask Joe, and I have done myself harm from being so. But like it or not I am a lot older and more senior than you. You will far surpass me in research if you get a grip on your ego. If not there will be an ever shrinking number of people that care. I would like for you to call me on my beeper or cell. Petitioner defended himself in the following manner in an e-mail he sent to Harrington later that morning: You cannot say that I [am] an egomaniac. I give of myself and I give very generously. That is the record I left in Rochester and that is the record I have left in your lab. To say people there will be an ever shrinking number of people who care is again not true. You should know that whenever I call[ed] on a favor from Rochester, for example getting into the . . . MA in Intl Admin [program], the response was immediate and overwhelmingly positive. I never thought I was smart and never said it. This much I know, I work very hard and I have a generous heart and I will not l[]ose my way. Those are all the values I ever had and I will stick to it. God promised the path would be rough, but the landing would be safe. Again, thank you. Valentine. The final e-mail of the morning was sent by Dr. Harrington to Petitioner. In it, Dr. Harrington informed Petitioner: I am trying to get in contact with the [B]razilians and check on the id of the sa[m]ples one final time and I will try to submit the paper this week. The "paper" to which Dr. Harrington was referring in his e-mail was the manuscript (written by both Petitioner and Dr. Harrington) of the EBV microRNA research project Petitioner was spearheading (EBV microRNA Manuscript). On or about May 12, 2006, following an instance of Petitioner's not "com[ing] in [to the lab] nor call[ing] to advise [Dr. Harrington] of [his absence]," Dr. Harrington spoke with Petitioner about his "unexcused absences" and provided him with specific verbal instructions regarding his attendance and use of his work time. In a May 12, 2006, e-mail, Dr. Harrington informed Desiree Uptgrow of Sylvester's human resources office of the talk he had had with Petitioner and the directives he had given him. The e-mail read as follows: I spoke to Mr. Andela regarding his unexcused absences from work. I referred to the recent time on Friday, when he did not come in nor call to advise me of this. I also spoke to him about concentrating on work and not other activities while in the lab. I will not excuse this or any further incidents. He is expected to comply with the following: 1) arrival at work at a reasonable hour, by this I mean between the hours of 9 to 10 am and cessation of work at a reasonable hour by this I mean 5-6 pm. 2) Weekly goals will be outlined by me in terms of expected experiments to be performed (of course results may vary since the nature of research may not be predictable). 3) an attitude of collegiality in that if there is down time for whatever reason help would be offered by him to other lab personnel. 4) no unexplained long absences from the lab during the day. An expected lunch break of an hour is acceptable. Further deviations from the above will result in a second and third entry into his file whereupon he will be subject to dismissal. William Harrington MD As he put it in his testimony at the final hearing, Dr. Harrington "had no problem with [Petitioner's] going somewhere for an hour or going somewhere for a couple of hours and doing something, but [he] had problems with [Petitioner's] simply disappearing and not giving [him] . . . the courtesy of letting [him] know what was going on." On June 1, 2006, Dr. Harrington (as the corresponding author) submitted the EBV microRNA Manuscript (which was entitled, "Targeted Suppression of CXCL11/I-TAC by EBV encoded BHRF1-3 microRNA in EBV related B-Cell Lymphomas" and is hereinafter referred to as the "First Manuscript") to Blood, a medical journal published by the American Society of Hematology. Petitioner was listed as the first author in the manuscript. Among the other individuals given authorship credit were the Brazilian investigators. It was Dr. Harrington's decision to include them. He felt that "they clearly deserved to be co- authors" and that "it would have been unethical to not have included them." Petitioner disagreed with Dr. Harrington's assessment of the Brazilian investigators' entitlement to authorship credit. In a July 17, 2006, decision letter, Blood's associate editor advised Dr. Harrington that the First Manuscript had been evaluated and deemed "not acceptable for publication in Blood." On July 20, 2006, after what he considered to be further instances of insubordinate conduct on Petitioner's part, Dr. Harrington sent an e-mail to Ms. Uptgrow (as a follow-up to the May 12, 2006, e-mail he had previously sent her), in which he stated the following: There have been a couple of recent incidents which I want to submit in writing. Last week Mr. Andela called me and said that his flight from DC was cancelled or overbooked and he would be late. I replied that this was OK but he never called, emailed or showed up to work. Yesterday he came in past 11 am and also did not call. More concerning is that I had asked him to set up an experiment and later asked my lab tech to assist. When I spoke to my tech this morning he told me that Mr. Andela was not doing the experiment because he saw no reason to. I consider this to be insubordination. Later that same day (July 20, 2006), Ms. Uptgrow sent an e-mail to Nicole Lergier and Lynetta Jackson of Miller's human resources office advising of Dr. Harrington's desire for "assist[ance] in the termination of [Petitioner] based on [Petitioner's] continue[d] lack of following instructions " The afternoon of July 24, 2006, Dr. Harrington and Petitioner engaged in the following argumentative e-mail exchange, evidencing the further decline of their relationship: 1:51 p.m. e-mail from Dr. Harrington to Petitioner I asked you to do the bl-8 line and Peterson line. I don't care to hear that you chose not to do them. 2:05 p.m. e-mail from Petitioner to Dr. Harrington Sorry but I don't know what you are talking about - and it is very disconcerting. I told you we had done the BL8 line and you told Lan to send the Peterson line to Dittmer for profiling. That's where we left off on that - this was reiterated at the meeting you convened with Lisa, Lan, Julio and I. 2:10 p.m. e-mail from Dr. Harrington to Petitioner No that is not true. Lan said that you did not want to do another primary and I said repeatedly that I wanted it done. Your problem [V]alentine is that you think that you are in charge, ie I want a tenured position, I don't want to do old things etc. while I have to keep the grant money coming in. I respect your ability to do certain things and you are a s[m]art guy but clearly you would prefer to be autonomous. The question is how do you attain that. 2:44 p.m. e-mail from Petitioner to Dr. Harrington Dr. Harrington- that is hearsay - you and I had this conversation over the BL8 and the P[e]terson and I said the BL8 had been done and I would run the P[e]terson line in parallel with the dicer exp[erimen]t, once I had gotten the conditions right. I don't think I am in charge - and just how could I, when day in and day out you seek to undermine every "independent" effort I make, that's what[']s expected of a post-doctoral fellow... Every independent effort I have led has panned out - not because I am smart but because I put the time and effort to think it through. When I joined your lab, it was on a 1 year stint - and now I am starting on my second year because you[] wanted it that way. I joined your lab to work on NFkappB, which is what you are funded for and what I had some expertise in, but then you had me work on something totally novel - miRNAs - and the work is done. If I asked for a tenure track position - it is because I recognized (or I thought I did) that you needed someone permanent in the lab - furthermore I was investing too much time and effort on the miRNA work... despite my best efforts (which you do not acknowledge) this is not working out. So I am going right back to the drawing board by doing a residency - we had agreed on this back in May that I was taking a month off in August to do a rotation. I am taking off to Europe for a short vacation on the 6th of August to prepare for my 2 week clinical rotation. So to answer your question - I am giving up on any autonomy and I am going right back to doing a residency. 3:02 p.m. e-mail from Dr. Harrington to Petitioner You never told me about vacation time but ok... you said you would be out for aug (without pay) so am I to presume that aug 6th will be your last day? We don't seem to get along and that's that, no hard feelings. 3:09 p.m. e-mail from Petitioner to Dr. Harrington August 5th would be my last day. 3:17 p.m. e-mail from Dr. Harrington to Petitioner And I will try my best to make sure that happens[.] [Up] until the 5th I would appreciate it if you did run Peterson and bl-8 since they will be cleaner than the primaries. Although not obligated to do so, Dr. Harrington agreed to make sure that Petitioner was paid for the two weeks that, according to his July 24, 2006, 2:44 p.m. e-mail to Dr. Harrington, he was going to be spending doing his clinical rotation (after his trip to Europe). Petitioner left Miami on August 5, 2006, and went to Russia to participate in a two-week "short course" for which he received three credits towards his MAIA degree at UM. (He had enrolled in the MAIA degree program earlier that year.) On August 10, 2006, while he was still in Russia, Petitioner sent the following reply to an e-mail he had received from Dr. Harrington "regarding when [his] return date from the 2 week clinical rotation would be": Sorry I missed that - the 8th of September. Thanks. Petitioner returned to Miami from Russia on August 18 or 19, 2006, "exhausted" and "burned out." He stayed home to rest until returning to work on September 8, 2006. He never did the clinical rotation he told Dr. Harrington he was going to do, but he nonetheless was paid by UM (as Dr. Harrington said he would be) for the two weeks he represented he was going to be engaged in this activity. At no time during his absence from work did Petitioner tell Dr. Harrington he was, in fact, not doing a clinical rotation. He concealed this information because he "wanted to avoid a confrontation" with Dr. Harrington. Dr. Harrington, however, was not entirely in the dark about the matter. On August 22, 2006, through e-mail correspondence, he had checked with Dr. Symes to see if Petitioner had "ever showed up for a clinical rotation" at Jackson Memorial and had been told by Dr. Symes that he had "not heard from [Petitioner] at all." When Petitioner returned to work on September 8, 2006, Dr. Harrington asked him for documentation showing that he had done a clinical rotation at Jackson Memorial during the time he had been away. Petitioner told Dr. Harrington that he did not have any such documentation. Dr. Harrington understood Petitioner to "follow[] that up by saying he had done a clinical rotation in Rochester." Dr. Harrington then "asked [Petitioner] for documentation of that clinical rotation," which Petitioner was unable to produce. The conversation ended with Dr. Harrington telling Petitioner to leave the lab and go home, explaining that he would be bringing the matter to the attention of the human resources office. At this point, Dr. Harrington had decided that it was "just impossible to continue the working relationship" he had with Petitioner and that Petitioner had to be terminated. He was convinced that Petitioner had lied to him about doing a clinical rotation and that, by having been absent from work for the two weeks he was supposed to have been doing such a rotation, Petitioner had effectively abandoned his job. Moreover, Dr. Harrington felt that Petitioner had "exploited" him and was continuing to disregard his supervisory authority. Later in the morning on September 8, 2006, Petitioner sent Dr. Harrington the following e-mail: Hi Dr. Harrington This is just written confirmation that you asked me not to resume work today and to stay away until you had convened a meeting with human resources. Thanks Valentine Petitioner never returned to Dr. Harrington's lab. September 8, 2006, was his last day in the "work environment" of the lab. As he had promised he would, Dr. Harrington made contact (by e-mail) with the human resources office. He concluded the e-mail by stating: At this point, under no circumstances will I allow Mr. Andela back into my lab and he is dismissed. Lynetta Jackson of the human resources office responded to Dr. Harrington by sending him, on September 11, 2006, the following e-mail: Dr. Harrington, We're required to follow a process when terminating employees. As we discussed a few weeks ago, all terminations must be approved by Paul Hudgins.[6] I'm still out of the office for medical reasons. This matter is being referred to Nicole Lergier/Karen Stimmel for follow-up. Nicole Lergier was the human resources employee who handled the matter. Ms. Lergier met with just Petitioner on September 14, 2006. At the outset of the meeting, she informed Petitioner that there was a "request for [his] termination" made by Dr. Harrington. She explained that Dr. Harrington "was concerned that [Petitioner] had taken several weeks off to complete a clinical rotation for which [Petitioner] had been paid but [for] which [he] had never registered," and that Dr. Harrington considered Petitioner's conduct to be "job abandonment and . . . grounds for immediate termination." She then went on to tell Petitioner that the purpose of the meeting was to give Petitioner the opportunity, without Dr. Harrington's being present, to give his side of the story and "to bring forward any issues." Petitioner took advantage of this opportunity. He defended himself against the charges Dr. Harrington had made against him and countercharged that Dr. Harrington had been abusive, "manipulative[,] and unprofessional." At no time did Petitioner complain to Ms. Lergier that Dr. Harrington was "prejudiced against [him] because [he was] black or because [he was] from Cameroon." Petitioner indicated to Ms. Lergier that he "had no interest in going back to Dr. Harrington's lab," but that, among other things, he wanted the EBV microRNA Manuscript to be published. On the same day that the meeting took place, Petitioner sent the following e-mail to Ms. Lergier: This is in response to Dr. William J. Harrington's complaint that I abandoned my job functions. The attached e-mails dated Monday 7/24/2006 indicate that I was gone on leave, without pay. What[']s more, there [is] evidence of professional misconduct, manipulation and negative inputs on Dr. Harrington's part. This is not the first instance. The e-mails dated Tuesday 5/2/2006 to 4/28/2006 document another one of many such instances. The time I took off in August was not nearly enough to recover from a tremendously negative work environment where I nonetheless made many positive contributions, in ideas, manuscripts and grants. The facts speak for themselves. At this point, I do not intend to return to work with Dr. Harrington and I trust Human Resources would find a constructive solution to this problem. Approximately an hour later, Petitioner received an e- mail from Dr. Harrington, which read as follows: Your paper will be submitted with you as first author. I have 9 tumor blocks corresponding to the patients in [B]razil and a couple of new ones here that we will assay for eber, cxcl-11 (we got a new ab.) and LMP-1. Lan has repeated the rpa's on the lines (BL-5, R) and several new primaries and they look very good, cleaner than the previous ones. Once I get this done I will send you a draft prior to submission. Dr. Harrington subsequently submitted a revised version of the First Manuscript (Revised Manuscript) to Blood. The Revised Manuscript was "shorter," but not "substantially different from the [First] [M]anuscript." Petitioner was still listed as the first author, which Dr. Harrington "thought was [only] fair since . . . [Petitioner] had done most of the lab work on that article." Dr. Harrington did not believe that, in submitting an "abbreviated" manuscript with Petitioner's name on it as first author, he was doing anything that was contrary to Petitioner's interests or desires. Notwithstanding Dr. Harrington's best efforts, the Revised Manuscript, like the First Manuscript, was rejected for publication in Blood. Although listed as the first author, Petitioner had not "sign[ed] off" on, or even seen, the Revised Manuscript before its submission to Blood. He ultimately received an e- mailed copy from Dr. Harrington. The next day, upon running into Dr. Harrington on the UM campus, Petitioner told him: [Y]ou cannot put my name on a paper that I didn't write. You can't have me as a first author on a manuscript that I didn't sign off on. Take my name off that paper. I have moved on. Dr. Harrington complied with Petitioner's request. Petitioner's name was not on the version of the EBV microRNA Manuscript Dr. Harrington submitted to another medical journal, Cancer Research, "sometime in late 2007," which was accepted for publication and published in March 2008. On or about September 20, 2006, Petitioner was contacted by Ms. Uptgrow and given the option of resigning his position or being terminated. Petitioner told Ms. Uptgrow that he "wasn't going to resign." On September 25, 2006, Dr. Harrington sent Petitioner the following letter, advising Petitioner that his employment was being terminated "effective immediately": As you know, you have been counseled many times regarding your unsatisfactory performance and attendance issues. Unfortunately, these problems persist despite our counseling efforts. There have been several emails and conversations that have taken place, which you were advised that any further incidents would result in additional disciplinary action. Specifically, we had agreed you would take the weeks of August 5, 2006 - August 18, 2006- off for vacation and this would [be] followed by a 2 week clinical rotation[.] [Y]ou notified your supervisor that you would return on September 8, 2006, 3 weeks after completing your vacation. Despite all of the previous warning and effort to work with you on the problems that concerned your supervisor, it has continued. Due to your failure to adhere to University policies and procedures and ongoing problems, you have left us no alternative but to terminate you effective immediately. Any accrued vacation will be paid to you in your final paycheck. You are to return all University property issued to you upon employment to Desiree Uptgrow to expedite the processing of your final check. Please contact Benefit Administration, (305)284-6837, regarding continuation of benefits you may be entitled to. You should receive information regarding COBRA benefits from the Office of Benefits Administration in a separate letter. If you do not receive this letter, please contact the Office of Benefits Administration at (305)243-6835. Dr. Harrington's termination of Petitioner's employment was based solely on what Dr. Harrington perceived to be Petitioner's deficiencies as an employee. Neither Petitioner's race, nor his national origin, played any role in this or any other action Dr. Harrington took affecting Petitioner. On September 29, 2006, four days after his termination, Petitioner sent the following e-mail to Dr. Harrington: Hi Dr. Harrington: Dr. Symes urged me to do a 2 week clinical rotation/observership with Hem/Onc as the department of internal medicine no longer offers this. Would it be possible to do it with you, starting next week, Wednesday the 3rd of October. Thanks for your consideration. On the advice of UM legal counsel, Dr. Harrington did not respond to this e-mail. Instead of seeking other employment following his termination, Petitioner "focused" on completing the requirements to obtain his MAIA degree at UM. In accordance with UM policy, he continued to receive tuition remission benefits for the 2006 fall semester (the semester in which he was terminated), but after that semester, the benefits ceased. Petitioner believes that he has completed the requirements for his MAIA degree and is entitled to receive his diploma and final transcript, which UM has withheld. UM's records, however, reflect otherwise. They reveal that he has not yet received any credit for the Practicum in International Administration (INS 517) course that he needs to obtain his degree. This course involved Petitioner's writing and defending a thesis. In the spring of 2007, while Petitioner was working on his thesis, his car, which was parked on the UM campus, was ticketed by the City of Coral Gables police and subsequently towed by Downtown Towing Company for "safekeeping." After unsuccessfully attempting to retrieve his vehicle, he demanded that UM compensate him for his loss. UM (acting through its Assistant General Counsel, Judd Goldberg, Esquire) and Petitioner engaged in settlement negotiations. At least as early as August 8, 2007, UM insisted, as a condition of its agreement to any settlement, that Petitioner sign a full and general release reading, in pertinent part, as follows: In exchange for the promises which the University makes in this Agreement, Andela agrees to waive voluntarily and knowingly certain rights and claims against the University. . . . . The rights and claims which Andela waives and releases in this Agreement include, to every extent allowed by law, those arising under . . . the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1871, and 1964, . . . the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 . . . and any amendments to said laws. This is not a complete list, and Andela waives and releases all similar rights and claims under all other federal, state and local discrimination provisions and all other statutory and common law causes of action relating in any way to: (a) Andela's employment or separation from employment with the University which accrued or may have accrued up to the date of execution of this Agreement; and/or (b) Andela's status as a student at the University which accrued or may have accrued up to the date of execution of this Agreement. . . . On September 13, 2007, Petitioner filed his employment discrimination complaint with the FCHR (complaining, for the first time to anyone, that he had been a victim of race and national origin-based discrimination by UM, acting through Dr. Harrington). On September 22, 2007, Petitioner sent the following letter to Mr. Goldberg: I will not surrender my civil rights by signing the full and general release agreement, in order to receive a settlement for my above referenced car that was swindled. Compelling me to surrender my civil rights is an act of retaliation, based on your knowledge of an employment discrimination complaint filed against the University of Miami. As specified on page two-paragraph two- of the attached letter from the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), "the law prohibits retaliation against any person making a complaint, testifying or participating in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing on an alleged unlawful employment practice." Unless you correct this unlawful act by the end of business day - Monday 24th of October - I will notify the FCHR. Mr. Goldberg responded by sending Petitioner the following letter, dated September 24, 2007: This letter acknowledges receipt of your correspondence of September 22, 2007 addressed to myself and President Shalala. The University does not believe that the settlement and general release agreement is retaliatory. Indeed, the settlement and general release agreement was provided to you before you filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. At this juncture, the University will respond to the Charge of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations when it is formally advised of the charge by the Commission.[7] If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please call my office directly as it is my office that handles all legal matters for the University. Thank you for your attention to this matter. This letter constitutes communication regarding settlement and cannot be used for any other purpose. At no time has Petitioner filed any employment discrimination complaint with the FCHR alleging that he was retaliated against for having engaged in activity protected by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (although he did make such allegations in the Petition for Relief he filed in the instant case).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order finding UM not guilty of the unlawful employment practices alleged by Petitioner and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 24th day of July, 2008.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was terminated from her position with Respondent as a picker/stock keeper on or about September 26, 2001, on the basis of her race (African-American) and/or gender (female), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as that term is defined under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a temporary employee to perform the job of picker/stock keeper at its Parts Distribution Center in Orlando, Florida, during the time period from September 12, 2001, to September 26, 2001, the date she was terminated. Petitioner worked a total of 14 days for Respondent. Petitioner is an African-American female, a member of a protected class. The Parts Distribution Center for Respondent in Orlando, Florida, is a facility that holds automotive parts that are then shipped to dealerships. All temporary employees at Respondent are at-will employees. Temporary employees are told during their orientation that they are at-will employees who can be terminated at any time, for any reason. Temporary employees at Respondent are only eligible to work 119 days. Most temporary employees are not offered full time permanent employment. There is no guarantee that a temporary employee will receive an offer to work as a permanent employee. Petitioner was hired to perform the job of picker/stock keeper. A picker/stock keeper takes parts off of shelves to be shipped to dealerships. Petitioner participated in an orientation, and Petitioner received the same training as every other temporary employee. Petitioner worked the night shift. Respondent maintains written Standards of Conduct to which all employees must adhere. The Standards of Conduct apply to both temporary and permanent employees. The Standards of Conduct were in effect in September 2001, when Petitioner worked as a temporary employee. All employees are given a copy of the Standards of Conduct when they are hired. Petitioner received a copy of the Standards of Conduct when she was hired, and the Standards of Conduct are posted throughout the plant. The Standards of Conduct provide that an employee's "[f]ailure or refusal to follow the instructions of supervision" is grounds for "disciplinary action up to and including discharge." The supervisors who worked at Respondent's Distribution Center during Petitioner's employment were Richard Alvarez ("Alvarez") (Hispanic male), Lenier Sweeting ("Sweeting") (Black male), and Joe Bromley (White male). Alvarez was temporary supervisor for the night shift from June 2001 until December 2001. Alvarez was Petitioner's direct supervisor. Sweeting was a supervisor in September 2001. Sweeting was chosen to become a supervisor by Hal McDougle, a Black male. Sweeting was the supervisor on the day shift when Petitioner worked at the Distribution Center. His shift ended at 3:30 p.m. but he stayed in the building to help with the transition to the night shift. Alvarez would normally walk Sweeting to the front door to discuss what had occurred during the day shift. On September 25, 2001, Sweeting was walking past the bathroom with Alvarez and heard two women talking and laughing in the bathroom. Alvarez recognized one of the voices to be that of Petitioner. Alvarez had heard rumors that Petitioner had been taking a lot of extended breaks and told Sweeting about the complaints he had been receiving. Alvarez received at least two complaints, and possibly four or five, from Petitioner's co- workers that she was taking extended breaks and not on the floor working. Alvarez wanted to wait and see how long Petitioner remained in the bathroom. Sweeting and Alvarez waited outside the bathroom until they saw Petitioner exit the bathroom with Maria Dejesus. Alvarez believes that he and Sweeting waited outside the bathroom for approximately ten to 15 minutes. Alvarez told Petitioner that she had been taking an extensive break and needed to go back to work. Sweeting witnessed Alvarez tell Petitioner to go back to work in a professional tone. Alvarez also told Petitioner that he had heard rumors that she was taking extended breaks. He told her that since he saw it first hand, he wanted to mention it to her and let her know it would not be tolerated. Petitioner asked Alvarez which bathroom she could use in a very sarcastic tone. Sweeting observed Petitioner ask this question. Alvarez told Petitioner that he did not care which bathroom she used, as long as she did not abuse the break period. Petitioner proceeded to ask Alvarez in a sarcastic tone which bathroom she could use several times throughout the night. Despite Petitioner's sarcastic tone, Alvarez answered her questions professionally. Alvarez never asked Petitioner how old she was, whether she was married or how many children she had. Sweeting asked Maria Dejesus to go back to work as well. Sweeting and Alvarez have told other employees to go back to work when they have observed employees taking extended breaks. They have spoken to employees of both genders and all racial groups. On September 26, 2001, Alvarez assigned Petitioner to the "fast rack" area. Petitioner had never previously worked in the fast rack area. Alvarez personally instructed Petitioner in how to perform the assignment. Alvarez told Petitioner to pick the parts and put them on a rack float. After Alvarez gave Petitioner her instructions, Petitioner began her assignment. Petitioner never asked Alvarez any questions about her assignment or expressed that she was having difficulty with the job. Wanda Carithers ("Carithers") saw Petitioner using the wrong equipment to complete her assignment. Petitioner was using a bin cart instead of a float to pick the items. Alvarez noticed that Petitioner's assignment was running late. Alvarez walked over to the fast rack area and asked Petitioner two questions. Alvarez asked Petitioner whether she was going to be able to pick the whole assignment using the bin cart that she was using. Petitioner did not respond to or acknowledge Alvarez. Alvarez then asked Petitioner if she was almost done with her assignment. Petitioner rolled her eyes and said, "Your first question, yes, second question, no." Alvarez was very uncomfortable with Petitioner's response and demeanor. Alvarez told Petitioner that perhaps they had gotten off on the wrong foot. Petitioner asked Alvarez something about her union rights. Alvarez saw Petitioner's co-worker, Carithers, who was a union representative, driving by. Alvarez asked Carithers to explain to Petitioner her union rights as a temporary employee. During this conversation, Alvarez tried repeatedly to talk to Petitioner and on each occasion, Petitioner cut Alvarez off and would not let him speak. When Alvarez realized that he was not making any progress with Petitioner, he asked her to go to the warehouse office so that they could talk to a senior supervisor, Al White ("White") (Black male). Alvarez hoped that they could work out their differences with White's help. Alvarez started to walk approximately ten steps. He turned back and realized that Petitioner was not moving towards the office. Alvarez walked back to Petitioner and asked her a second time to go to the office. Once again, Petitioner did not move. Alvarez told Petitioner, "This is your last chance; go to the warehouse office." Once again, Petitioner did not move. Alvarez, after asking Petitioner to go to the office three times with no response, told Petitioner that her services were no longer needed, that she should gather up her things, and that she was terminated. Alvarez terminated Petitioner for her failure to follow a direct order of her supervisor in violation of Respondent's Standards of Conduct No. 6. Petitioner refused to move even after she was terminated. Petitioner asked Alvarez to reconsider, and he said that he had made up his mind. Alvarez started to walk away. When he saw that Petitioner was still not moving, he told her that he could call law enforcement to escort Petitioner off the property. Alvarez, and ultimately Petitioner, walked to the office. White asked Petitioner if she knew why she was terminated. Petitioner never asked to have someone from the union with her in the office until after she was terminated. At that time, Alvarez and White complied with her request and paged Rodney Witt, a union official, to come to the office. Carithers observed Petitioner fail to follow Alvarez's instruction to go to the office. Carithers recalls that Petitioner told Alvarez that Petitioner did not have to listen to Alvarez. Amber McPherson heard Alvarez call Petitioner to the office several times. Petitioner did not respond to Alvarez's requests. Sweeting has never experienced discrimination from management while working for Respondent for over seven years. Sweeting has never heard Alvarez make any gender or race-related comments or slurs. Sweeting has never heard any management employee at Respondent make a gender or race related comment or slur. Alvarez did not consider Petitioner's gender or race when he made the decision to terminate Petitioner. In addition, Petitioner lied on her application to Respondent and failed to indicate that she had been terminated from a prior employment. Petitioner had been terminated from Walt Disney World Company for theft. If Respondent had known that Petitioner had lied on her application or had been terminated for theft from a prior employer, it would not have hired her. Had Respondent learned that she had lied on her application after she was hired, she would have been terminated. Petitioner had no idea why she thinks she was treated differently based upon her gender or race. She just had a "feeling" or a "hunch." Petitioner had no evidence or information that her termination was based on her gender or race. Petitioner had no idea why she was terminated. She did not believe that it was because she failed to follow a command. Petitioner had no idea whether her supervisor, Alvarez, considered her gender or race when he terminated her employment with Respondent. Petitioner bases her claims that Respondent discriminated against her on the fact that there is general racism and sexism in society. Petitioner checked the "sex" and "race" box on her FCHR Charge of Discrimination simply because she is female and African-American. Petitioner felt as though she was harassed but cannot articulate a reason for it.
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 which DENIES the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie L. Adler, Esquire Susan K. McKenna, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP 390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1285 Orlando, Florida 32801 Dorothy J. McCrimmon 5361 Commander Drive Number 304 Orlando, Florida 32822 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2004),1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on her national origin.
Findings Of Fact Arthrex is a company that designs and manufactures orthopedic surgical tools, implants and devices for surgeons, medical facilities, and hospitals. Arthrex is regulated by the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and maintains certification through the International Organization for Standardization ("ISO"). Arthrex is an employer as that term is defined in Section 760.02, Florida Statutes. Petitioner is a Hispanic female, whose primary language is Spanish. Beginning in June 2001, Petitioner worked in the cleaning and packaging area of Arthrex's production facility. "Cleaning" in this context should not be confused with janitorial services. Petitioner's job was more technical and exacting and involved the maintenance of a sterile, disinfected work area and equipment in the manufacture of items that, in some cases, are surgically implanted in the human body. She worked in the company of 10 to 12 co-workers within a relatively confined space. Arthrex obtains staffing for its cleaning and packaging area through an independent contractor, Randstad, a large employment services company. On June 13, 2003, Petitioner accompanied a friend to the local Randstad office to assist the friend in applying for a job with Arthrex in the cleaning and packaging area. Petitioner became angry with the Randstad representative who performed the screening and testing of Petitioner's friend. Petitioner believed that the Randstad employee decided at the outset not to hire her friend, and so tested the friend on difficult subjects having nothing to do with the Arthrex cleaning and packaging job, such as her ability to use a computer and her ability to "write, read and talk perfect English." Petitioner stated that other applicants were not subjected to the same scrutiny as was her friend and that both she and her friend felt humiliated by the "rude" Randstad employee. Immediately after the job interview, the Randstad representative phoned Margarita Alvarez, the human relations manager for Arthrex, and told Ms. Alvarez that Petitioner had "made a scene" at the Randstad office. Ms. Alvarez asked the Randstad representative to put her complaint in writing, and she would then address the matter with Petitioner. Shortly after the phone call, Ms. Alvarez was conducting an employee relations meeting in her office when Petitioner walked into her office. Petitioner began complaining loudly about the "ridiculous" hiring process employed by Arthrex, waving her hands and stamping her foot in anger. Ms. Alvarez told Petitioner that she would discuss the matter after her meeting was over. Petitioner walked out of Ms. Alvarez's office saying, "Thank you for nothing." Petitioner then proceeded to stamp her way down to her workplace, continuing to display her anger and disrupt the work of the other employees in her area by complaining loudly about Arthrex's hiring practices. Ms. Alvarez testified that Petitioner's behavior violated Arthrex's written policies regarding hostile, disruptive behavior in the workplace. Ms. Alvarez prepared a written warning called "performance correction notice" dated June 17, 2003. The notice described the disruptive behavior Petitioner engaged in on June 13, 2003, and stated that Petitioner was expected to maintain a "friendly work environment" and to express her disagreements with company policy "respectfully[,] . . . in private with [her] immediate supervisor or with Human Resources." The notice further warned Petitioner that any further "unprofessional conduct" (antagonism, disruptive behavior or hostility) could subject Petitioner to a "final warning." On the afternoon of June 18, 2003, Petitioner met with Ms. Alvarez and Lea Custodio, Petitioner's immediate supervisor, who had taken the day off on June 13, 2003. Ms. Alvarez presented Petitioner with the performance correction notice. She explained that while she understood Petitioner's frustration, she could not allow such displays of temper in the workplace. Ms. Alvarez testified that she believed Petitioner understood the situation, and she encouraged Petitioner to write down her thoughts, comments, or corrections before signing the notice. Ms. Alvarez told Petitioner that she could write her response in Spanish, if that would allow her better to express herself. Ms. Alvarez is fluent in Spanish. On June 19, 2003, Petitioner submitted a handwritten note to Ms. Alvarez. Written in Spanish, the note expressed Petitioner's belief that the Randstad representative discriminated against her friend by imposing unreasonable requirements for the cleaning position in question. Petitioner was not disciplined in any way for either the form or content of this note, which was incorporated with the performance correction notice as part of Petitioner's employment file. Petitioner testified that she could not recall having been disciplined for the June 13, 2003, incident. She denied causing a disturbance at the Randstad facility or at her own workplace. She admitted writing the note and submitting it on June 19, 2003, but testified that Ms. Alvarez asked her to document the incident because of other complaints she had received about the Randstad representative. Petitioner's testimony is inconsistent with the documentary evidence, including the self-justifying language of her own handwritten note. Ms. Custodio's testimony corroborated that of Ms. Alvarez's concerning the disciplinary meeting held on June 18, 2003, at which Petitioner was given the performance correction notice and counseled by Ms. Alvarez as to the company's expectations regarding her behavior. Petitioner's testimony as to the June 13, 2003, incident and its aftermath is not credible. On or about August 10, 2003, a personal conflict arose between Petitioner and a co-worker, Pierre Escanio. Petitioner loudly questioned the quality of Mr. Escanio's work. In the cleaning and packaging area, the workers' products were commingled into single lots and sent to Arthrex's quality control division for review. Petitioner claimed to be concerned that Mr. Escanio's poor work would cause quality control to return the entire lot, meaning that everyone would have to redo their work. Ms. Custodio, the supervisor, attempted to calm the situation by telling Petitioner that she would talk to Mr. Escanio about his work. Ms. Custodio did so despite the fact that she had trained Mr. Escanio and knew him to be a competent employee. Ms. Custodio next told Petitioner that she would separate Petitioner's work from that of Mr. Escanio, marking the items so they would know whose work had been rejected by quality control. Despite Ms. Custodio's effort, Petitioner continued to complain. Ms. Custodio finally told Petitioner to stop making these complaints in front of the other dozen or so people in the work area. Ms. Custodio believed that Petitioner was questioning her authority in front of the other employees. She went to Ms. Alvarez to discuss the situation and obtain the assistance of the Human Resources Department in addressing the problem of Petitioner's insubordination. Ms. Custodio told Ms. Alvarez that she could no longer handle the situation with Petitioner. In keeping with the policies of Arthrex's Human Resources Department, Ms. Alvarez investigated the matter, conducting interviews with employees who witnessed Petitioner's behavior. Ms. Alvarez testified that her investigation led her to conclude that "there was a serious problem in the department." After a final consultation with Arthrex's general counsel, Ms. Alvarez recommended that Petitioner's employment be terminated for insubordination. Ms. Custodio agreed with the recommendation. By letter dated August 12, 2003, and signed by Ms. Alvarez, Arthrex terminated Petitioner's employment. The letter stated the following express reasons for Petitioner's termination: Previous written warning referring to disruptive behavior of 6/17/2003. Numerous reports of negative comments about the company and management in front of other employees. Antagonistic behavior with supervisor and coworkers. Petitioner produced no credible evidence that her language or national origin played a role in the decision to terminate her employment. Petitioner's chief claim is that she was terminated for refusing to obey instructions from her supervisors, including Ms. Custodio and Ms. Alvarez, to cease speaking Spanish in the workplace. Both Ms. Custodio and Ms. Alvarez credibly denied giving any such instructions to any Arthrex employee. Arthrex does have a "Language Policy" that requires employees to be proficient in English to ensure that FDA regulations and ISO certification standards are met, because the company "has determined that the English language is the most common and effective means of communications" in the United States. The policy requires employees to communicate business-related information in English, but states that it "is not intended to prevent or discourage any employee from speaking their native language at Arthrex for certain business related matters, on their own time or with regard to non-business matters." The evidence established that all but one or two people in Petitioner's work area were native Spanish speakers and that they were allowed freely to communicate in Spanish in their day-to-day work activities. Employees were encouraged to communicate with their supervisors in their native language, if doing so improved the quality of the information conveyed. Ms. Custodio and Ms. Alvarez each testified that they knew of no Arthrex employee who had ever been disciplined for speaking a language other than English in the workplace. At the hearing, Petitioner repeatedly made reference to the efforts of one lower-level supervisor, Renee Vanderberg, to force the employees in Petitioner's section to refrain from speaking Spanish and confine their work conversations to English. However, the evidence established that once the Human Resources Department learned of Ms. Vanderberg's actions, she was admonished to cease directing the employees to speak English. When Ms. Vanderberg continued to press the issue, Arthrex terminated her employment. The evidence produced at hearing demonstrated that the reasons for Petitioner's termination were limited to those set forth in the termination letter of August 12, 2003.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Arthrex Manufacturing did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Pritesh, Inc., d/b/a IHOP 36-151 ("IHOP"), committed unlawful employment practices contrary to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2011),1/ by discharging Petitioner from her employment in retaliation for her complaints regarding racial and religious discrimination in the workplace.
Findings Of Fact IHOP is an employer as that term is defined in subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. IHOP is a restaurant in Leesburg. IHOP is owned by Pritesh Patel, who owns and operates a total of four International House of Pancakes stores in the Leesburg area through his corporation, Pritesh, Inc. Petitioner is a black female who is an observant Jew. Because of her religious beliefs, Petitioner does not work on the Sabbath, from sundown on Friday until sunset on Saturday. Petitioner was hired to work as a server at IHOP on March 19, 2012. She made it clear that she did not work on the Sabbath, and IHOP agreed to respect her religious beliefs. There was some difference in recollection as to the notice Petitioner gave to IHOP. Petitioner testified that she made it clear she could not work until sundown on Saturdays. The store manager, Brian Jackson, also recalled that Petitioner stated she could only work Saturday evenings. Mr. Patel testified that Petitioner said that she could work on Saturday "afternoon." Petitioner's version is credited as being more consistent with her stated beliefs, though there is no doubt that Mr. Patel was testifying honestly as to his recollection. Petitioner was the only black server working at IHOP at this time. Both Mr. Patel and Mr. Jackson credibly testified that IHOP has had many black servers through the years. Mr. Jackson noted that Petitioner only worked for IHOP for a period of two weeks and therefore was in no position to judge IHOP's minority hiring practices. Petitioner testified that assistant manager Hemanshu "Shu" Patel, a relative of the owner, created a hostile working environment for her from the time she started on March 19. She complained that Shu would alter the seating chart so that she would have fewer tables to cover, meaning a reduction in her tips. Petitioner also stated that Shu was disrespectful and rude, in a manner that caused her to believe there was a racial motivation behind his actions. Despite the fact that Shu was subordinate to Mr. Jackson, Petitioner believed that Shu was really in charge because he was a relative of Mr. Patel and therefore "untouchable" as an employee of IHOP. Petitioner's main complaint was that Shu, who was in charge of work schedules for the restaurant, scheduled her to work on Saturdays. Petitioner testified that on the first Saturday of her employment, March 24, Shu called her to come into work at noon. She replied that she could not come in until after sundown. This problem was apparently worked out to Petitioner's satisfaction, and she was not required to report to work on Saturday afternoon. However, when Shu posted the next week's schedule on the following Tuesday, Petitioner saw that she had been scheduled to work on the morning of Saturday, March 31. Petitioner complained. Both Mr. Patel and Mr. Jackson testified that Shu had merely made an error in scheduling that was rectified as soon as Petitioner notified them of the problem. Petitioner did not deny that the problem was resolved mid-week, well before any Sabbath conflict could arise. Mr. Patel testified that he wanted Petitioner to work from 4 p.m. until midnight on Saturday, March 31, so that she would not lose a day's work due to the scheduling error. Shu phoned Petitioner early on Saturday afternoon and asked her to come in. Petitioner told Shu that she could not come in until 8 p.m. Mr. Patel testified that he did not need someone to work a four-hour shift, and that Petitioner was told not to come in. As a further reason for declining to work on Saturday evening, Petitioner testified that she had only been trained for the morning shift. Mr. Jackson testified that the only distinction between the dayshift and the nightshift is that the latter is less busy. All servers are trained for the morning shift. Mr. Jackson stated that, once trained for the morning shift, a server would find the night shift "a piece of cake." Petitioner's reason for not working in the evening was not credible in this respect. Mr. Patel testified that he had no problem with Petitioner's not working on that Saturday, provided that she understood she was going lose a day. Mr. Patel stated that from his point of view the problems began when Petitioner insisted that he give her weekday hours to make up for the lost Saturday hours. Mr. Patel declined to cut another employee's hours for Petitioner. Petitioner came in to work on the morning of Sunday, April 1. Sunday morning is a busy time for IHOP. According to head server Bernadine Hengst, Petitioner stood near her at the register and voiced her complaints about Shu, who was working in the kitchen. Shu heard Petitioner and stepped into the dining room, asking her, "You got something to say to me?" Petitioner and Shu became loud, and their argument was moved outside for fear of disturbing a restaurant full of people. Petitioner finished her shift then went home and composed a letter to Mr. Patel. She made copies of the letter for every employee at IHOP. Ms. Hengst was the first to see the letter. She phoned Mr. Jackson at home to tell him about it, and Mr. Jackson phoned Mr. Patel. The letter read as follows: On March 19, 2012, I was hired to work as a server. I am a professional, pleasant, respectful, prompt and dutiful individual. As the only African-American server, it is imperative that you know since I have arrived at IHOP, I have faced fierce blatant hostility from a manager ("Shu") and co- workers ("C.C., Misti and Cherish"). I feel Shu has deliberately created a divisive and hostile working environment. It is my understanding Shu is a family member yet his behavior is definitely bad for business. On two separate occasions, Shu altered the seating chart that Brian originally created and took two tables from me. He lacks proficient management skills and is totally unprofessional, disrespectful and rude. On Sunday, April 1, 2012, Shu spoke to me in a loud, impolite manner in front of staff and customers. Shu communicated in a very bellicose fashion and for a moment, it felt as though he would physically attack me. You must take it serious that Shu's conduct is detrimental to your business. When Shu hired me I made it clear that I am Jewish and do not work on the Sabbath ("Saturday"). Nevertheless, Shu called me to come into work on Saturday about noon; I told him I would come in after the Sabbath at 7:00 p.m. The following week I was scheduled to work a Saturday, which in turn caused me to lose a day of work. Also on April 1, 2012, Shu assigned me only two booths for the whole day; when I spoke up about it he threatened to take another booth from me. This type of attitude and his unfair behavior cannot be tolerated in the United States of America in 2012. Shu is outwardly mean, discriminative, and racist towards me. He acts like a tyrant, a bully and he feels he is untouchable. On Sunday, April 1, I was only assigned two booths while my co-workers had four to six tables. This was unfair seating arrangements. At the end of the day, Bernie [Hengst] told all the servers to tip out the busboy, yet I did not because I was unjustly treated by only being assigned two tables. This was one-sided and insulting. I am an exceptional waitress and I depend on this job to pay my bills. During my first week, I was scheduled to work 36.10 hours and this week I was only given approximately 23.0 hours. Everyone should be treated fairly and equally. I ask that you continue to give me a full schedule each week. This letter officially informs you of the battles I have dealt with in your establishment and I have not worked here for one whole month. All Americans have the right to work without being harassed. I urge you to intervene and equitably resolve this issue. Ms. Hengst testified that Shu is a loud person who "talks with his hands," but she saw nothing that gave her the impression that Shu would "physically attack" Petitioner. She did not detect that Shu treated Petitioner any differently than he treated other servers. Ms. Hengst saw Petitioner as an equal participant in the April 1 confrontation. As to Petitioner's complaint about the number of tables to which she was assigned, Mr. Jackson testified that servers are always trained on two booths and then moved to four booths after training is completed. He stated that Petitioner was doing a "terrible" job working four booths, which caused Shu to move her down to two. Mr. Jackson stated that it is counterproductive to overwhelm a new server, and that the server must demonstrate the ability to perform the basics before taking on more tables. On the morning of April 2, after reading Petitioner's letter, Mr. Patel went to the IHOP and sat down for a meeting with Petitioner in hopes of addressing her complaints. Mr. Patel testified that the first thing Petitioner asked him was, "Do you know how many black employees you have?" Though he had been willing to discuss Petitioner's grievances concerning scheduling, Mr. Patel decided to fire Petitioner when she started "threatening us" based on claims of "black and white discriminating." He decided to fire Petitioner for the future of his business, because he did not want the problems associated with allegations of discrimination. Mr. Jackson was also at the April 2 meeting, and testified that Petitioner claimed she was being singled out because of her race. Based on all the testimony, it is found that Petitioner had little basis for claiming that IHOP was discriminating against her based on her race or religion during the actual course of her job. She was mistakenly scheduled to work on Saturday, but was not required to come in to the store once she made management aware of the error. She did lose one shift's worth of work for March 31, but that was partly due to her declining to work the evening shift. The evidence established that Shu Patel was loud, somewhat hotheaded, and perhaps not the ideal choice for managing a busy restaurant, but did not establish that he singled out Petitioner for particular abuse because of her race or religion. The evidence established that Petitioner's poor job performance was the cause of at least some of the friction between her and IHOP management. However, Mr. Patel's own testimony established that he dismissed Petitioner in direct retaliation for her complaint of discriminatory employment practices. IHOP offered no legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for Petitioner's dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Pritesh, Inc., d/b/a IHOP 36- 151 committed an act of unlawful retaliation against Petitioner. It is further recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations remand this case to the Division of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary proceeding to establish the amount of back pay/lost wages owed to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of March, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the employment discrimination complaint Petitioner filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a software engineer with almost 30 years of experience in the industry. From 2001 until August of 2006, Petitioner was employed by ITT Industries (ITT). Petitioner's employment with ITT came to an end when he was involuntarily terminated. Following his termination, Petitioner filed an employment discrimination complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that ITT had discriminated against him because he suffered from Tourette's syndrome (which caused him to have vocal tics and to stutter). Petitioner did not take any action to pursue these allegations of employment discrimination beyond filing this complaint against ITT with the EEOC. Petitioner has been unable to obtain a "permanent job" as a software engineer since his termination by ITT. Respondent is a defense contractor that "make[s] [military] simulation and training equipment." In early 2008, Respondent was looking to fill a temporary software engineer position. Edge Dynamics was one of the outside employment agencies that Respondent used to assist it in the hiring process. On January 9, 2008, Edge Dynamics provided Petitioner's resume to Edward Kaprocki, a senior principal software engineer with Respondent. Mr. Kaprocki was responsible for interviewing applicants for the position and making hiring/rejection recommendations. After reviewing Petitioner's resume, Mr. Kaprocki "thought [it] looked interesting enough where it would worth talking to [Petitioner]," and he so advised Sandra Asavedo, his "point of contact" at Edge Dynamics. Ms. Asavedo made the necessary arrangements to set up a face-to-face interview between Mr. Kaprocki and Petitioner. The interview took place in Mr. Kaprocki's office on January 14, 2008. It lasted about 45 minutes to an hour. Petitioner seemed to Mr. Kaprocki to be "a little bit nervous," but Petitioner did not do or say anything to cause Mr. Kaprocki to believe that Petitioner suffered from any disability. During the course of the interview, Petitioner showed Mr. Kaprocki his personal website, which contained information about and pictures of "some of the projects that [Petitioner] had worked on." Based on the interview, Mr. Kaprocki determined that Petitioner did not have the skill-set that was needed for the position Respondent was seeking to fill. Immediately following the interview, Mr. Kaprocki went to his supervisor, Steve Preston, whose office was "right down the hall," and recommended that Petitioner not be hired to fill the position. Mr. Kaprocki then telephoned Ms. Asavedo to let her know that Petitioner was not going to be hired so that she could inform Petitioner. Mr. Kaprocki's decision to recommend against hiring Petitioner had nothing to do with Petitioner's suffering from Tourette's syndrome or his having filed an EEOC complaint against ITT. Indeed, at the time he made his decision, Mr. Kaprocki did not even know that Petitioner had Tourette's syndrome or had filed an EEOC complaint against ITT. Mr. Kaprocki first learned of these matters only after Petitioner had filed his Complaint in the instant case. After being told that he would not be hired for the position, Petitioner telephoned Mr. Kaprocki several times, pleading with Mr. Kaprocki to "reconsider hiring him." Mr. Kaprocki told Petitioner "that the decision had been made" and would not be reconsidered. Mr. Kaprocki felt that Petitioner, by making these telephone calls, was "badgering and harassing him." To satisfy his own personal curiosity (and for no other reason), Mr. Kaprocki looked online to find out more about the person who was subjecting him to this "badgering and harass[ment]."2 Mr. Kaprocki did not discover, as a result of his online search, that Petitioner had Tourette's syndrome or that Petitioner had filed an EEOC complaint against ITT. His search, however, did reveal certain comments Petitioner had made in an online forum that Mr. Kaprocki considered to be "extremely unprofessional." After reading these comments, Mr. Kaprocki was even more confident than he had been before he began his search that he had made the right decision in not recommending Petitioner for employment. Petitioner was never offered a position with Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order finding Respondent not guilty of any unlawful employment practice alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner's employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 14th day of May, 2009.
