The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes (2002), by forcing the termination of Petitioner's employment with Respondent because of his gender (male), and/or national origin (Venezuela), and/or his age (37); and because Petitioner alleged that younger, female lifeguards were given better work assignments.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent from November 26, 2002, until April 17 2003, in the position of deep water lifeguard at Respondent's facility at the Grand Floridian Hotel (Grand Floridian) located in Lake Buena Vista, Florida. He worked in that position until his resignation on April 17, 2003. Petitioner is a Hispanic male, aged 37, and a member of a protected class. Respondent is an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA). Petitioner was hired for a full-time position to work 40 hours per week. He normally worked a ten-hour shift, four days a week. Petitioner never applied for any other position or promotions during his employment. All full-time lifeguards at the Grand Floridian are covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between Respondent and the Services Trades Council Union. A lifeguard working at the Grand Floridian does not have to be a member or pay dues to the union in order to be covered by the terms of the CBA. Petitioner is not a member of the union. At the time of his hire, Petitioner was provided with a packet of materials containing Respondent's employment policies. Respondent had a policy regarding harassment that covered all of its employees and prohibited all types of harassment in the workplace, including any such behavior based on age, national origin, and/or gender. Respondent also has an "equal opportunity" policy that applies to all of its employees. This policy provides that all employees should be treated equally in terms of hours, work location, and scheduling based on seniority. Operations at the Grand Floridian Of the class of lifeguards hired at the same time, Petitioner was the only one assigned to the Grand Floridian. At the time of being assigned to the Grand Floridian, there were approximately 25 lifeguards employed there. The lifeguards at the Grand Floridian are full-time, part-time casual, or part- time regular employees. There are also "college program" lifeguards who perform all of the same duties as the full-time and part-time employees. The starting times for employees are staggered, based on the needs of the area and the time of the year. The main duties of a lifeguard at the Grand Floridian are to ensure safety and guard the pools, clean the pool and beach areas, work the cash register, and operate the marina. The head supervisor of the Grand Floridian lifeguards during Petitioner's employment was Jerry Davis. Davis has been employed with Respondent for nine years. He has served in his current position as the recreation operations manager for six years. His duties in this position include supervising the outside recreation areas, including the pools, boats, and lifeguards at the Grand Floridian. Davis plays no role in hiring the employees that report to him, but rather Respondent's Employee Relations Department is responsible for hiring these employees. Davis has the authority to terminate lifeguards that report to him. Prior to terminating an employee, however, Davis seeks the input of the Employee Relations Department. The evidence is credible that Davis is accessible to his direct reports and makes sure that his office is always open to them. If a lifeguard wants to speak with Davis, he will make himself available to him or her. As a manager, Davis has undergone training from Respondent regarding its equal employment policies and anti- harassment policies. He has also been trained that employees may raise complaints about working conditions with either their manager or the Employee Relations Department. All employees are made aware of these policies and complaint procedures as a part of their orientation program. Under Davis, the next supervisor was Darin Bernhard. Bernhard has been employed with Respondent for eight years and is currently employed as a recreation guest service manager. Until October 2003, Bernhard was employed at the Grand Floridian. In that capacity, Bernhard directly supervised lifeguards, marina employees, and activities' employees. Bernhard had continuous interaction with lifeguards throughout the day while at the Grand Floridian. Bernhard had an open-door policy to all employees and made himself accessible to them. Under Davis and Bernhard, there were three coordinators who served as the immediate supervisors of the lifeguards. The weekly work schedule for lifeguards was posted on the wall every week. Bernhard, along with Respondent's Labor Office, was responsible for preparing this weekly schedule. The factors used in preparing this schedule were a scheduling bid submitted by each employee, scheduled vacations, and operational needs. As for operational needs, Bernhard would try to give a combination throughout the week based on full-time, part-time, and college program employees and avoid having all college program employees on duty at one time, thereby providing more experience on each shift. The CBA contains a provision stating as follows: "The principles of seniority shall be observed in establishing days off and work schedules by department, location, or scheduling pool." As a result, the schedule bids of all employees were considered based on the seniority of the employees. At the time of his hire, Petitioner spoke with Bernhard about special scheduling requests. Specifically, Petitioner asked to receive early shifts and weekends off. He wanted the weekends off due to child-care issues with his son. Bernhard informed Petitioner that he would attempt to work with Petitioner on this, but that he was limited in what he could do based on the seniority requirements set forth in the CBA, as well as the fact that most of the lifeguards preferred to have weekends off. At that point in time, Petitioner had the least amount of seniority of all the full-time lifeguards, since he was the most recently hired employee. Despite the CBA restrictions, Bernhard made every effort to provide Petitioner with at least one day each weekend off and tried to provide him with two, whenever possible. On a regular basis, Petitioner was scheduled to have Saturdays off. In addition, on numerous occasions, he was given Friday, Saturday, and Sunday off from work, in accordance with his special request. At no time during his employment did Petitioner ever complain to Bernhard about not getting enough days off on the weekend. Employees would occasionally complain to Bernhard about the weekly schedule. When he received such complaints, Bernhard would listen to their complaints and not take any adverse action against any employee for complaining to him about scheduling issues. On occasion, lifeguards would be sent home early due to slow business or inclement weather. This decision would be made either by the immediate supervisor on duty or one of the coordinators. The lifeguards would be allowed to volunteer to go home on a "first-come, first serve" basis. No lifeguard, however, was forced to go home early. Similarly, Bernhard did not receive complaints from any lifeguard about being forced to go home early. The coordinators at the Grand Floridian were responsible for making the daily rotation schedules. There were five primary positions that the lifeguards could be assigned to on a daily basis, consisting of two lifeguard positions at the pool, the slide, the marina, and cashier. The coordinators made these assignment decisions based on the people they had available that day. The primary focus was to make sure that all of the areas were properly covered. Such daily rotation assignments were also based on certain needs during particular periods of the day. In addition, certain assignments were given to certain employees if they are more capable of performing the task. It is also not uncommon for the daily rotation to be changed during the day based on unexpected factors, such as absent employees. In terms of shift assignments, an effort is made to make sure that regular employees and college program employees are working together so that the regular employees can provide guidance when needed. During a workday, most of the employees rotate positions every 30 minutes to an hour. The rotation of duties for the lifeguards changed on a daily basis. Petitioner enjoyed working as a lifeguard because he considered himself a stronger lifeguard than others in his department. He also described himself as the "leader of the lifeguards." All lifeguards are trained in the cashier duties, but very few individuals are chosen to actually work as a cashier. These cashiers undergo special training prior to performing these duties. The primary attributes for a cashier are good guest interaction and good phone skills because a cashier is required to interact with guests, both on the telephone and in person. This assignment also differs from the other assignments in that the employee assigned to this position normally does not rotate throughout the day to other assignments. It is not uncommon for the same employee to serve as a cashier for an entire day. Petitioner was sometimes assigned to work at the marina, but not as a cashier. Petitioner never spoke with any of his supervisors or coordinators about working more at the marina or as a cashier. Each lifeguard at the Grand Floridian was required to complete four hours of in-service training each month, either at his home resort or at another resort. Attendance at these training sessions were tracked on a daily sign-in sheet. If a lifeguard failed to complete his or her in-service training for the month, he would be reprimanded. Davis prepared a reprimand for Petitioner on April 1, 2003. This reprimand was the result of Petitioner's failing to complete his in-service training hours for the month of March 2003. As a result of failing to complete this training, Petitioner received a two-point reprimand for poor job performance. Petitioner did not know when Davis prepared the Poor Job Performance Memorandum dated April 1, 2003. Davis and Petitioner did not see each other between Petitioner's accident on March 30, 2003, and the date Petitioner signed the Poor Job Performance Memorandum on April 9, 2003. At the time that Davis prepared this memorandum, Petitioner had not made any complaints of discrimination or harassment to Davis. The attendance of the lifeguards on a daily basis was tracked by the use of an electronic swipe card. The daily schedule and attendance of the lifeguards was also tracked on a daily sheet completed by the coordinators. This sheet was kept in the managers' office and was forwarded to the Respondent's Labor Office when it was completed. Bernhard usually reviewed these sheets on a daily basis as well. The lifeguards did not have access to these sheets on a daily basis. Under the attendance policy in the CBA, three absences in a 30-day period warranted a one-point written reprimand. An employee had to receive three written reprimands within a 24- month period before he could be terminated for attendance issues. The reasons for an absence did not make a difference for purposes of accruing points under the policy. On March 24, 2003, Petitioner called in sick and did not appear for work. On his way home from work on March 31, 2003, Petitioner was in a car accident in a parking lot on Respondent's property. As a result of that accident, Petitioner's car had to be towed because it was not drivable. Petitioner did not, however, seek medical treatment as a result of the accident. Shortly after the accident occurred, Petitioner contacted Bernhard. He informed Bernhard of the accident and told him that he would not be available for work the next day because his car had been destroyed. He did not inform Bernhard that he had been injured in any way. Petitioner was absent from work on April 1, 2003, because he had no transportation. Petitioner called in his personal absence on April 1, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 16, 2003, and was a "no show" on April 2, 2003. As a result of these numerous absences, Davis made a decision to contact Petitioner by telephone and inquire about the reasons for these multiple absences. Petitioner informed Davis that he still did not have transportation. Petitioner expressed concern to Davis that he was afraid he was going to accrue too many points and get himself terminated. Davis responded to Petitioner that if he did not return to work, he would accrue points under the attendance policy. Petitioner asked Davis if it would be better if he terminated himself or if he was terminated by Respondent. Davis also informed Petitioner that if he terminated himself, at some point he might be able to return to his job at Respondent, though he did not guarantee him that he could simply return. Davis made it very clear to Petitioner that this was a decision he had to make. At the time of Davis' phone call to Petitioner, he had accrued sufficient points under the applicable "attendance policy" set forth under the CBA to warrant giving him a one- point written reprimand. Davis had not been able to give the reprimand to Petitioner, however, because he had not returned to work. At no time had Davis ever informed Petitioner that such a reprimand was waiting for him. In addition, such absences would not have provided a basis for terminating Petitioner at that point in time. Petitioner contacted Davis the following day and informed Davis that he was going to voluntarily resign his employment. Upon learning of this decision, Davis informed Petitioner that he needed to return his uniform and all other of Respondent's property prior to receiving his last paycheck. All employees are required to return their uniform and Respondent's property at the time of resignation. Davis never informed Petitioner that he was being terminated or that he had an intention of terminating him. Similarly, Davis never told Petitioner that he had no option but to resign. Davis had no problem with Petitioner returning to work, provided he could obtain proper transportation. After Petitioner's resignation, Davis completed the required paperwork and indicated that Petitioner should be classified as a "restricted rehire." Davis chose this restriction due to Petitioner's tardiness and attendance issues, as well as his failure to take responsibility to make it to work. This decision to categorize him as a "restricted rehire" was not based on Petitioner's age, national origin or his gender. Petitioner visited Respondent's casting center (human resource department) on June 17, 2003, approximately two months after his resignation, with the intent to reapply for his prior position. Petitioner wanted to return to his same position at the Grand Floridian, working for Davis and Bernhard, as well as working under the same coordinators. On June 17, 2003, Petitioner met with Fernanda Smith, who has served as a recruiter for Respondent for five years. Smith was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and is Hispanic. As a recruiter, Smith is responsible for interviewing, selecting, and hiring the strongest candidates for positions at Respondent. She is responsible for hiring employees for all hourly, entry- level positions. The hiring process used by Respondent is the same for both new applicants and former employees of Respondent. That process is set forth in the "Rehire Review" policy given to each recruiter. Once Smith is randomly assigned an applicant, she brings them to her office and reviews their personal data in the computer. She then reviews the application for accuracy and completeness. She also confirms that they are qualified to work in the United States and their criminal background. Smith reviews the conditions of employment with the applicant, including compensation, appearance, ability to attend work and transportation. If the applicant was previously employed by Respondent, Smith also reviews the application for the reasons the employee previously left employment and the applicant's rehire status. The different rehire statuses are "yes rehire," "restricted rehire," and "no rehire." If a former employee has been categorized as a "restricted rehire," Smith then must confirm that the person is currently employed and that he or she has been at that employment for a period of at least six months at the time of re-application. Assuming they can satisfy these requirements, the applicant is required to provide an employment verification letter from their current employer within one week of the interview. At that point, the information is forwarded to a rehire committee for consideration. On June 17, 2003, Smith interviewed Petitioner for potential rehire with Respondent. She recalls that when she met him in the lobby, he was very professionally dressed. Upon entering her office, Smith reviewed the information on Petitioner's application with him. At that point, she noticed that he had a recent date of termination from Respondent and asked him the reasons for his termination. Petitioner responded that he had left his employment because of transportation problems and that he had missed a number of days from work. In reviewing Petitioner's application, she realized that he did not meet the requirements for consideration as a "restricted rehire." First of all, Petitioner did not offer any evidence of current employment at the time of the interview. Secondly, Petitioner had only been gone from Respondent for a period of approximately two months, and thus, did not have the six months of continuous employment to be considered for rehire. Smith shared with Petitioner that he did not meet the minimum requirements for a "restricted rehire." Petitioner had no idea what that designation meant. At that point, Petitioner responded by getting very upset, yelling and screaming at Smith, standing up and pointing his finger at her. He then informed Smith that he was going to sue Respondent for discrimination and left her office. Petitioner did not allow Smith to make any other comments to him. Immediately after Petitioner had left the building, Smith prepared the standard evaluation that she prepares for all applicants she interviews, including the incident that occurred in the interview with Petitioner. If Petitioner had allowed Smith to explain the process and eventually provided the appropriate documentation, he might have been considered for rehire. Based on his behavior in the interview, however, Smith recommended that he not be considered for rehire, particularly for the position of lifeguard where he would be dealing with guests on a regular basis. Allegations of Discrimination Petitioner alleges that one of the coordinators referred to his national origin in a derogatory manner on one occasion. Other than this isolated alleged comment, he stated he never heard anyone else at Respondent make any derogatory comments about his being Hispanic or Venezuelan. Petitioner did not complain about this comment to anyone at Respondent and specifically did not complain to Davis, Bernhard, or employee relations about it. Other than this one comment by an unnamed coordinator, Petitioner offered no evidence that any actions or decisions were taken against him based on his national origin. In support of his age discrimination claim, Petitioner alleges that some of his co-workers referred to him once or twice as "old." Petitioner did not offer any evidence that any of his supervisors or coordinators ever used any of these terms in reference to him. Petitioner does not know whether or not he ever discussed his age with other workers. At the time of Petitioner's resignation, he was not the oldest lifeguard working at the Grand Floridian. Penny Ivey and Sherry Morris were both older than Petitioner, and Davis was born on February 5, 1951. At the time of Petitioner's resignation, Davis was 52 years old. Other than these alleged isolated comments, Petitioner offered no other evidence that any actions or decisions were taken against him based on his age. Petitioner claims that one example of gender discrimination was that the rotation schedule was not equal. In particular, he alleges that the "young and beautiful girls" were preferred in the rotation schedules because they were allowed to work in the marina and at the cash register more than males. Petitioner alleges that Jaimy Tully, a 23-year-old female lifeguard, was always late. For example, Petitioner alleges that Tully was late on March 2, 2003, based on the fact that she was supposed to be there at 10:00 a.m. The daily schedule indicates that she arrived for work at 9:30 a.m. In reviewing the document, however, it indicates "S/C" which means that a schedule change was made, and Tully showed up for work half an hour early, not late, and she still worked her scheduled day of ten hours. A schedule change would occur for several reasons, including the need to have certain employees come in early for an in-service session or the personal request of an employee. It sometimes required employees to come in for work early and other times required them to work later. Petitioner similarly alleges that Tully was late on March 22, 2003, and should have been fired for that. In reviewing the daily schedule for that date, however, it is evident that a schedule change was made, and Tully was scheduled to work from 9:30 a.m. to 8:30 p.m., a regular 10-hour day, and that she actually worked those hours. Petitioner admitted at the hearing that she was actually early to work and not late. Petitioner alleges that Tully was late again for work on April 7 and April 16, 2003. A review of those daily schedules, however, reveals that Tully had a schedule change on each of those days and that she worked the hours that she was assigned. Of all these allegations of Tully being late to work, Petitioner never complained to anyone about it. Petitioner then alleges that Tully arrived for work early on February 15, 2003, and that she was allowed to work extra hours and earn overtime. On that particular occasion, however, Tully was called in early because she needed to attend an in-service training session that was occurring that day. Petitioner conceded that Tully was not late on that day. Petitioner admitted that both males and females were called in to work additional hours as lifeguards. For instance, Michael Whitt, a male employee, was allowed to start work earlier based on a schedule change on March 4, 2003. Similarly, a schedule change was made involving Whitt on February 25, 2003, and he was required to report to work at 11:40 a.m., not 10:00 a.m., and as a result, was not given any breaks that day. Petitioner never received any discipline as a result of being late to work or for leaving work early. Petitioner claims that he suffered discrimination on January 12, 2003, because Tully was allowed to start work later than he and then was allowed to work as a cashier for the majority of the day. He claims that she should have been on a rotation like him and that she was given more hours than he was. Tully was trained as both a lifeguard and a cashier, but she had more cashier experience than the majority of the other lifeguards. She also had good guest-interaction and cash- handling skills, and thus, she was placed as a cashier more than most of the other lifeguards. The cashier assignment also differed from the other assignments in that the employee assigned to this position normally did not rotate throughout the day, and it was not uncommon for the same employee to serve as a cahier for an entire day. Petitioner never spoke with any of his supervisors or coordinators about serving as a cashier, nor did he ever complain to Bernhard about any of his daily assignments. He alleges that the woman and the "young girls" were always placed at the marina. When asked to identify "these girls," he stated he was referring to Mindy and Matt, a male employee. In particular, Petitioner testified that on December 25, 2002, Matt served in the marina for three consecutive rotations on that particular day. He also points out that Matt had a longer break than he did on that particular day. There was no pay differential between employees who were assigned to work at the marina and those who worked at the pool. Similarly, there was no pay differential between employees working as a cashier and those at the pool. Petitioner never made any complaints to Davis about his weekly schedule or his daily rotation assignments. Similarly, Petitioner never complained to Davis about any disparate treatment or harassment based on his age, national origin, or gender. Petitioner never raised any complaints about discrimination or any other working conditions with Bernhard. Bernhard never made any derogatory comments to him or about him. Bernhard does not give any preference to any employees based on age, national origin, or gender. Petitioner was aware that there was an Employee Relations Department located at the casting center, but never complained to them about his working conditions or alleged discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order which DENIES Petitioner's Petition for Relief and dismisses his complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Fernando J. Conde 4732 Olive Branch Road Apartment No. 1205 Orlando, Florida 32811-7118 Paul J. Scheck, Esquire Shutts & Bowen, LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 4956 Orlando, Florida 32802-4956 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner was terminated from his position with Respondent as a warehouse supervisor on or about August 9, 2002, on the basis of his race (African-American), in violation of Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following Findings of Fact are determined: Respondent, Heritage Paper Company, Inc. (Respondent), is an employer as that term is defined under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA). Respondent is a wholesale distributor of paper and plastic products. Petitioner, Alonzo C. Brown, is an African-American male and is a member of a protected class. Petitioner was employed in the warehouse at Respondent's Orlando facility from 1998 until he was terminated on or about August 9, 2002. Dan Patterson ("Patterson"), who was the general manager at the Orlando facility during the relevant time period, supervised Petitioner throughout his employment with Respondent. Patterson made the decision to hire Petitioner, made the decision to promote Petitioner to warehouse supervisor, and made the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment. In November 1999, Petitioner was officially promoted from warehouseman to warehouse supervisor. Petitioner's job duties as warehouse supervisor included supervising the drivers, receiving inventory, putting away inventory, pulling orders, and ensuring that the trucks were loaded. Petitioner was responsible for assigning work to his assistants, ensuring that the runs were pulled, and ensuring that the merchandise ordered by customers was actually on the trucks for delivery. He was also responsible for the overall condition of the warehouse. Petitioner's performance deteriorated during approximately the last five months of his employment. When Petitioner got behind in the warehouse, Patterson assisted him and even hired an assistant to help Petitioner in the warehouse with inventory control and other assistance, where necessary. At the final hearing, Petitioner testified that he was discriminated against based on his race in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim and for disagreeing with his supervisor's instruction to put matches on a truck during a fire inspection. Petitioner was responsible for ensuring that the trucks left on time in the morning and for pulling the runs the previous afternoon. Even though an assistant was hired to help Petitioner in the warehouse at times, Petitioner refused to assign tasks to his assistant. Patterson wrote a note to Petitioner on May 1, 2002, telling Petitioner that he could not send items to the customer, NSC Northport, without matching up purchase order numbers. NCS Northport had very strict delivery requirements and would refuse delivery if Respondent did not comply with their delivery procedures. The evidence demonstrates that Patterson notified Petitioner on May 1, 2002, that Respondent's procedure with regard to NSC Northport was not followed. Although Petitioner introduced testimony that he did not write the information on the NSC Northport invoice, Patterson reasonably believed that it was Petitioner's handwriting and testified that Petitioner never informed him that he did not write the information on that invoice. Further, Marissa Moore, Petitioner's own witness, identified the handwriting as Petitioner's. When problems in the warehouse first arose, Patterson spoke with Petitioner regarding Respondent's policies and procedures for the warehouse. Patterson wrote another note to Petitioner on May 13, 2002, regarding excessive overtime and the importance of having runs pulled the previous afternoon to prevent overtime. Patterson wrote a third note to Petitioner and his assistant, Keynon Turner, on June 27, 2002, reiterating the importance of having the runs pulled in the afternoon and reminding them that the runs must be pulled by 4:00 p.m. Petitioner's explanation for the overall condition of the warehouse from May through August 2002 is not credible. Bob Purser, Sr., Respondent's chairman, CEO, and founder testified that in a conversation with Patterson, he told him that if Petitioner was unable to keep the warehouse organized, minimize the overtime, and get the trucks out on time, then they would have to get someone in the warehouse who would be able to do so. When Purser found out that incorrect merchandise was delivered to customers, he told Patterson to personally review the orders before the trucks were loaded. Purser visited the warehouse where Petitioner was employed prior to his termination and found that the warehouse was in disarray. He observed the aisles were blocked with merchandise and that the forklifts were unable to move up and down the aisles. Denis Nieves, the current warehouse supervisor for Respondent's Orlando facility, was hired on August 12, 2002, three days after Petitioner's employment was terminated. When he was hired, the warehouse was disorganized and cluttered, inventory blocked some of the aisles, the bay doors, and the exits and that it was sometimes difficult to locate inventory. It took him approximately six to eight weeks to reorganize the warehouse, unblock the aisles, put the inventory on racks, and unblock the bay doors and the exits. Respondent's Equal Employment Opportunity policy states that Respondent will provide equal employment opportunity to all qualified employees and applicants for employment regardless of race, color, sex, age, religion, national origin, handicap, marital status, and status as a disabled veteran or veterans of the Vietnam era. This policy was in effect when Petitioner was hired, and he received a copy of Respondent's employee handbook at the time of his hire, which contained the Equal Employment Opportunity policy prohibiting all types of unlawful discrimination. Petitioner knew of Respondent's Equal Employment Opportunity policy. He was aware of the procedures for mailing a complaint about racial discrimination and/or harassment. Respondent also maintained an open-door policy where employees could speak with Purser regarding any perceived problems. Petitioner was aware of this open-door policy. Other employees took advantage of Respondent's open-door policy to address their concerns with Patterson and/or Purser. Petitioner never complained to Purser about Patterson's alleged discriminatory treatment. Purser confirmed that Petitioner never addressed any concerns about race discrimination or any retaliatory actions by Patterson with him. Petitioner testified that he did not feel that he was ever discriminated against at any time during his employment with Respondent, except when Patterson terminated his employment. Although Petitioner raised various instances of perceived unfairness throughout his employment with Respondent, such as being paged to the front office and having his uniform "stripped" from him, he testified that the only point he believed he was discriminated against because of his race was when Patterson terminated his employment. Petitioner's witnesses, Ralph McDaniel and Ricky Vaughn, admitted that they never noticed any discriminatory acts or racial inequalities against anyone while they were employed with Respondent. Moore testified that she never heard any discriminatory comments about Petitioner. Andrew Mitchell testified that he never noticed any discriminatory acts during his employment with Respondent. Petitioner's only other witness, Kenyon Turner, testified that the only perceived discriminatory actions he experienced while employed at Respondent was Patterson's "getting mad and cursing [him] out every once in a while." When asked if Patterson cursed at others as well, Turner answered affirmatively stating, "[o]f course he cursed out the other people that was there," meaning all employees, regardless of race. This does not constitute evidence of racial discrimination. Purser testified that his company does not discriminate against its employees on the basis of race and Patterson testified that he did not consider Petitioner's race in making the decision to terminate his employment. Through Mitchell's testimony, Petitioner attempted to establish that he was a "good employee" and that he was a "capable and knowledgeable" warehouse supervisor, but offered no additional evidence demonstrating that he was doing a good job. The greater weight of evidence supports the fact that Patterson made the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment based on the continuing problems in the warehouse and a load factor decline of approximately 22 percent. The load factor is a percentage used to determine how many customer orders are being accurately filled. At the time of Petitioner's termination, he was earning $11.72 per hour. Petitioner testified that he did not begin looking for work until the first part of 2003. Petitioner worked sporadically for Florida Courier and that he earned approximately $11,000.00 in 2003. Petitioner did not work many hours and did not seek alternative employment during the summer months. Petitioner is also a full-time pastor, and his church pays his mortgage payment, which is approximately $1,000.00 per month. Petitioner testified that he has submitted "a couple of applications" to prospective employers, but has not really been interested in working for someone else.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order which DENIES the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of January, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alonzo C. Brown 7230 Plantain Drive Orlando, Florida 32818 Robert T. Devine, Esquire Alva L. Cross, Esquire Coffman, Coleman, Andrews & Grogan, P.A. Post Office Box 40089 Jacksonville, Florida 32203 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent terminated the Petitioner from his employment in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is a black male who was employed by the Respondent, City Gas Company of Florida, from June, 1966 until October 31, 1988. At all times material to this case, the Respondent had an after hours policy which prohibited its employees from working for other gas companies, contractors, self employment, or any gas related field without prior permission from the Respondent's executive office. Failure to abide by that policy would subject an employee to immediate termination. The Respondent's policy for services performed while on duty required the employee to work only on behalf of the company. Monies for services rendered by Respondent's employees while on company time were to be remitted to the Respondent's office with the appropriate paperwork within a timely manner. Normal business practice would be for a repairman to remit monies and paperwork either the afternoon of the job or the next business day if a same day return to the office would be impractical. In April, 1988, the Petitioner was given a work assignment at the home of a customer named Mrs. Rhodes. Petitioner was to turn on Mrs. Rhodes' furnace. After inspecting the unit, Petitioner advised Mrs. Rhodes that the furnace should be cleaned. Subsequently, she authorized that work and the Petitioner dismantled and cleaned the furnace while on company time. Upon completing the task, Petitioner asked for and received from Mrs. Rhodes two checks: one payable to Respondent to cover the turn on and deposit; one made payable to Petitioner personally for the cleaning of the unit. The Petitioner cashed the second check, in the amount of $25.00, and remitted the other check to the company. Sometime later, the Respondent received a complaint from Mrs. Rhodes concerning the furnace. Mr. Hixon, vice president and general manager for the company, confronted the Petitioner regarding the matter. During that conference Mr. Hixon asked Petitioner for an explanation regarding the second check which Mrs. Rhodes had reportedly paid to him. Petitioner did not admit that he had performed additional work on company time (beyond the routine turn on). Also, Petitioner did not admit that he had received monies payable to himself, and that he had cashed that second check. Bill Joynt is a white male employed by Respondent. In September, 1988, Mr. Joynt was assigned to make a service call for a customer named Mr. Cox. After installing a valve on Mr. Cox's furnace, Mr. Joynt received $80.00 cash from the customer. Later Mr. Cox contacted the Respondent to complain that the furnace was still not operating correctly. Mr. Cox advised the company that he had paid $80.00 for the repair but that he was unsatisfied with the work. Mr. Hixon contacted Mr. Joynt and confronted him as to why the $80.00 had not been remitted to the company. Mr. Joynt immediately acknowledged that he had forgotten to turn in the payment. Subsequently, Mr. Joynt turned in the $80.00 to the company. Because he readily admitted his error, the Respondent suspended Mr. Joynt for three days without pay and allowed him to return to work. Because he did not admit his error (in fact, Petitioner continued to deny it until the day of the hearing in this cause), the Respondent terminated Petitioner from his employment. Petitioner's lack of forthrightness, not his race, was his own undoing. The vacancy created by Petitioner's termination was filled under the terms of the Company's bargaining agreement with the union. A white male was entitled to and did fill the vacant position. Since leaving Respondent's employment, Petitioner has become employed by the Brevard County School Board but earns less than his prior employment afforded him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's claim of discrimination. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Joyous D. Parrish Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 90-5856 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: None timely submitted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraph 1 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 2 is accepted. With regard to the remainder of the paragraph, it is accepted that Petitioner knew all on duty work was to be done for the company; off duty work was performed by employees, including this Petitioner, with Respondent's approval and assistance. Paragraphs 3 through 6 are accepted. With the deletion of the word "repeated" paragraph 7 is accepted. With the clarification that Mr. Joynt agreed to turn the money in when he was confronted (perhaps found out), paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraphs 9 and 10 are accepted. Paragraph 11 is rejected as irrelevant or hearsay. The first sentence of paragraph 12 is accepted. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The company loaned Petitioner tools and sold him appliances to install during his off duty time. His failure to the company resulted from his on duty activities in his own cause and his failure to readily admit his error when confronted. Paragraphs 13 through 16 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan K. Erlenbach 503 South Palm Avenue Titusville, Florida 32796 C. Graham Carothers Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Margaret Jones, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
The Issue Did Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, commit an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of race?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 35-year-old Black male. Prior to December 1986, Petitioner was employed by Respondent in an OPS position in "Central Files". His work performance in Central Files was both superior and exemplary, and he was offered a State Career Service position as a Senior Clerk within Respondent's "Complaint Section". Upon accepting the Career Service position, Petitioner entered into a mandatory six months' probationary period. In the Senior Clerk position, Petitioner's primary duties were to answer the phone a specific 4-hour daily shift; to assist or act as backup for phone answering during Senior Clerk Terri Jones' (Black female) 4-hour daily phone shift; to prepare and distribute Class II complaint cases to Respondent's "Legal Section"; and to distribute mail and other materials as assigned by his immediate supervisor, Louise Bull (white female). On January 5, 1987, Petitioner took 4 hours unauthorized leave without pay for which he received a written reprimand on January 6, 1987. He had previously been orally reprimanded for the same practice. It was established by competent substantial evidence that Petitioner's immediate supervisor, Louise Bull, had had a number of absences without leave, some of which occurred before Petitioner's termination and some of which occurred after his termination, and that she also received at least one written reprimand for these absences. For some of her absences, Ms. Bull was required to reimburse money to the State, however it was not clear whether the reimbursement was because she was absent when she falsely claimed to be present or was standard reimbursement procedure when the leave actually taken is not covered by accrued leave time. Either way, Ms. Bull was not in a probationary status at any material time and, clearly, as Petitioner's supervisor, hers was not a substantially similar position to that of Petitioner. Petitioner and Cindy Dexter testified that many permanent employees in addition to Ms. Bull were playing fast and loose with tardiness and absenteeism, but their evidence is very indefinite and the race and gender of the employees accused was not established. Ms. Dexter's testimony was vague and not credible on this point. Their testimony on this subject was not confirmed by other credible witnesses nor was it ever established that any of the permanent employees accused by Petitioner held positions substantially similar to his. From almost the beginning of his probationary period, Petitioner had difficulty adjusting to his new position. He evidenced difficulty accepting supervision from Ms. Bull. This disrupted standard office practice. Over the probationary term, Ms. Bull orally counselled Petitioner approximately seven times concerning his lack of acceptance of her supervision as well as excessive tardiness and excessive personal phone usage. Diane Orcutt, the regular Complaint Office Supervisor and Ms. Bull's superior, described Petitioner as avoiding Louise Bull and coming directly to her about problems he perceived in the office operation. Petitioner and Terri Jones, his female job counterpart who is also Black, had an early but undefined job- related dispute, after which he sent her flowers to "make-up". On one occasion, after a loud and disruptive argument arose between Petitioner and Ms. Bull in the general office area, Evelyn McNeely, who was acting supervisor to them both during Ms. Orcutt's vacation, required Ms. Bull to prepare a memorandum clarifying Petitioner's job duties because, in Ms. McNeely's view, the Petitioner did not seem to understand his duties. This was done on June 17, 1987. This memorandum, headed "Performance Evaluation" from Ms. Bull to Petitioner also warned Petitioner that Ms. Bull would recommend extension of his probationary period because he was falling short on acceptable performance in several areas. Louise Bull prepared, delivered, and discussed with Petitioner her performance evaluation, indicating, based upon her personal observations, his failure to satisfactorily perform in the following areas: repeatedly tardy over the last several weeks; failure to properly handle routine telephone duties; failure to comply with their section's procedures for routing of case files; and continued failure to accept supervision under their section's chain of command. Ms. Bull admitted that she suffered emotional problems while Petitioner worked for her and apparently thereafter. She had crying jags and consulted a psychologist. She also received a prescription from some source for the tranquilizer valium. Ms. Bull denied that she and the psychologist ever identified a reason for her emotional state. Melinda Wagoner testified that Ms. Bull related to her that her emotional problems stemmed from living in a Black neighborhood and fighting with Black children when she was a child. The foregoing hearsay is admissible as an admission of a party (DPR) through its supervising agent (Louise Bull), but even if fully credible, this evidence would be insufficient to establish a nexus between Bull's behavior and the reason for Petitioner's eventual termination, in light of the record as a whole. Terri Jones, the permanent employee most substantially similar to Petitioner, was also a Senior Clerk. She is also Black. Her job duties were identical to those of Petitioner, except that they had primary responsibility for phone calls during different parts of each day. Ms. Jones had no supervisory problems of her own with Louise Bull. Ms. Jones asserted that Petitioner had excellent telephone manners but confirmed that Petitioner's regularity in answering the phone either on his shift or as her backup was often insufficient. The Complaint Section's phone was often placed on "hold" with no one waiting on the other end. Although anyone in the office could place a call on "hold" and any caller could hang up before an employee returned to the phone, the inference from all witnesses' testimony as a whole was that this "hold" procedure was being done excessively by Petitioner. Diane Orcutt, regular Complaint Office Supervisor, reviewed Petitioner's phone logs prior to evaluating him at the six months' point. The representative phone logs of the two substantially similar employees, Petitioner and Terri Jones, show that Petitioner logged only 34 calls in the same period that Ms. Jones logged 359. This vast discrepancy can be interpreted in a number of ways: either Petitioner was not answering the phone as directed, or he was not logging all calls as directed, or he was not maintaining the logs as directed. By any interpretation of this empirical data, Petitioner was not fulfilling a prime requirement of his job. At the time of his six months' evaluation, on June 22, 1987, Diane Orcutt made a joint decision with Louise Bull to extend Petitioner's six months probationary period by four months. Ms. Orcutt did this for a number of reasons: his early absences without leave, oral complaints from lower echelon employees that Petitioner would frequently neglect his telephone duties in one way or another, and the disruptive nature of his failure to accept Ms. Bull's supervision. In requiring the additional probation, Ms. Orcutt gave greater weight to the administrative/managerial friction and less weight to Petitioner's reprimanded early absences; however, with regard to the complaints of other employees, she testified that she felt sure Petitioner could do the work because of his past excellent performance on OPS and because of her personal observation but that he needed more time to actually do the job instead of engaging in uncooperative disputes with Ms. Bull. Additionally, Ms. Orcutt was giving Petitioner the benefit of any doubt by taking additional time to sort out whether the disruption problem arose from Ms. Bull or from Petitioner, because at that point, Ms. Bull had no problems supervising other Black or white employees; no oral complaints had been made by other employees against Ms. Bull; and oral complaints against Petitioner confirming Ms. Bull's unrecorded observations of Petitioner had been received personally by Ms. Orcutt. When presented with Orcutt's Mid-Cycle Appraisal and the 4 months' additional probation plan on June 22, 1987, Petitioner was hostile, refused to sign the appraisal, and another disruptive scene arose among Petitioner, Ms. Bull and Ms. Orcutt. Petitioner spent all of the workday of June 23, 1987 in "Personnel" complaining that his evaluation and the 4 months' additional probation was unjust. On two of the remaining successive days of that work week, Petitioner accomplished some work. On one of the remaining successive days in that week, he took his "Personal Leave Day". A weekend intervened, and on Monday, June 28, 1987, Diane Orcutt reassessed the situation, determined that Petitioner was not intending to cooperate, and terminated him, as had always been her option during his probationary period.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Florida Human Relations Commission dismissing the complaint and petition for relief filed by Robert Baucham. DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 3rd day of November, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0712 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF): Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact None filed Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent's proposals have been accepted in substance and modified to conform to the record. Where they have not been accepted, they are rejected as misleading as stated or not supported by the record as stated. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert Baucham Hearings 1021 Idlewild Drive, P-161 Tallahassee, FL 32301 E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was not re-employed as a "mechanic-carpenter" by the Respondent school board based upon the Petitioner's age.
Findings Of Fact James W. Jones was employed from 1983 to 1993, as a mechanic-carpenter by the school board. In early 1993 he traveled to the Bicentennial Youth Park (BYP) to deliver supplies from his shop to Mr. Evans, the teacher assigned to the BYP. At that time Mr. Evans informed Jones of an upcoming opening at the BYP for a carpenters position and asked him if he would be interested in filling the position. The Petitioner replied that he would be interested. The position in question was posted and advertised as two part-time carpenter positions. Mr. Jones did not wish a part-time position and eventually the administration of BYP gained authorization and funding for a temporary, full-time position at the BYP. Mr. Jones, had been trying to leave the facilities maintenance department because of personality conflicts with his supervisor, Buel Lee. He consequently accepted the temporary, full-time position at the BYP on April 23, 1993. Prior to accepting the temporary position at BYP, the Petitioner was informed by Mr. Al Evans, Billy Wiesneski, and Terry Ellis that the position was temporary and would only last as long as funding for the position was available. In fact, Mr. Jones signed a letter, dated May 3, 1993, confirming his understanding that the position at BYP was temporary and that its duration was dependent upon the duration of funding allocated by the school board. He signed that letter in the presence of Mr. Ellis and Mr. Lee on May 4, 1993.1 Additionally, Mr. Jones admits that he signed a Notice of Personnel Action form on April 23, 1993, describing the job as temporary from April 23, 1993, to June 30, 1993, and stating that "annual re-appointment will be based on availability of project funds. . .". Mr. Jones also told a co-worker, John Driggers, that he knew the position could end in a year but that he was going to take the position anyway because by that time he would have the 10 years of service required to be vested in the pension plan. Mr. Driggers was also aware that Mr. Jones wished to transfer out of the facilities maintenance department at that time. In summary, although Mr. Jones denies that he knew the position was temporary, that is not the case, as shown by the preponderant evidence discussed in the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact on this subject matter. In any event, the only issue properly before the Division and the undersigned Judge, is whether Jones was not hired into a mechanic-carpenter position in the facilities maintenance department at a later date because of his age. His knowledge regarding the temporary nature of the position at the BYP is wholly irrelevant to a decision in this case because of the issues pled and noticed to the opposing party in the Petition. In any event, after voluntarily accepting that position he knew to be temporary, the funding finally ran out on March 31, 1994.2 Because funding no longer existed to support the carpenter position at BYP, the Petitioner was not re-appointed to that position and therefore his employment with the Volusia County School Board ended on March 31, 1994. Subsequently, on May 20, 1994, a mechanic-carpenter position became available in a the facilities maintenance department under the supervision of Buel Lee, for whom Jones had worked prior to taking the position at BYP. The Petitioner applied for that position. He was interviewed by Mr. Lee and considered for employment as a new applicant who had never before worked for the Respondent, as opposed to a laid-off employee under the applicable collective bargaining agreement arrangement concerning re-hire of laid-off personnel. The Petitioner was not entitled to preference in hiring normally given to laid-off employees because he had not been "laid-off." The lay-off provision in the collective bargaining agreement defines "lay-off" as "the separation of employee for lack of work or funds without any fault or delinquency on the employee's part." The lay-off provision applies only to employees who have been given an appointment for a definite duration and the funding for the position is cut by the government before the appointment naturally expires by its own terms. Since Jones was simply not re-appointed upon the natural expiration of his appointment, the lay-off provisions would not be applicable to his situation. Jones was not entitled to nor was he given preference over other applicants for the 1994 mechanic-carpenter position based on seniority because he was not the most senior applicant for the position. In fact, under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, he lost all seniority when he terminated from employment or was not re-appointed on March 31, 1994. Therefore, when he applied for the mechanic-carpenter position 1994, he as not entitled to any more consideration than is given to a new applicant. When he applied for that position in 1994, Mr. Lee, the hiring supervisor, interviewed all applicants and made the ultimate decision to hire Walter "Ed" Hayman for the position, instead of the Petitioner. Mr. Lee interviewed every applicant for that position. He treated Jones as a new applicant rather than a laid-off or senior employee, consistent with the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. On the other hand, Mr. Lee was required by the collective bargaining agreement to give Hayman preference over Jones since Hayman had worked for the Respondent on an uninterrupted basis since 1991. Lee had received a letter of reference from a Mr. Frye, an independent contractor and Hayman's previous employer, indicating that Hayman had worked as a journeyman for 5 years. Mr. Lee thus believed that Hayman met the qualifications for the job. Lee felt that both Hayman and Jones were skilled in carpentry and did not make his decision based upon his judgment of their respective skills in their profession. Rather, Mr. Lee made a determination that Hayman was the best qualified for the position based on his knowledge of how each of them got along with others in the work place. Mr. Lee knew, and Jones admits, that during the time that he previously worked for Lee, Gary Gallencamp requested that he not have to work beside Jones any longer. Jones admits that in fact he had a lot to do with the reasons Gallencamp did not want to work with him anymore. Lee also knew, and Jones admits, that during the time that he previously worked for Lee, another employee, Ed Owensby, requested that he not have to work with Jones any longer. In fact, he stated that he would be forced to quit if he were required to continue working with Jones. Finally, Mr. Lee called Mr. Evans, Mr. Jones' most recent supervisor, to ask him for a reference regarding Jones' performance at the BYP. Mr. Evans told Mr. Lee that Jones had trouble getting along with the maintenance man, Earl Green, when working at the BYP. Even Jones admits that he had problems with Mr. Green's work. Contrarily, Mr. Lee had observed Hayman getting along well with the co-workers during the time he performed work in conjunction with the facilities maintenance department when he was working for the Respondent as a "grounds man." Therefore, based upon personal experience and the information he received from others, Mr. Lee made the decision to hire Mr. Hayman instead of Mr. Jones. Lee never even considered the ages of Hayman or Jones when making that hiring decision. In fact, Lee himself was approximately 48 or 50 years old when he hired Hayman. Lee does not have a history of hiring younger workers. In fact, the very person Lee hired to replace Jones, when Jones transferred to the BYP, was Mr. Fred Jacobs, who was then aged 57. The only three applicants hired by Lee after Jones transferred to the BYP and before Hayman was hired, were approximately 40 years old. During that time frame, Lee hired Eric Hoffman, who was 43 or 44 years old. Jeff Straker was in his late thirties or forties, and Fred Jacobs was 57. Thus, in their totality, Mr. Lee's hiring practices do not reflect any-age related bias. In addition, neither the Respondent's pay plan, nor its pension plan, set forth in the collective bargaining agreement, are related to age. The Respondent's pay ranges are based upon job classification (i.e., mechanic-carpenter) and years of service. Upon being separated from his employment, Jones was being paid at a level commensurate with 11 years of service. Had he begun his employment with the school board immediately upon completion of his vocational training, he would have been 34 or 35 years old and earned the same salary he was making in March 1994, when he was separated from employment. Likewise the pension plan provides that every employee, regardless of age, vests after having provided 10 years of service.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That for all of the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the school board discriminated against him because of his age in making the subject re-hiring decision. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1998.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Fredrick Bass, was subjected to employment discrimination by the Respondent, The University of West Florida, on account of his race or disability or as retaliation because of his past filing of an EEOC complaint against a former employer.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a black male with a disability involving a post- traumatic, arthritic condition of the left knee. In his past work history, the Petitioner had been a firefighter. When he was thus employed, on one occasion, he filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the fire department where he was employed. The Respondent is the University of West Florida, a state agency. It became embroiled in the disputes at issue when it first advertised for the filling of a vacancy for the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor and, after the advertising and interviewing process described below, hired another black male with a disability, instead of the Petitioner. The Respondent advertised to fill the vacancy for the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor because of the death of the person who had previously occupied that position. There was an insufficient response to the first advertisement of the vacancy, and Dan Simpler, the Director of Building Services for the Respondent, who would supervise the occupant of that position, requested that the position be re-advertised. The Petitioner had not responded to the first advertisement, in any event. The second advertisement was issued in August of 1993. This time, the Petitioner was one of the applicants who responded. Several applicants withdrew after learning that the salary for the position would be at the lower-end of the advertised salary range and was insufficient for their needs. This left the Respondent with only three remaining applicants, who appeared to meet the minimum qualifications for the position. One of the three applicants was the Petitioner. The Respondent, in the conduct of its application and selection process, inquired of former employers, concerning whether they would give an applicant a favorable recommendation. The Respondent so inquired of the Petitioner's former employers. The Respondent was unable to obtain a favorable recommendation from any of the Petitioner's former employers. In response to Mr. Simpler's inquiry, the Chief of the Fire Department at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, the Petitioner's most recent former employer, informed Mr. Simpler that he would not rehire the Petitioner if given the opportunity to do so. The Petitioner had informed Mr. Simpler that he believed that the Chief of the Fire Department would not give him a favorable recommendation because the Petitioner had once filed a complaint with the EEOC against that employer. In any event, Mr. Simpler deemed that having a pool of only three applicants gave the Respondent insufficient choices for the position. Therefore, he requested that the position be advertised for a third time in order to obtain a larger pool of applicants. In response to the third advertisement, a number of other applications were received. One of them was that of James O. Rankins, who is a male, African-American, who also has a disability. See Respondent's Exhibit 6 in evidence. Mr. Rankins' application reflected considerable supervisory experience, both during his service with the United States Army and his position as a Site Manager for Service Master, Inc. at the Monsanto plant near Pensacola, Florida. He retired from the United States Army as a Sergeant Major, the highest non- commissioned rank. In the opinion of Mr. Simpler and others involved in the hiring at the University, this demonstrated a high level of leadership capability. Since his military retirement, in his capacity as the Site Manager for Service Master, Inc., the maintenance contractor, at the Monsanto chemical plant near Pensacola, Florida, he had supervised 45 custodial personnel. He was responsible for cleaning and maintenance of 150 buildings and shops, as well as over 250 offices and restrooms. The Petitioner was an applicant in the third pool of applications in response to the third advertisement. Mr. Simpler learned of a former employer, Lanyap Corporation, and questioned the former owner concerning the Petitioner's previous employment at that firm. Larry Wiggins, the former owner of Lanyap Corporation, told Mr. Simpler that he would not rehire the Petitioner if given the opportunity to do so. Mr. Wiggins advised Mr. Simpler that the Petitioner had not been employed as a Supervisor by Lanyap Corporation, although the Petitioner had indicated that to be the case on his application for employment filed with the Respondent. The five persons on the Respondent's selection committee, charged with hiring to fill the subject position, considered the qualifications and experience of all of the applicants. After evaluating all of the applicants, with the assistance of personal interviews, the committee recommended that James Rankins be employed as the Senior Custodial Supervisor. Members of the selection committee recommended Mr. Rankins for the position based upon his superior qualifications and experience, including his demonstrated leadership and supervisory abilities. The Petitioner's race and disability were not factors in the selection process. Indeed, Mr. Rankins is an African-American, also with a disability, as shown by the Respondent's Exhibit 6 in evidence. Ms. Bertha Mae Jones is the staff member at the University who interviewed the Petitioner, as well as Mr. Rankins. Ms. Jones is black and has been employed at the University for 27 years. She does not recall hearing the Petitioner mention his handicap or disability but stated that it would not have mattered if he had one, as long as he could do the job in question. She also interviewed Mr. Rankins and felt that Mr. Rankins had much superior qualifications and experience. He demonstrated that he had had a long-term ability for good supervision. Because of his superior qualifications, Ms. Jones recommended that Mr. Rankins be hired instead of the Petitioner. None of the members of the selection committee, other than the Director of Building Services, knew that the Petitioner had filed an EEOC complaint against one of his former employers. The filing of that complaint was shown to have had no effect on the hiring decision made by the Respondent's selection committee. The selection committee's recommendation that Mr. Rankins be employed to fill the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor was forwarded to the head of the department and to the Vice-President for Administrative Affairs. The recommendation was accepted. Mr. Rankins, a black male with a disability, was hired by the Respondent to fill the subject position.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order concluding that the Respondent, the University of West Florida, did not commit an unlawful employment practice, by employing James O. Rankins to fill the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor, instead of the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 3rd day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2450 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The following numbers assigned to proposed findings of fact by the Petitioner do not correspond to any numbered paragraphs in the Petitioner's letter/proposed recommended order because there were no such numbered paragraphs. The Petitioner did prove that he belonged to a racial minority, and that proposed finding is accepted. The Petitioner's assertion that he was qualified for the position in question has not been proven, and that is rejected. The Petitioner's proposed finding that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected for the position, is rejected because he was found to be less qualified than the applicant chosen for the position. The Petitioner's proposed finding to the effect that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants with his qualifications, is rejected as not in accord with the preponderance of the evidence. The relevant advertisement and interviewing process was that after the third advertisement, when the Petitioner remained an applicant and Mr. Rankins' application was received, the position did not remain open, Mr. Rankins was hired at the conclusion of that third advertisement and interview selection process. The remainder of the Petitioner's "proposed findings", in essence, constitute argument concerning the weight of the testimony and evidence but to the extent that he attempts to assert that it has been proven factually that Mr. Simpler had not talked to the fire chief, the Petitioner's former employer, because the telephone numbers at the relevant fire station were not the same as the fire chief's actual telephone number, does not prove that Mr. Simpler did not talk to the fire chief. In fact, it is found that he did. This proposed finding, to the extent that it is one, is rejected. The apparent proposed finding that the five board members on the selection committee found the Petitioner qualified, subject to the fact that it had received bad recommendations from former employers, is rejected as not in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. In fact, the Petitioner was not the best qualified person for the position, Mr. Rankins was. These are the only proposed findings of fact that can be gleaned from the letter filed by the Petitioner. The remainder constitutes an attempt at legal and factual argument which do not constitute proposed findings of fact amenable to specific rulings. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-13. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Fredrick Bass 75 South Madison Drive Pensacola, Florida 32505 M. J. Menge, Esquire SHELL, FLEMING, DAVIS & MENGE Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32598 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issues are whether the Respondents committed unlawful employment practices against Petitioner, and if so, to what relief is she entitled.
Findings Of Fact In the spring of 1994, Respondent CSD began operating a residential detention program for juvenile offenders pursuant to a contract with the Department of Juvenile Justice. The purpose of the program, commonly known as Hamilton House, was to provide redirection to the lives of its youthful residents/clients. Hamilton House had 48 beds divided between two dormitories. Respondent CSD assigned each resident to the appropriate dormitory, level six or level eight, depending on the type of security and rehabilitative services required. The program included an educational program as well as facilities for vocational and recreational activities. Respondent CSD employed Petitioner, a 51 year-old white female, as a resident advisor at Hamilton House from March 24, 1994 through June 30, 1996. Petitioner initially worked the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift in the level six dormitory. At times she served as the acting shift supervisor though she was not paid a supervisor's wages. When Petitioner began working for Respondent CSD, she lived with her elderly mother, Lotus Musgrove, whose colon cancer was in remission. At that time, Mrs. Musgrove was able to live independently and did not need a caretaker. On April 24, 1994, some of the clients managed to gain access to a bottle containing an alcoholic beverage. Petitioner and other employees received a verbal warning for failing to adequately monitor the behavior and movement of the clients. A training letter was placed in each employee's personnel file. In May of 1995, Respondent CSD hired Bobby Williams, Sr., as a resident advisor in the level eight dormitory. Mr. Williams is a black male. He eventually assumed the position of shift supervisor for the entire facility. There is no evidence that Petitioner sought this full-time position or a similar supervisory position at any time during her employment with Respondent CSD. In October of 1995, some of the clients accused Petitioner and another staff member of inappropriate conduct including, but not limited to, furnishing them with prohibited magazines and movies. As a result of the allegations, Respondent CSD suspended Petitioner and her co-worker without pay on October 18, 1995. By letter dated October 20, 1995, Respondent CSD advised Petitioner in writing that there was insufficient evidence of misconduct to warrant termination of her employment. However, the letter stated that Petitioner had violated company policy and procedure by allowing a youth to leave his room for extended periods after curfew. Respondent CSD paid Petitioner and her co- worker for the time they were suspended during the internal investigation. Respondent CSD subsequently reassigned Petitioner and her co-worker to work in a different dormitory and on a different shift. The change in time and location of their work shift was necessary to ensure there was no contact between them and the clients who had accused them of improper conduct. Petitioner was assigned to work the 3:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. shift in the level eight dormitory. In a written statement dated October 23, 1995, Petitioner objected to the change in her shift. She preferred to continue working the 11:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m. shift. She asserted that, during the day, she took care of her 78 year-old mother who had cancer. Respondent CSD did not immediately honor Petitioner's request. On or about November 24, 1995, Petitioner voluntarily purchased some supplies in the amount of $20.98 from a retail store. The supplies included the following: hand sprayers, cotton swabs, hydrogen peroxide, rubbing alcohol, highlighters, marker, Sharpies, and other miscellaneous items. Petitioner requested reimbursement from Respondent CSD because she intended to use the supplies at work. Respondent CSD declined to reimburse Petitioner for the supplies. There is no evidence that Respondent CSD ever authorized the purchase of the supplies. On December 11, 1995, a resident in the level eight dormitory attempted to discard a container of contraband tobacco. Petitioner detected his effort and responded appropriately. She received a letter of commendation for exemplary action which was placed in her personnel file. On January 23, 1996, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Juvenile Justice made a formal and final determination that "[i]t is inconclusive that staff members Julie Toughton and Alice Musgrove engaged in improper conduct with clients." On or about February 1, 1996, Petitioner took a box of pens and pencils from a client's desk. The client became upset and exhibited inappropriate behavior toward Petitioner. As a result of the client's tantrum, Petitioner took token-economy points from the client. Petitioner filed a written complaint dated February 4, 1996, with Respondent CSD after learning that one of her supervisors, Mike Myers, changed the client's point sheet. Petitioner's February 4, 1996, statement also asserted that Supervisor Myers was mishandling clients' mail. She complained that he was logging clients' mail and making the clients read their personnel mail to him. According to Petitioner, handling client mail was the responsibility of "line staff." On one occasion in February 1996, Petitioner was 30 minutes late reporting to her assigned duty station in the dormitory. She spent that time in the administration building because she refused to work with one of her co-workers. Supervisor Myers was responsible for changing Petitioner's time sheet to reflect a 30-minute deduction in regular time. On another occasion in February 1996, Petitioner and other employees worked two hours of overtime due to a crisis situation with one of the clients. Petitioner elected to "bank" the overtime rather than receive time-and-one-half of overtime pay. The other employees chose to receive overtime pay. Petitioner was off from work on February 22-23, 1996. When Petitioner arrived at work on February 24, 1996, her time sheet was not with the time sheets of other employees. Petitioner's time sheet was locked in a supervisor's office until February 26, 1996, because the supervisor was not at work. There is no indication in the record whether Petitioner's time sheet was locked up inadvertently or due to a dispute over Petitioner's wages. On March 1, 1996, Petitioner filed a written grievance with Respondent CSD regarding her pay. She claimed that Supervisor Myers was harassing her and discriminating against her by changing her time sheet without her knowledge. Specifically, Petitioner complained that Mr. Myers cheated her out of 30 minutes of regular time on one occasion and two hours of overtime on another occasion. She complained that her time sheet was locked in a supervisor's office for four days. On March 4, 1996, the Program Director, Dale Edwards, agreed that Petitioner should not be penalized for one-half hour of regular pay because she was in the administration building during the disputed time. Additionally, Mr. Edwards directed Supervisor Myers not to change an employee's time sheet without prior approval. He also requested that Petitioner furnish documentation that the company owed her for the two hours of overtime. Mr. Edwards was under the mistaken impression that the dispute over Petitioner's time sheet had been resolved. In March of 1996, Petitioner was working the midnight shift in dormitory eight consistent with her written request dated October 23, 1995. On March 18, 1996 and March 27, 1996, Petitioner made written requests for a change to the 7:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. shift. Petitioner specifically wanted to replace a Ms. Aikens on the morning shift. Respondent CSD did not honor Petitioner's request. However, there is no evidence showing that Ms. Aiken's position was ever filled, and if so, whether Respondent CSD selected a person of a different race or a younger to file the position. Petitioner was absent from work between April 8, 1996, and April 16, 1996, on April 22, 1996, and on April 29, 1996, due to illness and/or medical appointments. While she was absent, her inner-office mail box became so full that the mail had to be removed. The administrative manager gave Petitioner's mail to her supervisor. On April 23, 1996, Supervisor Myers completed Petitioner's annual performance appraisal for the period March 14, 1995 through March 14, 1996. Petitioner disagreed with the determination that she had difficulty communicating with others. Petitioner's mental health counselor, Christine Clark, sent Mr. Edwards an unsolicited letter dated April 23, 1996. According to the letter, Ms. Clark was treating Petitioner for family/employment related stress reduction. The letter states as follows in pertinent part: Due to the demands of her home environment, caretaking of her elderly mother who is dying from colon cancer, I am recommending that Ms. Musgrove be reassigned new working hours, namely a day schedule of approximately 8:00 AM until 5:00 PM in order to effectively and efficiently facilitate the evening and night care of her mother. In addition, Ms. Musgrove appears to have unresolved issues regarding her personnel file and salary still due to her for 30 minutes or .5 hour pay as well as two hours uncompensated work from several weeks ago. I personally read your approval for this compensation but apparently this has still not yet been indicated on her pay check. There also remain the allegations of her misconduct charges that appears not to be fully resolved. As an employee she does have the legal right to have these fully addressed and challenged. From my understanding that although the misconduct charges have been dropped, there are still areas that compromise Ms. Musgrove's reputation as a resident advisor. Mr. Edwards did not disclose the contents of Ms. Clark's letter to any employee of Respondent CSD other than his superiors, who advised him to get a release from Petitioner before responding to the letter. After receiving Ms. Clark's letter, Mr. Edwards had a telephone conversation with Petitioner's mother because Petitioner was not at work or at home. During the conversation, Mr. Edwards inquired about the mother's health. Mr. Edwards learned that Mrs. Musgrove's cancer had been in remission since 1993 and that she no longer required assistance with daily living activities. Mr. Edwards did not disclose any information regarding Petitioner's employment status, medical condition, or personal business to Mrs. Musgrove. Petitioner's sister placed an unsolicited telephone call to Mr. Edwards several days after he talked to Mrs. Musgrove. The purpose of the call was to thank Mr. Edwards for his concern over Mrs. Musgrove's health. During the telephone call, Mr. Edwards and Petitioner's sister did not exchange any information relating to Petitioner's employment, medical condition, or personal business. On April 29, 1996, all staff at Hamilton House received a memorandum advising them as follows, in pertinent part: As a result of the recent competitive bid conducted by District 3, Department of Juvenile Justice, Gator Human Services has been awarded the contract to operate the Hamilton County Youth Treatment Complex starting July 1, 1996. The memorandum also included information regarding the transfer of operations to the new service provider. Respondent CSD advised employees that, if requested, it would supply Gator Human Services the name, position title, hire date, and current salary of each employee of record. Respondent CSD stated that no other information would be given to the new organization without the consent of the employee. On May 1, 1996, Mr. Edwards wrote two memoranda regarding Petitioner's pay. First, Mr. Edwards directed the administrative manager to pay Petitioner for .5 hours of regular wages out of the company's petty cash fund and to get a receipt for the payment. Second, he directed the resident life manager to allow Petitioner to leave work two hours early (with pay) at a time of her choosing within the next work week. Petitioner could not "bank" the time indefinitely because Respondent CSD's contract was scheduled to expire on June 30, 1996. Mr. Edwards phoned Petitioner at home on May 2, 1996, to request a written release so that he could respond to Ms. Clark's letter. Petitioner wrote that release on May 3, 1996. The release gave Mr. Edwards permission to disclose confidential information to Ms. Clark. On May 3, 1996, Petitioner signed a written acknowledgment that receipt of $4.06 in payment for .5 regular hours would end the issue of the .5 regular hours owed to her. On May 10, 1996, Respondent Gator informed the staff at Hamilton House of the procedure for handling applications for employment with Respondent Gator's new program, Tiger Success Center. Applications were due on or before May 28, 1996. Interviews were to be scheduled between May 28, 1996, and June 7, 1996. Applicants would be advised of the final selections and employment offers by June 14, 1996. Respondent Gator requested that each applicant take a copy of their most recent performance appraisal to their employment interview. By letter dated May 13, 1996, Mr. Edwards responded to Ms. Clark's inquiry. First, he explained that questions regarding Petitioner's compensation had been resolved. Second, he stated that letters from the Department of Juvenile Justice and from the Office of the Inspector General had been added to Petitioner's personnel file, clearing her of all misconduct allegations. Third, he explained that the day shift would be the least desirable shift in terms of stress reduction because the activity level of the residents is highest during the day. Mr. Edwards also revealed that Petitioner's mother was treated successfully for cancer in 1993 and that her current health failed to support the need for a change in Petitioner's shift. Finally, Mr. Edwards noted that he had to consider the needs of the residents and other staff. A copy of Ms. Clark's inquiry and Mr. Edwards' response were placed in Petitioner's personnel file. Neither of the documents were disclosed to unauthorized persons. On May 22, 1996, the employees at Hamilton House received another memorandum advising them that after June 30, 1996, Respondent CSD would no longer operate the facility. The employees were encouraged to apply for employment with the new organization. Petitioner was scheduled for an employment interview on May 30, 1996. However, the interview was rescheduled because she was unable to keep the appointment. Petitioner's application for employment with Respondent Gator is dated May 31, 1996. She also furnished Respondent Gator with copies of three performance appraisals. Petitioner's signature on the application authorized Respondent Gator to make inquiries of references and former employers regarding her general character and past performance. There is no evidence that Respondent Gator ever made any such inquiries about Petitioner. A panel of three people representing Respondent Gator interviewed Petitioner. The panel asked her the same questions that they asked other applicants. Petitioner was very negative and critical of the existing program and Respondent CSD during her interview. After the interview, each member of the interview panel tallied their score sheets independently. All three agreed that Petitioner should not be given further consideration for employment with Respondent Gator because of her negative attitude and low interview scores. On June 13, 1996, Petitioner received a memorandum from Respondent Gator stating that the company was unable to offer her a position of employment. That same day, Respondent Gator offered employment to every other Hamilton House staff applicant except one black male, Mr. Humphrey. Respondent Gator hired a black female, Latasha Bristol, who worked in the level eight dormitory with Petitioner. Ms. Bristol is younger than Petitioner. However, she was not hired to replace Petitioner. Respondent Gator hired Ms. Bristol to work in the level six dormitory. Respondent Gator offered an employment position to a white female, Lucy Oxendine. Ms. Oxendine was over 60 years old at the time. She declined to accept a job with Respondent Gator for personal reasons. Mr. Edwards was hired by Respondent Gator to continue as program director after July 1, 1996. However, neither he nor any other employee of Respondent CSD shared any information about Petitioner with Respondent Gator or had any input into Respondent Gator's decision not to hire Petitioner. Respondent Gator based its decision not to employ Petitioner solely on the results of her interview which was very negative. On June 14, 1996, the staff at Hamilton House received a memorandum stating that anyone interested in accepting employment with Respondent Gator must sign up on June 19, 1996. On June 14, 1996, Petitioner's doctor faxed a medical excuse to Respondent CSD stating that Petitioner could not return to work for an undetermined period of time. The document indicates that Petitioner's diagnosis involved anxiety, depression, and work-related stress. The doctor commented that Petitioner was the primary caretaker of her mother who was terminally ill with cancer. The doctor's June 14, 1996, fax was received by Respondent CSD in the administrative manager's office. It was on her desk for a brief period of time before it was delivered to Mr. Edwards. There is no credible evidence that any employee of Respondent CSD disclosed the contents of the fax to unauthorized persons. Petitioner's doctor did not give her permission to return to work until after July 1, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that FCHR enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's Charges of Discrimination against both Respondent CSD and Respondent Gator. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: H. B. Stivers, Esquire Levine and Stivers 245 East Virginia Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Faye Musgrove Post Office Box 657 Live Oak, Florida 32064 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2008),1 by discriminating against Petitioner based on her color and/or her age.
Findings Of Fact The Town is an employer as that term is defined in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner was hired by the Town in November 2004 as an administrative assistant to Mayor Anthony Grant. Petitioner is a dark-skinned African-American woman who was 51 years of age at the time of the hearing. Petitioner was interviewed and hired by a committee appointed by Mayor Grant. The committee included town clerk Cathlene Williams, public works director Roger Dixon, and then- chief administrative officer Dr. Ruth Barnes. Mayor Grant did not meet Petitioner until the day she started work as his administrative assistant. The mayor's administrative assistant handles correspondence, filing, appointments, and anything else the mayor requires in the day-to-day operations of his office. For more than two years, Petitioner went about her duties without incident. She never received a formal evaluation, but no testimony or documentary evidence was entered to suggest that her job performance was ever less than acceptable during this period. In about August 2007, Petitioner began to notice a difference in Mayor Grant's attitude towards her. The mayor began screaming at her at the top of his lungs, cursing at her. He was relentlessly critical of her job performance, accusing her of not completing assigned tasks. Petitioner conceded that she would "challenge" Mayor Grant when he was out of line or requested her to do something beyond her job description. She denied being disrespectful or confrontational, but agreed that she was not always as deferential as Mayor Grant preferred. During the same time period, roughly July and August 2007, Petitioner also noticed that resumes were being faxed to the Town Hall that appeared to be for her job. She asked Ms. Williams about the resumes, but Ms. Williams stated she knew nothing and told Petitioner to ask the mayor. When Petitioner questioned the mayor about the resumes, he took her into his office and asked her to do him a favor. He asked if she would work across the street in the post office for a couple of weeks, to fill in for a post office employee who was being transferred to the finance department; as a team player, Petitioner agreed to the move. While she was working as a clerk at the post office, Petitioner learned that the mayor was interviewing people for her administrative assistant position. She filed a formal complaint with the Town. For a time after that, she was forced to work half-time at the post office and half-time in the mayor's office. On or about October 22, 2007, Petitioner was formally transferred from her position as administrative assistant to the mayor to the position of postal clerk in the post office. Her salary and benefits remained the same. At the hearing, Mayor Grant testified that he moved Petitioner to the post office to lessen the stress of her job. Based on his conversations with Petitioner, he understood that Petitioner was having personal or family problems. He was not privy to the details of these problems, but had noticed for some time that Petitioner seemed to be under great stress. The post office was a much less hectic environment than the mayor's office, and would be more amenable to her condition. Ms. Williams, the town clerk, testified that the mayor told her that Petitioner was stressed and needed more lax duties than those she performed in the mayor's office. Mr. Dixon, the public works director, testified that Petitioner had indicated to him that she was under pressure, but she did not disclose the cause of that pressure. He recalled that, toward the end of her employment with the Town, Petitioner mentioned that she felt she was being discriminated against because of her skin color. Petitioner denied ever telling Mayor Grant that she was feeling stressed. She denied telling him anything about her family. Petitioner stated that the only stress she felt was caused by the disrespect and humiliation heaped upon her by Mayor Grant. Petitioner's best friend, Gina King Brooks, a business owner in the Town, testified that Petitioner would come to her store in tears over her treatment by the mayor. Petitioner told Ms. Brooks that she was being transferred to the post office against her will, was being forced to train her own replacement in the mayor's office,3 and believed that it was all because of her age and complexion. Mayor Grant testified that he called Petitioner into his office and informed her of the transfer to the post office. He did not tell her that the move was temporary. He did not view the transfer from administrative assistant to postal clerk as a demotion or involving any loss of status. Mayor Grant testified that an additional reason for the change was that he wanted a more qualified person as his administrative assistant. He acknowledged that Petitioner was actually more experienced than her eventual replacement, Jacqueline Cockerham.4 However, Petitioner's personal issues were affecting her ability to meet the sensitive deadlines placed upon her in the mayor's office. The mayor needed more reliable support in his office, and Petitioner needed a less stressful work environment. Therefore, Mayor Grant believed the move would benefit everyone involved. Mayor Grant denied that Petitioner's skin color or age had anything to do with her transfer to the post office. Petitioner was replaced in her administrative assistant position by Ms. Cockerham, a light-skinned African- American woman born on October 17, 1961. She was 46 years of age at the time of the hearing. Documents introduced by the Town at the hearing indicate the decision to hire Ms. Cockerham was made on March 26, 2008. Ms. Williams testified that she conducted the interview of Ms. Cockerham, along with a special assistant to the mayor, Kevin Bodley, who no longer works for the Town. Both Ms. Williams and Mayor Grant testified that the mayor did not meet Ms. Cockerham until the day she began work in his office. Petitioner testified that she knew the mayor had met Ms. Cockerham before she was hired by the Town, because Mayor Grant had instructed Petitioner to set up a meeting with Ms. Cockerham while Petitioner was still working in the mayor's office. Mayor Grant flatly denied having any knowledge of Ms. Cockerham prior to the time of her hiring. On this point, Mayor Grant's testimony, as supported by that of Ms. Williams, is credited. To support her allegation that Mayor Grant preferred employees with light skin, Petitioner cited his preferential treatment of an employee named Cherone Fort. Petitioner claimed that Mayor Grant required her to make a wake-up call to Ms. Fort every morning, because Ms. Fort had problems getting to work on time. Ms. Fort was a light-skinned African-American woman. Under cross-examination, Petitioner conceded that Mayor Grant and Ms. Fort were friends, and that his favoritism toward her may have had nothing to do with her skin color. Petitioner claimed that there were other examples of the mayor's "color struck" favoritism toward lighter-skinned employees, but she declined to provide specifics.5 She admitted that several dark-skinned persons worked for the Town, but countered that those persons do not work in close proximity to the mayor. As to her age discrimination claim, Petitioner testified that a persistent theme of her conversations with Mayor Grant was his general desire for a younger staff, because younger people were fresher and more creative. The mayor's expressed preference was always a concern to Petitioner. Petitioner testified that she felt degraded, demeaned and humiliated by the transfer to the post office. She has worked as an executive assistant for her entire professional career, including positions for the city manager of Gainesville and the head of pediatric genetics at the University of Florida. She believed herself unsuited to a clerical position in the post office, and viewed her transfer as punitive. In April 2008, Petitioner was transferred from the post office to a position as assistant to the town planner. Within days of this second transfer, Petitioner resigned her position as an employee of the Town. At the time of her resignation, Petitioner was being paid $15.23 per hour. Petitioner is now working for Rollins College in a position she feels is more suitable to her skills. She makes about $14.00 per hour. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that there was a personality conflict between Petitioner and Mayor Grant. Neither Petitioner nor Mayor Grant was especially forthcoming regarding the details of their working relationship, especially the cause of the friction that developed in August 2007. Neither witness was entirely credible in describing the other's actions or motivations. No other witness corroborated Petitioner's claims that Mayor Grant ranted, yelled, and was "very, very nasty" in his dealings with Petitioner.6 No other witness corroborated Mayor Grant's claim that Petitioner was under stress due to some unnamed family situation. The working relationship between Mayor Grant and Petitioner was certainly volatile, but the evidence is insufficient to permit more than speculation as to the cause of that volatility. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, due to this personality conflict, Mayor Grant wanted Petitioner transferred out of his office. He may even have used the subterfuge of a "temporary" transfer to exact Petitioner's compliance with the move. However, the purpose of this proceeding is not to pass judgment on Mayor Grant's honesty or skills as an administrator. Aside from Petitioner's suspicions, there is no solid evidence that Mayor Grant was motivated by anything other than a desire to have his office run more smoothly and efficiently. Petitioner's assertion that the mayor's preference for lighter-skinned employees was common knowledge cannot be credited without evidentiary support. Petitioner's age discrimination claim is supported only by Petitioner's recollection of conversations with Mayor Grant in which he expressed a general desire for a younger, fresher, more creative staff. Given that both Petitioner and Ms. Cockerham were experienced, middle-aged professionals, and given that Mayor Grant had nothing to do with the hiring of either employee, the five-year age difference between them does not constitute evidence of discrimination on the part of the mayor or the Town. Petitioner was not discharged from employment. Though Petitioner perceived it as a demotion, the transfer to the post office was a lateral transfer within the Town's employment hierarchy. Petitioner was paid the same salary and received the same benefits she received as an administrative assistant to the mayor. A reasonably objective observer would not consider working as a clerk in a post office to be demeaning or degrading.
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 Town of Eatonville did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 2009.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on November 17, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Linda Marchinko, was employed by the Witteman Company, Inc., from 1966 until April 2003. The Witteman Company, Inc. (hereinafter "Inc.") was a division of the Dover Corporation. While employed by Inc., Petitioner held the position of traffic manager. The most recent description of the duties of the position of traffic manager reads as follows: Responsible for, but not limited to, traffic managerial duties, coordinate and arrange for all product shipments, required documentation, customer interaction, and providing back-up support as required to others within the Company. Work with minimum supervision, produce quality, complete and accurate work and be an active and positive participant on teams and committees to which assigned. In February 2003, Cryogenic Industries made an asset purchase of Inc. and established Witteman, LLC (hereinafter LLC). LLC engineers and sells carbon dioxide, recovery, and production equipment to soft drink and brewing companies. Whereas Inc. had a maximum of 110 employees, LLC was established with only 17 employees, as many departments such as purchasing, traffic, and accounting were eliminated or "farmed out." At the time of the asset purchase, all employees of Inc. were terminated due to the sale of the assets of Inc. Petitioner was terminated from employment with Inc. effective April 8, 2003. She signed a Severance Agreement and Waiver and Release of Claims, releasing Inc. from all claims, including any related to the Age Discrimination and Employment Act. The position of traffic manager has not and does not exist at LLC. Petitioner was not hired by LLC. Petitioner has never been employed by LLC and, therefore, was not terminated by LLC. A few employees of Inc. were hired by LLC. Petitioner was not one of them. Cara Brammer is one of the employees of Inc. who was hired by LLC. Her position is Comptroller. Petitioner contends that regardless of Ms. Brammer's title, Ms. Brammer performs the same functions that Petitioner used to perform for Inc. Petitioner believes that Ms. Brammer was hired by LLC because she is younger than Petitioner. At the time Ms. Brammer was hired by LLC, she was approximately 39 years old and Petitioner was 55 years old. Ms. Brammer's duties as Comptroller include accounts payable, cost accounting, and general ledger work. According to Ms. Brammer, the traffic manager duties previously performed by Petitioner were separated between two of LLC's sister companies in California, which handle all of the major equipment, including manufacturing and shipping for LLC. William Geiger is General Manager of LLC. According to Mr. Geiger, the manufacturing of the product was shifted to two divisions located in California. The primary shipping of the company's product was also shifted to California. This is consistent with Ms. Brammer's testimony. According to Ms. Brammer, a small portion of the shipping duties that had initially been sent to California are now handled by LLC. She estimates that she spends only four to five hours a week on these traffic duties, that Mr. Geiger handles some of these duties, and that "quite a bit" of these traffic duties have been farmed out to a company called Freight Forwarder. LLC employs people in their thirties, forties, fifties, and sixties. There is no competent evidence that LLC used age as a criterion in its determination of who would and who would not be hired for the newly formed company.
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 Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2005, 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 1st day of November, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on September 26, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Ursula Costantini, was employed by Wal-Mart Store No. 5326 (hereinafter Wal-Mart) from August 2004 until June 2005. While employed by Wal-Mart, Petitioner held the position of a part-time Accounting Office Associate. David Achtley was store manager of Store 5326 at all times material to this proceeding. Associates who were hired prior to the store's opening performed many tasks including assembling counters, putting up labels, unloading trucks, and stocking shelves. Associates also received training. When the store first started employing associates, employees' work schedules were manually typed on a personal computer. At that time, employees' schedules could be modified fairly easily. Shortly before the store actually opened, employees' work schedules began to be generated using a staffing computer program. In order to generate schedules, the program takes into account sales, customer counts, holidays, and other factors including availability sheets completed by associates. When the store was newly opened, much of this information was based on projections. The store in question opened in 2004. In May 2005, Mr. Achtley began analyzing actual sales data to earlier projections. Mr. Achtley realized that his store was short of its projected sales. As a result, he began re-evaluating staffing needs to reflect actual sales data. All employees complete a Customer Service Scheduling Availability form. Employees are not guaranteed to be assigned the hours they request. Petitioner completed a Customer Service Scheduling Availability Sheet for part-time employment on June 10, 2005, on which she stated that she was available to work Mondays through Thursdays from 11:00 p.m. until 4:00 a.m. Under the words "Store Shifts," "overnight" was circled. She indicated on the form that she was not available to work on Saturdays or Sundays. Petitioner completed another scheduling availability sheet on August 19, 2004, to work as a part-time employee. On this availability form, Petitioner stated her availability to work as "Open" any day of the week and at "any time," with the exception of being unavailable to work on Sundays. In June 2005, Wal-Mart's home office directed all stores to stop modifying the computer-generated shifts, and mandated that stores must have associates work the computer generated shifts. Some of the shifts changed in part because the store was not making the sales that had been projected. The only flexibility was to allow a modification of one hour for a business or personal need at the beginning or end of a shift. Petitioner had been working a 11:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. shift. However, the computer program did not generate a shift with those time frames. The overnight shift was changed to 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Petitioner objected to the schedule change. Doris Riofrio was the operations co-manager of store 5326. Ms. Riofrio supervised Margie Allen, the assistant who was directly over the accounting office. Petitioner contacted Ms. Riofrio to discuss this schedule change. At the time, Mr. Achtley was out of town. However, he phoned Petitioner from an airport when he received a voice-mail message to discuss the schedule change. Mr. Achtley informed Petitioner, that he could no longer modify work schedules as in the past. He explained that he had a position available for her in the cash office from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., but that he could no longer offer her a position with an 11:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. schedule. Petitioner met with Mr. Achtley and Michele Perez, the personnel coordinator for store 5326. Mr. Achtley again explained that there was no shift from 11:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. Petitioner refused to work the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. Mr. Achtley also offered to look at other positions in the store that were available that might have a shorter schedule, but she did not accept that offer either. She did not want to work anywhere in the store except the cash office during the hours she had been working. During this meeting, Petitioner did not express that she was being discriminated against because of her age or gender. At the conclusion of the meeting, an Exit Interview form was filled out and signed by Mr. Achtley and Ms. Perez. On the form, Mr. Achtley checked "yes" that he would recommend her for re-hire. The following was written in the comment section: "Refused new job offer, refused to alter availability, available shifts not acceptable to her, good associate, very dependable, would rehire." Petitioner refused to sign the form. Respondent did not hire anyone to replace Petitioner in the accounting office following Petitioner's leaving employment with Respondent. Associates who worked the overnight shift after she left worked the computer-generated shift, not the 11:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. shift previously worked by Petitioner. Petitioner presented testimony from former co-workers about personality conflicts within the accounting office, in particular with Myla Gayle, who was the lead associate in the cash office at the time Petitioner was employed there. However, those witnesses acknowledged that the conflicts were not related to age or gender. One of the co-workers who testified on behalf of Petitioner is a 62-year-old male. He continues to work for Respondent. He believes that he was discriminated against on the basis of age when applying for a particular position which was filled by a younger person. However, that person's qualifications or wages are not in evidence. There is no competent evidence that Wal-Mart used age or gender as a criterion in its determining its associates' work schedules, including Petitioner's. Petitioner did not engage in any protected activity prior to her termination from employment at Wal-Mart.
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 Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th 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 28th day of February, 2007.
