The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, City of Ocala (“the City”), retaliated against Petitioner, Nyleah Jackson (“Petitioner” or “Ms. Jackson”), for exercising her right to file a claim of employment discrimination against the City pursuant to section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2018).1/
Findings Of Fact The City is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Petitioner, an African American female, was hired by the City as an Administrative Specialist II on May 2, 2016. She worked in that job position until her resignation on February 7, 2018. Petitioner initially worked in the City’s Electric Utility Department and then transferred to the Public Works Department. Her duties were primarily secretarial, clerical, and administrative. Petitioner testified that when she started in Public Works, her direct supervisor was Tom Casey, but that at some point Judy Wade appeared to take over at least some of those supervisory duties. In her telling, Petitioner never recognized Ms. Wade as her direct supervisor except as to specific tasks delegated by Mr. Casey. Ms. Wade was the Fiscal Administrator for Public Works. She testified that Tom Casey and Darren Park are her superiors in Public Works. Ms. Wade credibly testified that she was Petitioner’s direct supervisor for the entire time that Petitioner worked in Public Works. Ms. Wade’s supervisory duties included monitoring Petitioner’s attendance at work and her leave requests. Petitioner’s testimony that she was unaware Ms. Wade was her direct supervisor for all purposes is not credited. On or about August 25, 2017, Petitioner presented a formal grievance to the City alleging that she had been discriminated against because of her race when she was not hired for a vacant Administrative Assistant III position. On or about August 31, 2017, Human Resources and Risk Management Director Jared Sorensen spoke with Petitioner and asked her to clarify whether she was pursuing a formal grievance under the City’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers or under the City’s Employee Handbook. Petitioner responded that she wished to file her grievance under the CBA. On September 13, 2017, Petitioner sent an email to Mr. Sorensen, with copies to Mr. Casey and Mr. Park. The email stated as follows, in relevant part: Both the City of Ocala Employee Handbook and Collective Bargaining Agreement allows [sic] a response in writing within 10 business days of receipt of the grievance. I spoke with Tom Casey and Darren Park as well as sent my grievance, via interoffice to Human Resources, on August 25, 2017. From my meeting, I gathered that classification matters, discriminatory/biased hiring decisions and equal pay issues is [sic] in the Human Resource jurisdiction. I received a call last week from Jared stating that the target response date was September 8th, 2017 but I would have a definitive response by September 11th, 2017. I plan to hold my employer/HR accountable and liable to this deadline as promised. It is now September 13th with no response. The email concluded with a demand for a response regarding Petitioner’s remedies no later than September 14, 2017. The record evidence indicates that the City’s response was delayed for two reasons. First, Petitioner had indicated that she wished to pursue her grievance through the CBA, and Mr. Sorensen’s conversations with Petitioner’s union representative led him to believe that Petitioner’s grievance was going to be refiled to clearly establish a starting date for the CBA process. Second, Hurricane Irma had just passed through the state, causing significant damage in Marion County and delaying the City’s ability to respond to non-emergency matters such as Petitioner’s grievance. Of greater significance to this retaliation case, Petitioner’s direct supervisor, Ms. Wade, was not copied on any of the correspondence regarding Petitioner’s discrimination claim or her grievance. The only way Ms. Wade would have known of these matters was through word-of-mouth in the office. Ms. Wade credibly testified that she was unaware of any of these matters at the time they were occurring. Petitioner believed that Ms. Wade knew of her complaints, but provided no direct evidence of Ms. Wade’s knowledge. One week after her email to Mr. Sorensen, on September 20, 2017, Petitioner interviewed for an open position in the City’s Fleet Department. The Fleet Department is separate from Public Works and is located in a different building. Ms. Wade testified that Petitioner did not inform her that she would be absent from the Public Works office or that she would be interviewing for a position in the Fleet Department. Ms. Wade stated that she checked Petitioner’s office and saw that she was not present. Ms. Wade asked a co- worker about Petitioner’s location and was informed that Petitioner was out at a job interview. Petitioner testified that she told Ms. Wade that she would be out of the office. She did not tell Ms. Wade why she was going out. Petitioner testified that she believed Ms. Wade was not her supervisor and had no reason to know that she was going out on a job interview. Petitioner stated that she told Mr. Casey why she would be out of the office. Petitioner did not call Mr. Casey as a witness to corroborate her version of events. As indicated above, the undersigned does not credit Petitioner’s assertion that she did not believe Ms. Wade was her direct supervisor. When Petitioner returned to the office, Ms. Wade informed her that she was required to use paid time off (“PTO”) for personal business such as job interviews. Ms. Wade sent a request through “Kronos,” the City’s payroll software system, to dock Petitioner for 30 minutes of PTO for the time she was not in the office. Within a few days of making the Kronos request, Ms. Wade discussed the matter with Mr. Sorensen, who told her that City policy provided that employees could interview for other open positions within the City without using any PTO. The time used for such internal interviews was to be treated as regular work time. Evidence produced at the hearing indicated that Petitioner had gone out on such internal interviews previously and not been charged with PTO. Ms. Wade, having learned that she was mistaken regarding City policy, took steps to restore Petitioner’s PTO. On September 26, 2017, Ms. Wade submitted a payroll correction to adjust Petitioner’s pay to her full regular hourly rate. On October 3, 2017, Ms. Wade informed Petitioner of her mistake and that she had reversed the docking of Petitioner’s PTO. Petitioner contended that Ms. Wade’s docking of her pay was in retaliation for her complaint of discrimination and filing of a grievance. Petitioner stated that Ms. Wade’s reversal of the PTO decision was due solely to the fact that Petitioner contacted her union representative about the matter. Petitioner conceded that the only evidence connecting her discrimination complaint to Ms. Wade’s action on September 20, 2017, was their proximity in time. Ms. Wade credibly testified that she did not know about Petitioner’s discrimination complaint on September 20, 2017, and that no one working for the City ever instructed her to take any adverse action against Petitioner. On October 2, 2017, the FCHR received Petitioner’s initial Employment Complaint of Discrimination. The FCHR sent a Notice of Filing of Complaint of Discrimination to the City. The Notice was dated October 3, 2017, but was not received by the City until October 6, 2017. Ms. Wade testified that she was unaware of any potential claim of discrimination by Petitioner prior to October 6, 2017. Petitioner claimed that Ms. Wade was aware of Petitioner’s intention to file the discrimination complaint when Ms. Wade originally docked Petitioner’s PTO in September 2017. To support this claim, Petitioner first testified that one of the emails she sent regarding her potential discrimination complaint was copied to Ms. Wade. When the actual emails were produced by the City and showed that Ms. Wade was not copied on any of them, Petitioner testified that she had told Ms. Wade of her discrimination complaint at a meeting that included Ms. Wade and Mr. Park. Ms. Wade credibly testified that she had no memory of discussing the discrimination complaint with Petitioner at a meeting. Petitioner did not produce Mr. Park as a witness to corroborate her testimony regarding a meeting. Ms. Wade’s testimony is credited on this point. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Ms. Wade’s actions on September 20, 2017, were in retaliation for Petitioner’s discrimination complaint. On November 20, 2017, the City hired Erica Wilson as the new Administrative Specialist III to work in Public Works. She assumed the duties of the previous Administrative Specialist III, Melinda Day, who had retired. Petitioner and Ms. Day had worked cooperatively in preparing payroll reports for Public Works. Petitioner would summarize the payroll cards for the stormwater division, and Ms. Day would summarize the payroll cards for the streets and traffic divisions. Once the summaries were completed, either Petitioner or Ms. Day would transmit them by email to the Payroll Department. Petitioner and Ms. Day alternated the task of sending the email to Payroll, with each employee transmitting the information every other week. After Ms. Day retired, Public Works was shorthanded for a time. During this period, Petitioner began summarizing all of the payroll cards for the stormwater, streets, and traffic divisions, and transmitting all of that information to Payroll on a weekly basis. After Ms. Wilson was hired at Public Works, Petitioner continued to perform her new duties while Ms. Wilson came up to speed on her new job. In January 2018, Ms. Wade convened a meeting with Petitioner and Ms. Wilson to discuss the transition for Ms. Wilson to take over the payroll duties formerly performed by Ms. Day. At the conclusion of the meeting, Ms. Wade announced that Ms. Wilson would be in charge of sending all the emails to Payroll and Petitioner would continue summarizing all of the pay cards for all three divisions of Public Works.2/ In other words, the work would be divided more or less as it was before Ms. Day retired. At the meeting with Ms. Wade and Ms. Wilson, Petitioner voiced no dispute or concerns with the division of duties ordered by Ms. Wade. Neither Ms. Wade nor Ms. Wilson recalled Petitioner’s being upset by or objecting to the plan outlined by Ms. Wade. Petitioner herself conceded that she said nothing to indicate her disagreement with the re-assignment. Petitioner contends that Ms. Wade’s decision to take some of Ms. Day’s former duties from her and assign them to Ms. Day’s successor was a retaliatory reduction of her job duties. Again, Petitioner’s only evidentiary support for her contention is that the alleged retaliatory action occurred after she made her discrimination complaint with the FCHR. Ms. Wilson testified that she considered the entire matter of payroll duties to be a minor part of her job. Ms. Wade testified that her only intention in redistributing duties was to restore the status quo ante from before Ms. Day retired. Also in January 2018, another event caused Petitioner to believe that Ms. Wade was retaliating against her. Petitioner alleged that Ms. Wade further reduced her job duties by forbidding her to contact vendors used by the City or to contact City employee John Long, who was the City’s Vendor Relations Manager. The specific issue concerned Petitioner’s contacts with UniFirst, the vendor who laundered uniforms for every department of the City. Petitioner’s routine job duties included taking delivery of uniforms for Public Works employees from UniFirst drivers. She discussed with those drivers any issues regarding the number of uniforms delivered, the condition of the uniforms, and the amount of the invoice. Petitioner had no responsibility for dealing with UniFirst’s management on behalf of the City as a whole. In April 2017, Petitioner inserted herself into a quality of service dispute with UniFirst. Uniform shirts were coming back from UniFirst in a soiled and threadbare condition. At first, Petitioner followed protocol and addressed her complaints to Mr. Long, who conveyed them to Jeff Peterson, UniFirst’s district service manager. However, after some back- and-forth between Mr. Long and Mr. Peterson, Petitioner elected to send an email of her own to Mr. Peterson. Ms. Wade considered this action unprofessional and counseled Petitioner about it. Ms. Wade did not believe further discipline was necessary because the situation was unlikely to recur. However, in January 2018, a similar quality control issue arose with UniFirst. Mr. Long and Petitioner exchanged emails that indicated Mr. Long believed Petitioner was the City’s point person regarding UniFirst, based on her handling of the previous issue in 2017. However, Ms. Wade directed Petitioner not to contact UniFirst management directly because the City employed Mr. Long to handle citywide vendor relations. Petitioner alleged that Ms. Wade had instructed her to have no contact with anyone from UniFirst, and that this instruction amounted to a retaliatory reduction of her assigned duties. At the hearing, Ms. Wade made it clear that her order was meant only to stop Petitioner from contacting UniFirst’s management, an action that was never in Petitioner’s scope of duties. Petitioner was still expected to deal with the UniFirst driver who delivered uniforms to Public Works. Her job duties were unchanged. Petitioner alleged that Ms. Wade retaliated against her by denying her leave to which she was entitled. On February 5, 2018, Petitioner requested that she be allowed to use 2.5 hours of accrued “safety time”3/ that afternoon, and her “floating holiday”4/ on the following day, February 6, 2018. Ms. Wade denied the request. Petitioner nonetheless left work early on February 5, 2018, and did not come into work on the following day, missing 10.5 hours of work in total. The City applied Petitioner’s accrued PTO time, 6.2 hours, to the time she missed work. For the remaining 4.3 hours, Petitioner was charged for leave without pay. Ms. Wade testified that she denied the leave request because the Public Works Department has a written policy stating that if an employee is requesting fewer than five days off, the request should be made no less than 48 hours prior to the employee’s absence.5/ Ms. Wade stated that the policy’s purpose was to ensure that enough employees were present to perform needed work. Supervisors have discretion to deviate from the policy, but only where the employee shows good cause for the failure to provide sufficient notice. In this case, Petitioner provided Ms. Wade with no reason for her request. Petitioner testified that she was never made aware of the policy, and suggested that the City invented the policy after the fact as a response to her claim of discrimination. Petitioner presented documents showing that she had previously been allowed to take time off with less than 48 hours’ notice. Ms. Wade reviewed Petitioner’s documents at the hearing. She did not recall the specific details of any particular leave request, but testified as to her general practice in granting leave with less than 48 hours’ notice. Ms. Wade stated that in some cases, Petitioner had likely made an oral request more than 48 hours prior to the leave, but did not submit the written request into the Kronos system until later. In such cases, Petitioner’s leave request would have been granted. In other cases, Petitioner had likely presented Ms. Wade with extenuating circumstances justifying the short notice. Ms. Wade demonstrated her department’s even-handed application of the policy by producing contemporaneous records showing that other Public Works employees had been denied the use of safety hours and floating holidays when they failed to give 48 hours notice to their supervisors. Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Wade’s denial of her leave request was retaliatory. Petitioner offered evidence on two issues that were beyond the scope of her Employment Complaint of Discrimination regarding retaliation. First, she claimed that the City retaliated against her by denying her the ability to use “flex time” to work an extra hour on February 1, 2018, so that she could leave an hour early on February 2, 2018. Petitioner claimed that this denial was in derogation of the City’s policy and prior practice. Second, Petitioner claimed that the City retaliated against her by denying her request to attend a training class. The City objected to Petitioner’s presentation of this evidence because these matters were not covered in Petitioner’s second Employment Complaint of Discrimination regarding retaliation. Petitioner conceded that these matters were not mentioned in her retaliation complaint, but maintained that she had submitted materials on these issues to, and discussed them with, the FCHR. She also raised the issues in her subsequent Petition for Relief. The undersigned allowed Petitioner to present her evidence because of the ambiguity of the procedural situation. It appears that during its investigative phase, the FCHR accepted evidence from Petitioner as to issues outside the four corners of Petitioner’s retaliation complaint. However, the FCHR ultimately issued no finding as to probable cause. Thus, it is unclear which issues the FCHR formally considered. While finding persuasive the City’s argument that Petitioner should be held to the issues raised in her Employment Complaint of Discrimination, the undersigned decided that if he were to err, it would be on the side of allowing Petitioner to present all of her evidence at the hearing. As to the first issue outside the Employment Complaint of Discrimination, Petitioner testified that, on February 1, 2018, she requested that she be allowed to work an extra hour and then use the “flex time” to take an hour off work the next day. Petitioner presented an email chain between Ms. Wade and her regarding this request. Ms. Wade ultimately denied the request on the ground that the City does not allow employees to “flex ahead,” i.e., work extra time now in anticipation of taking time off later. Ms. Wade told Petitioner that she would be allowed to flex an hour on February 1, 2018, and then work through her lunch hour on February 2, 2018. Petitioner testified that the City had always allowed her and other employees to flex ahead, and that the denial in this instance could only be explained as retaliation by Ms. Wade for her discrimination complaint. Petitioner did not offer evidence of the City’s written policy on flex time or evidence that the City even had such a policy. She offered exhibits purporting to demonstrate that she and other employees had been allowed to work extra time on one day to take time off on a later date. However, the coding on these documents was not clear and Petitioner did not adequately explain them. The City declined to offer evidence on this issue because of its contention that it was outside the scope of Petitioner’s Employment Complaint of Discrimination. Petitioner failed to establish that Ms. Wade’s stated view of the City’s flex time policy was incorrect or that Ms. Wade deviated from past policy and practice by declining to allow Petitioner to flex ahead on February 1, 2018. As to the second issue outside the Employment Complaint of Discrimination, Petitioner testified that on October 12, 2017, she submitted a request to Ms. Wade to take two training courses being offered by the City: “Attitude Means Everything” and “Communicating with Diplomacy and Tact.” Ms. Wade gave Petitioner permission to take the first class but denied her permission to take the second. Ms. Wade testified that the “Communicating with Diplomacy and Tact” course was designated as a “leadership” course, meaning that only supervisors are generally approved to take it. Petitioner’s position with the City was not supervisory. Petitioner showed Ms. Wade a document that Petitioner stated was a list of employees who had attended the “Communicating with Diplomacy and Tact” course. Petitioner asked Ms. Wade whether all of the listed people were supervisors. Ms. Wade testified that she could not answer the question because she did not know the people on the list, none of whom were employed by Public Works. Petitioner herself did not identify the employees on the list. In the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that Ms. Wade did anything more than follow City policy on training course participation, it cannot be found that Ms. Wade retaliated against Petitioner by denying her request to take the “Communicating with Diplomacy and Tact” course. On February 7, 2018, Petitioner voluntarily resigned her employment with the City. Petitioner alleged that her resignation was a “constructive discharge” due to the City’s denial of paid leave time for February 6, 2018, as well as the other allegedly adverse retaliatory actions taken by the City since the filing of her discrimination complaint. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that the City retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity. The only employee specifically cited by Petitioner as allegedly retaliating against her was her direct supervisor, Ms. Wade. The evidence established that Ms. Wade became aware of Petitioner’s discrimination complaint no earlier than October 6, 2017, after she allegedly retaliated against Petitioner by requiring her to use PTO for an internal job interview. Additionally, Ms. Wade rectified the situation as soon as Mr. Sorensen corrected her understanding of City policy. None of the later allegations of retaliation were credible. In January 2018, Ms. Wade gave Petitioner some minor Administrative Assistant III duties at a time when Public Works was shorthanded, then gave those duties back to the Administrative Assistant III position after the new person was hired and learned the job. There was no reason for Petitioner to take offense at this routine reshuffling of minor job duties. Also in January 2018, Ms. Wade directed Petitioner not to contact UniFirst’s management regarding citywide vendor performance issues. Such contacts were not part of Petitioner’s job duties and Ms. Wade had already counseled Petitioner against taking it upon herself to send emails to UniFirst’s management. Petitioner’s actual job duties in relation to UniFirst’s delivery of uniforms to the Public Works Department never changed. Ms. Wade’s denial of Petitioner’s February 5, 2018, leave request was in keeping with the express policy of the Public Works Department that leave requests be made at least 48 hours prior to the employee’s absence from work. The evidence established that this was not a rigid policy, but Petitioner failed to show that she presented Ms. Wade with the kind of extenuating circumstances that historically have been the basis for granting leave requests less than 48 hours before the employee’s proposed absence. There was nothing retaliatory about Ms. Wade’s following the stated policy of Public Works. Petitioner was allowed to raise two issues that were not included in her Employment Complaint of Discrimination regarding retaliation. As to these issues, Petitioner failed to offer proof sufficient to establish that either Ms. Wade’s denial of her request for flex time or Ms. Wade’s denial of Petitioner’s request to attend a “leadership” training course was an incident of retaliation. Petitioner failed to prove any incidents of retaliation. Because she voluntarily resigned her position with the City, Petitioner did not establish that the City took an adverse employment action against her in any form.
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 the City of Ocala did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of May, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondent, the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (Respondent or the Agency), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes,1/ by discriminating against Petitioner, Sharon Douse (Petitioner), during her employment with the Agency and then by terminating her employment, based upon her disability, marital status, sex, color, race, age, and the national origin of her spouse, and by illegally retaliating against her.
Findings Of Fact Sunland Center in Mariana, Florida, is operated by the Agency as an intermediate-care facility for developmentally- disabled individuals. Connally Manor is a residential setting within Sunland Center for 16 developmentally-disabled individuals with significant behavioral and medical involvement. Petitioner began her employment with the Agency on July 15, 2011, until her dismissal on January 5, 2012. During her employment, she was classified as career-service employee, Human Services Worker II, assigned to provide direct care for residents in Connally Manor. As a career-service employee, Petitioner was required to serve a one-year probationary period, during which she was subject to termination at will. While employed with the Agency, Petitioner had a number of performance deficiencies and conflicts with her co-workers and supervisors. On July 22, 2011, Petitioner attended training for the treatment and care of residents. Shortly thereafter, however, Petitioner mishandled residents on at least two occasions. As a result, Joe Grimsley, a senior human services support supervisor for the Agency, suspended Petitioner from working independently with residents, and asked Petitioner to work closely with her peers to learn appropriate care procedures. On August 25, 2011, because of excessive absences and failure to perform duties in a timely manner, Petitioner received counseling from Mr. Grimsley and Agency behavior program supervisor Scott Hewett. Petitioner was counseled for excessive absences because, from July 18 through August 22, 2011, Petitioner took a total of 48 hours of leave time, which was greater than the Agency's policy of no more than 32 hours in a 90-day period. Although Petitioner discussed most of those absences with her supervisor prior to taking the time off, as a result of her absences, Petitioner missed some of her initial training, including professional crisis management training. During the August 25, 2011, counseling session, Mr. Grimsley and Mr. Hewett also discussed other issues of concern with Petitioner, including resident care, following chain of command, team work, proper parking, and data collection sheets. As a follow-up, on the same day as the August 25th counseling, Petitioner received some in-service training regarding proper log book documenting, proper use of active treatment sheet, and unauthorized and excessive absences. Mr. Grimsley permitted Petitioner to go back to her duties of working directly with residents after she received additional training on August 27, 2011. On September 8, 2011, Petitioner's supervisors once again found it necessary to counsel Petitioner regarding resident care, chain of command, teamwork, parking, and data collection, as well as to address two incidences of unsafe handling of residents, and Agency policy regarding food in the bedrooms, and class and work schedules. Because of Petitioner's continued performance deficiencies, on October 5, 2011, Mr. Grimsley wrote an interoffice memorandum to his supervisor, Agency residential services supervisor, Julie Jackson, recommending Petitioner's termination. The memorandum stated: Mrs. Jackson: I am writing to you in regard to Mrs. Sharon Douse HSW II Second Shift Connally Manor Unit 3. Mrs. Douse came to us July 15, 2011, since then she has had three employee documented conferences, due to poor work habits, resulting in corrective action, including retraining. These deficiencies include and are not limited to data collection, excessive absences, and unsafe handling of residents. This past week she was insubordinate to her immediate supervisor by refusing to answer the phone after being requested to do so twice, and being directed that it is part of her job. [Mr. Hewett] as well as my self [sic] has made every effort to help Mrs. Douse achieve her performance expectation; however these attempts have been met with resistance as Mrs. Douse openly refuses to take direction from her supervisors and also to seek the assistance of her peers, who have many years of experience working with the Connally Manor population. Mrs. Douse has not met probationary period. Her continual resistance to positive mentoring and her confrontational attitude and demeanor towards her supervisors and coworkers is creating an increasingly difficult work environment, not only on Connally Manor, but also on the other houses within the unit. It is apparent that Mrs. Douse lacks the willingness to improve her overall poor work performance. I am formally requesting Mrs. Douse to be terminated from her employment here in Unit 3. Mr. Grimsley's testimony at the final hearing was consistent with the above-quoted October 5, 2011, interoffice memorandum, and both his testimony and memorandum are credited. Upon receiving Mr. Grimsley's memorandum, Ms. Jackson submitted a memo dated October 26, 2011, to the Agency's program operations administrator, Elizabeth Mitchell, concurring with the request for Petitioner's termination. In turn, Ms. Mitchell agreed and forwarded her recommendation for termination to Sunland's superintendent, Bryan Vaughan. Mr. Vaughan approved the recommendation for termination, and, following implementation of internal termination proceedings, Petitioner was terminated on January 5, 2012, for failure to satisfactorily complete her probationary period. Petitioner made no complaints to Mr. Grimsley or anyone else in the Agency's management until after Mr. Grimsley's October 5, 2011, memorandum recommending Petitioner's termination. Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination filed with the Commission on March 29, 2012, after her termination, charges that she was "discriminated against based on retaliation, disability, marital status, sex, color, race and age." The evidence adduced at the final hearing, however, failed to substantiate Petitioner's allegations. In particular, Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination2/ alleges that Mr. Grimsley discriminated against her because of her age by "not providing [her] with the same training as offered the other employees -- [professional crisis management training] was offered to the younger employees who were hired at or around the same time [as Petitioner]." The evidence at the final hearing, however, showed that Petitioner was scheduled for, but missed professional crisis management training, because of her absences early in her employment. The evidence also showed that professional crisis management training was not necessary for the position for which Petitioner was hired. Nevertheless, the evidence also demonstrated that, if Petitioner had not been terminated, the Agency intended to provide her with that training. Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination also asserts that Mr. Grimsley discriminated against her by "[n]ot allowing [her] to have . . . scheduled time off . . . [and taking away her] scheduled time off August 12th & 13th and [giving it to a] Caucasian female." The evidence did not substantiate this allegation. Rather, the evidence demonstrated that Petitioner had extraordinary time off during her first two months of employment. Next, Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination states that Mr. Grimsley did not follow up on her written concerns and verbal complaints to the "depart[ment] head" regarding the welfare of the disabled residents. Petitioner alleges that she was terminated as a result of her complaint that Mr. Grimsley "sat in the kitchen and baked cookies with the staff who were neglecting disabled residents." Petitioner, however, failed to present any evidence at the final hearing with regard to this allegation. Rather, the evidence showed that, while employed, Petitioner never reported any instances of abuse, neglect, or exploitation to the Florida Abuse Registry, as required by her training. And, there is no evidence that she reported any such concerns to any outside agency prior to her Charge of Discrimination. Petitioner otherwise presented no evidence suggesting that she was terminated in retaliation for engaging in any protected activity. Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination further states that she was discriminated against on the basis of her disability because Mr. Grimsley did not allow her to be properly monitored by her physician, and that when she would bring in her doctor's notes, Mr. Grimsley would refuse to put them in her personnel file. The only support for this claim were two medical reports on Petitioner, one prepared in April 2011, and one prepared in October 2011. According to Petitioner, she gave the reports to someone at the Agency's human resources office. She could not, however, identify the person to whom she gave the reports. Also, according to Petitioner, it was in November 2011, after she was recommended for termination, that she gave her medical reports to the Agency to be filed. Considering the circumstances, the undersigned finds that Petitioner's testimony regarding this allegation is not credible. In addition, the evidence did not show that Petitioner ever asked the Agency for an accommodation for her alleged disability. Rather, based upon the evidence, it is found that Petitioner never advised the Agency, and the Agency was unaware, that Petitioner had a disability. It is also found that Petitioner never asked the Agency for an accommodation for her alleged disability. Petitioner, in her Charge of Discrimination, further contends that part of the employee counseling session documented on employee-documented conference forms dated August 25, 2011, and all of the counseling session documented in a September 8, 2011, employee-documented conference form, were held without her, and that some of the concerns expressed on those documents were fabricated. There were two forms documenting discussions from the August 25th session that were submitted into evidence — - one was signed by Petitioner, the other was not. The employee-documented conference form from the September 8, 2011, session was signed by Petitioner's supervisors, but not Petitioner. Mr. Grimsley, who was present for all of the counseling discussions with Petitioner documented on the forms, testified that the documented discussions occurred, but that he just forgot to get Petitioner's signatures on all of the forms. During the final hearing, Petitioner acknowledged most of the documented discussions, including two incidents of mishandling residents and the resulting prohibition from working with residents imposed on her until she received additional training. Considering the evidence, it is found that all of the counseling discussions with Petitioner documented on the three forms actually took place, and that they accurately reflect those discussions and the fact that Petitioner was having job performance problems. Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination also alleges that a fellow employee discriminated against her because of her age and race based on an incident where, according to Petitioner, a co-worker screamed and yelled at her because Petitioner had not answered the house telephone. At the hearing, Petitioner submitted into evidence affidavits regarding the incident from the co-worker and another worker who observed the incident. Neither of the affidavits supports Petitioner's contention that she was discriminated against. Rather, they both support the finding that Petitioner had trouble getting along with co-workers and accepting directions from Agency staff. Further, according to Petitioner, after she talked to Mr. Grimsley about the incident, he spoke to both Petitioner and the co-worker, and their conflict was resolved. The incident occurred after Mr. Grimsley had already recommended that Petitioner be terminated. Finally, Petitioner alleges in her Charge of Discrimination that Mr. Hewett discriminated against her based upon her marital status, race, and the national origin of her spouse. In support, Petitioner contends that Mr. Hewett "made rude comments about art work on my locker that Scott knew my husband had drawn[,]" asked, "[do] blacks like classical music?" and, upon seeing Petitioner's apron that was embroidered with a Jamaican flag, Mr. Hewett said, "You can't trust things from overseas," when he knew that her husband was Jamaican. Petitioner also stated that Mr. Hewett "bullied her" about answering the telephone. While Petitioner testified that she wrote to Agency management regarding these comments and the alleged bullying by Mr. Hewett, she did not retain a copy. The Agency claims that Petitioner never complained about these alleged comments or Mr. Hewett's alleged bullying while she was an employee. Considering the evidence presented in this case, and Petitioner's demeanor during her testimony, it is found that Petitioner did not raise these allegations against Mr. Hewett until after her termination from the Agency. It is further found that if Mr. Hewett made the alleged comments, as described by Petitioner during her testimony, Mr. Hewett's comments were isolated and not pervasive. Further, Petitioner's testimonial description of Mr. Hewett's comments did not indicate that his comments were overtly intimidating, insulting, or made with ridicule, and the evidence was insufficient to show, or reasonably suggest, that Mr. Hewett's alleged comments made Petitioner's work environment at the Agency hostile or intolerable. In sum, Petitioner failed to show that the Agency discriminated against Petitioner by treating her differently, creating a hostile work environment, or terminating her because of her disability, marital status, sex, color, race, age, or her spouse's national origin. Petitioner also failed to show that the Agency retaliated against her because of any complaint that she raised or based upon Petitioner's engagement in any other protected activity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner’s Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 2013.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2007),2 by discriminating against Petitioner based on her national origin.
Findings Of Fact The Omni, advertised as "Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate," is a golf resort located in the Orlando tourist corridor near Walt Disney World. The Omni is an employer as that term is defined in Section 760.02, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Suhra Merdanovic, is a Bosnian female, and her first language is Bosnian. She speaks and understands English, but is more fluent and comfortable using her native language. Ms. Merdanovic was employed by the Omni from approximately August 22, 2006, to October 9, 2006. Ms. Merdanovic worked in the kitchen of the Broadway Deli, a sandwich shop located in the resort. The Broadway Deli was one of several restaurants in the Omni complex. During the brief period of Ms. Merdanovic's employment, the Broadway Deli did not have a full-time manager. Ms. Merdanovic reported to Silvio Rosalen, the sous chef at Teri's Restaurant, near the Broadway Deli in the Omni complex. Mr. Rosalen reported to Robert Fohr, the assistant food and beverage manager for the Omni. The Omni has established a policy that prohibits harassment in the workplace. The policy defines harassment as: ny unwelcome verbal, non-verbal, physical or other conduct or behavior relating to an individual's race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, disability or any other categories protected by state, federal or local law, that is made a term or condition of employment, is used as the basis for employment or advancement decisions, or has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with work or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. The policy "strictly prohibit[s]" employees, supervisors, and members of management from harassing other employees, supervisors, or members of management. The policy directs an employee who has a complaint of harassment to report that complaint to any manager or supervisor, the human resources director, the general manager, or the regional vice president of operations. The complaint triggers a formal investigation, usually conducted by the human resources director. The Omni's harassment and equal employment opportunity policies are set forth in the Omni's Associate Handbook, which is provided to all employees. The handbook is reviewed during an orientation session that all newly hired Omni employees must attend. Ms. Merdanovic attended an orientation session on August 26, 2006, and testified that she was familiar with the harassment policy. The Omni calls the first 90 days of employment an "introductory period." The Associate Handbook describes the introductory period as follows: During this time you will have a chance to see whether you like your job and Omni Hotels will have an opportunity to evaluate your performance and suitability for your position. If Omni Hotels concludes that your job performance and/or suitability have been unsatisfactory, you may be dismissed at any time during the introductory period at Omni Hotels' complete discretion. You may also be dismissed at any time after the introductory period at the sole discretion of Omni Hotels. Both during and after the introductory period, all associates are associates at will. If an employee's manager determines within the first 90 days of employment that an employee's job performance and/or "suitability" is unsatisfactory, the manager will meet with the employee to review the manager's concerns. After this meeting, the employee's job status is "suspended pending investigation" while the manager confers with the human resources department to review the issues. If the manager and the human resources department agree that the employee should be terminated, then human resources will advise the employee of the decision. Ms. Merdanovic testified that two Hispanic co-workers, Erica Torres and Charlotte Ruiz, harassed her because of her nationality. Ms. Torres asked her what she was doing in America and refused to go into the kitchen with her. Both women made jokes and laughed about Ms. Merdanovic being from Bosnia. Ms. Merdanovic testified that her co-workers also disliked her, because she refused to give them free food from the Broadway Deli's kitchen. Ms. Merdanovic did not complain to a manager, supervisor, or any other Omni employee about the harassment she claimed to have experienced. Mr. Rosalen testified that he received numerous complaints about Ms. Merdanovic's job performance from her co- workers. The co-workers told him that Ms. Merdanovic failed to follow instructions, argued with guests and co-workers, interrupted co-workers who were trying to explain how to complete job tasks, gave guests the wrong order at least twice, and failed to comply with the posted work schedule. Mr. Rosalen personally observed Ms. Merdanovic's performance deficiencies on several occasions. The guest complaints were most significant to Mr. Rosalen. On one occasion, the guest had ordered a turkey sandwich, but was served a pastrami sandwich by Ms. Merdanovic. Rather than correcting the order immediately, Ms. Merdanovic attempted to convince the guest to keep the pastrami sandwich by telling him it was good and he would like it. On a second occasion, a guest ordered a milkshake and was served iced coffee.3 At the hearing, Ms. Merdanovic testified that she was unaware of any complaints about sandwiches. She stated that she has worked in kitchens for years and understands how to make sandwiches in a deli. She did complain that she was never trained to operate the "front of the store" equipment such as the milkshake machine or coffee machine, yet was expected to somehow be able to operate them. Mr. Rosalen orally counseled Ms. Merdanovic on multiple occasions regarding her performance deficiencies, but he never observed any improvement. Pursuant to the process for terminating employees during their introductory period, Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr decided to meet with Ms. Merdanovic to discuss her performance deficiencies and to advise her not to return to work until she heard from human resources. After this meeting, Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr would meet with the human resources director to discuss whether to terminate Ms. Merdanovic's employment. Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr prepared a "Problem/Solution Notice" form, dated October 2, 2006, that set out the performance deficiencies and possible corrective actions for Ms. Merdanovic. This notice was intended to be the outline for discussion during the meeting with Ms. Merdanovic. Under the heading "Specific Nature of Problem" were various categories, including absenteeism, tardiness, violation of company policies, and unsafe actions. Ms. Merdanovic's problem was categorized as "Performance Below Standards." The specific performance problems were set out as follows: There have been numerous complaints about Suhra Merdanovic's job performance from several of her co-workers. These complaints include: Does not follow training of food preparation techniques and quantities. Does not follow food, coffee and drink recipes. Does not know what all the ingredients are to be able to make recipe. Looses [sic] tickets for orders. Has become argumentative with employees and guests when told that the product is wrong. Has tried to convince guests that mistakenly prepared food is good and tried to get them to take it. Does not understand the schedule after repeatedly having it explained. Interrupts employees and does not let people finish talking when trying to explain how a task needs to be completed. Is not a team player. The notice set forth the following under the heading, "Expected performance or conduct/corrective action required": Suhra must adhere to the following guidelines: Must be receptive to and accept training in all facets of Broadway Deli culinary operations with a positive attitude. Must follow all standard recipes without deviation to achieve a consistent product. Must produce orders in timely fashion in accordance to [sic] the guest's specifications. Must never become argumentative with a guest and try to force a guest to take a product they do not want. Must get along with and assist teammates with all guest needs. The notice concluded that the "disciplinary action taken" would be "Suspension/Termination." On October 2, 2006, Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr met with Ms. Merdanovic in Mr. Fohr's office to review the contents of the Problem/Solution Notice. When her supervisors began reviewing her performance deficiencies, Ms. Merdanovic interrupted to argue with them. Mr. Fohr pointed out that this was the same sort of conduct that led to this counseling session in the first place. Before Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr could present her with the notice and commence the formal suspension/termination process, Ms. Merdanovic began to cry in a way that Mr. Rosalen described as "almost hysterical" for several minutes. Ms. Merdanovic then walked to the kitchen of the Broadway Deli. Mr. Rosalen followed her, both to make sure she was all right and to escort her off the Omni property. Ms. Merdanovic again began crying and saying that she could not breathe. She described her condition as "couldn't breathe, couldn't think, couldn't stay." Mr. Rosalen called in the Omni's security team, which also acts as the resort's first responder in medical emergencies. The entry of the security guards threw Ms. Merdanovic into a greater panic. Eventually, at Ms. Merdanovic's request, the Omni called an ambulance service, which transported her to Florida Hospital in Orlando. Ms. Merdanovic was diagnosed with high blood pressure and discharged after an overnight stay in the hospital.4 After the incident leading to Ms. Merdanovic's hospitalization, Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr met with Lisa Borde- Christie, the Omni's human resources manager, to discuss their meeting with Ms. Merdanovic, the complaints about her from guests and co-workers, and Mr. Rosalen's observations of her performance deficiencies and his previous attempts to correct them. Ms. Borde-Christie agreed that Ms. Merdanovic was not meeting the Omni's performance expectations for her position. In light of Ms. Merdanovic's failure to improve her performance despite Mr. Rosalen's several attempts at verbal counseling, Ms. Borde-Christie, Mr. Fohr, and Mr. Rosalen agreed it was unlikely that Ms. Merdanovic's performance would improve in the future. They decided to terminate her employment. On October 9, 2006, Ms. Borde-Christie and Mr. Rosalen met with Ms. Merdanovic to tell her that her employment was terminated and to review the performance deficiencies that caused her termination. When Ms. Borde-Christie attempted to review the performance issues, Ms. Merdanovic became argumentative, stating that these issues were all lies and that her co-workers did not like her. Ms. Borde-Christie testified that Ms. Merdanovic said nothing about her national origin being an issue in the workplace. Ms. Merdanovic produced no credible evidence that her language or national origin played a role in the decision to terminate her employment. The Omni's management did not become aware of her allegations of harassment due to her national origin by her co-workers until Ms. Merdanovic filed her Employment Complaint of Discrimination, more than two months after her dismissal. The evidence produced at hearing demonstrated that the reasons for Petitioner's termination all related to her job performance.
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 the Omni Hotel Resort did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 2008, 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 26th day of March, 2008.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent from January, 1986, until March 7, 1988. Petitioner worked as a tailor and performed alterations at Respondent's store located in Altamonte Springs. In the latter half of 1987, Mr. Pease became the manager of the Altamonte Springs store and thus became Petitioner's supervisor. As had the prior manager, Mr. Pease and Petitioner worked out a schedule that did not require Petitioner to work in violation of his religious principles. However, relations between Petitioner and Mr. Pease were not good. Shortly after becoming manager, for independent business reasons, Mr. Pease decided to reduce the amount of fitting done in the store. The effect of this decision was to reduce the amount of work available for Petitioner. At about this time, Petitioner suffered an accident unrelated to employment. The accident resulted in an extended absence from work. Petitioner received his physician's approval to return to work on February 16, 1988, but failed to do so. Without prior notice, Petitioner showed up at the store on March 7, 1988, and informed Mr. Pease that Petitioner was ready to return to work. Mr. Pease told Petitioner that the work schedule had already been arranged for the week. Mr. Pease told Petitioner that the only days he could work were Saturday, March 12, and Sunday, March 13. Petitioner told Mr. Pease that he could not work Sundays due to his religious beliefs. Mr. Pease reiterated that no other time was available that week. Petitioner told Mr. Pease that Petitioner understood that he was being fired. Mr. Pease told him that he was not being fired; rather, he was quitting if he left Respondent's employment. Two days later, Petitioner filed for unemployment compensation benefits. He never reported to work with Respondent again. Consistent with his Petition for Relief, Petitioner offered no evidence of discrimination due to national origin. Nothing in the record suggests the existence of any such discrimination. Petitioner has also failed to prove the existence of any religious discrimination. There is no evidence that Mr. Pease refused to try to accommodate Petitioner's religious beliefs with respect to work schedules after the weekend of March 12-13. The only evidence is that when Petitioner suddenly reported to work, the only days immediately available were the weekend days. The record does not even disclose whether Mr. Pease linked the two days, so as to prevent Petitioner from working the Saturday without working the Sunday. There is nothing in the record suggesting that Mr. Pease told Petitioner that if he failed to work the coming Sunday, he would lose his job. In sum, Petitioner has left it entirely to conjecture whether Mr. Pease would have failed to make reasonable accommodation for the religious beliefs of Petitioner. In fact, Mr. Pease was never presented with that opportunity. In addition, Petitioner has produced no evidence that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. There is no evidence of the number of employees working for Respondent at the relevant time.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner be dismissed. ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5689 Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-3. Adopted in substance. 4-5. (first sentence) Adopted. 5. (second sentence) Rejected as irrelevant. 6-10. Adopted. s 11. Rejected as irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Margaret Agerton, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Weceslao Lugo Palermo 7505 Armstrong Road Lockhart, FL 32810 Richard D. Pease 590 West Highway 436 Altamonte Springs, FL 32714
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner based on his race.
Findings Of Fact In February 2006, Respondent hired Petitioner, an African-American male, knowing that he had a criminal record. Respondent employed Petitioner as a porter. Respondent employed other African-American and Caucasian people as porters, housekeepers, and janitors. Initially, Respondent paid Petitioner $7.25 per hour. Respondent was impressed with Petitioner's enthusiasm and willingness to perform physically demanding work. Respondent gave Petitioner a reward for always being on time and not being absent. Respondent eventually raised Petitioner's salary to $10.00 per hour or $400 per week. Respondent gave Petitioner the promotion so that he and his wife could qualify for a mortgage. Respondent helped Petitioner pay off his wife's credit card debt for the same reason. After Petitioner and his family moved into their new home, Carol Collett, Respondent's Caucasian General Manager, helped Petitioner furnish the house. Ms. Collett also attended the christening of Petitioner's new baby. Ms. Collett tried to help Petitioner as much as she could because she believed that everyone deserves a second chance. At all times relevant here, Petitioner worked the night shift when there was no supervisor on the premises. Petitioner's position required Ms. Collett's trust because his duties included taking care of the front desk. From approximately June 2007 through November 2007, Petitioner worked an average of 62 hours per week with no overtime compensation. There is no persuasive evidence that the other porters, Caucasian and/or African-American, were paid more than Petitioner or for overtime work. Petitioner never requested a raise, but he did request to work as a janitor. However, Petitioner presented no evidence that a janitor's position was available. More importantly, Petitioner lacked the skills to perform janitorial/maintenance work for Respondent. In time, Ms. Collett noticed a change in Petitioner's behavior. On one occasion, Petitioner's wife informed Ms. Collett that Petitioner had not come home with his pay check. On or about November 3, 2007, Ms. Collett confronted Petitioner about his declining job performance and his suspicious activities involving hotel guests. Petitioner denied that he was using or selling drugs or that he brought hookers to the job site. During the conversation, Petitioner began to cry, stating that he had let Ms. Collett down. Petitioner said that he "would rather to go back jail where life was easier and he would not have the pressure of daily life." Ms. Collett did not have a chance to terminate Petitioner because he left voluntarily. Petitioner came back to the hotel one time to pick up his last pay check. At that time, Ms. Collett confronted Petitioner about some money that was missing from the front office. The office had been locked the night before, but someone had entered it through the ceiling from the adjoining room. Petitioner could not find another job. He is now in prison.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth W. Johnson, DC #646344 Gulf Correctional Institution 699 Ike Steele Road Wewahitchka, Florida 32465 Jerome D. Mitchell, Esquire Riggio & Mitchell, P.A. 1326 South Ridgewood Avenue Suite 8 Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner has established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent is guilty of unlawful employment practices as alleged in the Petition for Relief. AUTHORITY Chapters 120 and 760, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, D. Paul Sondel, was born August 13, 1928, and was, at the time of final hearing, 65 years of age. On April 11, 1993, Petitioner saw a newspaper advertisement for the position of Analyst I with the Florida Board of Bar Examiners (FBOBE). On April 12, 1993, Petitioner went to the office of the employment agency which the FBOBE was using to locate and screen applicants. Petitioner was told that he would not be allowed to apply or take the pre- employment test for the position because he had a graduate degree and only persons who have a Bachelor's degree but no graduate degree(s) were allowed to apply. On June 1, 1993, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations, in which he alleged that the FBOBE requirement that no one would be considered for the position of Analyst I who had a higher level degree than the minimum required Bachelor's degree, served the "intended purpose" of eliminating older applicants, especially those over Petitioner further alleged that the existence and implementation of such FBOBE policy was in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Respondent hired two persons to fill the April 1993 advertised position of Analyst I. One of the persons hired was 24 and the other was 23 years of age. The FBOBE is an administrative agency of the Supreme Court of Florida and charged by the court with the responsibility of evaluating the character, fitness and competence of each applicant for admission to the Florida Bar. Petitioner has established that he is a person in a protected group; that adverse employment action was taken against him; that the persons hired for the position in question were outside the protected group; and that, but for his graduate degree, he was qualified for the position in question. The FBOBE has a current staff of 29 full time employees. As of March 30, 1994, of those employees, three were 40 years or older at the time of employment. Nine of these employees are currently 40 or older. The employment application used by the FBOBE does not request any information regarding an applicant's age. The FBOBE have hired individuals in the past who were 40 years of age or older. The FBOBE uses the American Employment Agency, Inc. to advertise vacancies and to conduct preliminary screening. Kathryn E. Ressel has been employed by the Respondent for over 22 years and is currently the Deputy Executive Director of the FBOBE. Ms. Ressel is responsible for the instructions given to the employment agency concerning the qualifications for the position of Analyst I. Ms. Ressel testified that the reason for the FBOBE policy of excluding applicants with post graduate college or university degrees is not intended to restrict employment opportunities to younger persons and is not related to the age of any applicant. Ms. Ressel's testimony is that past experience in hiring persons with graduate degrees has indicated that such persons tend to stay in the Analyst positions for short periods of time and leave when an employment opportunity presents itself in the field for which the person is educated. Ms. Ressel testified that the Analyst I position is an entry level position and that the Analyst receives extensive on-the-job training to enable the newly hired employee to perform assigned duties and meet job related responsibilities in an effective and efficient manner. Therefore, according to Ms. Ressel, when Analyst I's leave the employment of the FBOBE after a short time on the job, the Respondent is unable to recoup the time, energy and expense involved in training such individuals. Ms. Ressel's testimony articulates a reasonable nondiscriminatory basis for the employment practice at issue. Ms. Ressel's testimony indicates that the employment policy at issue is age neutral in that it is applied to all individuals who apply for the position of Analyst I, regardless of age. Ms. Ressel's testimony in this regard is unrefuted. Official notice is taken that a given individual is generally older at the time such person receives a graduate degree than when the same individual receives a Bachelor's degree. It does not follow, however, and Petitioner has failed to prove (statistically or otherwise), that in any specific job applicant pool available to the Respondent to fill Analyst I positions, potential applicants with graduate degrees are older than potential applicants who possess only Bachelor's degrees. Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (statistical or otherwise) that the employment policy at issue has a disparate impact on persons 40 years of age or older. Petitioner has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason articulated by the FBOBE as the basis for rejecting Petitioner's application is in fact a pretext and/or that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petition for relief filed in this case be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of May, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES W. YORK, 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 19th day of May, 1994.
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 violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 27, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female who at all times material to this case was employed with Respondent as a production worker. Respondent, Hamilton Products, Inc., manufactures various animal related products such as horse tack and pet collars and is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. Allegations of Race Discrimination Petitioner's Employment Complaint of Discrimination alleged discrimination on the basis of race and retaliation and reads in pertinent part: I believe that I have been discriminated against based on race, Black, which has resulted in discipline, unfair terms and conditions, and denial of promotion. Since 2003, I have noticed disparate treatment between White and Black employees. One example of this is that Black employees are rarely if ever promoted to management positions. Another example of this is that a Black coworker of mine, Deloise, would often harass me and when I complained to my supervisor Mrs. Robinson, she took the matter to Mrs. Lake. Mrs. Lake merely asked the woman to not do that again. This harassment continued and I repeatedly complained about it so that finally, I was moved to a different location. A similarly situated White female, Elaine, experienced similar treatment from Deloise but when she complained Deloise was stopped from repeating the behavior almost immediately. I was very upset about this obvious disparity that I contacted Mrs. Benfel and explained to her what was transpiring. She asked me to gather together my complaints and those of others which I did and submitted it to her in a letter. Almost immediately after I began to receive retaliation for my complaint. I was disciplined, verbally harassed and moved away from the other employees. Martha Robinson is a supervisor employed by Respondent for over 16 years. She was Petitioner's direct supervisor for some of the time Petitioner worked for Respondent. Ms. Robinson is a white female. A coworker, Delores,1/ who sat near Petitioner would tap her foot on a wooden box while working. Petitioner found this annoying and complained to Ms. Robinson. Ms. Robinson asked Delores to stop tapping her foot and had fleece put on the box. However, Delores continued to tap her foot. After three or four employees complained about Delores' foot tapping, Ms. Robinson took the box away from Delores and put it in Ms. Lake's office. Karen Benfield is the office manager for Respondent, where she has been employed for 19 years. Petitioner went to Ms. Benfield's office to complain about working conditions. Ms. Benfield described the complaints made by Petitioner as vague and broad-based, consisting of general assertions that employees were unhappy at work. Petitioner's complaints to Ms. Benfield did not include any allegation of racial discrimination about her or anyone else. Ms. Benfield asked Petitioner for specifics, to put her complaints on paper and she would make sure management saw it. She did not ask Petitioner to solicit comments from other employees and told Petitioner she could only speak for herself. Petitioner collected written complaints from her co- workers and delivered them to Ms. Benfield. Petitioner received a Warning Notice dated October 26, 2004, for disruptive influence on the workforce. It read as follows: The purpose of this warning is to make sure that you understand the structure of Hamilton Products and the parameters of acceptable behavior at work. Lately, you have brought a number of suggestions and grievances to the management of Hamilton Products on behalf of yourself and others. There is no single employee representative to management at Hamilton Products. You do not and may not speak on behalf of other employees. Every employee at Hamilton Products, including yourself, enjoys the right to share ideas, suggestions or grievances with management. Such communication is encouraged as long as it is made properly. There is a clear chain of command at Hamilton Products, and you must follow that chain of command when communicating with management. You must speak to your immediate supervisor or place a suggestion in the box provided for suggestions at the north end of the nylon department. It is not acceptable to go around the chain of command to a higher supervisor, as this disrupts the operations of Hamilton Products. In the future, you must follow the chain of command or use the suggestion box, and speak only for yourself. Failure to follow the procedure outlined herein will result in further disciplinary actions up to and including discharge. After the hurricanes of 2004, Petitioner's entire department was reprimanded by the plant manager for missing work. This was upsetting to Petitioner because Ms. Robinson had told these employees not to call in. She felt that Ms. Robinson should not have let him "talk trash" to the employees. There is no evidence that Petitioner or anyone else was singled out in any way by the plant manager regarding this incident. Petitioner believes that white employees were given opportunities for promotion and resulting raises. However, no employees on the production floor were promoted during the time Petitioner worked for Respondent. There is no competent evidence in the record to support Petitioner's claim that white employees received promotions and black employees did not. At some point, Petitioner was moved when the production department was reorganized. Petitioner was placed in the center of the plant, facing the rest of her department. She had no one on either side of her which resulted in her not being able to talk to coworkers while working.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Employment Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of February, 2007.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Relief filed by Jonathan W. Harris in this cause. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1985.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's suspension in March 2004 and subsequent dismissal in March 2004 were not, in fact, imposed in consequence of her gross insubordination (which insubordination Respondent allegedly used as a pretext for the adverse employment actions), but rather were in truth retaliatory acts taken by Respondent because Petitioner had filed a charge of discrimination against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction contained a statement of undisputed material facts, which provided as follows: A. [a.] [Petitioner Diane] Scott [("Scott")] was employed as a teacher's aide in the Monroe County Public School System for approximately 13 years. The [Monroe County School] Board [(the "Board"), which is the governing body of Respondent Monroe County School District,] suspended [Scott] without pay in March 2004 pending termination for just cause. Scott timely requested a formal hearing. [b.] On August 18, 2004, Administrative Law Judge Robert E. Meale of the Division of Administrative Hearings ("DOAH") conducted a formal hearing in DOAH Case No. 04-2060 to determine whether Scott's employment should be terminated. Judge Meale issued a Recommended Order on October 25, 2004, holding, on the basis of extensive findings of fact, that Scott had "repeatedly refused to obey direct orders, essentially to allow the school system to function as an educational resource, free from her harassment of other employees trying to do their jobs." Judge Meale recommended that the Board terminate Scott's employment for just cause, i.e. gross insubordination. [c.] On November 16, 2004, the Board entered a Final Order adopting Judge Meale's Recommended Order in its entirety. Scott did not appeal the Final Order. B. [d.] In November 2004, Scott filed with the FCHR and the EEOC a Charge of Discrimination, signed November 12, 2004 (the "Charge"), wherein she alleged that the Board had retaliated against her for having filed an earlier charge of discrimination. The Charge was received by the FCHR on or about November 22, 2004, and docketed as Charge No. 150-2005-00405. [e.] In the Charge, Scott stated the "particulars" of her claim against the Board as follows: I am black. I filed a charge of discrimination under 150-2004-00146. In retaliation, Respondent placed papers in my fie [sic] that pertained to someone else and papers that were not signed by me. In further retaliation, Respondent placed me on suspension. I believe all of the above occurred in retaliation for filing the aforementioned charge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.[1] Scott also alleged that the unlawful retaliation took place between the dates of August 18, 2004, and August 24, 2004.2 [f.] . . . Charge No. 150-2004-00146 (the "Prior Charge"), which allegedly triggered the Board's allegedly retaliatory acts, had been brought against the Board in November 2003. . . . [To repeat for emphasis,] the retaliation claim asserted in the [present] Charge is based on alleged adverse employment actions that the Board took, allegedly, in response to Scott's filing the Prior Charge in November 2003. [g.] In her Charge Scott alleged that the Board's unlawful retaliation consisted of (a) placing papers in her personnel file that didn't belong there and (b) putting her on suspension. Regarding the allegedly spurious papers, . . . [f]ive . . . are . . . documents pertaining to another teacher's aide in Monroe County whose name is "Diane M. Scott." (Petitioner Scott is also known as Diane Hill Scott but not, so far as the record reveals, as Diane M. Scott.) The papers relating to the "other" Diane Scott are: (1) an Oath of Public Employee form dated December 20, 1996; (2) an Employer's Statement of Salary and Wages dated April 24, 2001; (3) an Employer's Statement of Salary and Wages dated March 13, 2002; (4) a Civil Applicant Response dated December 20, 1996, which notes that the individual (identified as "Diane Marie Scoh") had failed to disclose a prior arrest; and (5) a copy of the school district's anti-discrimination policy, apparently signed by the other Ms. Scott on August 23, 2002. [h.] In addition to these five papers, Scott claims that her personnel file contained an unsigned copy of the school district's anti-discrimination policy, bearing the handwritten note "Diane Hill Scott refused to sign——8/24/00." Scott asserts that before last year's administrative hearing, she had never seen this particular document. Because of that, she alleges, its presence in her file is evidence of discriminatory retaliation. [i.] Regarding the alleged retaliatory suspension [on which the Charge is based in part], Scott [actually] was referring to three separate suspensions: (1) a three-day suspension in May 2003; (2) a three-day suspension in October 2003; and (3) the suspension in March 2004 that was part and parcel of the proceeding to terminate Scott's employment. It is undisputed that Scott was in fact suspended from employment on each of these three occasions. However, [by] a letter to Scott from the Director of Human Resources dated October 3, 2003, [the Board had] formally rescind[ed], as the product of "error and miscommunication," the three-day suspension Scott was to have served that month. [j.] On April 26, 2005, the EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of Rights on Scott's Charge against the Board. In this notice, the EEOC stated that it was unable to determine whether the Board had violated Scott's civil rights. Thereafter, on May 12, 2005, the FCHR issued Scott a Right to Sue letter. Scott timely filed a Petition for Relief ("Petition") with the FCHR on June 6, 2005. The FCHR immediately transferred the Petition to DOAH, initiating the instant action. The undersigned hereby adopts the foregoing as findings of fact. Following the principle of estoppel by judgment (discussed in the Conclusions of Law below), it is found that, prior to being suspended from employment in March 2004, Scott repeatedly had refused to obey direct orders; she had been, in other words, grossly insubordinate at work. The evidence in the record is insufficient to persuade the undersigned——and consequently he does not find——that the Board used Scott's gross insubordination as a pretext for taking adverse employment actions, namely suspension and dismissal, against Scott. The evidence is likewise insufficient to establish, and thus it is not found, that the Board in fact suspended and discharged Scott in retaliation for filing the Prior Charge. It is determined, therefore, as a matter of ultimate fact, that the Board did not unlawfully retaliate against Scott when it terminated her employment on the ground that she had been grossly insubordinate, which misbehavior constitutes just cause for firing a teacher's aide, see §§ 1012.01(2)(e) and 1012.33(1)(a), Fla. Stat., and hence is a legitimate, non- retaliatory basis for taking adverse employment action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order finding the Monroe County School District not liable to Diane Scott for retaliation or unlawful discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 2006.
