The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on April 22, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male who was employed by Respondent from August 2008 until his termination on or about January 9, 2009. Respondent, Arena Sports Café (Arena), is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. Arena is a restaurant/night club which offers the viewing of televised sporting events, and is generally known as a sports bar. Arena is adjacent to The Coliseum, another establishment with the same owners, Trisha Lawrence and Randy Berner. The owners are Caucasian. The Coliseum is an entertainment venue with live and recorded music, dancing, and stage acts. The Coliseum does not serve food, and does not have a kitchen. When hired in August 2008, Petitioner worked as a prep cook as part of the kitchen staff. He performed various duties including preparation of meals in the kitchen as well as preparing food for Respondent’s large salad bar. Petitioner holds a Food Handling Certificate and a Safe Serve Certificate, which he attained through a local college. Petitioner was paid $12.00 per hour, and generally worked a 40-hour work week. At the time Petitioner was hired, the Arena was brand new and very popular. When the Arena opened in August 2008, it featured lunch and dinner seven days per week. Weekends were particularly busy because college and pro football games were televised in the fall. However, the Arena saw a drop in demand for weekday lunches. During the fall of 2008, Anthony Cyr, a Caucasian, was employed by Arena as its general manager. Petitioner was already employed by Respondent when Mr. Cyr began employment there. According to Petitioner, Mr. Cyr used the word “nigger” (the "N" word) in the context of telling a joke on three occasions in October and November 2008. Mr. Cyr used this word in the presence of the kitchen staff, including Petitioner. Petitioner informed Mr. Cyr that this was offensive and objected. Mr. Cyr did not use the "N" word other than these three occasions, and did not use it again after Petitioner objected. Petitioner did not report this incident to anyone, including the owners of Arena. As one of the owners of Arena, Ms. Lawrence would sometimes eat meals at Arena. At some point in January 2009, she voiced her displeasure to Mr. Cyr as to meals which she believed to have been prepared by Petitioner. She was never made aware of Petitioner’s allegations regarding the use of racial slurs by Mr. Cyr. According to Ms. Lawrence, she instructed Mr. Cyr to terminate Petitioner from employment because of his cooking abilities. Mr. Cyr informed Petitioner that his employment was terminated, and informed him that it was due to his job performance. Mr. Cyr also informed Petitioner that the decision to terminate Petitioner was Ms. Lawrence’s, not his. Mr. Cyr’s testimony regarding using the “N” word contradicts Petitioner’s testimony, and is somewhat inconsistent with Ms. Lawrence’s testimony regarding the reason Petitioner was fired. That is, Mr. Cyr denies using the “N” word in front of Petitioner. As for the reason he fired Petitioner, Mr. Cyr testified that it was due to a reduction in business following football season. There is no dispute, however, that Ms. Lawrence was the decisionmaker regarding the decision to fire Petitioner. Regarding the conflicting testimony as to whether Mr. Cyr used the “N” word, the undersigned finds Petitioner’s testimony in this regard to be credible and more persuasive. That is, the undersigned finds that Mr. Cyr did use the “N” word in front of Petitioner in the workplace. As for the reason Petitioner was fired, Ms. Lawrence did acknowledge that business slowed down at Arena around the time she instructed Mr. Cyr to fire Petitioner, and that the salad bar was phased out the month after Petitioner was terminated. However, she insists that she instructed Mr. Cyr to fire Petitioner because of the quality of his cooking. In any event, there does not appear to be a dispute that Mr. Cyr told Petitioner that he was being fired due to job performance issues. At some time after Petitioner was terminated, Mr. Cyr was terminated from Arena because, in Ms. Lawrence’s words, he “was not that great.” When Petitioner was terminated, two Caucasian cooks remained employed at Arena. While Petitioner was not actually replaced, his duties were assumed by the remaining Caucasian staff. Since his termination, Petitioner has worked for approximately three weeks at another eating establishment. Otherwise, he has been unsuccessful finding employment despite his efforts. Respondent employs minorities and non-minorities in positions with both Arena and The Coliseum. The undersigned has reviewed the evidence of record, oral and written, as to the number of minority and non-minority employees and as to whether Respondent hired primarily non-minority persons in the better paying positions. The evidence of record is insufficient to support a finding that Respondent engaged in racially motivated hiring practices. There is no evidence that Petitioner complained to Ms. Lawrence or the other owner of Arena that he was being discriminated against on the basis of race. When he complained to Mr. Cyr, the offending remarks stopped. There was no competent evidence presented that Ms. Lawrence knew of the racial slur used by Mr. Cyr in the workplace in Petitioner’s presence. There is no evidence that Ms. Lawrence’s decision to terminate Petitioner from employment was related in any way to any racial remark used by Mr. Cyr.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: David Glasser, Esquire Glasser & Handel 116 Orange Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Steven deLaroche, Esquire 1005 South Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk 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 by discriminating against Petitioner based upon her race.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an "employer" within the meaning of section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, an African-American female, submitted an application for employment directly with the store manager, Jerry Wienhoff. Mr. Wienhoff personally interviewed Petitioner and hired her within 48 hours of her application for the afternoon clerk position. She began working for Respondent on July 21, 2009. Petitioner received a notice of a disciplinary issue on March 9, 2010. Respondent cited Petitioner for failure to complete her work in a timely manner. Petitioner was warned that if her work did not improve, her employment would be terminated. Not long after issuance of this disciplinary notice, Mr. Wienhoff, the store manager and Pensacola Regional Manager for 17 years, began receiving complaints about Petitioner's behavior. One complaint came from a long-time customer, while another came from a co-employee. The complaints were that Petitioner treated them rudely. During her employment, Petitioner complained that her work duties were heavier than those of the morning clerk. Mr. Wienhoff relieved Petitioner of certain duties related to tagging each garment dropped off during the afternoon shift. None of the other stores out of the four area stores had similar requests to remove this duty. Petitioner testified that the morning clerk, a white female, Amanda Sidner, was given a lighter workload. Petitioner further testified that Ms. Sidner was given additional hours during Petitioner's vacation, yet Petitioner was not given additional hours during Ms. Sidner's vacation. Mr. Wienhoff testified and Petitioner admitted that she took vacation days during the same week that Ms. Sidner took vacation days. Further, Petitioner was given additional hours during the days Ms. Sidner was on vacation, and the balance of those hours that Petitioner was not interested in working went to Petitioner's daughter, Anastarsia Martinez, also an African- American female. On December 14, 2010, Petitioner was issued her second and final corrective action report by Mr. Wienhoff. At that time, Mr. Wienhoff terminated Petitioner due to the ongoing complaints about her behavior in the workplace. Respondent also established the racial composition of every employee under Mr. Wienhoff's supervision. The company profile in Pensacola shows a racially diverse mix of employees. Petitioner candidly testified that she never heard Mr. Wienhoff make racially insensitive comments to her or any other employee. Her claim of discrimination is based upon favoritism. She believes that other employees were treated better than she, but did not tie this perceived favorable treatment to their race.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that no act of discrimination was committed by Respondent and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Groendyke, Esquire Douberley & Cicero 1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 590 Sunrise, Florida 33323 Mary Cottrell 776 Backwoods Road Century, Florida 32535 Christopher J. Rush, Esquire Christopher J. Rush & Associates, P.A. 1880 North Congress Avenue, Suite 206 Boynton Beach, Florida 33426 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether the Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice under section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2010), by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of race, color, or sex, and if so, what remedy should be ordered.
Findings Of Fact Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (Lowe's) is a retail sales corporation that does business in Florida and employs over 15 employees. Melissa Drayton, Petitioner in this case, is an African-American woman who began working for Respondent as a part-time cashier in February of 2008. At the time she was hired, Petitioner was made aware of Lowe's policies prohibiting discrimination and various methods to report it, including direct communications to management, to human resources personnel, through a toll-free telephone line, and through a website. Petitioner worked for the Respondent in a part-time capacity for a period of approximately two years without any "write-ups" or disciplinary action of any kind. Petitioner received positive "star development" performance reviews between 2008 and 2010, and received pay increases. At some point between 2008 and 2010, Petitioner also received a "corporate compliment" for excellent performance. Petitioner submitted a "request for consideration" form asking to be transferred from cashier to a sales position in home décor or other department in the store. Petitioner talked with Mr. Lee Walker, the Store Manager, about her desire to move to the home décor department. Mr. Walker told Petitioner that he would "give her the opportunity providing we followed the steps and went from there." At a meeting with Petitioner present, Mr. Walker told the Assistant Manager responsible for the paint and home décor department that Petitioner would soon be moving to home décor. At a later point, Mr. Walker told Petitioner that Lowe's was shorthanded at the front of the store and that they needed to keep her up front. He told her that provided they got everything filled in time, they could get her moved over. On April 6, 2010, Petitioner was advised by Ms. Benjamin, the Human Resources Manager at the store throughout the time of Petitioner's employment, that Petitioner was not on the schedule to be transferred to home décor, but would remain a cashier. Ms. Benjamin explained to Petitioner that Lowe's was short on cashiers. Ms. Benjamin testified that Petitioner was then very upset when she went out on to the floor. Almost immediately thereafter, Petitioner displayed rude and unfriendly behavior to a customer. On April 13, 2010, Respondent "wrote up" Petitioner for the incident by preparing an unfavorable Employee Performance Report with the "initial" block checked. The report was prepared based upon Respondent's belief that on April 6, with unloaded items at her register which she had begun to ring up, Petitioner suddenly said, "I can't do this" and just walked away, leaving the customer standing at the register. Petitioner was given an opportunity to make written comments. Petitioner wrote: The day of the Report I told Linda I needed to go to the back. I went to the back, and Sally came into the bathroom and I told her I needed to go home because I can't perform today. She would not let me go home. On back. I do not try to bring my personal issues at work, at that point and time I became overwhelmed and was not able to perform as I usually do. Was not allowed to leave by my supervisor Sally due to her concern for me. Petitioner testified at hearing that there was a page missing from this document, on which Petitioner had described issues she was having with management. This testimony is not credible. At the end of the comment block on the first page, Petitioner indicated "on back." The back page writing begins at the top of the page, continues the same topic begun on the first page, and ends with ample space remaining. It is not reasonable to conclude that Petitioner submitted an additional page on a different topic into the middle of her other narrative or would have begun a new page without first using up the available space on the back of the form. Ms. Benjamin also testified that there were no missing pages to the report, testimony which is credited. Petitioner also testified at one point during the hearing that the write-ups started shortly after she began complaining about issues that she was having with her employment. She testified at another point that she began complaining about these issues as soon as she started working at Lowe's in 2008. Yet the evidence clearly indicates that Petitioner had no write-ups for a period in excess of two years, because her first write-up did not occur until April 6, 2010. Therefore both of Petitioner's statements cannot be true. Petitioner's testimony suggesting that the write-ups occurred as a response by Lowe's to her complaints about several management issues is rejected as not credible. Petitioner's testimony that she had no write-ups for two years and that the first write-up occurred on the same day that she learned she was not scheduled to be moved to home décor is much more credible, is corroborated by the testimony of Ms. Benjamin, is further corroborated by Lowe's employee records, and is accepted as true. Ms. Benjamin testified she could not recall any complaints or issues from Petitioner related to race, color, or gender. She testified that Petitioner never came to Human Resources to complain about discrimination. Ms. Benjamin also stated she was unaware of any complaints of discrimination that had been filed through the toll-free number and that she would have been aware if complaints had been filed. Ms. Benjamin testified that although complaints filed on the website about the store were anonymous, to her knowledge no "ethics points" calls regarding the store had ever been filed by any person during the period of Petitioner's employment. She testified that had Petitioner made any complaints to her, they would have been investigated. Ms. Benjamin was credible and her testimony on these points is accepted. Petitioner testified that she complained to Lowe's about numerous issues. She testified that she saw individuals "hired off the street" who were white or Hispanic that were put into some sales positions, but that despite Mr. Walker's promise, she was not transferred to a sales position, but remained a cashier. She stated she had been called "nigger" by customers, while conceding that no employee ever used any derogatory racial slur towards her. She also stated that she had been "cussed out" by different employees. She had several concerns about the way the cashiers were managed. In particular, she felt some senior employees took more breaks than regular employees were allowed to take. Others were permitted to take longer breaks, lasting 20 to 30 minutes, rather than only 15 minutes. Petitioner testified that one employee named "Vanessa," whose last name was unknown, was particularly likely to take long breaks and was "allowed to do whatever she wanted" by Lowe's. There was no evidence presented as to whether Vanessa was ever disciplined or was ever moved to a sales position. The derogatory comments relating to race made by customers were abusive and were demeaning to Petitioner. The instances in which customers used racial epithets were isolated events, however. Petitioner discussed her concerns about the way the cashiers were managed with her supervisor, Ms. Sally Deckle, but no changes were made. Petitioner became frustrated and felt that despite Lowe's "open door" policies, her concerns were ignored. She believed that Lowe's failed to work with the employees that worked there. When Petitioner stated to Ms. Deckel that the management at Lowe's was "hypocritical," Petitioner testified that Ms. Deckel told Petitioner to "kiss my ass" or words to that effect. Petitioner testified that she went to the Assistant Store Manager in charge of the cashiers, Ms. Kelly Young, and subsequently to the store manager, Mr. Lee Walker, about Ms. Deckle's use of profanity. Petitioner testified that Mr. Walker only "rolled his eyes" in response and that no action was ever taken. Mr. Walker did not remember this complaint. The facts do not support the conclusion that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of race, color or gender based upon Lowe's failure to respond to Petitioner's complaints. Around the time of Petitioner's first adverse Employee Performance Report in April, Lowe's changed the process for an employee to request placement in a new position. The form that had previously been used was discontinued, and was no longer used. Under the new system, available positions were posted on the website, and employees would apply online. Employees were informed of the new system though postings in the break room, discussions in morning meetings, articles in the newsletter, and the information on the website itself. Petitioner knew or should have known of the new procedures. Petitioner never applied to be moved to a sales position through the new system. On June 5, 2010, Petitioner failed to deactivate an alarm on one of the items she rang up, because she claimed she was too tired to lift the box. On June 6, 2010, Respondent received a complaint from a customer who had accidently processed the wrong form of payment by using a credit card when he wanted to use a debit card, or vice versa. The complaint stated that Petitioner was rude and unfriendly to the customer and refused to help him correct his mistake. On June 7, 2010, Petitioner displayed uncooperative behavior towards co-workers while she was working returns and waiting for her relief. She also refused to do a refund for a customer, stating she did not have enough money in her register, although she had $600. Respondent did not discuss these incidents with Petitioner at the time they occurred. A second unfavorable Employee Performance Report was prepared on June 12, 2010, with the "written" block checked, that documented these incidents, which was the first time Respondent confronted Petitioner regarding the incidents. Petitioner was given an opportunity to make written comments. Petitioner wrote. "I'm tired of all the issues that's going on up front as a front end cashier. Issues need to be addressed." On September 24, 2010, Petitioner received an Employee Performance Report with the "written" block checked, for poor attendance. Again, as was the practice with all "write-ups" given to Petitioner in this case, the incidents were not discussed with Petitioner at the time they occurred, but only at the time of the report. The report noted Petitioner had been called in six times since February. Petitioner made no written comments on this report. On December 24, 2010, Petitioner received an Employee Performance Report with the "final notice" block checked for refusing to cover the return desk as requested by a head cashier to allow another employee to take a restroom break. Petitioner refused because she was scheduled to leave at 3:00 p.m. and the request was made ten minutes before this time. Mr. Walker testified that he always personally advises employees at a "final warning" that their employment at Lowe's is subject to termination if there are any further policy violations. Mr. Walker testified he personally made this quite clear to Petitioner. Petitioner made no comments on the report. On February 2, 2011, a customer approached Petitioner's cash register asking her to check a price. Petitioner told the customer that she could not check the price because she had to go, and instructed the customer to go to another associate. On February 4, 2011, a customer came to Petitioner's register to check out. The customer had several nuts and bolts and Petitioner sent the customer back to the department to get the item numbers instead of looking them up in the book. An Employee Performance Report with the "termination" block checked was prepared on February 11, 2011, documenting these incidents. Petitioner was given an opportunity to make written comments. Petitioner wrote: 2-2-11 New cashier Fern was assisting customers. I helped her get her line down. Also, it was the end of my shift. After this were no more customers. I clock out and went to put vest in locker the usual. Did not do or say anything to offend customers. 2-4-11 Customer got in line said he didn't see item numbers for the bolts. I responded in friendly voice all the bolts and washers have item numbers. I said there is always someone to assist you said nicely before I can get booked to scan he walked away. For nothing, I did nothing, I said nothing wrong to customer. I do not recall this complaint with this customer 2-2-11. I thought I had already had clocked out. That would be the only way I turned a customer away if I had clocked out. This problem I do not recall. I have been doing more customer focus. I do not understand these ongoing complaints. I'm not stressed or angry or having a bad day. I try to stay customer focused with every customer. Everyone that works around me knows I do customer focus with every customer. I do not put my foot in my mouth at work. I know how these customers are, so I do not try to do anything to set them off. I have to try a good day at work. All I try my best to do is customer focus. All employees that work around me knows I'm never mean or nasty to a customer. The customers some of them are very edgie people so why would I do or say anything to set them off or make them complain. I'm not perfect but I know I work customer focus ethics when I'm scheduled to work. Every time I got talked to by upper management about a customer complaint I looked at what they said I did wrong and use that as improvement for better customer service and focus and ethics. Petitioner was terminated from employment at Lowe's by Mr. Walker. He advised Petitioner that she was being terminated because of too many customer complaints. Petitioner was polite, shook Mr. Walker's hand, and departed. Petitioner did not say anything about race discrimination, color discrimination, or gender discrimination at the termination meeting. Petitioner later talked with Ms. Jenkins of the NAACP. Petitioner testified that Ms. Jenkins wrote, and Petitioner signed, an undated letter to Lowe's Regional Human Resources office in North Carolina. The letter complained that Petitioner had been discharged unfairly. It did not assert any discrimination on the basis of race, color, or gender. This letter was written sometime in April of 2011. Mr. Sloan Wilson, Lowe's Regional Human Resources Director, wrote a letter to Petitioner on May 26, 2011, offering Petitioner a cashier position in another store. Petitioner declined this offer. Petitioner filed charges of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations in June, 2011. She testified that she had been talking to an attorney and was given a packet to fill out. Petitioner stated that the charges of discrimination on race, color, and sex came about because Petitioner didn't know which one on the packet to properly fill out. Mr. Walker was "pretty shocked" when he learned that Petitioner had charged Lowe's with discrimination on the grounds of race, color, and sex. He had talked with Petitioner on numerous occasions and there had been no discussion or complaints to him about any discrimination. He was unaware that Petitioner had had such discussions with anyone in the store. He testified that he would have confronted any customer who used a racial epithet and walked them out of the store. On October 12, 2011, Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief against Respondent for an unlawful employment practice, which was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings the same day.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Melissa Drayton 1421 Southwest 27th Avenue No. 2106 Gainesville, Florida 34471 Charles E. Williams, Esquire Constangy, Brooks and Smith LLP 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 3350 Tampa, Florida 33601 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner was unlawfully terminated from her position with Respondent because of her race (Caucasian), in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (hereinafter "FCRA"), Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following relevant facts are determined: Respondent is a corporation, licensed to do business in Florida, that provides cleaning services to business clients; and is an employer, as that term is defined, under the FCRA. Petitioner began her employment with Respondent on January 1, 1997. Petitioner was hired as a restroom cleaner, and remained in that position until her termination from employment with Respondent on August 6, 1998. Throughout her employment with Respondent, Petitioner's supervisors were: Cecilia Haimes ("Haimes"), a Caucasian female; Danna Hewett ("Hewett"), a Caucasian Female; and Carlos Ramirez ("Ramirez"), an Hispanic male. Additionally, throughout her employment with Respondent, Petitioner was assigned to work at the Orange County Convention Center ("OCCC"). Hewett began her employment with Respondent as a restroom cleaner. Shortly thereafter, she was promoted by Ramirez to the position of lead restroom cleaner. Shortly after that, she was once again promoted by Ramirez, to the position of supervisor. As a supervisor, Hewett supervised Petitioner. Hewett became Petitioner's supervisor in or around August 1997. In her capacity as supervisor, Hewett was informed by other employees at OCCC that Petitioner was spreading rumors and gossiping about alleged affairs between certain employees and/or supervisors. Hewett and Ramirez discussed Petitioner's behavior, and they concluded that such behavior was extremely disruptive to the work environment. Specifically, such behavior by Petitioner affected employee morale and employees' respect for their supervisors. Based on these allegations, Ramirez contacted Ronald Jirik ("Jirik"), the Central Florida Regional Manager, to inform him of Petitioner's behavior. Upon meeting with Hewett and Ramirez, Jirik informed Ramirez to meet with Petitioner to try to get her to stop spreading such rumors. Ramirez met with Petitioner shortly thereafter. He attempted to resolve the problem and instructed her not to gossip or spread rumors. However, the problem persisted. Jirik contacted Ramirez to follow up on whether or not Ramirez was able to resolve the problem. Ramirez informed Jirik that he was unable to stop the rumors, and that he believed that Petitioner was continuing this improper behavior. Jirik then informed Ramirez that it would probably be best if Petitioner was transferred from the OCCC, and be given the option to transfer to another facility that was of equal distance from her home. Jirik is Caucasian. Jirik suggested that Petitioner be transferred to the Orlando Sentinel building due to the fact that, based on the information in Petitioner's personnel file, this location would have been of equal distance from her home. Additionally, such a transfer would not have changed any of the terms and conditions of Petitioner's employment, including but not limited to, pay, benefits, responsibilities, or shifts. Based on the foregoing, Ramirez met with Petitioner and she was offered a transfer to the Orlando Sentinel building location. However, Petitioner refused to accept the transfer. Thereafter, Petitioner's employment with Respondent was terminated on August 6, 1998. The evidence proved that Ramirez reprimanded Spanish- speaking and Caucasian employees in the same manner. Additionally, there was no credible evidence to show that Ramirez gave any form of favoritism to Spanish-speaking employees. Respondent's reason for terminating Petitioner was based on Respondent's perception that her conduct was disruptive to the work force. The allegation that Petitioner was terminated based on a discriminatory animus is unsubstantiated by the testimony and other evidence. There is no evidence that Respondent terminated Petitioner based on her race (Caucasian).
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 7th day of March, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of March, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Attas-Kaplan, Esquire Fisher & Phillips, LLP 450 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Mary J. Hall 1821 Ernest Street Maitland, Florida 32794 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner, a black male, was hired by Respondent on February 11, 1985. Petitioner was employed as a wet mill laborer at Respondent's Florida Plant located in Bradford County, Florida. Petitioner's primary duties consisted of washing spirals and performing general housekeeping. Petitioner, like all newly hired employees, was hired subject to a ninety (90) day probationary period. Petitioner was provided an orientation period, given training, and was informed verbally during his employment about the importance of good job performance during his probation period. Petitioner was terminated by Respondent on April 1, 1985 during Petitioner's probationary period. Petitioner reported to four (4) first-line supervisors during his short period of employment which was the result of Petitioner being primarily on the day shift while the supervisors worked on a rotating shift basis. Petitioner's supervisors and the dates under each supervisor are as follows: C. A. Baldree during the weeks ending February 17, 1985 and March 17, 1985; J. W. Sherrill during the weeks ending February 24, 1985 and March 31, 1985; D. W. Baldree during the weeks ending March 3, 1985 and March 24, 1985 and; W. J. Frick during the week ending March 10, 1985. Although Petitioner's testimony conflicted with all three (3) first- line supervisors who testified concerning the fact surrounding the incidents which eventually gave rise to Petitioner's termination, the more credible evidence shows: During the week ending March 17, 1985, Supervisor C. A. Baldree instructed Petitioner and another employee to clean handrails in a specific area where a management visitation group would be observing. Petitioner proceeded to clean handrails in an area other than the one specified by the supervisor and when the supervisor attempted to advise Petitioner of his failure to follow instructions, Petitioner became abusive toward the supervisor and argued that he was following instructions. The Area Supervisor Gilberto Valazquez observed the incident and tried to resolve the matter with a meeting between Petitioner and Supervisor C. A. Baldree but Petitioner declined, commenting that he was afraid of losing his job. During the week ending March 24, 1985, Supervisor D. W. Baldree assigned Petitioner and another employee to wash some spirals in a specific area where visiting management would be observing. Again, Petitioner took it upon himself to clean spirals in a different area and when the supervisor attempted to advise Petitioner of his failure to follow instructions, Petitioner responded that he felt that where he had started was as good as any place to start, notwithstanding that Petitioner was aware of the reason for starting where the supervisor had instructed him to start cleaning. Also, during the week ending March 24, 1985, Supervisor D. W. Baldree repeatedly instructed Petitioner concerning the replacement of hoses and cutters that may be disconnected during the washing of the spirals. However, on several occasions Petitioner failed to replace the hoses and cutters that were disconnected during the washing process as instructed. During the week ending March 31, 1985, Supervisor J. W. Sherrill instructed Petitioner to clean out a tail box that was plugged with sand and adversely affecting production. When the supervisor returned in approximately 20-30 minutes he found the tail box still plugged. When the supervisor attempted to inform Petitioner of his failure to unplug the tail box, Petitioner became argumentative and pointed out that he had unplugged the tail box and that it was only water from a clear water hose that was dripping, notwithstanding the fact that a large amount of sand had accumulated and that muddy water rather than clean water was running from the tail box. At the end of the work week ending March 31, 1985, Supervisor Valazquez met with Petitioner and Supervisor Sherrill concerning an alleged promise made by Supervisor Sherrill to allow Petitioner to leave work early which Petitioner felt Supervisor Sherrill had reneged on, notwithstanding that supervisor had explained to Petitioner why he could not leave early. During the course of the discussion, Petitioner became very belligerent towards Supervisor Sherrill which prompted Supervisor Valazquez to review Petitioner's overall employment record to determine whether Petitioner should continue in the employment of Respondent. Supervisor Valazquez, in investigating Petitioner's overall performance, discussed Petitioner's employment record with all of Petitioner's first-line supervisors and also asked each of them for written comments. Based upon his own observations of Petitioner's job performance and his attitude toward supervision, the supervisors' comments, and the fact that as a short service probationary employee Petitioner was making no effort to improve his job performance or his attitude toward supervision, Supervisor Valazquez felt that Petitioner may not be salvageable as an employee and questioned Petitioner's continued employment with Respondent. Supervisor Valazquez reviewed Petitioner's performance record with his superiors and the site's Employee Relations Supervisor L. H. Wood, who was the site's Affirmative Action Officer. Wood found no evidence of discriminatory motivation. Valazquez's superiors concurred in the discharge recommendation. On April 1, 1985, Valazquez met with Petitioner to discuss the potential discharge action but approached the meeting with the view that should Petitioner show a change in his attitude in regard to his job performance and in accepting supervision, then Valazquez would change his mind and give the Petitioner another chance. When Valazquez attempted to review Petitioner's poor job performance and attitude problems with Petitioner, Petitioner again became very defensive and argumentative. As a result of Petitioner's attitude in this meeting, Valazquez proceeded with the discharge action that had been approved by management. Although the record reflects that Petitioner did not receive any written or verbal warnings from any of his shift- supervisors that his performance was so unsatisfactory that if improvement was not made he would be terminated, Petitioner was made aware, by his shift-supervisors and area supervisor that poor job performance was a basis for termination, particularly during his probationary period. There was at least one (1) occasion, the incident which occurred during the week ending February 17, 1985 with C. A. Baldree, where Petitioner commented about the possibility of losing his job and Valazquez advised him that he would not lose his job so long as he performed properly and showed respect for his supervisors. On three (3) other occasions, his supervisors made the Petitioner aware of his poor job performance and poor attitude. Petitioner was not advised of any written memorandums concerning his job performance or possible termination had been prepared until April 1, 1985, the date Petitioner had a conference with Valazquez and, due to his defensive and argumentative attitude, was not allowed further opportunity to improve his job performance or his attitude and was terminated. No formal employee/supervisor conferences were held with Petitioner until April 1, 985, the date Petitioner was terminated. On the same date that Petitioner was hired, Robert McGee, a white male, was hired by Respondent as a laborer. McGee was assigned to a field laborer position, reporting almost exclusively to one (1) supervisor, Doris Cole. Field laborers work in an area separate and apart from the wet mill and report to different first-line supervisors than the wet mill laborers. On April 25, 1985, within McGee's probationary period, McGee received a formal employee/supervisor conference concerning his unsatisfactory job performance and his damaging of company equipment, warned that definite improvement in his job performance was expected or probation or possibly termination could be expected. On July 3, 1985, McGee received another employee/supervisor conference which involved McGee, Doris Cole and Valazquez and McGee was informed that his performance had improved slightly but significant improvement was expected in the next two (2) weeks or he could expect termination. McGee was placed on probation at this time. On August 2, 1985, another formal employee/supervisor conference was held with McGee wherein it was noted that McGee had demonstrated that- he could perform at a satisfactory level but that continued improvement was expected and that McGee would remain on probation until October 3, 1985. The final employee/supervisor conference record dated October 4, 1985 concluded that McGee could not consistently perform satisfactorily, therefore termination was recommended. McGee did not attend this conference but resigned by telephone on that date in lieu of being terminated. McGee reviewed each of the employee/supervisor conference reports with the exception of the one on October 4, 1985 and each of the reports were included in his personnel file, including the one for October 4, 1985. McGee was a marginal employee who tried to perform his job properly and was receptive to constructive criticism; however, he was unable to improve his performance to a point that was acceptable to Respondent's management. McGee worked on the wet mill for brief periods without incident. McGee had no history of refusing to follow instructions of his supervisor or of being argumentative with the supervisors. The Respondent had no stated policy that required written warnings of poor job performance to employees by their respective supervisors. It was the general policy of the -shift supervisors that during the probationary period, especially during the early part of the probationary period, warnings of poor job performance were given verbally to the employee and that a formal employee/supervisor conference was reserved for more severe matters such as violation of safety rules. However, the manner in which a supervisor handled a particular warning of poor job performance during an employee's probationary period was left to the discretion of the individual supervisor. The record reflects only two (2) other incidents where an employee/supervisor conference was held with an employee during the employee's initial probationary period: Kathy D. Sanders, a black female, on June 5, 1985 and; Bernard Brown, a black male, on March 27, 1984. C. A. Baldree, D. W. Baldree and J. W. Sherrill, three (3) of Petitioner's shift supervisors, were all white as were the supervisors of McGee. Respondent has, and had during Petitioner's employment, an aggressive Affirmative Action program which applied to all aspects of the employment environment. Respondent has in the past received national and local recognition for its Affirmative Action efforts. Respondent's employment of minorities has exceeded the availability of minorities in the labor supply area. Although the local availability of minorities was fifteen percent (15 percent), twenty to twenty-one percent (20-21 percent) of employees at the site were minorities. Of the forty three (43) individuals hired, closely related in time to Petitioner's dates of employment, ten (10) or twenty-three percent (23 percent) were black. Although at the time of Petitioner's initial employment, Respondent had some misgivings about Petitioner's failure to disclose certain information on his employment application, Respondent decided to hire Petitioner anyway because of its Affirmative Action efforts and Petitioner's tests results. The clear weight of the evidence shows that Respondent's reasons for discharging Petitioner was his poor job performance and his argumentative and abusive behavior towards the supervisors when instructed to correct a situation where Petitioner had failed to follow instructions, either intentionally or because he had misunderstood the instructions. The clear weight of the evidence establishes that Petitioner was treated in a dissimilar manner from the white employee, but the disparity of treatment resulted from a dissimilar attitude toward job performance and supervision rather than racial motivation. Area Supervisor Valazquez, the supervisor primarily involved in the decision to discharge Petitioner, is Hispanic.
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 Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding that the Petitioner, Milton Baker, was not discharged due to his race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1985), and that the Petition for Relief be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3623 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. The first sentence adopted in Finding of Fact 4. The second sentence rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 6.(a-c) Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 (a-d) but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 6 through 9 and 27. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent in the record. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2, 13, 14 and 17. Adopted in Findings of Fact 15 and 18. Adopted in Findings of Fact 16 and 18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 22. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Respondent had no Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5(a) but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5(b) but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5(c) but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5(d) but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6 but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7 but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8 but modified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Facts 17 and 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 11 and 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 14, 15 and 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 23. Adopted in Finding of Fact 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 25 but clarified. COPIES FURNISHED: John F. MacLennan, Esquire Kattman, Eshelman & MacLennan 1920 San Marco Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Jerry H. Brenner, Esquire Legal Department E. I. du Point de Nemours and Company 100 West 10th Street Wilmington, DE 19898 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue Whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to an unlawful employment practice based on Petitioner’s race, in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2016)1/; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Aaron Pittman, a black male, was at all times relevant hereto employed at Sunland Center (Sunland) by the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD). Sunland Center is an assisted-living facility operated by APD in Marianna, Florida, serving clients with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Petitioner was first employed at Sunland on August 7, 1987, as a Maintenance Mechanic. Petitioner’s full-time job was to maintain wheelchairs for use by residents. According to Petitioner, the work was very steady, with continuous repairs to footrests, wheels, seats, and many other parts of well-used wheelchairs throughout the facility. Petitioner remained in that position for 17 years. In 2007, Petitioner was promoted from Maintenance Mechanic to Electronics Tech II. The duties of the Electronics Tech II include installation of televisions, cleaning fire detection and other safety equipment, conducting fire drills, and repairing all manner of electronics. After Petitioner was promoted to Electronics Tech II, an employee with the last name of Moss was assigned to wheelchair maintenance. Apparently Mr. Moss was not capable of performing the duties of wheelchair maintenance and requested Petitioner’s assistance with those duties. Mr. Moss left Sunland sometime in 2010. When Mr. Moss left, John Kramer, Maintenance Supervisor, asked Petitioner to help out “temporarily” with the wheelchair maintenance. Petitioner testified that he agreed to resume wheelchair maintenance “temporarily” because Mr. Kramer was “a nice man and [Petitioner] wanted to help him out.” Petitioner first worked overtime on a night shift to complete the wheelchair maintenance work. However, Petitioner did not request prior approval for the overtime and was instructed to take time off to compensate for the overtime. Clarence Holden, Sr., a black male, was employed at Sunland for 40 years. Mr. Holden began in an entry-level position, but was promoted to a supervisory position. Mr. Holden supervised Petitioner during Mr. Holden’s last five years of employment in the position of Telecommunication Specialist. Mr. Holden also supervised Keith Hatcher, the only employee other than Petitioner in the Maintenance Department. Mr. Hatcher retired sometime before Mr. Holden. Mr. Holden retired in 2014, leaving Petitioner as the only employee in the Maintenance Department. Petitioner testified that he “took over [Mr. Holden’s] duties” when Mr. Holden retired, but was never compensated for essentially working two jobs. Petitioner never supervised any employees at Sunland. Petitioner did not have any authority to hire or fire other employees or perform evaluations of other employees. After Mr. Holden’s retirement, Petitioner asked Allen Ward (whose position in the chain of command was not identified) about applying for the Telecommunication Specialist position. Petitioner was told management was “holding” that position. Petitioner testified that Mr. Ward advertised and filled the position of Telecommunication Specialist “while [Petitioner] was out.” Petitioner admitted that the position of Safety Specialist3/ was eventually advertised, and that Petitioner did not apply for the position. Amanda Johnson, former Employee Relations Specialist at Sunland, met with Petitioner sometime in 2012 regarding his complaint about working two positions without additional compensation. In June 2013, Petitioner received a ten-percent salary increase “for additional duties and responsibilities for maintaining resident wheelchairs and electric/mechanical hospital beds.” Petitioner seeks back pay for performing duties of two positions beginning in 2010. Petitioner separately complains that he was subject to harassment based on his race and Respondent failed to do anything about it. Petitioner testified that there used to be an employee who used the “N word,” and under a previous administration the supervisor would “take care of it,” but that under the current administration “nothing happens.” Petitioner indicated that other employees used to “make postings about lynching.” Petitioner did not identify any specifics of those incidents--when they occurred, who made the posting, or whether there were consequences to those employees. Petitioner complained that a fellow employee once wrote “Trump” on a dirty work truck. However, when the incident was reported, the manager washed the truck. Petitioner complained that white employees sit around and talk with each other for extended periods without any consequence, but that if he sits to talk with a fellow employee for 15 minutes “people complain.” Petitioner has never been disciplined by Respondent. Respondent is managed by a black Superintendent and black Deputy Superintendent. Sunland employs a number of black mid-level managers and supervisors.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss the Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice filed by Petitioner against Respondent in Case No. 201700575. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2018.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was discriminated against by being given poor evaluations, receiving disciplinary action as the result of grievances, and being passed over for a promotion because of his race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was an employee of Respondent, Sunrise Community, Inc. He was employed by Respondent for eleven years. He worked as a caregiver in a facility for persons requiring intermediate care or therapy. He was a home manager supervising several co-workers in caring for and training mentally handicapped residents. Approximately one year prior to filing his complaint in 1996, Petitioner was counseled for improperly touching a female employee with whom he worked. He did not perform certain activities associated with his job. Because of his conduct and work deficiencies, Petitioner was given a poor performance evaluation. Subsequently, a promotional position became open. Petitioner applied for the opening. He was qualified for the position. He was not promoted. Petitioner is a black male. Petitioner asserts that he was not promoted because he is a black male. The evidence shows that Petitioner did touch a female co-worker inappropriately, and that Respondent gave him a reprimand for this conduct. He received a poor performance evaluation. Such evaluations are by their nature subjective; however, the reprimand and his poor job performance were sufficient cause to reduce his evaluation. The promotional position was filled by a black female employee of the company who had more experience than Petitioner, and who had previously performed similar duties. There was no showing that the grievances, evaluations, or failure to promote were racially motivated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter its final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 21st day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Wilford Evans 925 Cochran Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven M. Weinger, Esquire Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger & Tetzeli, P.A. 2650 Southwest 27th Avenue Second Floor Miami, Florida 33133 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of discrimination in employment based on race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has worked as a furniture finisher and repairman for over 30 years. He was hired by Respondent on October 10, 1986. At that time, he worked at Respondent's store located on U.S. Route 441 in the Orlando area. Respondent is a furniture retailer. Although Respondent does not manufacture furniture, at least in the Orlando area, Respondent employs persons to perform various work on furniture, such as to repair damage in shipment or delivery. From 1986 through the end of 1987, Petitioner was the only finisher employed by Respondent and the only person qualified to perform major repairs. During this time, Petitioner performed a variety of services, including finishing, repair, upholstery, set up, and service calls. In December, 1987, Petitioner was transferred to Respondent's Landstreet facility. In general, Respondent was experiencing increasing retail sales at this time. To meet the needs associated with increased sales activity, Respondent added another warehouse employee to perform touch- up work and new equipment, such as a spray booth, to assist finishing and repair work. As Respondent's business increased, the demands on Petitioner also increased. Petitioner possesses substantial skills with respect to furniture finishing. However, Petitioner takes considerable time to perform his work. While retail activity had remained modest, Respondent tolerated Petitioner's slow pace. But as sales increased, Respondent pressured Petitioner to increase the pace of his work. On August 16, 1988, a supervisor gave Petitioner a performance and potential summary in connection with a periodic performance review. The summary states that Petitioner's performance rating is below average. The summary identifies Petitioner's major weakness as "complain[ing] about everything and everybody." The summary notes Petitioner's slow pace, poor work habits, refusal to use new finishing aids, and refusal to give up his "old ways." The summary also states that his results were generally reasonable, but his overall results "leave something to be desired." On December 8, 1988, a supervisor gave Petitioner a disciplinary action form. The form states that, in the four months since the August 8 performance summary, Petitioner has shown no significant improvement. The form concludes that, "If there is no improvement there will be no more chances." Petitioner refused to sign the December 8 disciplinary action form. Petitioner became angry at the meeting at which the form was produced. Respondent fired Petitioner on December 28, 1988. Petitioner is a black person. However, he presented no evidence that his race was a factor in the termination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Petitioner. ENTERED this 12th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of March, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald M. McElrath, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Margaret Jones, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Herbert Dawkins 7055 Hennepin Blvd. Orlando, FL 32818 Jerry Lind, Operations Manager Rhodes, Inc. 901 Landstreet Rd. Orlando, FL 32821
The Issue Whether the Petitioner was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent, Precision Tune Auto Care, on account of his race, or a result of a sexually abusive work environment in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, who was at all times relevant to this matter, an employee of Respondent, is an African-American male. Precision owns and operates five automobile service facilities in northwest Florida. They are generally referred to as the 9th Avenue (Pensacola) facility, the 9-Mile (Pensacola) facility, the Navy Boulevard (Pensacola) facility, the Fort Walton Beach facility, and the Crestview facility. Though there was no direct testimony as to the number of persons employed by Precision, the evidence is persuasive that each facility has a minimum of 4 to 6 full-time employees. Therefore, there is sufficient competent, substantial evidence to establish that Respondent employs more than 15 full-time employees at any given time. Petitioner’s Hiring On June 14, 2013, Petitioner started work at Respondent’s 9th Avenue location in Pensacola, Florida, as a lube-tech. When Petitioner was hired, Ms. Abbott was the manager of the 9th Avenue location, having started in that position in April 2013. Petitioner was not hired by Ms. Abbott. Rather, Mr. Geiger interviewed Petitioner and approved his hiring for the 9th Avenue lube-tech position. Prior to his employment at the 9th Avenue facility, Petitioner worked at Respondent’s Navy Boulevard facility. He was there for a single day. The circumstances of his departure were not explained. When Petitioner started work at 9th Avenue, he was provided with employee procedures handbooks issued by Respondent and by Lyons HR, Respondent’s payroll management company. Both handbooks contained policies prohibiting sexual harassment, and provided means for reporting complaints. On June 6, 2013, Petitioner signed written acknowledgement pages for each of the handbooks. Respondent’s employee procedures handbook had been revised in March 2013. The written acknowledgement page signed by Petitioner for Respondent’s employee procedures handbook was for an earlier revision. The evidence was persuasive that the page signed by Petitioner was one of a stack “kept in a drawer” for that purpose, a stack that had not been replaced when the handbook was updated. The preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that Petitioner received the employee procedures handbooks issued by Respondent and Lyons HR. In addition, current handbooks were available at each of Respondent’s facilities for the employees’ use. Petitioner alleged in his Employment Complaint of Discrimination that he was hired at 9th Avenue because it was the only one of Respondent’s locations at which African- Americans were employed, which Petitioner attributed to Ms. Abbott’s alleged desire “to be with a black guy.”1/ The preponderance of the evidence establishes that Respondent employed African-American workers at its other locations, in positions including those of manager and technician. Lube-techs are employed by Respondent to perform oil changes. As they gain experience, they may be assigned to perform simple maintenance work. Technicians are employed by Respondent to perform a range of automotive repairs. Technicians are required to own a set of mechanics’ tools sufficient to perform more complex work, involving mechanical work, repair and replacement of water pumps, power steering pumps and the like. When he was hired as a lube-tech at 9th Avenue, Petitioner had neither the skills nor the tools to perform work as a technician. When he started work, Petitioner was perceived as a very good employee, doing work without being asked, cleaning, and generally doing extra work around the facility. As a result, Petitioner received a raise of 25 cents per hour after six-to-eight weeks on the job. Technician work is desirable because technicians have the ability to earn commissions. Petitioner soon began asking for technician work. His requests were refused. Although Petitioner was allowed to do some extra work, Mr. Geiger believed that he was not ready to be a full-time technician. On August 5, 2013, Morgan Hancock was hired as a technician at 9th Avenue. He had previously been a technician at another Precision facility. Petitioner felt as though he should have been given the opportunity to work as a technician, and there began to be friction between Petitioner and Mr. Hancock. As a result of the perceived slight at his not being promoted to technician, Petitioner began to exhibit a “bad attitude” and his performance began to “slack off.” His willingness to do more undesirable tasks that were expected of all employees, including cleaning, deteriorated over the ensuing weeks. He made several requests to transfer to a technician’s position at other Precision facilities, discussing the matter with both Ms. Abbott and Mr. Geiger. The dates of the verbal requests are unclear, though it appears that one was made on September 5, 2013, and one was made to Mr. Geiger within two weeks prior to Petitioner’s November 20, 2013, termination. The evidence is persuasive that the requests to transfer were denied for a number of non-discriminatory reasons. First, as set forth above, Petitioner did not have sufficient skills or an adequate set of tools to work as a technician. Second, Precision had been cutting back on employees, and there were no positions open at the other facilities for someone of Petitioner’s level of skill and experience. Finally, one of Petitioner’s requests was for a transfer to the Navy Boulevard facility. Petitioner had previously worked there for a short period, and the manager simply did not want him back. There is no evidence to support a finding that Petitioner’s requests for transfer were denied as a result of some racial animus, or as a result of Ms. Abbott’s alleged sexual desire for Petitioner. By the time Petitioner was at the end of his 90-day probationary period, his performance was such that he did not receive a discretionary salary increase. The evidence is persuasive that the decision was based on Petitioner’s increasingly poor job performance and not, as alleged by Petitioner, retaliation by Ms. Abbott for Petitioner’s failure to satisfy her sexual requests. On September 26, 2013, at Petitioner’s request, Ms. Abbott wrote a letter on Precision letterhead stating that Petitioner had worked for Precision since August 6, 2012. Petitioner had, in fact, started work for Precision in June 2013. Petitioner characterized the letter as evidence of Ms. Abbott’s willingness to falsify a document as a means of gaining favor with Petitioner, and as an enticement for Petitioner to provide sexual favors. Ms. Abbott testified, convincingly, that Petitioner asked her to write the letter so he could show one year of Florida residency, and therefore qualify for in-state tuition at George Stone, a technical center in Pensacola, where he wanted to take classes to gain skills to be a technician. She wanted to help him, and so wrote the letter knowing it to be false. Mr. McCoy witnessed Ms. Abbott giving the letter to Petitioner, and testified it was accompanied by no suggestive remarks. Her agreement to write the letter on Petitioner’s behalf was ill-advised, and upon its discovery, she was reprimanded by Mr. Gerhardt. The letter does not, by any means, suggest that Respondent or Ms. Abbott discriminated against Petitioner in any way, or that Ms. Abbott used the letter as an inducement for Petitioner to provide her with sexual favors. On October 7, 2013, Bret Ramsey was hired at 9th Avenue. Mr. Ramsey, who is Caucasian, was a technician who had previously worked at Respondent’s Navy Boulevard location. Mr. Ramsey worked at 9th Avenue for two weeks, at which time he transferred back to Navy Boulevard. Mr. Geiger could not remember the reason for Mr. Ramsey’s transfer, but assumed that Navy Boulevard was in need of an experienced and qualified technician. As to whether Petitioner would have been a suitable candidate for the transfer, Mr. Gerhardt testified credibly that the manager of the Navy Boulevard location would not accept Petitioner due to his past employment there. Mr. Ramsey’s transfer does not support a finding that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his race, or that Ms. Abbott was “keeping” Petitioner at 9th Avenue to satisfy her sexual urges. Respondent required its employees to “clock-out” for their lunch hour and leave the premises. By so doing, it was easier to ensure that work hours were not confused with off-duty lunch hours and to “keep payroll straight.” Respondent’s policy was applied evenly to all employees. Ms. Abbott would occasionally buy lunch for all of the employees at 9th Avenue, either when they were busy, or as thanks for their hard work. Petitioner characterized Ms. Abbott’s acts of kindness and gratitude towards the employees of 9th Avenue as “buying me expensive lunches” to induce cooperation with her requests for sexual favors, a characterization that finds no evidentiary support. Petitioner testified that Ms. Abbott would come to work drunk. Aside from the fact that Ms. Abbott’s state of sobriety, or lack thereof, has no bearing on whether Petitioner was subject to racial discrimination or sexual harassment, the evidence was insufficient to support Petitioner’s claim. Petitioner testified that Ms. Abbott cut his hours as retaliation for his failure to submit to her sexual advances. The time records for Petitioner demonstrates that Petitioner worked 40-hours plus overtime on 19 of the 23 weeks that he was employed at 9th Avenue, including five of his last six full weeks of employment. The other four weeks ranged from 35.90 to 38.68 hours per week. Thus, there is nothing to support the assertion that Petitioner’s hours were cut for any reason. Petitioner’s supposition that Ms. Abbott may have altered his time records--which records are managed and kept by Lyons HR--is not persuasive. Petitioner’s Termination On November 18, 2013, Ms. Abbott, after having spent the day cleaning the service pits, instructed employees to place all cars needing service on the facility’s lift racks, and not over the pits. That day, Petitioner pulled a car into position over a pit. Mr. McCoy advised Petitioner that Ms. Abbott had instructed that all cars were to be put on a rack. Petitioner responded to the effect that if Ms. Abbott wanted the car racked, she could rack it herself, sprinkling his response with some choice profanities. His response was loud enough that Ms. Abbott could overhear it through the window between the shop and the reception area. As a result of what Ms. Abbott understandably perceived as insubordination, she prepared a written warning based on the fact that “employee was told multiple times to place vehicles on lifts not over pit [and] refused.” She presented the Discipline/Discharge Form to Petitioner, who refused to sign the form to acknowledge receipt. Mr. McCoy was called in to witness that Petitioner refused to sign the warning. Petitioner became argumentative with Ms. Abbott, who then instructed him to go home for the day. Upon leaving the premises, Petitioner “peeled out” of the parking lot, spraying gravel in the direction of other parked cars. By that time, Ms. Abbott had called Mr. Geiger to discuss the circumstances of the written warning. Mr. Geiger was able to hear the sound of Petitioner’s exit from the premises. That act was taken by Mr. Geiger and Ms. Abbott as a second instance of misconduct warranting discipline. Ms. Abbott discussed the situation regarding Petitioner with Mr. Geiger and Mr. Gerhardt. The decision was made by the three of them, based upon that day’s behavior and Petitioner’s increasingly bad attitude, that Ms. Abbott should terminate Petitioner from employment. November 19, 2013, was a scheduled day off for Petitioner. When Petitioner returned to work on November 20, 2013, he presented Ms. Abbott with a letter in which he requested a transfer to another Precision location. In his letter, he indicated that he had previously discussed a transfer with Ms. Abbott because of “lack of communication, lack of supervision, lack of procedure standards and underlying personality conflicts.” No mention was made of any discriminatory or sexually inappropriate actions on the part of Precision or Ms. Abbott. Petitioner requested that Ms. Abbott sign the transfer request to acknowledge receipt, which she did. Her acknowledgement of receipt of the transfer request does not support a finding that Respondent or Ms. Abbott discriminated against Petitioner. Ms. Abbott advised Petitioner that a transfer was out of the question, and that he was being terminated from employment. Petitioner demanded that she give him a copy of his termination papers. Ms. Abbott advised that he would be faxed his Termination Record by Respondent’s human resources department. Petitioner then left the premises. He was subsequently sent a copy of the Termination Record as stated. Uniform Return When Petitioner left the employ of Respondent, he failed to return the company-issued uniforms, valued at $466.00. On January 6, 2014, after several verbal attempts by Ms. Abbott to recover the uniforms, Mr. Gerhardt sent a certified letter to Petitioner at his address of record. The address to which the letter was mailed, 6881 Twiggs Lane, Pensacola, Florida 32305, is the same address provided to the FCHR by Petitioner in his December 29, 2013 Employment Complaint of Discrimination, and his July 21, 2014 Petition for Relief. Mr. Gerhardt’s letter advised Petitioner that if he did not return the uniforms by January 31, 2014, the matter would be turned over to the state attorney. Petitioner did not return the uniforms and, as promised, the matter was turned over to law enforcement. Respondent has taken legal action to recover uniforms from former employees in the past, including Caucasian former employees. Ultimate Findings of Fact Up to and including the time of his termination, Petitioner did not contact the employee hotline, file a complaint, discuss with co-workers or management, or otherwise claim that he had been the subject of discrimination because of his race, or that Ms. Abbott had acted in a sexually inappropriate way towards him. No witness, other than Petitioner, testified that they ever saw Ms. Abbott dress “provocatively” or in other than standard work attire, ever heard Ms. Abbott tell off-color or racially-charged jokes, or ever heard or observed Ms. Abbott interacting with Petitioner in an inappropriate manner. There was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing to support a finding that any personnel decisions regarding Petitioner, including those regarding his requests to transfer, his written warning, and his termination, were made due to Petitioner’s race, or in furtherance of any effort to sexually harass or obtain sexual favors from Petitioner. There was no competent, substantial evidence adduced at the hearing that any persons who were not members of the Petitioner’s protected class, i.e., African-American, were treated differently from Petitioner, or were not subject to similar personnel policies and practices.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent, Precision Tune Auto Care, did not commit any unlawful employment practice as to Petitioner, Reggie Dancy, and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in FCHR No. 2014-0068. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of December, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of December, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent, MThree Corporate Consulting, LTD (“MThree”), subjected Petitioner, Sidara Chau, to unlawful employment practices on the basis of her race or her sex in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are made based on the exhibits admitted into evidence and the testimony presented at the final hearing: Ms. Chau, an Asian (Cambodian) woman, was at all times material to this matter employed by MThree. Petitioner alleges that Respondent discriminated against her on the basis of her race and sex. FCHR determined there was no reasonable cause to find Respondent discriminated against Petitioner. Dissatisfied with FCHR’s findings, Petitioner filed her Petition for Relief from Unlawful Employment Practices and Request for Administrative Hearing requesting this hearing. MThree is an international corporation that provides consulting services to assist clients with technology projects. An arm of MThree’s business includes the Alumni Associate program, which hires recent college graduates, provides training, and places the program associates with clients with the goal of the client hiring MThree’s program associates as permanent employees of the client. Given that MThree is an international corporation, and given the number of known employees, MThree is an employer. See § 760.02(7), Fla. Stat. By letter dated August 31, 2017, MThree hired Ms. Chau as an Alumni Associate for production support with the expectation that she would be assigned to work onsite with one of MThree’s clients. Ms. Chau’s job responsibilities included assisting customers with instruments and client data quality checks. Based on the offer letter, Ms. Chau would be paid an annual salary with periodic increases subject to successful performance reviews after every six month of being onsite, through the end of the agreement. After training, Ms. Chau earned $42,000 per year. She anticipated receiving an increase to $45,000 after her six month review. Throughout her employment with MThree, Ms. Chau’s supervisor was Emily Keefe. As an Alumni Associate, Ms. Chau was required to complete training for approximately four weeks before beginning work onsite at the client’s business location. The training class included 18 other new employees. The trainers for the training class, Keith Dauris (general trainer for Jacksonville production class) and David Hodgins (primary trainer for the production class), expressed concerns about perceived deficiencies in Ms. Chau’s performance during the training. Specifically, Mr. Dauris conducted an assessment of the performance of each trainee based on categories described as follows: Very Good: No issues at all. Will hit the ground running; Good: No major concerns. Should settle in well on site; Behind on the learning curve: Still need work. Will take time to settle in on site and will need support; and Major concerns: Serious concerns as to their ability to hold down the job. Mr. Darius placed Ms. Chau in the category of “major concerns” and further commented, “Really does not understand coding at all. General problem skills is [sic] lacking. Serious concerns about her ability to perform on site.” Mr. Dauris shared his assessment with Mr. Hodgins who then communicated his concerns with Ms. Keefe. Similar to Mr. Dauris, Mr. Hodgins was concerned about Ms. Chau’s struggle with technical content, and asked whether she could benefit from additional training. Despite the concerns about Ms. Chau’s performance, she was assigned to work at Deutsche Bank. In October 2017, Ms. Chau began working at Deutsche Bank as a production support analyst. Ms. Chau’s supervisor at Deutsche Bank was Ranjith S. Nair, a line manager and permanent employee of Deutsche Bank. At all times material to this matter, Mr. Nair was not employed by MThree. Ms. Chau testified that Mr. Nair treated her unfairly by refusing to help her on projects and refusing to train her. Instead, he helped other employees namely, Boubacar Barry. Ms. Chau stated that when she expressed interest in disaster recovery projects, Mr. Nair refused to give her the opportunity to complete the training. She also claimed that he did not train her on other work tasks. While Ms. Chau did not believe the training Mr. Nair provided at Deutsche Bank was sufficient, there is no evidence in the record that she asked for training through MThree until after her performance review. Ms. Chau also testified about two incidents where her work performance was impacted by Mr. Nair’s mistakes. The first incident was related to an assignment request, which required Mr. Nair’s approval to complete. Mr. Nair delayed the necessary approval, which caused the work she performed to be cancelled. The second incident involved Mr. Nair yelling at her when she was asked to enter a particular command on a website and the website failed. Ms. Chau testified that Mr. Nair claimed she was responsible but he gave her the incorrect website. Mr. Nair did not testify at the hearing and there was no evidence offered at the hearing to corroborate Ms. Chau’s assertions. Ms. Chau testified that she never received complaints about her work performance while she worked at Deutsche Bank. However, Mr. Nair’s review reflects he had concerns with her performance. On or about April 18, 2018, Mr. Nair completed a six month performance review for Ms. Chau. The review assessed her performance in several areas, including: 1) application of skills in core role; 2) behavior at work and collaboration; 3) objectives; 4) meeting objectives; and 5) rating. The overall performance rating scale was as follows: Rating 5 All objectives fully achieved and most have been exceeded throughout the year and Outstanding levels of the required [behaviors] are always demonstrated across the majority of job competencies Rating 4 All objectives fully achieved and some have been exceeded throughout the year and All required [behaviors] have been demonstrated and consistently exceeded Rating 3 Fully achieved key objectives throughout the year and All required [behaviors] have been demonstrated Rating 2 One or more key objectives not achieved and/or Further development required for current role and/or behavior compares les [favorably] relative to expectations Rating 1 Performance unacceptable and/or Objectives not achieved and/or [behavior] levels not achieved A second rating scale used by line managers focused on potential for improvement, which provided as follows: A-Very high potential Capable of thinking of the “bigger picture,” is a good problem solver and very self-motivated B-High potential Performs very well in current role with potential to do more if given stretch assignments to help prepare for the next level C-Medium potential More focus on “tactical” thinking than “strategic” thinking but coaching and/or mentoring would help broaden that focus D-Low potential A valuable asset but requires encouragement to develop further in a number of areas Effective performer, but without coaching on how to become more innovative, achieve more lateral thinking etc. they may have reached their career potential C-Very low potential[1] No evidence that potential would improve even with extensive coaching or mentoring Consider reassignment or exit from the organization The review format permitted the associate to review him or herself, and then the manager would provide a final review. Petitioner provided favorable comments on her own behalf regarding her work performance in all categories. Ms. Chau’s evaluation of her performance was a clear contrast from Mr. Nair’s evaluation. In the evaluation, Mr. Nair identified a number of issues with Ms. Chau’s work performance. He commented that Ms. Chau needed improvement with the quality of her work, adhering to deadlines, and improvement of organization and communication skills. Mr. Nair reported 1 The rating range designated for managers only included to rating designated as “C.” However, a reasonable inference can be made that the second “C’ was due to a typographical area and was intended to be an “E” rating. that Ms. Chau needed to improve commitment to completion of assigned tasks. He also noted that Ms. Chau needed to be able to operate independently and proactively contribute to team tasks. The objectives set for Ms. Chau were also an area where Mr. Nair believed Ms. Chau could improve. Specifically, he stated that “Objectives/ Targets required by role is [sic] not met. Expect improvements in all areas noted in earlier sections.” Overall, Mr. Nair assigned a 2 out of 5 performance rating and “D” potential rating. In addition to the ratings, he commented that Ms. Chau’s performance was below the standard expected at the bank. He recommended that Ms. Chau improve her technical and organizational skills and engage in effective dialogue with stakeholders. Despite the low performance review, Mr. Nair was willing to give Ms. Chau additional time to improve her performance. After the evaluation, Mr. Nair discussed his concerns with Ms. Keefe who communicated the results to the MThree leadership team. Ms. Nair discussed the review with Ms. Chau. A few days later Ms. Chau emailed Ms. Keefe with concerns about her review and complaints that Mr. Nair treated her unfairly related to “something else personal.” Ms. Chau later withdrew her request for Ms. Keefe to escalate her complaint because she had spoken with Mr. Nair about areas for improvement. By June 2018, Deutsche Bank was prepared to progress toward terminating Ms. Chau from her assignment at Deutsche Bank due to low performance. Patti Burge, Director of Safety and Soundness at Deutsche Bank, and Ms. Keefe agreed Ms. Chau’s last day at Deutsche Bank would be July 27, 2018. Although Ms. Chau’s last day working onsite was July 27, 2018, she received payment from MThree through August 31, 2018. Ms. Keefe could not find a suitable different job site at which she could place Ms. Chau, and, thus, she was terminated from her employment with MThree as well. Ms. Chau offered Mr. Barry, an African man, as a comparator in this case. She believed Mr. Barry was similarly-situated and treated more favorably than her. He was trained on different projects and received help when needed. She asserted that he also received a six month raise for the same job. However, during training, Mr. Barry was placed in the “good” category and was assigned a 4 out of 5 rating for his work performance. Finally, Ms. Chau testified Mr. Barry was permitted to work from home, which Ms. Chau believed was favorable treatment. However, Ms. Chau by her own admission was also permitted to work from home. While not offered as a comparator, another associate, S.W., an African- American man, also scored 2 out of 5 for his six month review and was terminated on the same day as Ms. Chau. It is clear Petitioner believed she was treated unfairly by Respondent and by Mr. Nair in particular. However, Petitioner identified no instance of racially-disparaging direct comments or behavior directed toward her. There was also no evidence of disparaging comments related to her sex. In fact, Ms. Chau wrote in her email that her supervisor, Ms. Keefe, was like a sister to her. Although Respondent terminated another person at the same time as Ms. Chau, there was no evidence of a pattern of conduct, or inference of racial discrimination directed toward Asian women. Further, there was no evidence to support a finding that the decision to terminate Petitioner from employment was made due to Petitioner’s race or sex. Rather, the decision was based on dissatisfaction with Petitioner’s job performance while assigned to work at Deutsche Bank. There was also no evidence to prove that a person of a different race or sex than Petitioner, who was otherwise similarly-situated to Petitioner, was treated more favorably than Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Yolonda Y. Green Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Sidara Chau 705 Pennsylvania Avenue Winchester, Virginia 22601 (eServed) Ian M. Jones, Esquire Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP 50 North Laura Street, Suite 2600 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
