The Issue Whether Petitioner's termination from employment by Respondent on June 15, 2005, was discriminatory in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2005), due to Petitioner's race (African American).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a Black female, was employed by Respondent from November 23, 1998, until her termination on June 14, 2005. Petitioner had performed her duties as a housekeeper adequately during her employment period and had no major disciplinary reports in her record. Her annual reviews indicate she was a fair employee. She had a history of tardiness, but seemed to be getting better in her last years of employment. Petitioner had received a verbal warning notice on March 8, 2005, relating to an altercation with another employee, Katrina Stevens. It appears Petitioner did not instigate the confrontation nor did she actively participate in the argument between Stevens and another employee. She simply happened to be standing nearby when it occurred. A verbal warning notice is preliminary to a reprimand. The other employee, Martine Lane, received a reprimand for the incident. On June 8, 2005, Petitioner received another verbal warning notice, this time for instigating negative remarks toward her supervisor. The gravamen of her complaint about the supervisor was that a certain co-worker had been named Employee of the Month instead of Petitioner. Petitioner became more defiant towards her supervisors and management toward the end of her employment. She would not help out other employees when asked, preferring to tend to her own work area, even when her work was completed. She also made derogatory comments to the co-worker who had won Employee of the Month. When Petitioner's behavior did not change, a decision was made to terminate her employment. It was a difficult decision because good housekeepers were hard to find and Petitioner's work product had always been acceptable. Petitioner had always been well-liked and respected by fellow employees. Both co-workers and management had encouraged Petitioner to apply for supervisory positions when they opened. Her supervisors indicated that, with some training, she could handle a supervisory position. The decision to terminate Petitioner from employment was made by the Executive Housekeeper, Steve Jensen. He relied upon input from other management. On June 18, 2005, Petitioner was stopped from clocking in when she came to work. She was told to report to Jensen's office, which she did. At that time Jensen asked her whether she was still happy with her job, then told her she was being terminated. The reasons given were that she was not supportive, not a team player, and had become more belligerent to management. No mention of race was made as a basis for her termination and none seems to have existed. Petitioner was advised she would be entitled to vacation pay, but it was later discovered she had already used up her available vacation time. Respondent subsequently called Petitioner to offer her a different job, but Petitioner had no interest in returning to work for the company. Respondent has anti-discrimination policies in place, is an equal opportunity employer, and employs minorities in supervisory positions. Interestingly, however, there were no other Black housekeepers employed while Petitioner was working. When a supervisory position opened, Respondent would attempt to fill the position from within its existing employee pool. Two such positions opened when Petitioner was employed. Seven then-current employees applied for those positions, including Petitioner. Of the seven, four had prior supervisory experience; Petitioner did not. Two of the applicants had been with the company longer than Petitioner. Five of the seven applicants had computer knowledge and skills; Petitioner did not. Petitioner is the only candidate who admitted a fear of heights, a minor consideration for the position. Petitioner is the only candidate who stated she could not work on weekends. Petitioner was clearly not the best applicant for the job based on comparison to other candidates. Petitioner did not provide any evidence that her race was a basis for her termination from employment. None of her witnesses provided credible statements concerning discrimination. In fact, her witnesses by and large did not see any discrimination by management.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Hawkins 1556 University Lane, Number 407 Cocoa, Florida 32922 Theodore L. Shinkle, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 1800 West Hibiscus Boulevard, Suite 138 Melbourne, Florida 32901 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
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Barbara Jerrel, became employed by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the Respondent, in May, 1987. She worked as a sales trainee in the field of life and health insurance sales and servicing. She was interviewed and hired by Doreen Blake in the "Gator Branch" office located in Gainesville, Florida. The manager of that office was Jerry Cummings, who was the Petitioner's supervisor. Mr. Cummings initially worked with the Petitioner in training her to solicit life and health insurance business and in making and closing sales of insurance policies both over the telephone and in person. When she initially became employed he accompanied her and supervised her in making sales solicitation calls on potential clients. On one occasion, soon after she was initially hired, the Petitioner maintains that she was working at her computer station in the office when Mr. Cummings sat beside her and began rubbing her arm. She states that she remonstrated with him about this conduct and told him to stop, whereupon he became angry and thenceforth instructed her to call him "Mr. Cummings." Soon after this alleged incident she was sent to a training school for approximately a month to learn the skills and requirements necessary to be a sales representative of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. She received above average scores on graded work during her school period of instruction and received favorable reports on her leadership and sales ability from her instructors. After her school training was completed, she returned to the Gainesville office to work. On approximately June 23, 1988, she testified that she and Mr. Cummings were riding in her car to an appointment with a client. He was traveling with her in order to assist with her training in meeting and discussing insurance matters with clients and in closing sales. She maintains he began talking about things other than insurance and said "I hope you don't tell your husband what we talk about . . . because it's really making me hot." She also contends that he made a statement to the effect that he "wondered how long it would take before she got him to a motel room." The Petitioner testified that she went home that day and tried to decide whether to quit her job or not. She decided to seek a transfer to the Ocala office, where Mr. Wine was the manager. She conferred with Mr. Wine by phone and he allegedly told her that she could come to his office as a new applicant. In reality, as revealed by Mr. Wine in his own testimony, he did not want her to come to work in his office and did not encourage her to do so. In the meantime, Ms. Jerrel was appointed as a Sales Representative of Metropolitan at the "Gator" branch office in Gainesville, effective June 8, 1987, following her "pre-appointment training." That pre-appointment training provides job applicants with an opportunity to get acquainted with the company's business, to obtain necessary licenses, and enables the management to determine the aptitude of the applicant for the sale of the company's product. She was provided the same training accorded all such individuals after initial hiring. Following her appointment as a Sales Representative in the Gainesville office she continued to receive training and assistance as was provided all those newly appointed. Ms. Jerrel met the initial production requirement so that she could be appointed Sales Representative. However, her performance began to deteriorate in July, 1987. She had written 11 applications for insurance (with Mr. Cummings' assistance) by the time of her appointment as a Sales Representative and wrote five by July 10, 1987. Thereafter, she wrote no business at all for two of the next four weeks. She wrote one application for insurance in the week of August 3, 1987 and none for the next three consecutive weeks. She wrote one application in the week of August 31, and had none thereafter during her employment with the company. The Petitioner alleges that on or about August 28, 1987, Mr. Cummings made a suggestion that the Petitioner and Cummings and another couple "play golf, smoke pot, and go to the beach and make love." Petitioner apparently took offense at that, as it was one of the bases for the subject action. Upon her commenting about it to another female employee however, that employee, who knew Cummings for a longer period of time than the Petitioner, advised her to disregard it because it was her belief that he was "just joking." The Petitioner also alleged that several days after this incident on or about August 31, 1987, that Cummings was engaged in a conversation with her while kneeling beside her chair where she was working at her computer terminal. She alleges that he put his arm around her shoulder while conversing with her, let his hand rest on her breast and massaged her breast whereupon she states that she stabbed him with her "ink pen." These allegations are of somewhat dubious credibility. The Petitioner herself testified that after the August 31 date, at which the last of the above incidents allegedly occurred, Mr. Cummings still praised her as an employee and predicted that she would get the "Eagle Award." It is also established, by Petitioner's own testimony, that during this period of time in August, 1987, she was undergoing treatment for depression. There is some indication that she was having marital discord with her husband and, indeed, an incident occurred shortly after, on September 10, 1987, which indicates that her relationship with her husband might have interfered somewhat with her job performance. On that date she met agent Michael Ray from the company's Jacksonville office, whom she had known in insurance school. They went to a local establishment where, according to her own testimony, they had a "couple of drinks" whereupon she got sick and went home. Her husband apparently became upset by this episode and shortly thereafter went to the company's Jacksonville office in an attempt to confront agent Ray about apparently interfering with his relationship with his wife, the Petitioner. Later that day, the Petitioner called her own office in Gainesville to warn them that her husband might be coming there armed with a gun. While this is commendable on the Petitioner's part, it does indicate that there was some marital discord which may have interfered with her job performance and together with the fact of her depression and treatment for it, may have influenced her thinking and her perception of what was actually occurring in her encounters with Mr. Cummings. He was described by another employee as a "touchy person" who frequently touched people in an innocent manner while engaged in a conversation with them. These factors, considered together, coupled with Cummings' denial that the incidents occurred, in the case of his allegedly touching the Petitioner's breast, and his testimony that if he touched someone, it was without any wrongful intent, lead the Hearing Officer to find that the incidents either did not occur, that they did not happen in the manner perceived by the Petitioner, or that the motive behind them was misconstrued by the Petitioner. On September 16, 1987, Mr. Cummings offered to try to obtain a transfer for Ms. Jerrel to another office if she would like and offered to give her two weeks in which to decide whether she wanted a transfer and to "tie up loose ends." The Petitioner later refused his offer of a transfer to another office. The offer of transfer, according to the Petitioner, was because of her husband's influence on her performance in her work place, as evidenced, in part, by the incident referenced above. On September 20, a Sunday evening, Ms. Jerrel called manager Cummings at his home. She asked him to meet her at the office. Manager Cummings declined to go to the office, suggesting that they discuss whatever her problem was over the telephone. Ms. Jerrel refused to do that so then Cummings suggested that she come to his home (where his wife would be present) to discuss the matter with him and she declined. Ms. Jerrel then hung up but called back a few minutes later and said that if Manager Cummings refused to meet her at the office then she would file a sexual harassment charge against him. He was taken aback by this statement but then advised her to do what she chose but he was still not going to meet her at the office that evening. Mr. Cummings met with Ms. Jerrel in the branch office the next morning and telephoned his Regional Manager, in Ms. Jerrel's presence, to relay to him the information regarding her claim of sexual harassment. Arrangements were then made, in accordance with established company procedures, in evidence, for Agency Vice President, James Higgins, to meet with Ms. Jerrel on September 24, regarding her claim of sexual harassment. When Mr. Higgins met with her and heard her allegations, he advised her of the company's policy against sexual harassment, and assured her that if the incidents had occurred as alleged, he would correct the situation and there would be no recurrence. He also took that opportunity to discuss with Ms. Jerrel her performance as a sales representative. He advised her that upon review of her performance, he had noted that she had been "blank"; that is, without any sales or production for several weeks. He informed her that that was not a satisfactory performance level. He told her that she would have to produce a satisfactory record of sales accomplishments or her employment would be terminated. As a result of this discussion she agreed to submit an "action plan", delineating in detail what steps she proposed to take to correct her unsatisfactory production level. That action plan included her assurance that she would participate in "telephone prospecting classes" with her supervisor. Mr. Higgins also interviewed Manager Cummings with respect to Ms. Jerrel's allegations of sexual harassment. Mr. Cummings denied them. Mr. Higgins then warned Manager Cummings that if he were found to have engaged in such conduct, his employment would be terminated. Respondent's exhibit 14 is a letter from Mr. Higgins to Manager Cummings delineating the problems with the Petitioner's lack of sales performance. The exhibit contains a detailed discussion of her action plan goals designed to try to correct her lack of production of insurance sales. The letter admonishes Manager Cummings to monitor her performance, particularly her telephone prospecting time and methods, as well as her other prospecting and sales efforts and methods. The letter emphasizes, on the second page, the monitoring and establishment of a schedule of in-office telephone prospecting time, to be monitored by Mr. Cummings. In that letter is a handwritten memorandum of a telephone conversation which Mr. Higgins later had with Mr. Cummings, on the same day the letter went out to Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cummings informed Mr. Higgins that Ms. Jerrel had already missed two scheduled telephone prospecting classes which she had agreed to attend in her "action plan", designed to correct poor sales performance. Since she did not report to the scheduled telephone prospecting class sessions on September 25th and September 28th, Mr. Higgins ordered Manager Cummings to terminate her effective October 1, 1988. The reason for her termination was established to be her low- performance record and her failure to comply with the action plan which she, herself, prepared and submitted, designed to correct her poor sales performance. The termination did not result from the altercation that the Petitioner was involved in with her husband and agent Michael Ray of the Jacksonville branch office. In fact, the Branch Manager, Mr. Cummings' superior, had a discussion of that issue with Mr. Cummings and informed him that the New York home office had indicated that the Petitioner's husband's interference with her job or office operations was not a sufficient reason to terminate her. The company's policies and procedures regarding sexual harassment claims, equal employment opportunity, affirmative action and prevention of unlawful discrimination are in evidence. The record does not reflect that those policies were departed from in the situation at bar.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the petition of Barbara Jerrel be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. 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 27th day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, Esq. Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Suite 240 Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Rodney W. Smith, Esq. P.O. Box 628 Alachua, FL 32615 Wi1liam G. Pappas, Esq. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company One Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010-3690
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Cindy Dexter is a 32 year old black female. She was employed by Respondent in March, 1987, through July 19, 1989. Petitioner was terminated by Respondent for excessive absenteeism and insubordination. Initially, Respondent was employed as a data entry operator. Later, Petitioner was moved to the position of clerk typist specialist. The new position did not involve an increase in pay. However, the new position presented more opportunities for promotion. The data entry position did not have such opportunities for promotion. Respondent offered Petitioner the new position in order to give her better opportunities for promotion. Petitioner's main duty was to process the files generated by the complaint analysts in her section. Some data entry and typing was involved in the processing of these files. Complaint files which would remain open after being reviewed by a complaint analyst entailed more work than complaint files which would be closed after review by a complaint analyst. The clerical staff was divided into work groups consisting of two typists processing open files and one typist processing closed files and the overflow from the open files. Each member of the group was expected to cover the work of an employee who was absent to the extent such coverage was possible. Petitioner initially processed complaint files which were to remain open. In the beginning of her employment, Petitioner was considered to be at least an average employee who performed her duties well. However, at some point in time, Petitioner's absences from work increased until she was absent about 40% of the time. During the last six months, Petitioner was absent approximately 12 weeks and was not at work at all for approximately the last month of her employment. The only days she was present during the last month were two days during which she was present for only about an hour on each occasion. Most, if not all of her absences were supported by a doctor's excuse. However these excuses were not specific as to the infirmity or infirmities which precluded Ms. Dexter from attending her employment. Towards the end of her employment Ms. Dexter refused to give her supervisor any details regarding the nature of her illness and told her supervisor, "it was none of her business." At the hearing Ms. Dexter testified her absences were due to fatigue associated with some unspecified infirmity which she declined to disclose. Ms. Dexter's increased absenteeism placed a great deal of pressure on the work group she was in due to the fact that her work had to be covered by the other typists as well as some of the complaint analysts. Tolerance of this increased work load differed among the specific individuals involved depending on each individual's expectations of the quality and quantity of his or her work and that individual's knowledge of the mysterious details causing Petitioner's absences. Put simply, to some of the individuals Petitioner worked with, her absenteeism and the concomitant decrease in the quality and quantity of Petitioner's work was tolerable and to others its was intolerable. Petitioner's absenteeism and its effects were particularly intolerable to Ms. Dexter's supervisors. Relations between Petitioner and her supervisors became strained. 1/ In 1988, Petitioner received a reprimand for excessive absenteeism. At some time in 1988 she was to receive a three day suspension. However, the suspension was retracted when Petitioner appealed the disciplinary action to her union. At about the time the retraction occurred, Robin Harmom became Petitioner's supervisor. Petitioner continued to be excessively absent from work. About 6 weeks prior to Petitioner's termination, Ms. Harmom switched Petitioner from working on the more work intensive open files to the less work intensive closed files. 2/ Ms. Dexter took great umbrage at the change and refused to do the work assigned to her by her supervisor. Petitioner's on-going unilateral strike constitutes insubordination. 3/ The only evidence of any disparate treatment submitted by Petitioner was in relation to Louise Bull. Ms. Bull is a white female employee of Respondent. She was employed in the same capacity as Petitioner and apparently had had some absentee problems. She had received a written reprimand for excessive absenteeism. There was no evidence submitted that Ms. Bull refused to do the work assigned to her. 4/ She remains an employee of Respondent. The evidence regarding Ms. Bull's absenteeism was anecdotal in nature and very vague. What was suggested by this very vague anecdotal evidence is that Ms. Bull's attendance improved while Petitioner's attendance did not. 5/ More concrete evidence of Ms. Bull's actual attendance record would have had to have been submitted by Petitioner before any adequate comparisons between Petitioner's and Ms. Bull's attendance records could be made for purposes of establishing disparate treatment. In any event, such vague evidence falls short of demonstrating discriminatory disparate treatment on account of race. No other substantive evidence of disparate treatment was submitted by Petitioner. Since Petitioner's absenteeism and refusal to do her work assignments constitute sufficient reasons for termination, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that she was discharged due to her race.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Petition be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1990.
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 issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner when her employment assignment with Respondent was terminated in November 2004.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 48-year-old African-American female. On or about September 10, 2004, Petitioner was placed with AT&T Wireless as a customer service specialist by a staffing agency, AppleOne. Petitioner's job duties as a customer service specialist included answering phone calls from AT&T Wireless' customers about their bills and assisting them with problems that they were having with their accounts. For the most part, Petitioner received positive feedback regarding her job performance as a customer service specialist. That feedback, which is reflected on the Advisor Evaluation Detail forms received into evidence as Exhibit P7, came from her supervisors as well as from quality assurance specialists. Petitioner testified that she generally got along well with her co-workers,2 but that she preferred getting assistance and taking instruction from men rather than women. After AT&T Wireless was taken over by Cingular, Petitioner and the other customer service specialists working for AT&T Wireless were required to attend a two-week training class regarding Cingular’s policies and procedures. The training class attended by Petitioner was also attended by her supervisor, Wendy Miller. Ms. Miller is a white female. On the first day of the class, Petitioner was having trouble logging into the computer system that was being used in the training class. Ms. Miller, who was sitting directly behind Petitioner, attempted to ask Petitioner a question about the problems that she was having and/or provide her assistance, but Petitioner simply ignored Ms. Miller. According to Petitioner, she ignored Ms. Miller because she was trying to pay attention to the teacher. As a result of this incident, Ms. Miller sent an e-mail to AppleOne dated November 30, 2004, which stated in pertinent part: It has been decided by Sandy Camp and myself to end [Petitioner’s] temporary assignment due to insubordination. She has been coached on her attitude for which she is not receptive to and several other people have mentioned that they do not want to help her due to her not wanting to listen. The last incident was today during our CSE class where she demonstrated insubordination and disrespect to me. In a later e-mail, dated March 7, 2005, Ms. Miller described the incident in the training class as follows: [Petitioner] was one of the reps not able to get into [the computer] system so I was attempting to assist her because she was sitting directly in front of me. I attempted to ask her a question and she turned her back to me & put up her hand as to say “don’t speak to me” and she completely ignored me even as I kept speaking to her. . . . . The descriptions of the incident in Ms. Miller’s e- mails are materially the same as Petitioner’s description of the incident in her testimony at the hearing. On the evening of November 30, 2004, Petitioner was called by someone at AppleOne and told that her assignment with Cingular had been terminated. Petitioner was paid by AppleOne during her entire tenure with AT&T Wireless and Cingular. Petitioner’s salary while she was working at AT&T Wireless and Cingular remained constant at $10 per hour. Petitioner’s entire tenure with AT&T Wireless and Cingular was approximately two months. Petitioner testified that she did not receive any other assignments through AppleOne after her assignment with Cingular was terminated. She attributed her inability to get other assignments through AppleOne to the fact that AppleOne "sided with" Cingular, who was its client, but there is insufficient evidence to make such a finding. In January 2005, Petitioner filed separate charges of discrimination with the Commission against AppleOne and Cingular. According to Petitioner, she was paid $400 by AppleOne to settle her claim against that company. Petitioner testified that she sold vacation plans and did other “odd jobs” between November 2004 and mid-February 2005 when she was hired by Sears as a home delivery specialist. Her job duties in that position include contacting customers to coordinate the delivery of appliances purchased from Sears. Petitioner testified that her initial salary with Sears was $9 per hour and that as of the date of the hearing her salary was $10 per hour. Petitioner testified that other customer service specialists had “problems” or “personality conflicts” with Ms. Miller, but she was unable to identify any other employee (of any race or age) who was similarly insubordinate or disrespectful towards Ms. Miller (or any other supervisor) and who received discipline less severe than termination. Petitioner’s actions toward Ms. Miller during the training class were disrespectful, at a minimum. Petitioner testified that Ms. Miller acted like a white supremacist, but there is no credible evidence in the record to support that claim. Petitioner also testified that AT&T Wireless and Cingular did not have any permanent customer service specialists that were as old as she, but there is no credible evidence in the record to support that claim. Petitioner presented no credible evidence regarding the race, age, or other characteristics of the person who filled her position at Cingular after her assignment was terminated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing with prejudice Petitioner’s discrimination claim against Cingular. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 25th day of October, 2005.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner has been subjected to discrimination within the meaning of the relevant provisions of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, based upon alleged sexual harassment in the course of her employment and retaliation for her complaints concerning the alleged sexual harassment.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee of the Respondent at times pertinent hereto. It is undisputed that that Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and that timeliness and jurisdictional requirements have been met. The Respondent obtained a contract with the United States Navy for a project to be performed at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida. It became the contractor for the project in approximately December of 1991. The contract, in pertinent part, provided that the Respondent would provide local cartage trucking services for the Navy on and in the environs of the Pensacola Naval Air Station. The project involved loading and transportation of aircraft parts and related supplies and equipment. The Petitioner was hired as a truck driver, delivering aircraft parts for the naval aviation depot (NADEP). During the course of that employment, there came a time when the Petitioner contended that she had been discriminated against because of her gender. The Petitioner contends that in a meeting in December of 1991, she was told by Terry Meyers, an employee of the Respondent and the Petitioner's supervisor, that she "didn't look like a truck driver" and that she had three weeks to look for another job. The meeting in which the statements were allegedly made was a meeting called by the Petitioner's supervisor and the project manager, Mr. Danny Francis, to address certain deficiencies in the Petitioner's performance. Another employee, Mr. Braughton, was also counseled at the meeting concerning his performance as a truck driver. His was the same type of employment position as that occupied by the Petitioner. Mr. Braughton is a white male. The Petitioner maintains that she informed a white male employee, Mike Morris, of the statements allegedly made at the meeting and that he immediately made a telephone call to Mr. Frank Moody, the president of the corporation, to put the president and the corporation on notice of sexual discrimination against the Petitioner. The Petitioner, however, was not present when Mr. Morris made that telephone call to Mr. Moody. Even had he made reference to alleged sexual discrimination in his telephone call to Mr. Moody, Mr. Morris only learned of the purported sexually-discriminatory statements from the Petitioner. The Petitioner maintained that Mr. Morris informed her that he had heard the statements made while standing at the door of the room in which the meeting occurred and that Mr. Morris initiated the telephone call on his own volition to Mr. Moody, based upon hearing those statements. Mr. Morris, however, testified to the contrary, stating that the Petitioner approached him and claimed that she was on probation and was fearful of being laid off from employment and that the Petitioner told him of the alleged sexually-discriminatory statements and that he did not hear them himself. He further testified that the Petitioner instructed him to contact Mr. Moody concerning her fears about her job and the alleged discriminatory statements or she would contact "HRO and EEO and have the contract shut down". Mr. Morris, indeed, called Mr. Moody but never mentioned the statements alleged by the Petitioner to have been made to her by Mr. Meyers during the performance evaluation meeting. In fact, it has been demonstrated by Mr. Morris' testimony, which the Hearing Officer accepts as more credible, that the Petitioner never complained to Mr. Morris about a sexually-discriminatory statement or purported sexual discrimination. Mr. Morris, instead, spoke to Mr. Moody about problems he saw occurring in the operation in Pensacola which he attributed to the project manager, Mr. Danny Francis. He told Mr. Moody that Mr. Francis was allowing employees to leave work early without Mr.. Moody's knowledge and still crediting them with working a full day on such occasions which, in effect, cost the corporation additional salary monies which were unearned. The meeting in which the Petitioner was allegedly confronted with the statement that she did not look like a truck driver and had three weeks to look for another job was called and conducted by Mr. Francis and Mr. Meyers was present. It is undisputed that Mr. Moody terminated Mr. Francis shortly after the telephone conversation with Mr. Morris. He replaced Mr. Francis with the current project manager, John Jacobs. Mr. Moody testified that in a telephone conversation with the Petitioner that she never mentioned to him the alleged sexually-discriminatory statements referenced above. Instead, he was told by both Mr. Morris and the Petitioner that she was concerned that she might lose her job because of the results of the meeting with Mr. Francis, in which he told her that she needed to improve her job performance. In fact, the management of the Respondent perceived a genuine job performance problem involving the Petitioner's conduct of her job duties. This was disclosed in the testimony of both Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Morris, where it was revealed that the Petitioner had had a continuing problem performing her job correctly and that Mr. Morris and the management personnel had worked with her constantly during the course of her employment term with the Respondent, taking more time and personal attention with her than with other employees. This was done in order to repetitively explain her job duties and give her additional chances to improve her work performance, in comparison to the lesser degree of attention and remedial help that they accorded other employees. Prior to February 3, 1993, the Petitioner had been employed with the Respondent for over a year. The testimony of Mr. Jacobs established, however, that even though her probationary period had long since elapsed, he still considered the Petitioner to be, in effect, an employee in training because she was deficient in correctly accomplishing all of the duties of her job. She was slow in performing her job duties, including preventive maintenance inspections of her vehicle and in making the "pickups and deliveries" of freight she was required to transport on her truck in the performance of her duties. The counseling session concerning her work performance occurring in December of 1991, referenced above, was during her probationary period. The white male employee, Mr. Rick Braughton, who was also counseled about deficient work performance on that occasion, was informed that he might not remain employed past his probationary period unless his performance improved. The Respondent had a regular practice and procedure, as part of its truck safety and preventive maintenance program, that employees, who were drivers, were required to give a preventive maintenance and safety inspection of their vehicles each day prior to leaving the company facility or terminal to transport aviation parts or other freight. This was regarded as crucial to proper job performance by the employer because of the concern about safety of the drivers and avoidance of damage, and liability for damage, to the expensive equipment and parts which the Respondent was required by its contract to transport, such as expensive military aircraft parts and related equipment. Among these preventive maintenance inspection duties that driver/employees, such as the Petitioner, were required to perform daily was the requirement to check the air in the truck tires and "top off" the tires with the required air pressure, if necessary. 10 Mr. Jacobs established that there came a time when the Petitioner was noted to have failed on multiple occasions, in the same week, to check and air her tires. Finally, upon this deficiency coming to his attention again on February 3, 1993, Mr. Jacobs suspended the Petitioner for a day without pay, for failing to check and air her tires. The Petitioner claims that she was the only employee singled out for this treatment concerning failure to inspect and air her tires. The testimony of Mr. Jacobs is deemed more credible, having observed the candor and demeanor of all of the witnesses, and it is determined that the employer had a good-faith belief that the Petitioner was deficient in this regard and that the reprimand, consisting of the one-day suspension, was justified. It was not demonstrated that, even if the Petitioner's version of events is true and that other driver/employees were not disciplined for failure to air their tires, that such a circumstance occurred as a result of the employer's knowledge of other driver/employees failing to air their tires and arbitrarily choosing not to discipline them. In fact, it was not demonstrated by preponderant, non-self-serving evidence that other employees had not been disciplined for failure to air their tires. In fact, it was not shown, other than by the self-serving testimony of the Petitioner, that other employees had failed to air their tires when required. The other drivers are mostly male, but one is a female. There was no showing that she was treated any differently than the male drivers. In summary, it has been established that the employer accorded the reprimand to the Petitioner because of a good-faith belief that her performance had been deficient, on repeated occasions, in this respect. It is undisputed that prior to the date the Petitioner received the reprimand, consisting of one-day suspension without pay, that the Petitioner had a generally good attitude about her job insofar as management was able to observe. Even though management had had some concerns about her performance and the slow manner in which she was learning certain aspects of her job, with resulting deficient effects upon her performance, management forbore from using these concerns to reduce her performance rating. She received good evaluations of her performance, insofar as her personnel record is concerned, prior to the time she was suspended for one day on February 3, 1993. After the Petitioner received the suspension she developed a "bad attitude" insofar as her perception of management was concerned. She began to complain frequently about vehicle safety or purported concerns she had about the condition of her vehicle related to safety, particularly the truck brakes. Prior to her suspension, she had never complained in this regard. Management also perceived that she appeared to show down her work performance and management came to believe that it was an intentional delay of her work performance on an ongoing basis. Prior to receiving the reprimand, she was never known to complain to management concerning discrimination on account of her gender. She had never informed the project manager or any other supervisory personnel concerning her purported belief that employee Meyers was "following her". Only after she received the reprimand on February 3, 1993 did she elect to file a sexual discrimination charge with the Commission. Mr. Meyers had some supervisory authority over the Petitioner. His job duties also required that he drive his truck around the Naval Air Station and the immediate vicinity in the normal performance of his duties. This circumstance resulted in his being in close proximity to the Petitioner during the course of their respective work days. He contends that he was not purposely following her for the purpose of harassing her. The overall evidence of record reveals, however, that he, indeed, did follow or stop in her vicinity on a number of occasions to observe her work performance. This was not shown to be out of the ordinary scope of his supervisory duties, especially because of management's concern that the Petitioner was not progressing in the learning and performance of her job duties as well as other employees, including the other female driver. The project manager, Mr. Jacobs, felt that the Petitioner's attitude continued to decline after the February 3, 1993 reprimand. He felt that her attitude and performance reached its lowest level on the date she was observed to be loading "unauthorized equipment" (apparently a portion of a helicopter assembly weighing approximately 4,000 pounds) on the flatbed trailer of her assigned work truck. She was not authorized to load that equipment and apparently, according to her testimony, she did so in order to provide a substantial amount of weight on her trailer for the purpose of having her brakes inspected by the quality assurance official for the project. She went to an unauthorized area for approximately one hour to have this inspection performed without the approval of the Respondent's management. Further, it was not necessary, in order to evaluate the brakes on the vehicle for proper function and safety, to have the weight of the unauthorized load placed on the trailer. If, indeed, the brakes had been defective, it would have been entirely possible that the expensive aircraft parts she had placed on the trailer without authorization could have been substantially damaged, the truck or other property could have been damaged, and, indeed, the Petitioner or other persons could have been injured. Additionally, the Petitioner misrepresented the reason she was in the unauthorized area where she had her brakes inspected by Mr. Lett, the quality assurance officer. In this connection, because she had begun to complain repeatedly about the condition of her brakes and her vehicle (after her reprimand), the project manager, Mr. Jacobs, had had certain other employees come in on several occasions at approximately 6:00 a.m., before normal working hours, and before the Petitioner arrived on the job site, to inspect the Petitioner's truck for safety and appropriate preventive maintenance purposes. These employees were not informed that it was the Petitioner's truck they were inspecting at the time they were told to do the inspections. The Respondent was attempting to ascertain the true condition of the Petitioner's truck and determine whether her reports concerning safety problems, particularly with her brakes, were accurate or not. In fact, on the morning of the day when the unauthorized load was placed on the truck and the Petitioner had Mr. Lett perform the inspection of her brakes at the unauthorized area, one of the Petitioner's co-employees had inspected her brakes before she arrived to take custody of her truck that morning. He had determined that the brakes were operating properly. The Petitioner and Mr. Lett apparently felt that the brakes were deficient when they were inspected early in the afternoon of that day. The record does not reveal whether the brakes were deficient when Mr. Lett inspected them or that some change in the adjustment of the brakes or other problem had arisen since the employee inspected them early that morning and found them to be in proper operating order. Be that as it may, management was of the belief on that day and prior thereto that the Petitioner, although reporting brake deficiency problems, did not truly experience such brake deficiency problems with her truck. This belief was based upon management perceptions concerning the Petitioner's attitude after her reprimand and upon the independent, confidential inspections management had other employees do on the Petitioner's truck. Accordingly, whether its belief was accurate or not, management was of the good-faith belief, on the date she was observed loading unauthorized, expensive equipment onto the flatbed truck, in an unnecessary fashion, for the purpose of having her brakes inspected, while being absent from her work assignment for one hour in an unauthorized area, that it had performance-related reasons to terminate her, which it did. This decision was made against the background of the increasingly poor attitude displayed by the Petitioner since her reprimand and because of the continuing problems management had experienced with the Petitioner's job performance since her initial employment one and one- half years previously. Although the Petitioner testified that as early as December of 1991, the management of the Respondent had spoken with her regarding her work performance and she interpreted that meeting as an attack on her gender and not upon her poor work habits, this contention was not verified by any other testimony. Having observed the candor and demeanor of the Petitioner versus that of the other witnesses, it is determined that her testimony is less creditable because of its self-serving nature. Although the Petitioner testified that a comment was made that "she did not look like a truck driver" and that she had three weeks to find another job, this was not verified through testimony of any other witness. To the extent that any other witnesses testified concerning these statements being made in a belief that discrimination had been exhibited toward the Petitioner, the evidence reveals that this information only came to these people through self-serving reports by the Petitioner herself. Meyers directly contradicts that these statements were made to the Petitioner and he states that he never heard anyone tell her that she had three weeks to look for a job or that she "didn't look like a truck driver". The petitioner provided no testimony or evidence which could show how these alleged statements constituted "sexual discrimination" or how the statements related to her sexual discrimination claim. It was not shown that any member of management, with employment-decision authority, made or condoned such statements even if it had been established that they evidenced gender-based discrimination, which was not done. The Petitioner did not complain of sexual discrimination per se until after she had received a reprimand from management. Likewise, she began to repetitively claim that her equipment was unsafe after the reprimand. The Petitioner may have been overly sensitive to management's concern for safety inspections of her truck because of being reprimanded for safety violations and was afraid she would "get into trouble" with management if she did not constantly report feared safety problems. The fact was established, however, that management had a genuine, good-faith belief that it was being harassed by these repetitive, unsafe equipment reports by the Petitioner, given the then- prevailing atmosphere surrounding the Petitioner's employment, characterized by her less than satisfactory attitude, as perceived by management, and the fact that management's confidential inspections of her equipment did not reveal any safety problems of the type reported by the Petitioner. Finally, it is especially noteworthy that during this period of time when the Petitioner made the claim of sexual discrimination and retaliation based upon her claim, that the Respondent had in its employ, in an identical job position, a female truck driver who had had no unsatisfactory experience by management with her performance, was not subjected to investigative or disciplinary measures, and who is still satisfactorily employed with the Respondent.
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 a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the petition herein in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. 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 7th day of March, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1459 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact which are not in separately-numbered, discrete paragraphs. The paragraphs contain some proposed findings of fact which the Hearing Officer accepts and some which are rejected as being not supported by preponderant evidence and subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the same subject matter. The proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are intertwined with argument and discussions of the weight of the evidence or testimony. Because the paragraphs in the proposed findings of fact contain both findings of fact which the Hearing Officer accepts and which the Hearing Officer rejects, discrete, specific rulings thereon are not practicable. It suffices to say that all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner are subordinate to, but have been considered and addressed in the findings of fact portion of this Recommended Order and have been in that fashion completely ruled upon. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact The same considerations are true of the Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Some portions of the findings of fact proposed by the Respondent consist of merely discussions and argument concerning the weight of the evidence and some are acceptable to the Hearing Officer based upon the Hearing Officer's determination of the weight and credibility of the testimony and evidence. Some are rejected as being unnecessary or subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact made on the same subject matter. Here, again, this Recommended Order completely and adequately addresses the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent, and the Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted to the extent they are not inconsistent with those made by the Hearing Officer and to the extent they are inconsistent therewith, they are rejected as being not supported by preponderant evidence or as being immaterial, unnecessary, or subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry W. McCleary, Esquire 3 West Garden Street Suite 380 Pensacola, FL 32501 Donna Gardner, Esquire 213 South Alcaniz Street Pensacola, FL 32501 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Andrea Bateman, is a female. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Bateman was 41 or 42 years of age. Ms. Bateman is an attorney. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was a member of The Florida Bar during the period of time at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. Ms. Bateman's Employment by the Department. In October of 1990, the Department employed Ms. Bateman as an attorney in the Department's Office of Child Support Enforcement. Ms. Bateman was required to be a member of The Florida Bar. Ms. Bateman's position with the Department was classified as a "Select Exempt Service" position. Pursuant to Chapter 22SE-1.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, and Part V, Chapter 110, Florida Statutes, persons employed in select exempt service positions may be terminated from employment without cause. Ms. Bateman's immediate supervisor was Chriss Walker. Mr. Walker is a Senior Attorney with the Department and, at the time Ms. Bateman was hired, also served as the Assistant Secretary for Child Support Enforcement. As of December 4, 1991, the Assistant Secretary for Child Support Enforcement, and Mr. Walker's immediate supervisor was Anne F. Donovan. At all times relevant to this proceeding, William H. Bentley was an Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Department with supervisory authority over the Department's Assistant Secretary's, including Mr. Walker and Ms. Donovan. "Productivity Enhancement" at the Department. During 1991, the Department was required to evaluate all employment positions at the Department and to reduce those positions in an effort to improve the productivity of the Department. Generally, all positions at the Department and the work performed by the persons filling those positions were considered and decisions were made as to which positions could be eliminated. The Department referred to the elimination of positions as "red-lining". The Department also made efforts to insure that any person affected by the elimination of their position would be placed in another position. Ms. Bateman's attorney position with Child Support Enforcement was identified for elimination. Another attorney position in Child Support Enforcement and Mr. Walker's Senior Attorney position were not identified for elimination. The decision to eliminate one of the attorney positions was based upon conclusion that the administrative duties of the two attorney positions could be handled by a paralegal position and the legal duties could then be handled by one attorney. Efforts to assist Ms. Bateman to find another position were not successful. Ultimately, the Department decided to find a position in which to continue to employ Ms. Bateman rather than to terminate her position and release her. The Department reclassified another vacant position so that Ms. Bateman could continue to be employed as an attorney for Child Support Enforcement. Mr. Walker was directed to create an attorney position for Ms. Bateman by the Assistant Secretary for Human Services. This decision was made during the early Fall of 1991. The Department's decision to continue to employ Ms. Bateman was based in part on the Department's concern about terminating an employee of the Department. The evidence failed to prove that the Department acted unreasonably with regard to the red-lining of Ms. Bateman's position. Ms. Bateman's Performance. During the year after Ms. Bateman began her employment with the Department, Mr. Walker, Ms. Bateman's supervisor, began to develop concerns about the adequacy of her work product. Ms. Bateman also began to evidence behavior which was not acceptable for an attorney of the Department. As a result of Ms. Bateman's odd behavior, Mr. Walker became concerned about Ms. Bateman's mental well-being. Mr. Walker memorialized his concerns about Ms. Bateman in a memorandum to Mr. Bentley dated December 2, 1991. The memorandum was revised December 19, 1991 to eliminate references to a counselor that Ms. Bateman had informed Mr. Walker she was seeing. Ms. Bateman's work deteriorated to an extent which necessitated other employees carrying out some of her duties. Among the difficulties experienced with Ms. Bateman which formed a reasonable basis for terminating her employment were the following: Ms. Bateman had difficulty communicating with other employees and her supervisor. As an attorney, Ms. Bateman was required to communicate orally and in writing. She was unable to do so in an adequate manner. Ms. Bateman failed to demonstrate good judgment and trustworthiness and, therefore, her supervisors were unable to rely upon her judgment as an attorney of the Department. Ms. Bateman's appearance was unacceptable for an employee of the Department who was required to meet and communicate with the public. Ms. Bateman's hair was unkempt and dirty, her clothes were often soiled and wrinkled, she failed to brush her teeth and she appeared not to be bathing based upon her appearance and her strong body odor. Although required to do so by Department policy, Ms. Bateman refused to give her supervisor a permanent home address or phone number. On one occasion Ms. Bateman was found asleep in the offices of the Department at night and on one occasion she was found asleep during working hours. Based upon the inadequacy of Ms. Bateman's performance, the Department had a reasonable basis for terminating Ms. Bateman's employment. Mr. Walker's Evaluation of Ms. Bateman. On December 18, 1991, Mr. Walker presented Ms. Bateman with a Professional Employee Performance Appraisal form he had completed on her performance. The Appraisal was reviewed by Ms. Bateman and signed by her on December 18, 1991. Mr. Walker gave Ms. Bateman's performance a rating of "effective" on the Appraisal. Of the factors evaluated on the Appraisal, Mr. Walker judged Ms. Bateman's performance as "excellent" on one factor, "effective" on eleven factors and "needs improvement" on nine factors. Mr. Walker gave Ms. Bateman's performance an "effective" rating despite his conclusion that her work product was not acceptable and despite his concerns about her inappropriate behavior. He did so because he had recently been directed to create a position to keep Ms. Bateman as an employee of the Department and in an effort to avoid litigation over Ms. Bateman's termination. Mr. Walker did not believe that his supervisors wanted to avoid any difficulties concerning Ms. Bateman employment. Mr. Walker failed to follow Department procedure in presenting the Appraisal to Ms. Bateman. The Appraisal was required to be reviewed and approved by Mr. Walker's immediate supervisor, Ms. Donovan, before it was given to Ms. Bateman. Mr. Walker, contrary to Department policy, presented the Appraisal to Ms. Bateman before Ms. Donovan had seen and approved it. Ms. Donovan was aware of the problems with Ms. Bateman's performance and would not have approved an "effective" rating. Upon receiving the Appraisal, Ms. Donovan discussed the Appraisal with Mr. Walker and rejected it, as it was her right to do. Ms. Donovan, consistent with Department policy, specified that Ms. Bateman would be evaluated again in sixty days. The Department's Request that Ms. Bateman Undergo a Psychological Evaluation. Although the Department had a reasonable basis for terminating Ms. Bateman's employment by the end of 1991 and in early 1992, the Department decided to attempt to discover the cause of Ms. Bateman's decline in performance and the onset of her odd behavior rather than terminate her employment. The Department made this decision in an effort to determine what assistance Ms. Bateman might need. Ultimately, the Department was attempting to determine what work, if any, Ms. Bateman was capable of performing. The Department's decision was based upon a number of incidents involving Ms. Bateman. Those incidents are included in Mr. Walker's Chronology of December 2, 1991 and his Revised Chronology of December 19, 1991 and are hereby incorporated herein. Although not all the incidents described in the chronologies were proved during the final hearing to have occurred, the Department's consideration of the incidents reported by Mr. Walker was reasonable. Due to the Department's concerns about Ms. Bateman, the Department requested that Ms. Bateman voluntarily participate in the Department's employee assistance program. Ms. Bateman refused. In order to determine what could be done to help Ms. Bateman, and to determine what duties and responsibilities she was capable of performing, the Department requested that Ms. Bateman undergo a psychological, or other, evaluation. Ms. Bateman refused. After discussing the matter with Ms. Bateman and legal counsel she had retained, the Department notified Ms. Bateman that her continued employment was conditioned upon her undergoing a psychological evaluation or some other evaluation which would allow the Department to determine what work she was capable of performing. In a letter of February 12, 1992, Ms. Bateman, through her representative, was informed of the following: As you also know, we are attempting to help Andrea address a problem which we believe exists and has been well documented over the past 16 months. In return, we need Andrea's help and cooperation. If Andrea chooses to agree to our request that she undergo a psychiatric evaluation and authorize the release to us of the psychiatrist's prognosis, diagnosis and recommendation for treatment, we will be glad to schedule an appointment for her with a psychiatrist, and will pay for such an evaluation. We will use the evaluation to determine an appropriate course of action. Ms. Bateman's Termination from Employment. Ms. Bateman continued to refuse to undergo any evaluation or to suggest any alternative course of action. Consequently, based upon Ms. Bateman's inadequate and unacceptable work performance, the Department terminated Ms. Bateman's employment with the Department on or about February 13, 1992. Ms. Bateman's termination from employment was effective February 28, 1992. Ms. Bateman was terminated from employment due to the fact that she was not adequately performing her job and she refused to cooperate with the Department to find out what could be done to help her become an effective employee. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department's reason for terminating her employment was a pretext. Ms. Bateman's Charge of Discrimination. On or about September 15, 1992, Ms. Bateman filed a Charge of Discrimination against the Department with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Ms. Bateman alleged that she had been discriminated against on the basis of sex and a perceived handicap. On February 10, 1993, the Commission issued a "Determination: No Cause" finding "no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred " Ms. Bateman filed a Request for Redetermination on March 4, 1992. On April 12, 1993, the Commission issued a "Redetermination: No Cause" affirming its decision. On May 12, 1993, Ms. Bateman filed a Petition for Relief seeking a formal administrative hearing. In the petition Ms. Bateman alleged that the Department had discriminated against her on the basis of sex, a perceived handicap and, for the first time, age. The Commission requested that the Division of Administrative Hearings assign a Hearing Officer to conduct the hearing requested by Ms. Bateman. Alleged Sex Discrimination. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that any action of the Department was based upon Ms. Bateman's sex: she was not held to any standard or requirement based upon her sex, she was not terminated because of her sex and the Department's efforts to determine the cause of Ms. Bateman's problems was not based upon her sex. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that any Department policy or standard had a disparate impact on female employees. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was replaced by a male attorney. Ms. Bateman's grooming habits were discussed with her. Some of those discussions concerned the wearing of panty hose and her makeup. It must be inferred that such discussions were not carried on with male employees. The evidence, however, failed to prove that Ms. Bateman's termination was based upon these matters. Although grooming played a part in the decision to terminate Ms. Bateman's employment, it was grooming related to basic cleanliness and neat appearance required of all employees and not just female employees. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of her sex, female. Alleged Age Discrimination. At the time that Ms. Bateman was hired she was 41 years of age, and at the time she was terminated she was 42 years of age. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that age played any part in her treatment by the Department. This finding is supported, in part, by the fact that the difference between Ms. Bateman's age when she was hired and when she was terminated was only one year. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was replaced by a younger person. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the persons who made the decision to terminate her employment were aware of her age. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of her age. Alleged Perceived Handicap. The Department did believe that Ms. Bateman was suffering from some mental problem. This belief was based upon Ms. Bateman's odd behavior and a concern that Ms. Bateman was "homeless". It was for this reason that the Department requested that Ms. Bateman undergo a psychological evaluation. Ms. Bateman failed to prove, however, that the Department treated her differently from the manner other employees of the Department were treated under similar circumstances. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that the Department's request that she undergo a psychological or other evaluation to determine how to assist her to meet the requirements of her employment was made for a discriminatory reason. Under the circumstances, the Department's request of Ms. Bateman was reasonable. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that she was terminated from employment because of any perceived handicap. The evidence proved that she was in fact terminated from employment due to her inability to satisfactorily carry out her job responsibilities. Ms. Bateman also failed to allege or prove that she has a handicap based upon her mental condition. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of a handicap or a perceived handicap.
Findings Of Fact Born in Rio de Janeiro, petitioner Paul Sergio Inacio emigrated to the United States from Brazil in 1961, when he was still a teenager. He first worked for respondent for a brief time in 1976. On June 6, 1980, he returned to respondent's employ as a journeyman welder mechanic at Crist Electric Generating Plant, a position he still held at the time of hearing. A "mile square with seven generating units" (T.187), the plant is in Florida, as are respondent's headquarters. Several hundred people work for respondent at Crist Electric Generating Plant alone. In "late June, 1980" (T.235) somebody began calling Mr. Inacio "Julio," nicknaming him after a Hispanic character in a television series (Sanford & Son). The actor portraying Julio "used to drag a goat through the living room . . . and acted . . . stupid." T.236; T.64. Despite (or perhaps because of) petitioner's telling people he did not like being called "Julio," the sobriquet caught on. Even during his initial eight-month probationary period, he made his objections known. T.115, 180. He felt freer to press the point, once the probationary period ended, although at least one friend advised him to do so might be counterproductive T.235-6. Mr. Inacio never referred to himself as Julio. T.28, 99-100, 115, 146-7, 180, 194, 198. Once "he almost got in a fight with [a co-worker] because the guy called him my little Puerto Rican buddy Julio." T.28. Before he retired from his employment as a supervisor with respondent, on July 30, 1987, Murdock P. Walley repeatedly addressed, or referred to petitioner in his presence, as "Julio," "wop," "spic," and "greaser." Mr. Walley's last day at work was "in April or along about then." T.472. Behind petitioner's back, Mr. Carnley heard Mr. Walley refer to petitioner as "wetback," "wop" or "the greaser." T. 27. Co-workers have called him "spic," "wetback," and "greaser" to his face, (T.30) as well as behind his back. Mr. Peakman, another maintenance supervisor, testified that he was guilty of a single lapse: I didn't see him and I asked, "Where's Julio?" And then I caught myself, I said, "Excuse me, where's Mr. Inacio?" I corrected myself right then. T.455. In or about January of 1989, (T.271), Jimmy Lavon Sherouse, maintenance superintendent since May of 1987, referred to petitioner as "Julio" at least once, in the break room. Willard A. Douglas, a supervisor of maintenance at the plant since December of 1981, referred to petitioner as "Julio" frequently. Described as abrasive, Mr. Douglas, also known as "Bubba," has "single[d] Paul out." T.46. But it appeared at hearing at least as likely that Mr. Douglas singled petitioner out because of a run-in which had nothing to do with Mr. Inacio's background, as that he discriminated against him on account of national origin. Prior to June of 1989, continuously since 1981 (T.29), Howard Keels, Calvin Harris, Mike Taylor, Ronnie Yates, and Bill Sabata, Control Center supervisors, C. B. Hartley, supervisor over the coal docks, John Spence and David Hansford, both maintenance supervisors at the time, Mike Snuggs, Joe Patterson, Ed Lepley, Tommy Stanley and Dennis Cowan, supervisors of the laboratory department, Dennis Berg and Joe Kight, schedulers, Tom Talty, the assistant plant manager, Joe Lalas and Larry Swindell, both operations supervisors, all called petitioner "Julio" "[t]o his face in [the] presence" (T.27) of Ricky Carnley, a fellow welder mechanic who testified at hearing. T.21-26. Others also heard supervisors call petitioner "Julio." T.79-80, 110, 144-6, 178-9, 195-6, 237-9, 537-8. Not without reason, petitioner came to feel that "(a)nything associated with Hispanic heritage that could come up, I was called at some point or other by practically anybody." T.267. Angelo Grellia, a fellow mechanic who testified "I'm a wop, you know" (T.79) (emphasis added) remembered co-workers calling petitioner a "wop." A newspaper cartoon posted on a bulletin board in the employee break room (not the bulletin board reserved exclusively for management's use) depicted a man using a two-by-four. Petitioner "is known for using two-by-fours a lot to move stuff, pry stuff for leverage." T.34. The cartoon was labelled "Julio." Another time somebody posted a newspaper clipping, a report of a parricide, complete with picture; the killer's name had been lined through and Mr. Inacio's had been substituted. T.112, 158, 179. After two days, a fellow employee took it down (T.158), apparently without Mr. Inacio's ever seeing it. Still another time somebody posted "a National Geographic picture" (T.181) that resembled petitioner "and the caption said, can you guess who this is." T.181. Somebody had guessed and written in "Julio." T.243. According to uncontroverted testimony, white Anglo-Saxon men "were not selected to be the butt of these sorts of jokes." T.159. Over the plant's public address system, in Mr. Talty's presence, Charles Brown referred to petitioner as "Paul Inasshole," a play on his surname. T.25. No other employee was ridiculed in such a fashion, as far as the evidence showed, (T.49) but broadcasts in a similarly offensive vein ("An asshole" "A nasty hole") took place repeatedly over respondent's public address system. T. 24-25, 48-49, 71, 144-146, 163, 240. At all pertinent times, respondent had widely disseminated written equal opportunity and affirmative action policies with the stated "intent . . . to provide all employees with a wholesome work environment." Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. "Company policy prohibits intimidation or harassment of its employees by any employee or supervisor." Id. But, as Barbara Louise Mallory, an "Equal Employment Opportunity representative" (T.477) in respondent's employ, conceded, the "conduct that went on was against [Gulf Power's] policies and against the law." T.484. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 stated that employees "subjected to conduct which violates this policy should report such incidences to their immediate supervisor, a higher level of supervision, or the Company's Equal Employment Opportunity Representative in the Corporate Office." Id. In the present case, both respondent's immediate supervisors and "a higher level of supervision," were well aware of the harassment to which petitioner was subjected, before he officially reported it. Supervisors were themselves guilty of harassment. On February 8, 1988, Mr. Sherouse, the maintenance superintendent, addressed "a routine shift meeting with employees [and] discussed with them the need to refrain from destruction of employees' or company property." Respondent's Exhibit No. 8. Mr. Sherouse "essentially said . . . some employees . . . were being singled out . . . . " T.295. He told employees at the meeting that "such an incident . . . could result in an action up to termination." Id. At the same meeting he "also discussed cartoons and calendars that could be considered . . . racial or sexual harassment . . . [directing that] they must be removed now." Respondent's Exhibit No. 8. These matters were also discussed at an employee information meeting in January of 1989. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. But harassment of petitioner continued. "[Q]uite frequently . . . thick heavy grease would get smeared on his toolbox, underneath the drawers of his toolbox." T.34. The lock on his locker was glued or "zip-gripped" shut several times, and had to be cut to open the locker. Respondent's Exhibit No. He is the only employee (T.39) who had to change clothes because some sort of itching powder was put in his clothes. Somebody put "Persian Blue," a particularly persistent dye, in his glove. At respondent's counsel's behest a list was prepared of "employees who have experienced problems with someone tampering with their tools or person[a]l lockers," Respondent's Exhibit No. 10, during the two years next preceding the list's preparation on August 4, 1989. Of the nine employees listed, seven were white Caucasians whose tools or books had been lost or stolen. 1/ Unlike the native-born men on the list, petitioner and Debbie Mitchell, the only other person listed, were subjected to repeated instances of vandalism and other harassment, including unflattering references in cartoons posted on the bulletin board in the break room. Although petitioner did not request it, management assigned him a new locker, something they did for no other employee. According to a co-worker, petitioner, who once taught welding at Pensacola Junior College, "likes to do a good, clean, responsible job" (T.185) of welding. But, on October 22 and 23, 1988, when petitioner and Millard Hilburn worked on "the #7 bottom ash discharge piping," Respondent's Exhibit No. 21, at Willard Douglas' behest, they failed to stop seepage from the pressurized pipe (which was in use while they worked) by welding, and resorted to epoxy which, in Mr. Douglas' "opinion[,] . . . [was] bad judgement and very poor workmanship." Id. Of 30 or 40 welders respondent employed at Crist, only one or two "still have a clean record. Eventually somebody is going to get a leak." T.202. Petitioner's work record is basically a very good one, although not perfect. Nevertheless Mr. Sherouse, after putting petitioner's name on a list of three "employees who for different reasons are not performing their jobs," Respondent's Exhibit No. 7, summoned petitioner to a conference about his job performance, on January 20, 1989. The other two employees were Scott Allen, whose problem was "attitude . . . distrust, dislike . . . just unbelievable" (T.443; 420) and Ed Lathan who "hadn't been there since June of '87" (T.420) except sporadically "working light duty." T.420. Mr. Sherouse also prepared various memoranda concerning petitioner; and caused other managers to prepare still other memoranda. Only after the January conference was petitioner involved in the repair of a boiler tube that failed. (He welded one end of a replacement piece that may have been improperly sized and had already been welded in place by others.) In contrast to petitioner's involvement in two incidents (only one of which occurred before the filing of the complaint), at least one other welder mechanic working for respondent had made five welds that failed in short order. On April 11, 1989, petitioner was assigned the job of cleaning plugged nozzles on intake screens for units four and five (although ordinarily operators themselves did such routine maintenance.) He first went to the control room for units four and five and asked directions to the intake screens, which are part of the cooling system. Misunderstanding directions, he went to the wrong cooling system intakes, those for units six and seven, instead of those for four and five, and started work without finding a red tag (used to indicate that somebody from operations had "isolated" the equipment) and without placing his own tag on an electrical switch that equipment operators use. He did, however, place tags on valves that had to be opened in order for the system to operate. When Mr. Sherouse heard what had happened he sent Mr. Inacio home from work. Although Mr. Sherouse did not at that time "announce termination or non- termination, pay or no pay" (T.436), petitioner was eventually paid for the time off, which lasted two days during the purported pendency of an investigation, which consisted of "going back and looking at his files." T.437. Without credible contradiction, several people testified that mistaking one piece of equipment for another occurred not infrequently (T.85) at the Crist plant. The evidence showed that much more serious safety lapses had, in general, elicited much milder responses from management. Petitioner was criticized more harshly than non-minority employees for the same or comparable performance. T.31-33, 73-74, 112-120, 130-131, 148-9, 150-4, 186-7, 197, 257- 263. Petitioner's safety record was "better than most." T.424. An Indian who works at the Crist steam plant, Ron Taylor is known as "Indian" or "Chief." T.52. Supervisors referred to Nicholas Peterson as "a damned Greek" (T.111) when he worked at respondent's Crist plant. "From January 1982 until March 1990," just about every supervisor at Crist "refer[red] to some . . . blacks as being niggers." T.135. Objection was sustained to admission of colored Beetle Bailey comic strips crudely altered to depict cartoon characters engaged in oral sex. But Ms. Mitchell testified without objection to other "extremely vulgar cartoons" (T.157) she saw posted on the bulletin boards including one with her name on it. T.159. (When she complained to Mr. Sherouse, he eventually reported back to her that the reference was to a different Debbie.) At Crist Electric "they use the good ole boy theory . . . [i]f you fit into their select group, you're taken in, you're trained . . . you get better selection of jobs. If you're not, you're an outcast." T.136. Petitioner "definitely" got more than his share of "dirty jobs," specifically precipitator work and condenser work. T.183; 85-86, 147-8. Petitioner's "pride was hurt." T.265. He felt humiliated. Unfair criticism affected his morale. T.36. At least one co-worker "could sense . . . that he felt like he was not wanted there." T.37. He considered leaving his employment and even told at least one Gulf Power official that he was doing so. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Discriminatory treatment affected his ability to concentrate, and so his job performance. T.36, 37.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the FCHR order respondent to refrain from harassing or otherwise discriminating against petitioner on account of his national origin. That the FCHR award petitioner reasonable attorney's fees and costs. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent terminated Petitioner from her employment based on perceived handicap discrimination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was hired by Respondent on March 5, 1991, to work as a server at Respondent's restaurant, Bon Appetit. Shortly thereafter, on or about April 8, 1991, Petitioner was promoted to restaurant manager. During her tenure as restaurant manager, Petitioner was counselled about her appearance and personal hygiene. Additionally, Petitioner had problems with Respondent's performance including balancing the cash and credit card receipts collected during her shifts. Respondent required its managers to notify Respondent in advance of any absence due to a medical condition where possible. In all cases; however, managers were required to communicate with Respondent concerning their absence so that Respondent could schedule and plan for a manager's absence to avoid any disruption in its business and the scheduling of other employees. During her employment as restaurant manager, Petitioner was diagnosed as having "hammer toes". Petitioner was out of work for three weeks to have this condition surgically corrected. This absence was approved in advance by Respondent and Petitioner received full compensation for that medical leave. Following the scheduled three week absence for the surgery, there was an additional two to three week period during which Petitioner reported for work late or would leave early. Respondent considered those late arrivals and early departures to be unexcused absences. Following foot surgery, Petitioner returned to her position as manager with the same pay. Subsequently, during May 1992, Petitioner was out of work for surgery to have an ovarian cyst removed. This absence was approved by Respondent and Petitioner was out of work for five days. During this period of medical leave, Petitioner received her pay and returned to work following surgery. Following the cyst surgery, Petitioner complained of lower back pain which her gynecologist attributed to swelling from the cyst surgery. On May 30, 1992, Petitioner went to the emergency room at Morton Plant Hospital in Tampa suffering from lower back pain. Petitioner contacted restaurant manager, Leo Enciso, and told him of her visit to the hospital and "not to count on her reporting for work that day". Petitioner also informed Enciso that she would call as soon as she had been examined to give an update on her status. Subsequent to her initial phone call to Enciso on May 30, 1992, Petitioner did not speak with Enciso nor did he receive any messages from Petitioner concerning her status from May 30, 1992 to June 8, 1992. Following her treatment in the emergency room at Morton Plant, Petitioner sought treatment on that same date, May 30, 1992 from chiropractor Dr. Lynn Colucci. At that time, Petitioner knew she would be out of work until at least one more day. Petitioner did not communicate that information to Respondent or any of its management personnel. Petitioner's next consultation with her chiropractor to evaluate her condition was June 1, 1992. Following that session, Petitioner was advised that she would be out of work for at least two more days. Petitioner did not communicate this information to Respondent or any of its management staff. Petitioner again met with her chiropractor on June 3, 1992 and was told that she would be unable to return to work until June 8, 1992. Petitioner failed to communicate this information to any of Respondent's management or staff. Kailie Borzoni, Peter Kreuziger and Sharon Verhage, all managerial employees of Respondent, made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Petitioner by phone. Verhage left a message on Petitioner's answering machine but Petitioner did not return her phone call. Petitioner was released to return to work by her treating chiropractor on June 9, 1992. There were no restrictions placed on her when she was released for work and her physician related that Petitioner's back problem had "resolved itself". Petitioner was discharged by Respondent on June 9, 1992, when she reported for work. Peter Krueziger made an independent decision to discharge Petitioner based on what he considered to be poor performance, poor appearance, excessive absences and failing to truthfully advise of her work status and whereabouts from May 30, 1992 to June 8, 1992. When Petitioner was initially employed as a restaurant manager, Respondent's manager, Krueziger, noticed that Petitioner's dress apparel did not meet up to the standards of a "four star" restaurant that Respondent was operating. As a result, Respondent spoke with Petitioner about his expectations with regard to her dress and advised the controller to advance Petitioner some funds to purchase a wardrobe. Respondent sent one of its managerial employees to accompany Petitioner on a shopping trip to upgrade her wardrobe to reflect what Respondent considered to be appropriate dress for a restaurant manager. Respondent's managerial staff noted and complained to Petitioner on several occasions after she was given a new wardrobe, that her attire did not measure up to the standards that they expected of a manager. Negative comments were made about Respondent's stained clothing, her fingernails and her unkempt hair. Petitioner conceded that she had an exceptionally hard time balancing her cash and credit card accounts at the end of each shift. While some managers experience difficulty at the outset of their employment because an antiquated accounting system was being used, they soon became proficient in closing out the cash and credit card accounts following their shift. Respondent discharged Petitioner based on her failure to properly notify it of her absence from work during the period May 30, 1992 through June 8, 1992. Petitioner's medical condition, real or perceived, played no part in Respondent's decision to terminate her.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's petition for relief as she failed to establish that she was terminated from employment because of a perceived handicap. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 6th day of December, 1994. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph 3 adopted as modified, paragraph 2 recommended order. Paragraph 4 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraph 5 recommended order. Paragraph 5, adopted as modified, paragraph 4 recommended order. Paragraph 7, adopted as modified, paragraphs 9 and 10 recommended order. Paragraph 8 rejected, irrelevant. Paragraphs 9 and 10 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence, paragraph 15 recommended order. Paragraphs 11-16 rejected, contrary to the greater weight of evidence. Paragraph 17 rejected, irrelevant and unnecessary. Paragraphs 18 and 19 rejected, conclusionary. COPIES FURNISHED: C. A. Sullivan, Esquire 311 S. Missouri Avenue Clearwater, FL 34616 Charles A. Powell, IV, Esquire Peter W. Zinober, Esquire Zinober and McCrea, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. 1750 Tampa, FL 33602 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, General Counsel 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 Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner because of his alleged disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Charles H. Miller, was employed by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, for approximately 15 years. In October 1999, Mr. Miller injured his ankle in a work-related accident. He experienced chronic pain and mobility limitations as a result of the accident and continually received medication and psychological and/or physical therapy to help relieve the symptoms of his condition. Mr. Miller wore a brace on his injured foot and took various narcotic pain relievers. On May 2, 2001, Petitioner began seeing Lewis Fabrick, Ph.D., a licensed clinical social worker. Dr. Fabrick determined that Mr. Miller was suffering from depression, anxiety and stress that resulted partly from the pain from the physical injury and partly from the side effects of the medication. However, the Department was not aware of the nature or extent of Mr. Miller's mental or emotional issues. Prior to December 2000, Mr. Miller reported directly to Thomas Malerk, the State Materials Engineer. At that time, Mr. Miller was acting as the data center manager and supervised several other employees. Around November 2000, Mr. Malerk assigned another employee to supervise Mr. Miller and eliminated Mr. Miller's supervisory responsibilities. Mr. Miller's pay and benefits were not affected by this change. Mr. Malerk took this action to correct problems with the data center that had resulted in complaints about Mr. Miller and the data center. Mr. Miller's physical condition was not a factor in Mr. Malerk's decision to change Mr. Miller's job. In December 2000, Mr. Miller complained to the Department's ombudsman that coworkers were making fun of his ankle brace and physical limitation. Mr. Miller alleged that Mr. Malerk had joked about Mr. Miller needing a boot on the other foot to match and that the personnel officer, John Cooper, would pretend to "draw like a cowboy" in a manner that ridiculed Mr. Miller's condition. Mr. Miller also alleged that another co-worker, Gale Page, was harassing him by making fun of his physical limitations. Neither Mr. Cooper or Mr. Page had any supervisory responsibility over Mr. Miller. After receiving Mr. Miller's complaint, the ombudsman contacted Mr. Cooper and Mr. Malerk to inform them of Mr. Miller's concern. At approximately the same time, Mr. Miller also told Mr. Cooper that he was being harassed by Mr. Page, Mr. Malerk, and Mr. Cooper. When Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Miller to specifically identify the harassment that had occurred, Mr. Miller only specifically reported that Mr. Page had made fun of his walk or his leg. Mr. Cooper then informed Mr. Malerk of Mr. Miller's complaint and approached Mr. Page. Mr. Cooper told Mr. Page that he should refrain from making comments about Mr. Miller's condition. When Mr. Malerk learned of Mr. Page's remark to Mr. Miller, he reprimanded Mr. Page and requested that he apologize or otherwise clear the matter. Mr. Malerk also discussed the matter with Mr. Miller. Mr. Malerk apologized to Mr. Miller for anything he might have said that was insensitive and asked Mr. Miller if he had made any inappropriate remarks. Mr. Miller told Mr. Malerk that they did not have a problem and that he considered the matter with Mr. Page closed. Other than the incident with Mr. Page, and the accompanying accusations involving Mr. Malerk and Mr. Cooper, neither Mr. Cooper or Mr. Malerk had any reason to believe that any Department employee might be harassing Mr. Miller or making jokes about his injury or condition. Contrary to Mr. Miller's claim, the evidence does not indicate that either Mr. Malerk or Mr. Cooper even made fun of Mr. Miller's condition. Mr. Miller and Mr. Malerk have known each other since 1997 and were friendly with each other. On May 22, 2001, the Department dismissed Mr. Miller. The decision to dismiss Mr. Miller was based upon a number of violations of the Department's conduct standards, including Mr. Miller's insubordination, absence without authorized leave, display of an uncooperative or antagonistic attitude, and a violent outburst by Mr. Miller on May 21, 2001, when he was advised of the Department's intention to dismiss him. The issues relating to Mr. Miller's dismissal were fully litigated in a proceeding before the Public Employees Relations Commission, which culminated in a Recommended Order and Final Order upholding the Department's decision to dismiss Mr. Miller for violation of the Department's conduct standards. Mr. Malerk was responsible for requesting Mr. Miller's dismissal. Mr. Malerk requested Mr. Miller's dismissal for the violations of the Department's conduct standards that were included in the dismissal letter and was not motivated to request his dismissal in any part by Mr. Miller's physical problems.
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, therefore,
