The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Sheila A. Cunningham, was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, Florida Credit Union, on account of her race or due to retaliation for her opposition to an unlawful employment practice in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, who was at all times relevant to this matter an employee of Respondent, is African-American. There was no direct testimony as to the number of persons employed by Respondent. However, given the testimony describing a large financial institution with multiple departments, including a data scanning department and a call center, there is sufficient competent, substantial evidence to establish an inference that Respondent employs more than 15 full-time employees at any given time. Petitioner was first hired by Respondent on November 20, 2007. On February 2, 2008, she was transferred to the position of Courtesy Pay Credit Advisor (CPCA), a position held until her termination on March 21, 2014. From 2012 through the time of her termination, Jennifer Perez was Petitioner’s direct supervisor. Ms. Perez reported to Mr. Colson, who supervised the credit advisor department. Over the years, Petitioner received a number of certificates and awards for good performance in her position. CPCAs are responsible for collections on delinquent accounts of members by bringing the account to a positive balance within 60 days of delinquency. If a credit union member’s account is delinquent for more than 60 days, it must be written off, resulting in a loss to Respondent. Failure to timely write-off a negative account can subject Respondent to fines and negative audit ratings. A common way of bringing an account current is to arrange a loan with Respondent to pay the delinquent balance. Loan types include a “bounce-free” loan and a “work-out loan.” Both are designed to allow for payment of the negative account in installment payments. The bounce-free loan has only the negative account balance involved, while the work-out loan combines the negative balance with another existing loan. CPCAs receive additional compensation for such loans, known as “incentives,” of $10 to $15, though the record suggests that a dispute over an incentive of $40 was a triggering cause of the adverse employment action in this case. CPCAs are also responsible for “packing” loans, which includes taking the loan paperwork to the optical department to input and image the documents into Respondent’s system. The optical department periodically provides reports on loans for which documentation has not been submitted for input and imaging. Petitioner testified credibly that the optical department would occasionally neglect to scan loans that were submitted. However, there was no evidence to suggest that to be a frequent or pervasive problem. Respondent routinely employs one or two CPCAs at any given time. The CPCAs are assigned a “queue,” which is an alphabetical assignment of member accounts. The evidence suggests that Petitioner served as the CPCA for all delinquent member accounts for a period of almost one year, a practice that ended when Vikki Martello was hired as a CPCA on February 27, 2012. Upon her hiring, Ms. Martello was assigned the accounts of members with last names beginning with the letters A through K, and Petitioner was assigned the accounts of members with last names beginning with the letters L through Z. Ms. Martello was transferred to another position on July 11, 2013. Jennifer Munyan was hired as a CPCA on May 20, 2013, and was assigned the A through K queue. Since Petitioner’s termination, Ms. Munyan has handled all delinquent accounts. Petitioner mentioned several incidents over the course of her employment that she believed to be evidence of her poor treatment by Respondent. These incidents appear to have occurred more than one year before Petitioner filed her employment complaint of discrimination. They are cited here for purposes of background. Petitioner testified that starting in 2010 or 2011, Respondent began to hire younger credit advisors on the basis of their friendship with management. The new employees engaged in childish activities such as throwing paper clips and blowing bubbles. Petitioner indicated that they were “written up” for those activities. There was no suggestion that either the hiring or the write-ups were based on race. For a period of time, Petitioner was assigned what she believed to be a disproportionate share of holiday weekend shifts. Mr. Colson “corrected that and then that was okay.” There was no suggestion that the issues with scheduling were based on race. Shortly after Ms. Martello was hired on February 27, 2012, she was asked to accompany Mr. Colson and Ms. Perez to a branch office to train employees. Petitioner felt “that was not right,” and that she was being excluded from performing certain job tasks. She testified that Respondent’s assignment of training and other duties to persons other than herself led to a sympathetic nick-name of “invisible credit advisor.” Petitioner admitted that, in her opinion, Ms. Martello was an excellent employee. Mr. Colson testified credibly that Petitioner was not asked to assist in the new hire training since she was already behind on managing her accounts, and that “[t]here’s no compensation or award or anything for training another employee, it's just additional work.” There was no suggestion that the decision to have Ms. Martello assist with training was based on race. Petitioner alleged that despite her requests, she was not allowed to shadow other employees, particularly in the call center, so that she could learn the responsibilities of the member service representative position. She testified that in response to her requests, Ms. Perez would say “okay, we'll see about it, but nothing never happened. And I asked like three or four times and it was always we'll see about it.” Petitioner did not claim in her testimony that she was denied these opportunities because of her race. Petitioner generally claimed she was denied promotional opportunities because she was not allowed to train as a back-up. However, she failed to present any evidence of an open and available position for which she had applied, or for which she was denied. Furthermore, there was no suggestion that race played a role in any such denial. Respondent’s employees are informed of work performance issues in several ways, including informal discussions, e-mail communication, individual or group meetings, coaching reports, and annual evaluations. On March 19, 2012, Petitioner received her annual performance review. Although Respondent was complementary of Petitioner’s improvements in her work, and spoke favorably of her interpersonal relationships and work ethic, the review noted a number of “improvement opportunities and development areas” to be implemented over the course of the following year. Deficiencies in job performance included Petitioner’s practice of making initial contact with a delinquent member by letter, rather than the more effective practice of a phone call; the failure to provide sufficiently descriptive account notations; the failure to “charge off” loans correctly resulting in errors for others to correct; the failure to close checking accounts after workout options or loans were complete resulting in further delinquencies; and the failure to set up loan distributions correctly, resulting in unwarranted loan delinquencies and resultant customer complaints. The performance review also cited issues with Petitioner’s negative accounts extending beyond the required time frame, which was noted in Respondent’s quarterly audit report. The deficiencies noted in the performance review resulted in higher than normal charge-offs, and losses to Respondent. Petitioner improved her performance in some areas, but only for short periods of time. Mr. Colson did not issue Petitioner any coaching reports in 2012 because he believed that Petitioner’s mistakes were not intentional, that she had a positive attitude, that she had no attendance issues, and that “she seemed to like her job a lot.” It was Mr. Colson’s belief that with additional training and a cooperative approach, Petitioner’s performance issues could be corrected. On February 27, 2013, Petitioner received her next annual performance review. Petitioner was again complemented on her interaction with members, her teamwork, and her general positive work ethic. It was noted that Petitioner had responded well to coaching such that she rarely made mistakes in setting up automatic loan payments. The review noted, however, a number of areas for improvement, including some that had not been resolved from the previous year’s review. Of particular concern was the high number of missing loan packets, some of which were months past due; the failure to meet consecutive deadlines for submitting completed work; and the failure to begin work on accounts in an appropriate and timely manner. Petitioner was again instructed to make initial contact with delinquent members by phone or email, rather than by letter; and was advised of several of her accounts that were charged-off after missing the 60-day deadline. Finally, Petitioner was provided with a printout of the 142 overdrawn checking accounts in her queue, only 40 of which (28 percent), had been worked in the previous 60 days. Although some early-stage overdraft accounts carried a “high self-cure rate,” the low number of accounts worked was deemed unacceptably low. After receiving her 2013 performance review, Petitioner improved in some areas of her performance, but again only for a short period of time. Beginning on July 15, 2013, Petitioner, Ms. Martello (until she completed her transfer from the collections department), and Ms. Munyan (upon her assignment to the collections department) were provided with periodic email updates from Ms. Perez on the number of loan packets for which each was responsible that had not been submitted to the optical department. The updates and related correspondence between Petitioner and Ms. Perez revealed the following: July 15, 2013 Petitioner - 37 missing loan packets Ms. Martello - 4 missing loan packets July 19, 2013 Petitioner - 36 missing loan packets Ms. Martello - 6 missing loan packets July 30, 2013 Petitioner - 34 missing loan packets Ms. Martello - 5 missing loan packets August 5, 2013 Petitioner - 29 missing loan packets Ms. Martello - 2 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 1 missing loan packet August 14, 2013 Petitioner - 31 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 2 missing loan packets August 19, 2013 Petitioner - 38 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 5 missing loan packets August 27, 2013 Petitioner - 42 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 4 missing loan packets September 3, 2013 Petitioner - 38 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 5 missing loan packets September 10, 2013 Petitioner - 42 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 5 missing loan packets September 16, 2013 Petitioner - 32 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 4 missing loan packets On September 18, 2013, Ms. Perez sent an email to Petitioner and Ms. Munyan advising them that credit union auditors were scheduled to arrive on September 30, 2013. Thus, Petitioner and Ms. Munyan were instructed to “[m]ake sure all of your loan packets are up to date, so that no one comes to us requesting something that cannot be located.” October 1, 2013 (for loan packets through September 27) Petitioner - 38 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 3 missing loan packets The October 1, 2013, update further advised Petitioner and Ms. Munyan that “[t]he auditors are here for the next three weeks. If they review any of these loans, it will be a problem that we do not have them scanned yet and if we are missing documents. Please get these turned in this week!” On October 12, 2013, Petitioner sent Ms. Perez an email stating that “I worked on some loan packets on 10/12. Please don’t send email until I turn my loan packets in on 10/16.” October 25, 2013 Petitioner - 20 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 7 missing loan packets November 4, 2013 Petitioner - 28 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 4 missing loan packets November 12, 2013 Petitioner - 33 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 5 missing loan packets On November 15, 2013, Petitioner sent Ms. Perez an email stating that “Optical have some loan packets that were turned in today, please don’t send out list until after 11/18/13.” November 22, 2013 Petitioner - 35 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 7 missing loan packets December 11, 2013 Petitioner - 41 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 1 missing loan packet December 18, 2013 Petitioner - 32 missing loan packets Ms. Munyan - 2 missing loan packets On October 9, 2013, Mr. Colson met with Petitioner and Ms. Munyan to discuss the results of an attorney audit that was critical of several collections practices. In particular, too many accounts were not being worked until the later stage of delinquency; too much time was allowed to elapse between contacts with the members; and workflow notations were not properly completed. A spreadsheet provided during the October 9, 2013, meeting revealed that Petitioner had 92 accounts in her queue, 57 of which had never been worked. Ms. Munyan had 90 accounts in her queue, 25 of which had never been worked. In November of 2013, Petitioner spoke with Ms. Perez regarding an incident in which Petitioner alleged that Ms. Munyan claimed one of her incentive credits. Ms. Perez advised Petitioner to come back to her if it occurred again. Ms. Perez discussed the incentive issue with Mr. Colson. They determined that, due to a high volume of negative accounts anticipated over the upcoming holidays, and in recognition of the priority on not missing an opportunity to resolve negative accounts, a policy for incentives when a CPCA had to handle incoming calls and loan requests from members who were not in the CPCA’s queue was warranted. On November 19, 2013, Ms. Perez sent an e-mail to Petitioner and Ms. Munyan setting out the policy for handling calls when the other CPCA was not available. Outgoing calls and loan initiation were limited to customers within the CPCA’s queue. However, if a CPCA was not in the office or was unavailable to handle a customer request, the other CPCA was instructed to accept incoming calls from members not in their queue. The CPCA who first entered notes of a customer contact prior to a loan being booked was to receive the incentive. On December 9, 2013, Ms. Munyan received a communication from a member with a negative account, entered the first notes of contact with the member into the workflow history, and sent loan paperwork for a bounce-free loan to the member. On December 10, 2013, Petitioner spoke with the customer and took additional application information over the phone. Later that same day, Petitioner went to Mr. Colson to approve a refinance loan for the customer. Mr. Colson approved Petitioner to proceed with the refinance loan based on the customer’s income, but did not know at the time that Ms. Munyan had already started the loan process. Since Ms. Munyan made the first contact with the customer, the incentive was credited to Ms. Munyan. Petitioner proceeded to make several entries on the workflow history asserting her claim to the incentive. Petitioner apparently discussed the matter within the office, leading to her testimony that “[t]he department was upset about it because I showed it to them.” In December 2013, having been made aware of the workflow history comments regarding the disputed incentive; having received complaints regarding Petitioner from the manager of Respondent’s contact center; and having continuing issues with Petitioner’s failure to submit loan documents to the optical department, Mr. Colson prepared a series of coaching reports to individually address the issues. It was decided to issue separate coaching reports for each issue of concern, rather than a single lengthy report, in order to keep the issues separate. Respondent has previously issued multiple coaching reports to employees under comparable circumstances. On December 20, 2013, Petitioner was called into a meeting with Mr. Colson. She thought the meeting was to discuss the disputed incentive. Instead, she was presented with the coaching reports. The first coaching report was issued for Petitioner’s notations into the workflow system related to her intent to claim the disputed incentive credit. Petitioner had previously received training on the information to be entered in the workflow system. During the training sessions, which were conducted periodically, and which included the distribution of printed materials, it was stressed that the workflow notes should not be editorial or contain side comments. Mr. Colson explained that, in the event of a legal dispute with a member regarding their account, the collection record, including the notations entered into the workflow system, would be made part of a court record. As applied to Petitioner’s notations, Mr. Colson was concerned about having to testify about notations in the collection record regarding incentives or commissions for working on a work-out request. Petitioner alleged that Ms. Martello and other unidentified credit advisors made similar notations in the workflow system without being written up, but provided no evidence to support her assertion. Mr. Colson knew of no other instance of a CPCA making notations in the workflow system related to an incentive dispute or other internal employee dispute. Mr. Colson believed that the notations made by Petitioner regarding the incentive dispute were not pertinent to the collection record, thus violating Respondent’s policy and warranting the issuance of the coaching report. Petitioner signed the first coaching report, with the comment that “I thought that I was doing the right thing on this acct.” The second coaching report addressed Petitioner’s act of taking a fee refund voucher to Respondent’s contact center department for approval. The contact center has staff on duty beyond Respondent’s normal 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. business hours. The fee refund had to be done on November 25, 2013, since that was the 60th day of the negative account, after which the account would have to be written off. The fee refund was for an amount that exceeded Petitioner’s approval authority. Despite the time frame involved, Petitioner did not get the fee refund voucher approved by the clerk of the collections department, which would be the normal course, before the 5:00 p.m. close of business. During the December 20, 2013, meeting, Mr. Colson discussed the practice of taking vouchers to the call center for processing after 5:00 p.m. Mr. Colson had been approached by the assistant vice president of the contact center regarding Petitioner’s multiple visits after 5:00 p.m. to his department “to have transactions done, fees refunded, things of that nature on members' accounts.” As a result, call center employees were being pulled away from their normal tasks to do transactions that were not a normal function of their job. Petitioner alleged that other credit advisors went to the call center to have such transactions processed, including Ms. Martello, Melonice Lindsey, and Howard Miller, but provided no evidence to support her assertion. Mr. Colson had no knowledge of other credit advisors who engaged in this activity, or any other improprieties regarding the processing of fee refunds. The second coaching report addressed additional issues related to the November 25, 2013, fee refund transaction, including the fact that Petitioner did not work on the sixty-day negative account when she arrived to work that morning, and that she did not enter any notation in the workflow history regarding the fee refund. Mr. Colson believed that the issues regarding the fee refund transaction warranted the issuance of the coaching report. Petitioner signed the second coaching report, with the comment that “I didn’t do this intentionally. I forgot to get voucher back from Katie to give to [Mr. Colson] to sign.” The third coaching report addressed the ongoing problem of Petitioner’s failure to provide loan documentation to the optical department for input and scanning, the details of which are set forth in paragraph 22 above. Petitioner signed the report with the comment that “[s]ome of these loans have been turned into optical. I will review this matter.” Petitioner alleged that other employees had fallen behind on submitting paperwork, but were not written up or terminated. Petitioner did not identify, by name or race, any of the allegedly comparable employees, or establish that they had a comparable history of failing to submit loan documentation. The only evidence adduced at the hearing established that Ms. Martello and Ms. Munyan were not comparable to Petitioner in the number or frequency of late-submitted loan packets. Petitioner stated that she had previously advised Ms. Perez of her intent to work on Saturday, December 21, 2013, to catch up on her loan paperwork. Mr. Colson was not aware of Petitioner’s intent to do so but, given the length of time that the problem continued to exist, would still have issued the coaching report to Petitioner. At some point after January 2, 2014, during Mr. Colson’s daily review of compliance reports, he noted an account that was over 60 days, requiring that it be written off. The account was assigned to Petitioner, and Mr. Colson saw from the workflow history that Petitioner did not begin work on the account until it was 58 days past due. Working her accounts earlier in the delinquency stage had been previously addressed with Petitioner. On January 6, 2014, Petitioner was given a coaching report and placed on a 60-day probation for deficient work performance related to the written-off account. Petitioner signed the January 6, 2014, coaching report with the comment that “voucher was paperclip to another voucher by mistake. I usually check these daily.” Petitioner testified that other employees failed to timely charge-off accounts but were not counseled, but provided no evidence to support her assertion. The only comparator for whom evidence was received was Khrissy Adams, a Caucasian woman, who was given a coaching report and placed on a 30-day probation for failing to timely write-off an account. There was no evidence of Ms. Adams having received previous coaching reports so as to warrant a lengthier period of probation, as was given to Petitioner. As part of the process established after the December 20, 2013, meeting and coaching reports, Petitioner was to submit her loan packets to either Ms. Perez or Mr. Colson for review before they were sent to be scanned. That review revealed that a large number of the loan packets contained significant errors in the consumer lending plan, which is the contract a member signs to obtain a loan. Many of the consumer lending plans had missing signatures, and some packets had no consumer lending plan at all. Furthermore, Petitioner indicated that some members elected to purchase loan insurance when the member had, in fact, declined insurance, resulting in unapproved charges to a member. The errors noted by Respondent were serious, potentially resulting in the loan contracts being invalid and unenforceable. The errors could have been violative of Regulation Z, which governs fair lending practices and, if there were a sufficient number of instances, resulted in a class action lawsuit against Respondent, exposing it to considerable cost. Due to the ongoing performance issues, as well as the severity of the issues related to Petitioner’s completed loan packets, the decision was made that termination of Petitioner’s employment was appropriate. Petitioner was thereafter terminated from employment on March 21, 2014. Petitioner identified no instance of any racially- disparaging comments directed at herself or any other employee by anyone affiliated with Respondent. There was no non-hearsay evidence of any employee outside of Petitioner’s protected class who engaged in conduct similar to that of Petitioner, but without consequence, upon which to support a finding that the employee was treated more favorably. Mr. Colson testified credibly that Petitioner’s race had no bearing on the decision to terminate her employment. Rather, Mr. Colson testified convincingly that the decision was based solely on Petitioner’s continuing and increasingly poor job performance. Mr. Colson felt Petitioner’s poor performance was not due to a lack of trying on Petitioner’s part; it was simply the result of a lack of ability on her part. Petitioner asserted that she was written up, placed on probation, and subsequently terminated from employment in retaliation for complaining that Ms. Munyan improperly claimed her incentive. In that regard, she testified that: I know that by me going to management . . . it really started all this, I think, because I’m thinking to myself, if I would have just kept my mouth shut, maybe I would have had my job, but other employees have went to Mr. Colson before with problems like that . . . . But my thing is, after I went to management I get written up out of retaliation. I got blind-sided. I didn’t know that was going to happen. And, to me, that’s retaliation. Petitioner does not claim that she was denied the incentive credit because or her race. Finally, Petitioner complained that some of her personal belonging were damaged or not returned to her after her employment was terminated, testifying that “[t]hey broke up all of my things and, to me, that was not right. To me, that was discriminative.” Even if there were some evidence that Petitioner’s belongings had been damaged on purpose -- which there was not -- there was no evidence that such damage was the result of racial animus. A review of the entire record of this proceeding reveals not a shred of evidence that any of the employment actions of which Petitioner complains were the result of racial bias or discrimination. The only testimony that can be reasonably read as suggesting some racial bias behind the employment actions at issue are Petitioner’s testimony as follows: and I know that discrimination do exist. I do know that’s a problem all across the board in America . . . [a]nd if I did not feel that I was discriminated against I would never have did all this . . . but my thing is I know there’s favorites at that credit union. I know that certain people get away with things. To me, I was discriminated against, I'm gonna say for the record, because of my race, because if I think that I know within my heart if the tables were turned, if I was white and went to management, I would still had a job because to me it just got blown out of proportion by me going to management. And as everyone can clearly see, it all started from there, because if it wasn't started from there, why would I have gotten written up in first place for my work that happened prior to, you know, that -- you know, that year? So, that's what started that. So my point is, is that if I wouldn't have never said anything, I would have probably still been working there. In the absence of some corroborative evidence, Petitioner’s statements alone cannot provide the support to sustain a charge of racial discrimination. Ultimate Findings of Fact There was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing to support a finding that the decision to terminate Petitioner from employment was made due to Petitioner’s race. Rather, the decision was based on Petitioner’s performance in her job as reflected in the employee coaching reports. Furthermore, there was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing that persons who were not African-American were treated differently from Petitioner, or were subject to dissimilar personnel policies and practices. There was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing to support a finding that the decision to terminate Petitioner from employment was made in retaliation for Petitioner’s opposition to an unlawful employment practice. Rather, to the extent there was some retaliation involved, it was for bringing an internal employee complaint over a disputed incentive to management, a complaint that had no implication of race.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent, Florida Credit Union, did not commit any unlawful employment practice as to Petitioner, Sheila A. Cunningham, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2014-00645. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Sheila Annette Cunningham 1835 Northwest 27th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34475 Tammy Scott Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 R. Michelle Tatum, Esquire John E. Duvall, Esquire Ford and Harrison, LLP 225 Water Street, Suite 710 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent, Sojourn Hospitality-Naples Bay Resort, discriminated and retaliated against Petitioner, Richard Puccini, on the basis of his sex, in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The record is comprised solely of Petitioner’s Exhibits 1 and 2, which constitute inadmissible hearsay for which no exception to the hearsay rule has been established.3/ Because no testimony or other admissible evidence exists, as to which such hearsay could be used to explain or otherwise supplement, there can be no findings of fact.
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 in this proceeding finding that the Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his sex or retaliating against him and dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ANDREW D. MANKO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 2019.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of discriminating in employment against Petitioner on the basis of her race.
Findings Of Fact Respondent hired Petitioner, who is black, as an inspectress on April 11, 1988. An inspectress supervises the work of maids, who are responsible for cleaning the hotel rooms. On July 3, 1988, the housekeeper, Mr. Douglas Knight, who supervised Petitioner, informed her that, due to an excess of personnel, she was no longer needed as an inspectress. He offered her a position as a maid. The record does not reveal whether the change in duties would have resulted in less pay. Petitioner apparently declined the position. When she did so, Respondent terminated her. Although Respondent had received no warnings concerning unsatisfactory job performance, the work of the maids had clearly been unsatisfactory up to the time of her offered reassignment. The white woman who allegedly replaced Petitioner as an inspectress was Mrs. Triplett, who was married to the head maintenance manager of the hotel. Shortly after losing her job elsewhere, she was hired by Respondent around June 9, 1988, to replace the assistant housekeeper, who was on maternity leave until July 6, 1988. Mrs. Triplett was reassigned to the position of inspectress around June 18, 1988, and later promoted to housekeeper about two weeks after Petitioner's departure. Mr. Knight, who hired Mrs. Triplett, was friends with Mr. Triplett and later terminated for inefficiency in performing his work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Margaret Jones Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Latricia W. Dukes 4189 Tatum Street Orlando, FL 32811 Gale Brandy Ramada Main Gate Resort 2950 Reedy Creek Boulevard Kissimmee, FL 32741
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent discriminated unlawfully against the Petitioner by discharging him because of a handicap contrary to Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the nature and extent of financial loss suffered by the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Shannon M. Spence, was employed from March 1993 until May 1, 1993 by the Respondent. The Respondent is an employer as defined by Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, who earned on average $125/week, was employed by the Respondent as a bouncer and "bar backer", a person who assisted the bartender. On or about April 29, 1993, the Petitioner suffered an on the job injury which was duly reported to the employer and for which the Petitioner was treated at a local hospital pursuant to arrangements made by the employer. The Petitioner's injury was determined to be a right inguinal hernia, and the Petitioner was cautioned against lifting more than 25 pounds and standing for long periods of time. The Petitioner reported for work the following day, and communicated to his supervisor his inability to lift and to stand for long periods of time. His supervisor, Jess Wall or J.W., placed the Petitioner on security detail for the parking lot and entrance. There were additional light duties available for security personnel within the employer's business in which the employee could have been placed. The Petitioner's employment was terminated later that evening. The testimony is conflicting regarding whether the Petitioner was discharged because he was dating another employee, or because he was injured, or quit in sympathy with Jess Wall, who was also terminated on that evening. The most credible evidence is that the Petitioner was discharged because of his injury, but was told it was because he was dating another employee. The prohibition against dating was a new rule, it was applied against the Petitioner without any prior warning, the female employee was not discharged, and the Petitioner was the only person discharged for this activity although there were others who dated employees. The alternative theory that Petitioner quit in sympathy with the head bouncer, Mr. Wall, is specifically rejected for lack of credibility of the various witnesses. The Petitioner subsequently settled his workman's compensation claim arising from this injury with the Respondent for $15,000. No details were received regarding the allocation of moneys for medical and wages. The Petitioner is entitled to back wages from his discharge until the hearing on April 27, 1995, less any mitigation, including any portion of the settlement of his workman's compensation claim attributable to lost wages, occurring after surgical repair of the hernia when the Petitioner was reemployed. The Petitioner is entitled to reasonable costs and attorneys fees.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Commission find that the Petitioner was unlawfully discriminated against by the Respondent, and that the Respondent be ordered to pay the Petitioner his lost wages from May 1, 1993 until April 27, 1995 less any amounts the Petitioner earned during this period and any amounts included in the workman's compensation settlement specifically provided for wages; that the Commission retain jurisdiction for the award of damages and attorney's fees and costs; and the Commission remand the matter for a determination of the attorney's fees and costs and to permit the Respondent to present any evidence in mitigation of its damages. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of June, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX The parties filed proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which of their findings were adopted and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1,2 Subsumed in Paragraph 1 and 2. Paragraph 3-5 Subsumed in Paragraphs 3-5. Paragraph 6-8 Subsumed in Paragraphs 6-9. Paragraph 9 Subsumed in 3 and 11. Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Paragraphs 1-3 Paragraphs 1-3 Paragraph 4 Rejected because the date was April 29, 1993. Paragraph 5 Subsumed in Paragraphs 4,5. Paragraph 6,7 Rejected as contrary to more credible evidence. Paragraph 8,9 Subsumed in Paragraphs 10,11. COPIES FURNISHED: James P. Tarquin, Esquire Michael B. Staley, Esquire P.O. Box 906190 Ocala, FL 34478 John Daley, Esquire 201 E. Pine Street 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32801 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4113
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner's employment with the Respondent was terminated in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the allegations of this case, Petitioner was an employee of FRSA. On or about September 26, 1989, Petitioner's employment with FRSA was terminated and the charges of discrimination were filed. Prior to termination, Petitioner's work performance with the company had been acceptable. In fact, for the performance review issued on January 31, 1989, Petitioner received a superior rating in eight of the eleven categories, a good rating in two categories, and an outstanding rating in one category. At the time of her termination with FRSA, Petitioner earned an annual salary of $35,000. Petitioner claims a total of $83,568 for the lost wages and benefits resulting from her termination with FRSA. At the time of her termination, Petitioner was pregnant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the charge of discrimination filed by the Petitioner in this cause against the Respondent. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of September, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Rubeis Reno Rubeis 4350 Wyndcliff Circle Orlando, Florida 32817 Susan McKenna Garwood & McKenna, P.A. 322 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of September, 1992. Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by terminating the Petitioner's employment on the basis of race or national origin.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, a black African male, was hired by Larry Schenck, Executive Director of the Respondent, in April of 1992 as a DUI evaluator. The Petitioner was qualified for the position of DUI evaluator by virtue of his education and experience. As a DUI evaluator, the Petitioner interviewed clients of the Respondent to make determinations regarding whether the clients had a problem with alcohol or other drugs which required treatment, and to make referrals for treatment as necessary. The Petitioner was supervised by Jim Scott. Mr. Scott is the clinical supervisor for the Respondent. Mr. Scott, as clinical supervisor of DUI evaluators, performed the following functions: Supervision of evaluators for one hour of clinical per 40 hours of evaluator time. Personal observation of one DUI evaluation interview or review of an audio or video recording of an evaluation interview once every six months for each DUI evaluator. Monthly review of at least three client case records for each DUI evaluator. In addition, Mr. Scott conducted a 20-hour training class for DUI evaluators, which each DUI evaluator was required to attend before beginning evaluations. The Petitioner attended the training class conducted by Mr. Scott. After reviewing DUI interviews, Mr. Scott personally discussed the evaluations with the DUI evaluator or prepared a written report of his evaluation for dissemination to the DUI evaluator. However, Mr. Scott could not state whether his evaluations of the Petitioner had been provided to the Petitioner. Mr. Scott prepared five written reports of evaluations performed by the Petitioner on the following dates: June 22, 1992; August 25, 1992; January 26, 1993; April 13, 1993; and June 22, 1993. The Petitioner acknowledged receiving the first four of these reports. Mr. Scott testified that there were significant deficiencies in his evaluation technique. The Petitioner's deficiencies were: The Petitioner had difficulty in accepting the client's responses. The Petitioner seemed to be looking for a certain response and would keep questioning the client until he received the response for which he was looking. The Petitioner failed to use open-ended questions in his interview technique. The Petitioner used leading questions designed to elicit a certain response. This is an improper evaluator interview technique. The Petitioner failed to provide an assessment of his findings to the client. The Petitioner did not mention any "critical factors" or symptoms to the client. He only told the client "you meet our criteria, there- fore I am referring you". In addition to five evaluations of the Petitioner's client interviews, Mr. Scott randomly reviewed each month Petitioner's case files for quality assurance. At least eleven of the Petitioner's evaluations deviated from the Evaluator Guide which required that written substantiation be provided for evaluations. The Petitioner's deficiencies resulted in clients being improperly referred for treatment. In July of 1993, Respondent was fired by Larry Schenck, Executive Director of North Central Florida Safety Council because of the Petitioner's poor evaluations. Of the six DUI evaluators, including the Petitioner, employed by the Respondent, three were black and three were white. The Respondent's chief DUI instructor is another black African male, Mr. Costeau. There was no evidence presented at hearing that the Petitoner was replaced by a non-black or non-foreign individual. The undisputed evidence presented was that in 1992, the Petitioner received wages of $4,060.00 from his employment and in 1993, received $3,975.00 from his employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petition for Relief and its underlying discrimination claim be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SunCom 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties filed proposed findings which were read and considered. The Respondent's proposed findings were adopted. The following states which of the Petitioner's findings were adopted and which were rejected and why: PETITIONER'S RECOMMENDED ORDER FINDINGS 1-3. Statement of case. Paragraph number 1. Paragraph number 16. 6-7. Rejected, as contrary to better evidence. 8-9. Conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Steven Scheck, Esquire 106 N.W. 2nd Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32601 Robert E. Roundtree, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 23939 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, the City of DeLand, on account of his race, or as retaliation for engaging in protected activities in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, who was at all times relevant to this matter an employee of the City, is African-American. Respondent is a Florida municipality established pursuant to Article VIII, § 2(b), Florida Constitution and chapter 166, Florida Statutes. Respondent employs more than 15 full-time employees at any given time. Petitioner was initially employed by the City in April 2010 as a Maintenance Worker II in the Parks and Recreation Department. On February 21, 2012, Petitioner was terminated by the City for failing to report to work for a period of days. He was considered by the City to be a “no call/no show.” Petitioner filed a complaint with the federal Department of Labor (DOL), in which he asserted that his absence from work was authorized under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). On April 26, 2012, Petitioner filed a complaint of discrimination with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that the City?s decision to terminate him was based on race and age discrimination. The complaint was transferred to the FCHR for disposition. The DOL determined that Petitioner?s absence from work was warranted by application of the FMLA, upon which the DOL and the City reached an agreement to resolve the DOL complaint. On July 9, 2012, as part of the agreement, Petitioner was reinstated as a Maintenance Worker II, with back pay and benefits. When the decision was made to reinstate Petitioner, Petitioner withdrew the FCHR complaint. At the time of Petitioner?s reinstatement, the City did not have an opening in its Parks and Recreation Department, his previous position having been filled. The City did have an opening for a Maintenance Worker II in its Utilities Department. The Utilities Department opening had been advertised, the interview process for the opening had been completed, and a candidate had been selected. However, as the result of the DOL settlement, Petitioner was selected to fill the position. Petitioner was placed on the mowing crew, and was responsible for keeping areas around the City?s lift stations, well houses, and wastewater plant mowed. On July 13, 2012, the City issued a written reprimand to Petitioner. The reprimand related to Petitioner?s complaints to the City Utilities Director, Mr. Ailes, regarding Petitioner?s assignment to the mowing crew and his supervisory chain-of-command. The memorandum suggested that Petitioner was not “a team player.” There was no evidence of further adverse action relating to Petitioner?s job performance. After Petitioner settled into the job, he performed well. He was a hard worker, and never had to be coaxed into working. Mr. Swanson described Petitioner as a “go-getter,” who came up with more efficient ways of keeping up with the work and making the areas look nice. Mr. Swanson testified that it was good to have a third person on the mowing crew. On or about July 13, 2012, an equipment operator position came open. It was advertised, and applications were accepted. Petitioner submitted an application for the position. Petitioner was selected as one of five applicants to continue with the interview process.1/ Among the applicants was Jose Alejo. Mr. Alejo is Hispanic. Petitioner and Mr. Alejo were employees of the City, and were considered as “in-house” candidates. The interview team consisted of Mikel Grimm, a foreman with the City?s Utilities Department; Obadiah Henry, a Utility Locator with the City?s Utilities Department; and Danny Pope, a Supervisor with the City. Mr. Henry had been a foreman with the City?s Utilities Department before a voluntary break in service, and had extensive experience as an equipment operator. As a former foreman, Mr. Henry had been on numerous interview committees for positions including equipment operator. He was considered to be the best qualified to serve on the interview committee, even though committee members were typically at the foreman level or higher. Mr. Henry is African-American. Mr. Grimm and Mr. Pope are white. Petitioner had no “issues” with any of the members of the interview team, or with any of the other foremen in the Utilities Department. Petitioner was working on the day that interviews were scheduled. He was taken off of his mower at between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. for an interview scheduled for 2:00 p.m. Interviews consisted of a short oral interview, followed by a practical test in which the applicants were tested on a dump truck and a backhoe. The applicants were to drive the dump truck through a sort of “obstacle course” and, using a backhoe, dig a hole to a pre-established specification. The questions asked of each of the applicants during the interviews were identical. The equipment used and the layout of the practical test performed by each of the applicants were identical. Each of the members of the interview team independently prepared his own scoring evaluation, without comparison of notes, numbers, or scores of the other members. After the scoring was completed, the scores were tallied. Mr. Henry was surprised at how even the scores were between the evaluators for each of the applicants. Each of the members of the interview team generally thought Mr. Alejo performed better in the interview. As to the practical test, Mr. Alejo “just proved it on the machine that he was the better applicant.” In short, Mr. Alejo simply dug a better hole. Mr. Henry noted that the decision was based on how the applicant performed on that day. While he acknowledged that Petitioner, or one of the other applicants, may have performed better on another day, “that?s what I had to go off of was that day.” Mr. Henry testified credibly and convincingly that the interview team made the effort to handle the interviews in a professional and honest way. The interview team was not told by higher-level supervisors or anyone else who should be selected as the leading candidate. His testimony is credited. Mr. Henry testified that if he had seen any evidence of racial bias, he would have reported it. He saw none. The recommendation of the interview team was unanimous that the position of equipment operator should be offered to Mr. Alejo, who scored significantly higher than Petitioner. The City accepted the recommendation of the interview team, and offered the position to Mr. Alejo, who accepted.2/ The interview process, using standardized questions and procedures, has been the practice of the City for more than six years. The purpose of the interview and practical test process was to make the hiring process more equal, rather than being based on a “gut feeling” or on how someone may have “felt about the guy.” The interview and selection process raises no issue of discriminatory of retaliatory bias in its application. On or about September 14, 2012, Petitioner received an employee performance evaluation that Petitioner described as “a good evaluation.” During the period of time at issue in this proceeding, Petitioner did not complain to any co-worker or to supervisory staff that he was subject to discriminatory acts as an employee of the City. On May 3, 2013, Petitioner voluntarily resigned from employment with the City. The reason given by Petitioner was that he wanted to return to Minnesota. Petitioner had lived in Minnesota for 30 years, and planned to move back and get a job driving a truck. In his letter of resignation, Petitioner made no mention of any discriminatory or retaliatory act, stating that “[i]t has been a pleasure to work for the City.” The City currently employs six equipment operators. Of those, three are Hispanic, two are white, and one is African- American. Ultimate Findings of Fact The personnel decision to re-hire Petitioner to the position of Maintenance Worker II in the Utilities Department was made because there was an opening in that department. There was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing to support a finding that the decision was made due to Petitioner?s race, or in retaliation for Petitioner?s earlier EEOC complaint. The decision to hire an applicant other than Petitioner for the position of equipment operator was made after a reasonable and fair applicant interview and evaluation process that was done in accordance with the City?s established and objective hiring practices. There was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing that any persons who were not members of the Petitioner?s protected class, i.e., African-American, were treated differently from Petitioner, or were not subject to similar personnel policies and practices. There was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing that the City?s decision to hire Mr. Alejo over Petitioner was made in retaliation for Petitioner?s earlier EEOC complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent, the City of DeLand, did not commit any unlawful employment practice as to Petitioner, Ray Neloms, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2012-02720. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY 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 August, 2013.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of sexual harassment and retaliated against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying Benjamin Bullard's Petition for Relief. S DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Benjamin Bullard 12211 Park Drive Hollywood, Florida 33026 Spencer D. West, Esquire Stephen N. Montalto, Esquire Mitchell & West, LLC 3191 Coral Way, Suite 406 Miami, Florida 33145 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner alleges that the Respondent has engaged in an unlawful employment practice within the meaning of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by engaging in the following activities: (a) Discharging the Petitioner from her position of employment with Respondent because of Petitioner's race and (b) after discharging the Petitioner, continuing to seek applications for the position previously held by the Petitioner from similarly qualified or less qualified applicants. Subsequent to the filing of her petition for relief, the Petitioner filed a motion for default pursuant to Rule 22T- 9.008(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code, based upon the Respondent's failure to file an answer to the petition as required by the cited rule. By order dated September 21, 1987, the Respondent was given until October 5, 1987, within which to show cause as to why the relief requested in the motion for default should not be granted. The Respondent failed to respond to the order of September 21, 1987, and on October 7, 1987, an order was issued which included the following language: That pursuant to Rule 22T-9.008(5)(d), Florida Administrative Code, the Respondent is hereby deemed to have admitted all material facts alleged in the petition. That at the final hearing in this case the material facts alleged in the petition will be taken as established without further proof, but both parties will be afforded an opportunity at the final hearing to offer evidence regarding any additional relevant facts. On the day scheduled for the hearing, the Petitioner and her attorney appeared at the time and place set forth in the Notice of Hearing, but there was no appearance on behalf of the Respondent. Approximately 45 minutes after the scheduled commencement time, the Hearing Officer called the Respondent's offices in Jacksonville and was advised by an employee of Respondent that the Respondent did not intend to have anyone attend the hearing. Shortly thereafter the hearing was convened and the Hearing Officer received evidence offered by the Petitioner. At the conclusion of the presentation of evidence by the Petitioner, the Petitioner requested, and was granted, 15 days within which to file a proposed recommended order. Thereupon the record of the hearing was closed without any appearance having been made on behalf of the Respondent. On November 16, 1987, the Petitioner filed a proposed recommended order containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specific rulings on all findings proposed by the Petitioner are contained in the Appendix which is attached to and incorporated into this recommended order. Following the hearing, the Respondent was advised by letter of its right to file a proposed recommended order, but as of the date of this recommended order the Respondent has not filed any post-hearing document with the Hearing Officer.
Findings Of Fact On October 11, 1985, the Petitioner was referred by Job Finders of Florida, a private job placement service, to apply for a position with the Respondent, Handling Systems Engineering, Inc. The job the Petitioner applied for was Secretary/Dispatcher. The Petitioner met all of the qualifications for the job of Secretary/Dispatcher. The Petitioner was interviewed by Mr. Jim Hart, the manager of the Ocala office of the Respondent. After interviewing the Petitioner, Mr. Hart decided, on the basis of her experience and references, that the Petitioner was the best qualified of several applicants. In this regard, it is noted that the Petitioner's prior employment had required the performance of duties substantially similar to those of the Secretary/Dispatcher position with Respondent. Thereafter, in the afternoon or evening of October 11, 1985, Mr. Hart telephoned the Petitioner, offered her the job, and advised her that she was to report to work on October 14, 1985. On October 14, 1985, the Petitioner reported to work at the Ocala office of the Respondent and immediately began performing the duties of Secretary/Dispatcher. During the work day on October 14, 1985, the Petitioner received a telephone call from Mrs. Lou Mohrman, the managing director of the Respondent. Mrs. Lou Mohrman welcomed the Petitioner to her position of employment and stated that she was pleased with the Petitioner's placement with the company. On October 15, 1985, Mr. L. D. Mohrman, president of Respondent, accompanied by Mrs. Lou Mohrman, managing director, visited the Ocala offices of the Respondent. After engaging in a boisterous conversation with Mr. Hart and visually ascertaining the Petitioner's race, Mrs. Mohrman summarily dismissed Petitioner without articulating a legitimate business reason for the termination. Within the next few days the Respondent listed the Secretary/Dispatcher position as vacant and continued to seek to fill the position with individuals with qualifications similar to or less than the qualifications of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a black female. She is a person within the meaning of Sections 760.02(5) and 760.10(1), Florida Statutes. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. The dismissal of the Petitioner from her position of employment with the Respondent was motivated by the president and the managing director ascertaining the Petitioner's race. The dismissal of the Petitioner was motivated solely by her race. The Petitioner's starting salary at the Respondent company was $4.50 per hour for a 40-hour work week. After her termination, the Petitioner sought employment elsewhere and obtained another job in January of 1986, where she worked until November of 1986. In November of 1986 the Petitioner voluntarily left her job in order to finish school. When she began work in January of 1986 the Petitioner was making $3.80 per hour. When she quit in November of 1986 she was making $4.00 per hour.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent has engaged in an unlawful employment practice; Prohibiting the Respondent from terminating any employee on the basis of the employee's race; Requiring the Respondent to offer reinstatement to the Petitioner under the terms and conditions of employment to which she would be presently entitled if she had been continuously employed, including any raises to which she would have been entitled on the basis of longevity. Requiring the Respondent to pay back pay to the Petitioner from the date of termination until November of 1986 in an amount equal to the total amount the Petitioner would have earned as a Secretary/Dispatcher during that period, less any amounts actually earned during that period; and Requiring the Respondent to pay to the Petitioner her reasonable attorney's fees incurred in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 4th day of December, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-3048 The following are my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner: Paragraph 1: Accepted in substance with exception of subordinate details not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance with exception of subordinate details not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6,7, and 8: Accepted Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, and 12: Not included in findings of fact because they are subordinate procedural details. Paragraphs 13, 14, and 15: Covered in prior findings. Paragraph 16: Accepted Paragraph 17: Covered in prior findings. Findings proposed by Respondent: (None) COPIES FURNISHED: Harry L. Lamb, Jr., Esq. Perry & Lamb, P.A. 312 W. First Street Suite 605 Sanford, Florida 32771 Mr. L. D. Mohrman, President Handling Systems Engineering, Inc. 3000 West 45th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Sherry B. Rice, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
