The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent, Lehigh Portland Cement Company/Furniture Division ("Lehigh"), discriminated against the Petitioner on account of her race (white) by discharging her from employment following a verbal altercation with a black co- employee in which the Petitioner allegedly uttered racial slurs directed at or concerning that black co-employee and whether the Petitioner was discriminated against on account of her sex (female) and because of a perceived interracial, personal relationship with another co-employee, who is black.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a former employee of Lehigh. She was discharged by that concern on August 4, 1989 as a disciplinary measure in response to her utterance of racial slurs concerning a black co-worker in the vicinity of the factory floor on Lehigh's premises immediately before the workday began on the date in question. She ultimately filed a charge of discrimination raising the issues and commencing the proceedings referenced in the above Statement of Issues and Preliminary Statement. Lehigh is a furniture manufacturer located in Marianna, Florida. Its plant consists of several large buildings where employees assemble and finish furniture. Lehigh employs somewhat over 400 persons at that factory. On the morning of August 2, 1989, Dorothy Hall and Major Hallmon, both black co-workers of the Petitioner, were having a discussion concerning union business just before the workday commenced on or in the vicinity of the shop floor of Lehigh's factory. Ms. Hall was a shop steward for the union in the paint shop, where the Petitioner was employed. Mr. Hallmon was the chief union steward for Lehigh as a whole. Ms. Hall was expressing concern to Mr. Hallmon about employees in her department or "shop", including the Petitioner, avoiding her, in her capacity as shop steward, and presenting problems directly to Mr. Hallmon when issues or incidents arose which they felt involved the responsibility of their union representatives. Ms. Hall mentioned the Petitioner as one of the employees who had complained about her to Mr. Hallmon. While Ms. Hall was making these comments to Mr. Hallmon, the Petitioner approached them and interrupted their conversation, getting into a verbal altercation with Ms. Hall. Mr. Hallmon attempted to get the Petitioner to cease arguing and yelling. Lehigh's personnel management procedures require that if employees engage in a physical or verbal altercation in their work area, they must cease arguing or fighting and move the disagreement to their supervisor's office for their supervisor to handle with them in an adult manner. Ms. Hall retreated from the confrontation with the Petitioner and walked into the office of George Williams, the supervisor of both of them. The Petitioner then made loud comments which were overheard by a number of co-workers. During their argument, or about the time Ms. Hall walked away in the direction of the supervisor's office, she referred to the Petitioner as a "stupid, white fool" or a "white fool". When the Petitioner walked away from the site of their verbal altercation, a white co-worker, Annette White, told the Petitioner that "Dorothy said she is going to whip your tail" or words to that effect. At this point, the Petitioner responded "I am not afraid of no black ass nigger." The Petitioner's comments were made in a very loud voice and were overheard by a number of co-workers nearby although Ms. Hall, herself, did not hear them nor did Mr. Hallmon. Anne Hamlin, a white woman, who worked in the Petitioner's department, heard the Petitioner say the above-quoted comment. Ms. Hamlin admonished the Petitioner that she should not be calling people by that name. Wilford Pittman, a black man, observed Mr. Hallmon trying to calm the Petitioner during or shortly after her verbal altercation with Ms. Hall. He heard the Petitioner use the word "nigger" and state words to the effect that "I am not scared of that nigger". Odell Harrison, a white man, also heard the Petitioner state "I am not scared of that nigger". Ron Baker, a black man, heard the Petitioner reference Ms. Hall as "a black son of a bitch". The Petitioner, herself, admitted that she stated "I am not afraid of no black ass nigger". The Petitioner immediately joined Ms. Hall in the office of the supervisor after the above incident. Mr. Jack Toole, a crew leader, was also present in the office on that occasion. The argument was renewed once the Petitioner and Ms. Hall were together in the supervisor's office. During the course of their renewed argument, in one of the Petitioner's comments, she used the words "I am white" to which Ms. Hall retorted "No you ain't, your shorts is white". Mr. Toole, who was present during the argument in the supervisor's office, recalls Ms. Hall telling the Petitioner that she was "a white fool for fooling around with Major Hallmon and ruining his life". He also recalls Ms. Hall first coming into the office when he was already present and stating words to the effect that "if we didn't do something about that white woman out there, she would do something with her". Mr. Williams remembers Ms. Hall stating "you make an old fool out of Major". The Petitioner then made a comment to the effect that Ms. Hall should stay home and tend to her "thieving husband" and stay out of other people's business, whereupon Ms. Hall picked up an ashtray as though to strike the Petitioner. Mr. Toole grabbed her arm and took the ashtray from her hand, replacing the ashtray on the desk. The signal to begin work then sounded and Mr. Williams instructed both antagonists to leave his office and begin work. Lehigh has a very specific policy prohibiting racial slurs. That policy provides: Further, it is a stated policy of Lehigh to prevent and prohibit discriminatory conduct in the work environment including statements or actions which could be interpreted as, racially, sexually, religiously or ethnically based, sexual harassment or any other discriminatory harassment or conduct with respect to co-employees, subordinate employees, or supervisors. Any employee who is found to have violated this policy will be subject to discipline, up to and including discharge. This equal employment opportunity policy was posted on all of the company's bulletin boards in the work place in early 1987 and was so maintained and posted forward of that time. Lehigh's management had experienced two disciplinary incidents in the past where two employees, Mr. Cecil Sims and Mr. Coy Jackson, both white, had used the word "nigger", in a conversational context with two black co-employees or in a circumstance where those employees overheard the comment, although it was not uttered in the course of an argument or verbal altercation. Those employees were disciplined by Lehigh for uttering that word, which is found to constitute a "racial slur". Shortly thereafter, during contract negotiations with the union in November of 1988, union representatives informed Lehigh's management that they felt that Lehigh was not enforcing its anti-discrimination policy as vigorously as it should, with the Sims and Jackson incidents used as examples of the union's perception that management's disciplinary practices with regard to the use of this racial slur by employees was too lax. Although Lehigh's management took the view, and still does, that it had taken appropriate disciplinary action in those two prior incidents, Lehigh also agreed with union representatives that such racial slurs constituted a serious offense and agreed that the company would thenceforth enforce its discrimination policy more vigorously. Lehigh's policy, with regard to racial slurs, includes its view that the word "nigger" is one of the most severe or offensive words used to disparage or embarrass a person on account of that person's race. This interpretation of its anti-discrimination policy is a reasonable one because it was established in the record that that word, dating from the time of slavery in America forward to the present time, has been used essentially as a term of disparagement. It is one of the few words in the American vocabulary most likely to demean the person to whom it is directed, to arouse ill will between the person employing the word and the person or persons to whom it is directed, or about whom it is referenced, and even to incite violence between them. It is rational for Lehigh to consider that the use of that racial slur is one of the most severe offenses to which its anti-discrimination policy is directed and designed to prohibit and prevent. In carrying out its disciplinary policy and procedures, Lehigh investigates alleged violations of company rules or policies to find out what occurred and to determine if a rule or policy was, indeed, violated. That customary procedure was performed in the instant case situation. If the management of Lehigh determines that an employee has violated a rule or policy of the company, it evaluates the nature of the offense and views it against the past employment and disciplinary record of the employee to determine what discipline, if any, is appropriate. The management of the company considers the severity of the offense; whether the violation was a willful one; whether it was done with malice; whether the employee under investigation was the aggressor in the incident; the degree of provocation for that employee's behavior; whether the employee expresses or demonstrates any remorse for the occurrence; and the employee's past general work history and disciplinary record. All of these factors are weighed by the company's management in determining what discipline is appropriate. The company customarily has viewed the disciplinary history of an employee as a very significant factor in determining the appropriate discipline to be imposed for a violation of company rules or policies under review as to that employee. In imposing discipline for infractions of company rules or policies, Lehigh employs progressive discipline whenever possible in order to attempt to persuade the employee to change his or her behavior which has resulted in the violation. If an employee exhibits a pattern of rule infractions, especially infractions of the same rule or type of rules, the company imposes a progressively harsher discipline. When considering an employee's past disciplinary record, the company considers only disciplinary violations which have occurred within the past nine months, however. This is because the company's union contract, by which it is bound in terms of its personnel policies and procedures with regard to its union-member employees, contains a provision which requires this restriction. This provision has been applied to all hourly employees of Lehigh for the life of that contract or approximately the past 18 years. It is thus a regular and customary past practice of the company for purposes of the terms of its union contract. The disciplinary measures, which the company imposes for infractions of its rules and policies, range from an oral reprimand (the imposition of which is recorded in the employee's personnel record even if delivered verbally); a written reprimand; suspension from employment for a discreet time period; and permanent discharge from employment. Mr. Albert Berger is the Vice President of Operations for Lehigh. He is responsible for personnel management, among other duties. His personnel management duties include the investigation of alleged infractions of the company's personnel policies and rules, interpreting the company's disciplinary policies and procedures and arriving at decisions about how to discipline employees. Mr. Berger investigated the subject incident involving the Petitioner and Ms. Hall, ultimately determined how to discipline each employee and imposed that discipline. He followed the company's disciplinary policies and procedures in deciding how to discipline the Petitioner and Ms. Hall concerning the incident of August 2, 1989. Upon learning of the incident between those two employees on August 2, 1989, Mr. Berger commenced an investigation of the matter that same day. After making a preliminary inquiry into the matter, he elected to suspend the Petitioner from work sometime on the morning of August 2, 1989, such that she left the company premises under suspension shortly before Noon. He continued his investigation that afternoon, conducting taped interviews with employees and supervisors who had witnessed the altercation. Those witnesses later signed summaries of their statements to Mr. Berger. The Petitioner returned to the factory between 1:00 and 2:00 on the afternoon of August 2, 1989, while Mr. Berger was still concluding his interviews of other employees and supervisors. He gave the Petitioner an opportunity to relate her version of the incident to him. During her taped interview, the Petitioner was very loud and hostile in her demeanor and statements and responses to his questions. She repeatedly employed the term "nigger" with reference to Ms. Hall and her version of the occurrence in question. During the course of the hearing, the Petitioner attempted to explain her behavior during the taped interview with Mr. Berger by insinuating that she was under the influence of alcohol when she exhibited loud and hostile demeanor and comments during the interview, including the use of the term "nigger". She attempted to substantiate this claim by stating that she had consumed several six-packs of beer between the time she left the company premises under suspension shortly before Noon on August 2, 1989 and the time of her interview with Mr. Berger at approximately 2:00 that afternoon. She did not, however, appear drunk or under the influence of alcohol to Mr. Berger when he interviewed her nor did her verbal statements and responses depicted on the tape of that interview justify a finding that she was drunk or under the influence of alcohol at the time of the interview. Moreover, this explanation of her conduct during the interview is self-serving and is thus deemed not credible. Upon concluding his investigation and in the process of determining what, if any, discipline to impose on the two protagonists, Mr. Berger reviewed and considered the employment histories of both the Petitioner and Ms. Hall. Ms. Hall's disciplinary record was a good one. Her most recent disciplinary offense had occurred 13 years before the August 2, 1989 incident. She had been disciplined only one other time, approximately 16 years before the August 2, 1989 incident. Under its union contract, Lehigh was prohibited from considering those two disciplinary incidents in deciding whether and how to impose discipline for the current August 2, 1989 occurrence because those disciplinary infractions occurred more than nine months prior to the August 2, 1989 incident. In addition to the fact that her disciplinary record was a good one with no disciplinary infractions for more than a decade, Ms. Hall readily expressed remorse for her involvement in the incident, apologizing to Mr. Berger and promising to let no such occurrence happen in the future. Because of this and because Lehigh's management, through Mr. Berger, viewed the racial slur "nigger", loudly uttered by the Petitioner, as more egregious than the remark "white fool", "old fool", or "you're not white, your shorts are white", made by Ms. Hall, a lesser discipline was imposed upon Ms. Hall. Mr. Berger imposed a written warning upon Ms. Hall for picking up the ashtray as a threatening gesture directed to the Petitioner and a verbal warning upon her for the above- quoted name calling. This is not a minimal sanction. Written memoranda of both types of discipline are made a part of such an cmployee's personnel record. Concerning the discipline imposed upon the Petitioner, the record establishes that on June 23, 1989, less than two months prior to the incident concerning Ms. Hall, the Petitioner received a three-day suspension for interference with company operations through the use of abusive language directed at another employee. This incident involved the Petitioner painting the words "High Ass" on the door front of a piece of furniture and sending it down the assembly line so that it could be viewed by the co-worker to whom the words were directed. The Petitioner admitted that the words were directed at a black co-worker who was farther down the assembly line. In conjunction with her suspension, Mr. Berger warned her that if she continued to engage in name calling or racial slurs, the consequences for the next such incident would be more severe, including the potential loss of her employment. Mr. Berger concluded and the record establishes that the Petitioner's conduct on August 2, 1989 clearly violated the company's explicit policy against racially-discriminatory conduct in the work place, as that policy is quoted in the above Findings of Fact. The Petitioner's conduct on August 2, 1989, along with the incident leading to her earlier suspension for similar conduct, establishes a pattern of abusive, racially-discriminatory behavior towards her co-workers. Further, the Petitioner was shown to be the aggressor in the incident, interrupting the private conversation between Ms. Hall and Mr. Hallmon, and making statements or comments which incited the ensuing argument and name-calling episode. The Petitioner showed no remorse for her behavior. She was still hostile and inflammatory in her description and reaction to the occurrence concerning Ms. Hall in her interview with Mr. Berger hours later, when she had every reason to believe that her job was at stake with a strong resulting incentive to be conciliatory and remorseful in her reaction and relation of her version of the occurrence to Mr. Berger. Because of these differences in her conduct, her past record, and the severity of her infraction of company policy, as opposed to that of Ms. Hall, and because of Ms. Hall's relative demeanor and reaction to the occurrence and the subsequent summons by Mr. Berger to account for it, Mr. Berger decided, after considering all of the above factors, to convert the Petitioner's suspension to a termination. Discharging the Petitioner for the August 2, 1989 violation in consideration of the above factors related to her conduct, demeanor and past record, as opposed to that of Ms. Hall, was shown to be reasonable, pursuant to Lehigh's customarily-followed "progressive discipline" policy. The differences in severity between the actions of the Petitioner and Ms. Hall, the differences in their personnel histories, the differences in the circumstances of their actions and their demeanor and conduct after the occurrence with regard to it support the differences in the discipline imposed upon them. In attempting to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment and discrimination related to her termination, the Petitioner employed in her case the examples of Coy Jackson, a white employee and crew leader, being disciplined, but not terminated for using the term "nigger" directed at a black co-employee, Rudolph Townsend, and the similar example of Cecil Sims, a department supervisor, who is also a white man, using the term "nigger" in the presence of a black co-employee. Mr. Sims was also not terminated, but was given a lesser level of discipline. Concerning the Jackson and Sims incidents, the record establishes that in 1988, Coy Jackson spoke of Mr. Townsend, the black employee, who had complained of being cold, as follows: "Get that nigger a coat before he freezes to death." Mr. Sims, a supervisor in that same department, investigated that incident. During Mr. Sims' investigation, he questioned the employees involved about the name calling and the use of the words "black" and "nigger". Mr. Sims stated to Mr. Townsend that there were two names "you all" (meaning black people) could be called-"black" or "nigger"-and he then asked Mr. Townsend which he preferred to be called. Mr. Townsend responded that he simply wished to be called by his own name. Mr. Townsend complained about Mr. Sims' comment to him; and Mr. Berger investigated that incident, as well. He ultimately decided to give Mr. Sims a verbal warning concerning it and admonished him that he was never to use the word "nigger" again in any context and that the next incident, when it occurred, would result in his discharge. The discipline imposed on Mr. Sims was based upon the fact that Mr. Sims readily expressed remorse for the incident, that he had a long, unblemished career with Lehigh, and was then near retirement. He had had no prior history of uttering abusive language, name calling, or the use of racial slurs in the work place. Moreover, the incident occurred in Mr. Sims' office in a normal conversational tone; it was not shouted or uttered loudly on the factory floor in the presence of a number of other employees. Mr. Jackson, the crew leader who made the remark concerning the coat, was also given a verbal warning for use of the word "nigger". The imposition of a verbal warning as discipline for Mr. Jackson was directly related to the fact that Mr. Jackson had personally apologized to Mr. Townsend for making the remark even before the occurrence had been related to Mr. Berger and any investigation of the matter instituted. Moreover, he had made the comment quietly to one other employee and did not shout it in the work place before a number of other employees. Further, these two incidents occurred in February of 1988 before Lehigh elected, at the urging of the employees' union, to more vigorously enforce its policy against racial slurs, which vigorous enforcement policy it has uniformly pursued since that time. These incidents were thus not proven to be similar to the incidents involving the Petitioner and her employment and disciplinary record. Neither involved the disciplining of a black employee differently than a white employee. The Petitioner, Mr. Sims and Mr. Jackson are white. The less severe discipline imposed on Mr. Sims and Mr. Jackson was rationally related to the mitigating circumstances described above, rather than to their status as men or white men. It is also noteworthy that several years before the Petitioner's discharge, a white man employed in Lehigh's loading department, in the course of a conversation with a black employee, held up a piece of rope, apparently tied as a hangman's noose, and told the black employee that he would show him what use was made of rope in the white employee's home town. The black employee, at this juncture, hit the white employee with his fist. Mr. Berger investigated that incident, as well. Although it was alleged to him that the white employee had used the term "nigger", Mr. Berger was not able to identify a disinterested witness who would actually establish that the term had been used. In any event, however, Lehigh's management, through Mr. Berger, determined that this was a serious, malicious violation of the company's anti-discrimination policy. He promptly discharged the white employee for this conduct. The black employee, in turn, was also discharged for engaging in violence, which the company has uniformly considered to be one of the most severe violations of its disciplinary rules. Each of those employees was individually disciplined for their respective violations of company policy, based upon the circumstances peculiar to each. Neither of those incidents is similar to the incident for which Lehigh discharged the Petitioner. The discipline imposed on each of them was shown to be consistent with the company's customary anti-discrimination policy. None of the exemplary incidents described above serve to establish that white employees, male or female,(or, for that matter, black employees) have been subjected to a pattern of discriminatory disciplinary measures, including termination. They, likewise, do not show that any of those employee groups were accorded favored treatment. Rather, the facts regarding these incidents show that the company has pursued a pattern of non-discriminatory employee discipline. The employees who were disciplined in these three incidents were not shown to be similarly situated to the Petitioner, in terms of the infraction she committed, her past record, the circumstances surrounding her infraction and the investigation afterward, versus the underlying reasons for the various disciplinary measures imposed on these other employees, related above. During the hearing, the Petitioner first raised the issue of alleged discriminatory treatment because of a perceived close interracial relationship between her and Mr. Hallmon. Accordingly, she amended the Petition, ore tenus, without objection. Mr. Hallmon and the Petitioner had apparently become close friends at the point when he asked her to be his assistant in his position as chief union steward. She accepted the position. Mr. Hallmon indicated that this was because of his concerns about tensions between black and white employees. He wished a white employee to be his assistant to, as he termed it, "balance things out". That association began approximately three years ago. Mr. Hallmon and the Petitioner customarily would spend their lunch period together on frequent occasions to discuss union business. They sometimes met after work, in the parking lot next to the factory, to discuss union business because, as Mr. Hallmon put it, he maintained his union business office in the trunk of his car. The two also met many mornings prior to work for donuts and coffee. Their apparent friendship is corroborated by the fact that Mr. Hallmon elected to urge one of the witnesses to the Petitioner's behavior on August 2, 1989 to conceal her knowledge of it. He stopped Anne Hamlin in the parking lot on the day of the incident and told her that she should say nothing about it. The Petitioner has been engaged in contesting her discharge through the union grievance procedure or the administrative process before the Commission on Human Relations and the Division of Administrative Hearings for more than a year and one-half as of the time of hearing. However, she never had complained prior to the day of hearing that her friendship with Mr. Hallmon or any perceived close, personal interracial relationship between her and Mr. Hallmon had been involved in the reasons for her discharge or any discriminatory treatment she believed had been imposed upon her. Mr. Hallmon contended at the hearing that 80% of the approximately 400 workers at Lehigh had made comments about their relationship but, upon questioning about this testimony, was only able to relate two specific comments which had been made to him concerning his and the Petitioner's relationship. Neither of these comments were made by management-level personnel of Lehigh. Moreover, both the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon, as union representatives, were acquainted with procedures for bringing a grievance to the attention of management, concerning discriminatory treatment, or any other basis for a grievance and yet neither had complained concerning any perceived discriminatory treatment to management. The only instance in which management might have gained any knowledge of their alleged relationship, other than personal observation, was from a conversation between Mr. Hallmon and Mr. Berger on one occasion when Mr. Hallmon asked Mr. Berger whether there was any violation of company policy if two people, black and white, or male or female, have lunch together. Mr. Berger responded by stating, in effect, that it was not any of management's business or anyone else's business concerning which employees had lunch together. Mr. Berger, however, upon learning that Mr. Hallmon had an apparent concern about the perception which management or co-employees might have concerning his and the Petitioner's relationship, did advise him to remember that "...this is the deep south...and I wouldn't want any of these rednecks catching up with you". When asked if he could recall any discussions between management personnel concerning the amount of time Mr. Hallmon and the Petitioner spent together, Mr. Berger answered "no, it's none of our business". Although Mr. Berger had observed the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon together on several occasions, he felt that was none of his business as a manager of the company. Neither body of testimony, appearing at pages 49, 50 and 90 of the transcript nor any other testimony or evidence in this record, establishes that management had any knowledge of any pervasive discriminatory pattern of behavior in the work place by co-workers toward the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon, if such indeed existed, which was not proven. It was also not established that management had any concern with any real or perceived relationship between the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon and it was not demonstrated that it had any effect on the decision to discipline the Petitioner nor on the severity of the discipline imposed. After her termination, the Petitioner attempted to secure employment through the services of Job Services of Florida by application of August 28, 1989. Job Services referred her to Russell Corporation on September 8, 1989 and to Wal-Mart on September 21, 1989. She applied for employment unsuccessfully at both places. These were the only attempts the Petitioner made to obtain employment from the time of her August 2, 1989 termination until the hearing. Her listing, as available for employment, with Job Services of Florida became inactive on November 30, 1989. It was not established that she sought to reactivate that listing until just prior to the hearing. During the period of her unemployment, there were opportunities to seek employment which she did not avail herself of. On the date of the hearing, there were 22 jobs with private employers and 15 jobs with public employers listed with Job Services of Florida for which the Petitioner could have qualified to apply. She contended that she had looked in the help-wanted advertisements in a weekly newspaper for jobs, but there were none for which she was qualified. Local papers published in Jackson, Calhoun and Liberty counties, in the immediate vicinity of the Petitioner's residence in Altha, reveal that there were a number of advertisements for jobs during her unemployment period which she could have qualified to apply for and possibly to secure. The Petitioner's payroll records for 1988 reveal seven pay periods out of 52 when her total hours equaled or exceeded 50 hours. There were seven pay periods when she worked fewer than 40 hours per week. The average hours worked weekly during 1988 were 42.2. The highest gross pay received in 1988 was $375.76 per week, and the lowest weekly gross pay was $98.56. Her weekly gross pay on an average basis for 1988 was, thus, $273.24. The Petitioner worked 36 pay periods in 1989. She worked more than 40 hours in only eight of those weekly pay periods. The time in excess of 40 hours in these eight pay periods varied, with 5.5 hours being the largest number of hours in excess of 40 hours worked for a weekly pay period; and .3 hours was the lowest number of hours in excess of 40 hours worked for a weekly pay period. In 15 of these 36 pay periods, the Petitioner worked fewer than 40 hours. The average hours per pay period for 1989 were, thus, 33.98. She received overtime pay in eight pay periods. Her highest gross salary for any pay period in 1989 was $309.28. Her lowest gross salary for a pay period in 1989 was $51.28. Her average gross pay for 1989 was, thus, $220.72 per week. The average weekly gross pay for the entire period of her employment was $246.12. She earned $6.41 per hour at the time of her discharge. Had she remained employed, this would have increased to $6.63 per hour on December 16, 1989 and to $6.83 on December 16, 1990. She was eligible for two weeks of paid vacation per year since she had been employed for three years, and eight paid holidays per year. Federal income tax, social security, and union dues were withheld from her gross weekly pay. In 1988, income tax withholding totaled $1,022.80; social security totaled $1,066.98; and union dues totaled $110.00. In 1989, federal income tax totaled $513.97; social security totaled $596.76; and union dues totaled $96.00 for the 36 pay periods she worked in 1989. Lehigh was self- insured for health insurance and any amounts exceeding the employee contributions were to be paid by Lehigh. The employees, including the Petitioner, contributed $7.50 per week towards health insurance. Her payroll records reveal, however, that she ceased participating in the employer-provided group health insurance after the seventh pay period of 1989. In arriving at the above Findings of Fact, it has been necessary, to some extent, to reject the testimony of the Petitioner and Mr. Hallmon. This is because the Hearing Officer finds the testimony of other witnesses to the argument between the Petitioner and Ms. Hall and the surrounding circumstances and events to be more credible. The testimony of the other witnesses to these events was accepted because of their basic agreement on the significant circumstances concerning the occurrences in question and the fact that these other witnesses were demonstrated to have no reason to shade the truth concerning the occurrences and the underlying circumstances, including the fact that these witnesses, whose testimony has been accepted as more credible, are of both races involved. The Petitioner, however, is interested in the litigation and admits using the words "black ass nigger" and her tape-recorded statements made the same day of the argument in question are corroborative of the statements, behavior and demeanor on the part of the Petitioner reported by the other witnesses who have been found to be more credible and who are named in the above Findings of Fact. It is found that Mr. Hallmon's close relationship with the Petitioner might have influenced his recollection of the events in question. More significantly, his effort to actually prevent Ms. Hamlin from relating her knowledge about the incident is evidence of a bias in favor of the Petitioner. Moreover, the Petitioner's testimony about alleged recent job-search efforts was impeached because in her deposition taken approximately a week prior to hearing, she repeatedly asserted that the potential jobs at Russell and Wal-Mart were the only ones she had sought, although she maintained at hearing that she had also applied for work at Oglesby Nursery and McDonald's two or three weeks prior to hearing. She offered no explanation of why she did not mention job applications allegedly made less than a month prior to her deposition testimony. It is simply not credible that she would have forgotten those applications if, indeed, they had been made, especially since she was repeatedly asked about that subject matter at her deposition. Thus, her testimony about applying for employment with the two additional employers is deemed not credible.
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 recommended that a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations finding that the Petitioner, Donna J. Brown, was not discharged in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1989), and was not the victim of a discriminatory employment practice and, therefore, that her Petition be dismissed in its entirety. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 7th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-6596 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-3. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter after determination of the relative credibility of the witnesses. Accepted. 6-9. Accepted. 10-11. Accepted. Accepted, but not material based upon the issues actually pled even by ore tenus amendment at hearing in this proceeding. It has not been established that the employer had knowledge, constructive or otherwise, of any pattern of usage of racial slurs by multiple employees on such a frequent basis, or with any frequency. Thus, it could not have condoned such a pattern of utterance of racial slurs if it was not shown to have known about them, nor was it established that the use of the word "nigger" by fellow employees approximately once or twice a month, as apparently heard by Mr. Hallmon, was made only by white employees. Accepted. Accepted, but not to the extent that this finding establishes a pattern of discrimination against white employees by Mr. Berger or the management of Lehigh. 15-17. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. As delineated in the Hearing Officer's findings of fact, a number of factors were considered in the decision to terminate as opposed to imposing another type or degree of discipline; not consideration of the word "nigger" alone. 20-21. Accepted. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. This finding of fact is not, in itself, materially dispositive of the issues to be adjudicated. Accepted, but not material to resolution of the relevant issues presented for adjudication. Accepted, but not material in this de novo proceeding. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's more detailed findings of fact concerning this subject matter and issue. 26-30. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter, including finding that the Petitioner did not participate in the group health insurance program any longer than the period of time delineated in the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. It has not been established that employment available for purposes of mitigation of damages for lost wages and benefits has to be precisely comparable in circumstances, condition, quality, wages or benefits or any other element in order to be a relevantly considered available job. Rejected, as contrary to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. It has not been established that the Petitioner would work 50 hours, with 10 hours of overtime, for each week which she would have worked since August 2, 1989 had she not been discharged. Such a figure is therefore speculative, rendering the figures contained in this proposed finding, other than the actual wage figures for a 40-hour work week, speculative. The Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter are adhered to and those in this paragraph are rejected as not supported by the evidence and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Rejected, as not supported by the preponderant evidence of record in light of the Hearing Officer's findings of fact concerning the liability issue. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-2. Accepted. 3. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by the record. 4-6. Accepted. 7. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by the evidence of record. 8-10. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted, except as modified by the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 15-17. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. 20-25. Accepted. 26. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 27-98. Accepted, except as modified by the Hearing Officer's findings of fact and by the Hearing Officer's acceptance of the proposed findings of fact by the Petitioner concerning the hourly wage rates Petitioner would have received with her next scheduled pay raises had she remained employed. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Ben R. Patterson, Esq. PATTERSON & TRAYNHAM 1215 Thomasville Road P.O. Box 4289 Tallahassee, FL 32315-4289 George J. Little, Esq. 134A Constitution Lane P.O. Box 1612 Marianna, FL 32446 John D.C. Newton, III, Esq. AURELL, RADEY, ET AL. Suite 1000, Monroe-Park Tower 101 North Monroe Street P.O. Drawer 11307 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her age, as stated in the Petition for Relief, in violation of Subsection 760.10(1), Florida Statutes (2002).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a Caucasian, female who, at the time of the alleged employment discrimination, was 42 years old. Petitioner was an employee of Kelly Services, an agency that supplied temporary employees to Respondent. At the time of the alleged incident, Petitioner was filling the position of material handler in Respondent’s warehouse. Her job title, pay, and hours worked did not change during her period of employment with Kelly Services at Respondent's warehouse. She received her pay from Kelly Services. When she decided to terminate her employment at Respondent's warehouse, she advised Kelly Services that she was quitting, not Respondent. There were three or four employees at the warehouse who were employees of Respondent. In addition, there were several temporary employees at the warehouse. No evidence was presented as to the total number of employees employed on either a permanent or temporary basis by Respondent. Petitioner began her employment with Kelly Services at Respondent's warehouse in late August 2002. For approximately two weeks prior to October 23, 2002, Petitioner was being trained to operate a forklift. She was the only temporary employee being so trained. On October 23, 2002, Jason Titra (Titra), a warehouse employee of Respondent, commented to Petitioner that it was easier to train a young person to operate a forklift than an older person. He analogized that "if you were training his niece and his grandmother to operate a forklift, who do you think would learn more quickly?" Petitioner was offended by this comment, thinking it derogatorily referred to her age. Titra was not authorized to make employment decisions by Respondent although he exercised supervisory authority over temporary employees, including Petitioner. Following the October 23, 2002, comment made by Titra, Petitioner refused to train to operate the forklift even though encouraged to train on the forklift and given the opportunity to do so by Respondent’s management representative. On November 18, 2002, Tim Staab (Staab), Respondent’s operations plant manager, sought out Petitioner and asked why she wasn’t training to operate the forklift. She told Staab about the comment made by Titra. Respondent immediately investigated the incident; as a result of Respondent’s investigation, Titra was disciplined for making inappropriate comments. Titra attempted to apologize to Petitioner; however, Petitioner refused to accept his apology. The October 23, 2002, comment by Titra is the only basis for Petitioner’s claim of age discrimination. There is no evidence that Titra repeated the comment or any similar comment, nor did any other employee. Nor is there any suggestion that the work environment became hostile. Petitioner acknowledged that Staab “tried to make it right”; Petitioner was repeatedly given the opportunity to train to operate the forklift, but she refused. Neither Petitioner’s pay or hours changed after the incident was reported. Late in January 2003, Petitioner voluntarily left the employment of Kelly Services and her assignment with Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order granting Respondent's Motion to Dismiss and finding that Petitioner failed to present a "prima facie" case. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Frances Ann Ratliff 1101B North Hoagland Boulevard Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Jeffrey L. Thompson, Esquire Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLC 577 Mulberry Street, Suite 710 Macon, Georgia 31201 Robin Sheridan Parcel Direct, LP N63W23075 Main Street Sussex, Wisconsin 53089 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Mr. Young, is a black male. From May 8, 1980 until September 20, 1985, Petitioner was employed by PCR, Inc., in Gainesville, Florida. PCR, Inc., is a chemical manufacturing company which mixes and manufactures some of the most toxic chemicals that exist at its Gainesville plant. In September, 1985, PCR, Inc. was owned by SCM Organic Chemicals. Petitioner was first employed by PCR, Inc., in May, 1980 as a maintenance helper and was subsequently promoted to maintenance mechanic. The maintenance department at the plant had seven employees, including Petitioner, who was the only black. Respondent followed a practice of documenting meetings between supervisors and employees concerning disciplinary matters and employee reprimands by memorandums written by the supervisors. Also, employees were counselled by supervisors in an informal manner where no memorandums were written. Prior to December, 1984, Petitioner had only been counselled or reprimanded regarding his work performance one time. The reprimand was for a one-day unexcused absence from work following four days of vacation. Sometime in October, 1984, Mr. Singletary became the supervisor of the maintenance department at PCR's plant in Gainesville. As such he was Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Mr. Singletary had worked for Respondent for over 20 years in Respondent's Jacksonville plant, where he had moved up through the ranks to become second in command in the maintenance department. In Jacksonville, Mr. Singletary had a reputation of being a tough, but fair supervisor who was concerned with "getting the job done," and who treated his coworkers and those he supervised equally, regardless of their race. One of Mr. Singletary's first duties upon becoming maintenance supervisor in the Gainesville plant was to review the personnel files and attendance records of the maintenance department employees. From this review, it appeared to Mr. Singletary that Petitioner had been abusing the sick leave privilege. After consulting with Mr. Pitrolo, the plant superintendent at the time, Mr. Singletary and Mr. Pitrolo met with Mr. Young on December 4, 1985. At the meeting, Mr. Singletary showed Mr. Young his attendance record and decided to extend the time for the yearly review of Mr. Young's performance. The substance of the meeting was memorialized in a memorandum dated December 4, 1988, written by Mr. Singletary, as follows: This is to document our meeting and its conclusion we had December 4, 1984. I went over your work record and you have thoroughly abused the time off with pay segment of our working agreement. You are hereby not awarded a yearly review but instead it will be extended until 15 months. You will also be placed on probation for a period of three (3) months starting 12/05/84 and ending 03/05/85. Any further violations as we discussed will end in termination. The problem is definitely not with your work, however, its being at work. In early 1985, Mr. Singletary implemented a four day work week, ten hours per day work schedule for the maintenance department employees. Mr. Singletary received reports that Mr. Young was telling other plant employees that he would receive overtime pay for the extra two hours of work per day. This became a concern to Mr. Singletary, since it was not true, and he did not want other employees to think that the maintenance department employees were receiving preferential treatment. On February 9, 1988, Mr. Singletary met with Petitioner and Petitioner denied he was making comments regarding the overtime pay. Mr. Singletary felt Petitioner was lying and instructed him to stop spreading rumors. Sometime in late February or early March, 1985, Petitioner was arrested for driving under the influence. After his arrest, Petitioner started telling people at the plant, including Mr. Pitrolo, that his intoxication had been caused by the chemicals present at the plant. Mr. Pitrolo told Petitioner that if he had a problem he should talk to his immediate supervisor, Mr. Singletary, and not make comments to other people in the plant. Instead of talking with Mr. Singletary, Petitioner continued to talk with others at the plant. Because Petitioner continued to talk about the intoxication to others, in violation of Mr. Pitrolo's instruction to talk with Mr. Singletary, another meeting was held between Petitioner, Mr. Singletary and Mr. Pitrolo, on March 5, 1988. Petitioner denied he was telling others that his intoxication was caused by the chemicals, but Mr. Singletary did not believe him. Petitioner was told to stop spreading rumors and to follow the chain of command if he had a problem. In early April, 1985, Petitioner was convicted of driving under the influence and sentenced to serve a 6-month jail term. Also, in April, 1985, Mr. Bailey became plant supervisor of the PCR, Inc., plant in Gainesville. He had previously been interim plant manager from May to September, 1984. After Petitioner's conviction, the Department of Corrections asked if Petitioner could return to his job at PCR, Inc., so he could be placed on a work release program instead of serving the 6-month sentence in jail. After consulting with Mr. Singletary, and reviewing Petitioner's personnel file, Mr. Bailey decided to allow Petitioner to work at the plant on the work release program. Petitioner started back at work on April 22, 1985. On that date, Mr. Singletary met with Petitioner to discuss the work release program and to let Petitioner know he was on "thin ice with the company." On April 26, 1985, Mr. Bailey and Mr. Singletary met with Petitioner. Mr. Bailey had reviewed Petitioner's personnel file and had seen all the memorandums in the file which had been written as a result of past counselling sessions. Mr. Bailey showed all the memorandums to Petitioner and asked him if he understood them and Petitioner said yes. Petitioner signed all the memorandums in the file. Mr. Bailey explained to Petitioner that if he had a problem, he should speak to Mr. Singletary. Also, Petitioner was told that being disruptive in the plant was bad and could cause operators to do something wrong. Petitioner was told that any further acts of a disciplinary nature would result in immediate termination. Approximately one month later, Mr. Bailey during his walks through the plant, began receiving reports that Petitioner was disgruntled, was complaining to other employees about the work he had to do, and was slow in completing work assignments. Reportedly, Petitioner would accuse the operators of breaking the machines on purpose. Mr. Bailey spoke with Petitioner informally during walks through the plant and told Petitioner to stop being disruptive. However, the number of people complaining about Petitioner's comments increased and things reached a point where operators told Mr. Bailey and Mr. Singletary that they did not want to turn in work orders because they were concerned about the comments Petitioner would make. Mr. Bailey, concerned with plant safety, consulted with Mr. Singletary and they decided that they had enough and would terminate Petitioner. On September 20, 1985, Mr. Singletary and Mr. Sauer, the personnel officer, met with Petitioner and explained to Petitioner that he was being terminated. The reasons given to Petitioner for his termination were poor performance, attitude and not being a team player.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 7th day of July, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5570 The parties submitted proposed findings of fact which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact Number Ruling and RO Paragraph 1. Accepted. RO1. 2. Rejected as irrelevant. 3. Generally accepted. RO3. 4. Accepted, except events occurred in October. RO4. 5. Accepted. RO8. 6. Accepted. 7. Accepted. RO17. 8. First sentence accepted. RO19. Second sentence rejected. Mr. Singletary testified that he followed up and determined that the complaints were accurate. 9. Accepted, except for phrase "although no additional acts of a disciplinary nature had occurred", which is rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence. RO21. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact Number Ruling and RO Paragraph First sentence accepted. RO2. Second sentence rejected; no evidence was presented about when PCR, Inc. was sold. Generally accepted. RO2. Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted. RO1 and 3. First four sentences accepted. RO6. Last two sentences are supported by competent evidence but are unnecessary to the decision reached. Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted generally. RO5. 8-12. Accepted generally. RO6. 13-20. Supported by competent evidence but unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted generally. RO4. Accepted, except last sentence which is rejected. RO5. Accepted, except second sentence. RO7. Second sentence rejected as not supported by competent evidence. 24-25. Accepted. RO9. Accepted. RO10,11. First sentence accepted. RO12. Rest of paragraph is supported by competent evidence but is unnecessary to the decision reached. Accepted generally. RO14,15. Accepted. RO16. Accepted. RO17. Generally accepted. RO18. Generally accepted. RO18. Generally accepted. RO20. Generally accepted. RO18. Generally accepted. RO19. Accepted. RO20. Accepted. RO21. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as not a finding of fact, but a recitation of testimony. Not a finding of fact. See conclusions of law portion of the RO. Supported by competent evidence. 42-43. Not a finding of fact. See conclusions of law portion of the RO. COPIES FURNISHED: Reese Marshall, Esquire 210 West Union Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 T. Geoffrey Heekin, Esquire Commander, Legler, Werber, Dawes, Sadler & Howell Post Office Box 240 Jacksonville, Florida 32201-0240 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahasee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Ms. Sherry B. Rice, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 240, Building F 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Overall organization. The City of Tarpon Springs has a mayor and four commissioners and operates under a city manager form of government. Neither the commissioners nor the mayor play an active role in the day to day operation of the City. The City Manager has the responsibility of operating the day to day affairs for the City. Collective bargaining relationships exist between the City and unions representing the Police and Fire Departments. The City Manager negotiates for the City in these relationships. Other than the Police and Fire Departments, there are approximately fifteen or sixteen departments with over 100 employees within the City. The actual number of employees varies seasonally, with the City employing more in the winter. At this time, the City employs approximately seventeen persons under the CETA program. The Public Works Department consists of ten or eleven separate departments, each of which, is headed by a foreman, and the Public Works Director has overall responsibility for the entire Department. His position is primarily one of assistant city manager. Four or five times a year, the City has supervisory meetings attended by the City Manager, the Public Works Director and the foremen of the various departments. Discussed at such meetings, are problems involving personnel, discipline and scheduling. Uniforms are available to most City employees on a voluntary basis. If, an employee chooses to wear a uniform, the City pays half the price of the uniform for the employee, with the exception of school crossing guards for whom the City furnishes uniforms and CETA employees for whom uniforms are not available. Uniforms worn by foremen have the word "foreman" written on them. Foremen. Each department under the Public Works Department is headed by a single foreman, with the exception of the Parks and Cemeteries Department which has two foremen. These various departments each have between three and eighteen employees, and include the departments of streets, sewer, sanitation, water distribution, building and maintenance, meters, water pollution control, and general maintenance. The City generally does not hire persons for the various departments without the recommendation or approval of the foreman. Under normal conditions, the foremen make the decision as to overtime work and the transfer of employees from one department to another. Written and oral evaluations and recommendations for wage increases are made by the foreman to the Public Works Director, which recommendations are normally approved. If an employee were caught drinking on the job, a foreman may fire the employee and then tell either the City Manager or Public Works Director about it later. The City then conducts an investigation into the matter to avoid possible future problems, but normally the decision of the foreman is approved. With a less offensive problem, such as absenteeism, the foreman issues a warning in writing. After the second warning, the foreman informs the Director or Manager that he is dismissing that employee and the City then terminates employment. Foremen make the decision as to time off for personal problems or emergencies and also grant approvals for vacation times. If there are complaints or grievances within a department, the foreman of that department normally takes care of it, very seldom do grievances come to the Public Works Director. An employee may be transferred from one department to another through the agreement of the two foremen involved. The primary duty of the various foremen is to direct the employees and supervise the activities within their respective departments. During shortages of personnel, foremen participate in the same type of work as their employees. Supervisory authority is one of the basis, along with longevity, for the pay differentials between foremen and other employees. Foremen assist in the formulation of policies and work schedules within their respective departments and are consulted with respect to the preparation of the budget. There are no supervisory-type personnel between the foremen and the Director of Public Works. Foremen handle grievances and would thus have a role in the administration of collective bargaining agreements. CETA employees. CETA employees work along with other City employees and the City is reimbursed for their salaries by the federal government. While they may have the same rate of pay as another person in their classification and do receive overtime pay, they do not receive raises nor do they have the fringe benefits which other employees have, such as hospitalization, uniforms, paid holidays, vacation, and sick leave. The CETA program presently extends through September 30, 1976, and such employees are hired until that time. If the City had a vacancy in a regular, permanent position, it would fill that position with a good CETA employee rather than going out and hiring another employee. Part-time employees. The City employs a number of part-time employees to work as school crossing guards, to police the beach, to do summer work with recreation, to work in the library and to do clerical and custodial work. Certain of these part-time employees are seasonal. In order to receive hospitalization benefits, an employee must work thirty or more hours per week. The three school crossing guards work 25 hours per week and receive uniforms fully paid for by the City. They are supervised by the Chief of Police. Other part-time employees fall under the supervision of the foreman or director for the department for which they work. Vacation and sick leave, as well as holiday pay, are prorated for part-time employees based upon the number of hours that they work. Their rate of pay is based upon the federal minimum wage though some regular part-time employees receive merit pay increases. In accordance with F.S. Section 447.307(3)(a) and F.A.C. Rule 8H-3.23, no recommendations are submitted. Respectfully submitted and entered this 4th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Curtis Mack Chairman Public Employees Relations Commission Suite 300 2003 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida Mr. Edward R. Draper 5400 West Waters Avenue, B-4 Tampa, Florida 33614 Mr. Allen M. Blake, Esquire Marlow, Mitzel, Ortmayer & Shofi 607 South Magnolia Avenue Tampa, Florida 33606
The Issue Whether the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of race or handicap in discharging him from employment on February 25, 1992; and whether the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against the Petitioner and other black employees in pay for similar jobs.
Findings Of Fact During the summer of 1988, Larry Jelks, a black male, approached Jerry Sikes, the Director of Public Works of Suwannee Country, seeking employment. Petitioner, Jelks, explained and Sikes was aware that Petitioner had significant experience as a welder. Several weeks later, Sikes contacted Jelks and offered him a job as a laborer. The Petitioner began work of August 16, 1988 with a starting pay of $5.00/hour in the position of laborer, an entry level, unskilled job classification. The Petitioner received a copy of the employer's regulations. On August 24, 1988, the Petitioner was promoted to Serviceman, and his pay increased to $6.00/hour. On October 12, 1988, Sikes hired Mr. Praley, a white male, as a welder, although his expertise was as a mechanic and Praley was subsequently assigned duties as a mechanic by Sikes. Praley was paid a starting salary of $6.50/hour. The welder/mechanic position was open when Jelks was hired. On November 24, 1988, Petitioner completed his 100 day probation and given his annual 5 percent raise, increasing his pay to $6.30/hour. Other black employees also had their pay raises delayed until after their probation was completed. White employees, including Praley, received their annual raises in the year of their initial employment, notwithstanding their probationary status. This discrepancy in treatment of employees was not explained by the County. On September 30, 1989, the Petitioner laterally transferred to the position of truck driver for the refuse collection service because he did not enjoy the work of a serviceman. One October 1, 1989, Petitioner received an annual raise of 4 percent, to $6.56/hour. Subsequently, the axle in Petitioner's truck broke, and when he was questioned about it, he asked for a transfer. On March 3, 1990, the Petitioner was transferred to a shop position in which he repaired rusted or damaged garbage bins (dumpsters), by welding new sides and bottoms on them. The sheets of steel which Petitioner welded on the bins were 6 feet by 12 feet in size and 1/16" thick, and weighed approximately 180 pounds. These sheets were generally cut into smaller pieces prior to being moved from the stack in which they were stored. These pieces of material had to be moved into position to be cut and welded. The bins were moved using backhoes and forklifts. The Petitioner was responsible for moving the pieces of sheet steel and using the equipment to move the bins. On March 17, 1990, the Petitioner received a 5 percent pay increase to $6.89/hour. On April 28, 1990, the Petitioner received a 5 percent raise to $7.24/hour. On October 1, 1990, the Petitioner was given a 5 percent raise to $7.61/hour. In early 1991, the Petitioner's child became critically ill, and the Petitioner obtained leave to be with the child. In addition, Jerry Sikes approved flexibility in the Petitioner's scheduling to permit him be with the child conditioned upon Petitioner letting his supervisors know what he was doing and when he was going to be away from his job. Problems were encountered with Petitioner's attendance, and he was counseled about this and given a copy of the Country's leave policy. Generally, however, the Petitioner's performance was satisfactory, and he was considered a good and valued employee. On September 23, 1991, the Petitioner suffered a job- related injury, and was placed upon workers' compensation leave. The Petitioner received workers' compensation and disability benefits during his leave. During his absence the other employees performed his welding duties. While on leave, the Petitioner received a 3 percent pay increase to $7.84/hour. On November 25, 1991, Sikes wrote Petitioner a letter advising that he was required to submit doctor's notes concerning his absences while on workers compensation leave. On December 20, 1991, John B. Roberts, the County's workers' compensation (rehabilitation) consultant contacted Sikes and asked Sikes to identify an alternative position the duties of which the Petitioner could perform. Sikes advised Roberts that the County had no light duty jobs, but that driving a truck was one of the least physically demanding jobs in the County's maintenance department. He advised Roberts that he would assign the Petitioner to drive one of the light dump trucks if he returned to work. These trucks have an especially rough ride when operated off road, as these were. Roberts looked at the duties of the job, and determined that the Petitioner ought to be able to perform these duties. Roberts discussed returning to work and performing the duties of a truck driver with the Petitioner; however, the Petitioner advised Roberts that he wanted to talk with his attorney prior to returning to work. The Petitioner did not return and assume the duties of driving a truck in December as Roberts had arranged. On January 2, 1992, the Petitioner was sent a copy of a letter which was to Mr. Larry Sikes from Dr. Cason who had been treating Petitioner. The letter stated that the Petitioner was released from treatment to return to regular work activities as of January 2, 1992. On January 3, 1992, the Petitioner returned to work. He had a 4 percent permanent impairment, but his employer was not advised of this. His doctor advised the rehabilitation counselor that the Petitioner be placed on light duty because he would have to toughen up after returning to work. Sikes did not afford the Petitioner the opportunity to work back into the job. The Petitioner's work area was outside, behind the regular shop, exposed to the elements. It was very cold at the time the Petitioner returned to work. The Petitioner's production was low because he could not physically manhandle the large sheets of steel as he could prior to his injury. He asked that an inmate be assigned to work with him all the time, but assistance was denied to the Petitioner. The Petitioner asked for a backhoe, which he had previously modified, to move the bins and sheets around; however, this piece of equipment had been sent to the landfill. He was told to use a front end loader to do this work; however, he went to the landfill and retrieved the backhoe because he had difficulties climbing into the cab of the front end loader. His demands and getting the backhoe without permission created additional conflicts between the Petitioner and his supervisors. On January 8, 1992, Sikes issued the Petitioner a memo concerning his poor productivity and failure to follow the instructions of his supervisor. Prior to his injury, the Petitioner repaired approximately one bin per day. During the period after his return to work, he did approximately one bin every two to three days. When presented with the memorandum, the Petitioner advised that he was unable to do that which he had formerly done. The Petitioner was told that he was expected to do all his regular work. This motivated the Petitioner to return to the doctor and seek a clarification of what he could and could not do. In addition, Petitioner was also seeing a chiropractor regularly for treatment. Petitioner left work almost daily to see the doctor, and frequently did not return. He did not provide his employer with documentation of these visits. The Petitioner asked that an overhead chain hoist, similar to the one which was inside the shop area, be installed in his work area to move the sheets of steel to assist him. His direct supervisor, Mr. Horton, denied the request because it was expensive and required additional construction to support the mechanism. On January 13, 1992, the Petitioner received a second warning for being absent from work without notifying his supervisor. Sikes advised the Petitioner that he would have to comply with the County's personnel regulations which required prior notification and a note from the doctor. Although the Petitioner testified he was absent attending doctor's visits, he presented no other substantiation of these visits at the hearing. On January 22, 1992, the Petitioner submitted, as requested earlier, a report from Dr. James B. Slatery of Gainesville Orthopedic Group, advising that the Petitioner could return to work, but should avoid climbing and limit his lifting over 50 pounds to an occasional basis. A similar report was submitted by Dr. A. C. Bass. The metal sheets the Petitioner was lifting weighed over fifty pounds. The County failed to make accommodations for the Petitioner's physical problems upon his return to work in a manner it had for white employees. The county had placed recovering white employees in positions where they were flagmen, directed traffic, and in similar positions. The county placed the Petitioner back at his regular duties, stated it had no "light duty" positions, and demanded Petitioner perform all his duties to pre-injury standards of productivity. When the Petitioner asked for assistance in lifting the sheets of steel which were in excess of the weight allowance set by his doctor, the County told him to seek assistance from his coworkers, who were instructed to assist him. He had to wait until they finished with their immediate task, and they were less than happy about these interruptions, and going outside where the Petitioner worked. This slowed his production for which he received criticism from his supervisors. The conditions imposed by the employer were not so bad as to constitute a constructive discharge. However, had Petitioner filed an action at that time, he would have proven that he was treated differently than white employees who were accommodated for their physical problems when returning from workman's compensation leave. There was a verbal exchange between the Petitioner and one of his coworkers, Earnest Johns, arising out of their interactions in the shop. The Petitioner told Johns that he "would pass up a bus load of white girls, to make him (Johns) his bitch." Johns complained to Sikes about the Petitioner, and told Sikes, "he needed to do something about that Nigger." Sikes told Johns that he would take care of it and to calm down. Johns, who was very upset, subsequently apologized to Sikes for his confrontational manner in raising the matter with him. On January 25, 1992, Sikes sent the Petitioner another memo confirming a verbal warning about his poor work habits, wasting time, and absenteeism. On January 30, 1992, Sikes sent the Petitioner another memo regarding his poor work habits. In February, the Petitioner's wife, from whom he was separated, died, and he was granted three days bereavement leave for February 11-13, 1992. On February 18, 1992, the Petitioner called the shop and left word with a secretary that he would not be at work for the rest of that week. He did not submit a leave request for this period of time. Subsequently, the Petitioner was absent without permission from February 14 until February 24, 1992. The Petitioner did not obtain permission from his supervisors prior to taking this leave, did not request leave without pay, and did to explain his absence. Neither did his doctor, the rehabilitation counselor, his chiropractor, his attorney, or a member of his family or a friend report his absence and give any explanation. During this period, he appeared once at work to pick up his pay check on February 21, 1992. On this occasion the Petitioner did not address the matter of his absence with Sikes or Horton, although Horton advised he Petitioner that Sikes wanted to speak with him. The Petitioner had exhausted all of his sick and vacation leave prior to February 14, 1992. Under the County's rules, an employee had to request leave without pay after exhausting sick and annual leave, and the request had to be approved by the County Commission. The Petitioner did not make a request for leave without pay. Although the Petitioner asserts that he had not exhausted his sick leave because he was visiting the doctor during his absences which was covered by workers' compensation leave, he did not provide medical substantiation for the alleged treatments and doctors' visits as required by the employer's rules in order to obtain workers' compensation leave. On February 25, 1992, the Petitioner returned to work at starting time wearing work clothes. Horton stopped him on his way to his work area, and advised him that Sikes wanted to talk with him. Horton accompanied the Petitioner to Sikes office. Sikes asked the Petitioner were he had been, and the Petitioner answered that he had been attending to personal business. Sikes asked him for a more detailed explanation of his absence, and the Petitioner again told him that he had been tending to business and that Sikes should either fire him or get off his back. Sikes warned the Petitioner that unless he provided some explanation for his unauthorized absence, he would have to terminate him. The Petitioner refused to provide any additional explanation, but asked that his firing be put in writing. The Petitioner left the work place after the meeting, and did not return to work or attempt to explain his absences. Sikes viewed the Petitioner's absences and refusal to obey the personnel regulations as undermining his credibility as a supervisor. Several days after the confrontation on February 25, 1992, Sikes wrote a letter terminating the Petitioner for (1) continued or gross neglect of duty; (2) absence without leave; incompetence or unwillingness to render satisfactory service; insubordination; and (5) habitual absences, as provided in Parts X and XI of the County personnel regulations. Sikes extended special consideration to all employees of the department, who were permitted to take leave or be absent without applying for leave. The Petitioner was permitted to take leave without applying for it, and that considerable latitude was extended to the Petitioner regarding his absences prior to his being discharged. A white male, who was not handicapped, was hired on May 28, 1992 to file the position from which the Petitioner was discharged. The Petitioner appealed his discharge under the County's rules, and after an evidentiary hearing in which the Petitioner was represented by counsel, the county's hearing officer found that the dismissal was for cause in a Final Order dated September 24, 1992. Discrimination in Promotion and Pay among Blacks. The population and labor market statistics offered by the Petitioner in support of his contention that Blacks were discriminated against in promotion fail to support the proposition for which they were offered. For example, the Petitioner limits the labor pool to those persons who are over 16 and worked in 1989. However, there are those persons who are over 16 and would like to work, but who have not been hired. If the Petitioner's contention is correct, one would expect that for every white employee hired, there was a black applicant who was not hired. Therefore, comparisons based upon persons actually hired understate the percentage of Blacks in the labor pool. The relevant labor market for this dispute is Suwannee County, Florida, and the relevant labor pool are those people over 16 years of age who are now seeking, or who have in the past sought employment. According to the 1990 census, 14.7 percent of the population of the County is black. Blacks constitute 13.8 percent of the County's employees. The work environment was not overtly racist, and while, as stated above, racially charged verbal barbs were occasionally exchanged, there is no evidence that this was common or tolerated by the employer. The best evidence of discrimination by the employer were the actual practices engaged in by the County. During the 12 years prior to the termination of the Petitioner, the County had never had a Black supervisor. From 1989 to September 23, 1992, the County hired one black employee of 30 employees who it hired. Its top 10 highest paid employees were all white. The highest paid black was the forty-first highest paid employee of the County. Kevin Praley was placed in a welder's position despite the fact he was a mechanic at $6.50/hour; and Petitioner, who was a professional welder, was hired as a laborer at $5.00/hour in 1988. At the time Praley was hired, the Petitioner was making $6.00/hour, so that the differential between their pay was $.50/hour in 1988. After four years, Praley, who was hired after the Petitioner, was paid $2.01/hour more than the Petitioner for work which Sikes and others said was similar. This reflects continuing discrimination in hiring and paying Blacks. Blacks were hired in the lowest paying, menial jobs within the county, and this was not on the basis of education. All of the county's custodial employees are black. Only one of the county's secretaries is black. Until very recently, there were no black supervisors in the county's maintenance department. Most of the County's increases in Black employment and promotions occurred after institution of this case. The Clerk of the Circuit Court/Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners has not published a salary discrimination review required by Section 28.34, Florida Statutes. Further, the County's Equal Opportunity Program of 1992 provided for annual assessment of its progress in equal opportunity. As of May 9,1994, the County and not compile an annual report pursuant to its plan. The County did not train Black employees to assume greater responsibility, and did not utilize them as heavy equipment operators until after the institution of this action. The county did not pay Jelks and other Black employees annual pay raises while they were on probation; however, it did pay white employees Praley, Hardin, Simmons, Mobley, Luanne Mixon, Tervola, and Brother annual pay raises while they were on probation. These white employees were all hired prior to or during the year the Petitioner was hired. Jelks received the raise at the end of his probation period on November 24, 1988. Helen Stoudermire, Mattie L. Weatherspoon, Tyrone Tillman, and Marvette Gwinn, all black employees of the Respondent, did not receive annual raises while in probationary status, contrary to the treatment afforded white employees. The amounts of their collective salary losses were not presented as a finding of fact. The county did discriminate against the Petitioner and other black employees in pay and promotion during the period 1989 until February 25, 1992.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission of Human Relations enter a Final Order directing that: The Petitioner's Petition for Relief relating to his discharge be dismissed; Black employees of the County be certified as a class for the period beginning August 1988 until the present; The County be ordered to cease and desist its discriminatory practices in pay and promotion against the class of black employees; The County's Clerk be ordered to file reports on salary differentials are required by statute; and Reasonable attorney's fees and costs be awarded to Petitioner's counsel. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX CASE NO. 93-5330 Both of the parties submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 2 Rejected as contrary to more credible facts. See Paragraph 41. Paragraph 3 True, but part of statement of case. Paragraph 4 Paragraph 11. Paragraph 5 Paragraph 1. Paragraph 6 Subsumed in Paragraph 11. Paragraph 7 Subsumed in Paragraphs 11 and 17. Paragraphs 8,9,10 Paragraph 44. Paragraph 11 Conclusion of Law Paragraph 12 Paragraph 57. Paragraph 13 Contrary to facts. The Petitioner returned to duty. Paragraph 14 Irrelevant. Paragraph 15 Paragraph 48 Paragraphs 16,17,18 Paragraph 51 Paragraph 19,20 Contrary to more credible evidence. Paragraph 21 Subsumed in paragraph 54. Paragraph 22 Paragraph 56. Paragraphs 23,24,25 Paragraphs 2,3,4,58,60 Paragraph 26 Paragraph 26. Paragraphs 27,28 Paragraph 42. Paragraphs 29,30 Subsumed in 2,3,52,53. Paragraph 31 Rejected because Jelks received the raise at the end of his probation period on November 24, 1988. His reduction in pay was $.30/hour for October and November, or 8 weeks X 40 hours X .30 = $96.00. Paragraph 32 County's claims were rejected on this point. Paragraph 33 Paragraph 18 Paragraph 34 The statistical record is rejected for lack of credibility because it considers averages of both groups compared when there are findings which show whites held higher paying jobs. Paragraph 35 Subsumed in paragraph 32. Paragraph 36 Subsumed in paragraph 54. Paragraph 37 Rejected as contrary to better evidence. Paragraph 38 Subsumed in Paragraphs 26,27. Paragraph 39 Paragraphs 29,30. Paragraph 40 Is not addressed specifically because it violated the HO's directions that findings be kept short, and address specific factual matters, and is mostly argument. Paragraph 41 Subsumed in Paragraph 17. Paragraph 42 Paragraph 20. Paragraph 43 The County did accommodate some whites. Paragraph 44 Rejected as contrary to best evidence. Paragraph 45 Paragraph 50. Paragraph 46 Subsumed in Paragraph 55. Paragraph 47 Rejected. Welder and mechanic were the same job description. Paragraph 48 Irrelevant. Paragraph 49 Rejected because "handicap" relates to permanent conditions, and his permanent handicap was only 4 percent. It was his temporary condition which impacted his ability to perform the work. Paragraph 50 Irrelevant. Paragraph 51,52 The name calling by employees, to include Johns, occurred in the context of an angry exchange with Sikes, who cautioned Johns to calm down. Johns subsequently apologized to Sikes, and neither were aware that his comments had been overheard by Jelks. Paragraph 53 Paragraph 51. Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Paragraphs 1-5 Paragraphs 1-6 Paragraph 6 Subsumed in part in 1-6, and rejected in part as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraphs 7,8 Paragraph 6 & rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 9 Rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 10,11 Paragraph 8 Paragraph 12,13,14 Paragraph 9,10 Paragraph 15 Paragraph 29 Paragraph 16 Paragraph 49 Paragraphs 17-23 Paragraphs 11-17 Paragraph 24 Paragraph 21 Paragraph 25 Paragraph 19. Paragraphs 26,27 Irrelevant. Paragraph 28 Paragraph 25 Paragraph 29 Paragraph 17 Paragraph 30 Rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 31 Paragraph 28. Paragraph 32 Irrelevant. Paragraph 33 Rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 34 Paragraph 20. Paragraphs 35,36 Paragraph 19 & rejected as contrary to best evidence. Paragraph 37 Paragraph 23. Paragraph 38 Paragraph 24. Paragraph 39 Paragraph 25. Paragraph 40 Paragraph 31. Paragraph 41 Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 42 Paragraph 33. Paragraphs 43,44 Paragraph 32. Paragraph 45 Paragraph 35. Paragraph 46 Paragraph 36. Paragraph 47 Irrelevant. Paragraph 48 Subsumed in paragraphs above. Paragraph 49 Subsumed in Paragraph 33. Paragraph 50 Paragraph 35, best evidence. Paragraph 51 Paragraph 32. Paragraph 52 True, but part of law. Paragraph 53 Paragraph 34. Paragraphs 54-58 Paragraphs 37,38,40,41 Paragraph 59 Irrelevant. Paragraph 60 Duplicative. Paragraphs 61,62 Irrelevant. Paragraph 63 Rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 64 Paragraph 48. Paragraph 65 Subsumed in Paragraph 41. Paragraph 66 Subsumed in Paragraph 48. Paragraph 67 Irrelevant. Paragraph 68 The wage disparity was the result of hiring Blacks in the lowest paying jobs. Paragraph 69 Subsumed in Paragraph 54. Paragraph 70 Paragraph 50. Paragraph 71 See comments to Paragraph 68. Paragraphs 72-83 Subsumed in Paragraphs 54, 55. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Mattimore, Esquire Kimberly L. King, Esquire Suite 305 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Toby Buel, Esquire Three Rivers Legal Services 817 West Duval Street Lake City, FL 32055 C. Dean Lewis, Esquire Post Office Box 8 Live Oak, FL 32060 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4113
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner was employed by the respondent $` percent General Telephone Company in October of 1971. From November of 1980 to February 3, 1982, he was classified as a cable splicer. This position requires strenuous physical duties including climbing telephone poles, lifting and moving heavy equipment, handling compressed gas cylinders that weigh 150 pounds and digging splice pits. Performance of the duties of a cable splicer requires strong hands, arms, back and leg muscles. In November of 1980, petitioner suffered a back injury and was unable to perform the activities of a cable splicer. He was placed on Absent Injury status, thus receiving 80 percent of his salary, and returned to work on or about January 6, 1981. He then took left-over vacation time until January 19, 1981, and about one week later, a light duty assignment was located for him at the Seminole DART Center. Although this assignment required no driving, petitioner complained that the drive to and from the Seminole location aggravated his back condition and was difficult for him due to the medications he was taking for his physical problems. On or about February 17, 1981, petitioner was reassigned to duty as a clerk at the St. Petersburg main building. Due to several absences, complaints by petitioner that he could not sit, stand or bend for long periods of time and that alternating from sitting to standing was painful, petitioner was relieved of all duties on March 30, 1981. He was informed that he would again be placed on Absent Injury status until such time as respondent could verify with the treating physician exactly what petitioner was capable of doing. There is some indication that petitioner may have returned to work in a light duty position in May and June of 1981, though petitioner had no recollection of these dates. In any event, petitioner returned to Absent Injury status on or about June 23, 1981, and was paid Absent Injury benefits until approximately December 15, 1981. He was then advised that his Absent Injury benefits were exhausted, that he would be placed on vacation as of December 16, 1981, and that his benefits with respondent would expire as of December 31, 1981. Petitioner was further advised that he could request a 30-day leave of absence, provide a doctor's statement regarding his present condition and that, during that 30-day leave of absence period he could request an additional 5 month leave of absence. Upon the advice of his Union representative, petitioner did request and was granted a 30-day leave of absence, which expired on January 31, 1982. On January 19, 1982, a meeting was held with petitioner to discuss his medical condition. He was advised that there were no light duty positions available at that time and that his 30-day leave of absence would terminate at the end of January. Petitioner's supervisor suggested that he request further leave of absence without pay in order to protect his employment and continue his benefits. Petitioner became angry at this suggestion, refused to request additional leave without pay, and uttered some statement about a "personal tragedy." His supervisor felt that he had been threatened by Mr. Wiggins and notified the police. Petitioner was terminated on February 3, 1982. The reasons cited for the termination were failure to apply for an additional leave of absence before his last 30-day leave had expired and insubordination at the January 19, 1982, meeting. Petitioner presented no evidence that other light duty assignments were available in January of 1982. He made reference to two other light duty assignments held by other employees. He acknowledged that one such position held by a white employee required extensive driving, and admitted that he was unable to drive for long distances or long periods of time. The other light duty position that petitioner believed he could have filled was awarded to a black employee. Other than these two positions, petitioner was not aware of any light duty assignments which were available between May and December of 1981 and were not afforded to him. Petitioner also admits that he was unable to perform the duties of a cable splicer in 1981 and in January of 1982.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's charge that the respondent committed an unlawful employment practice be DISMISSED. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 11th day of August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0606 The undersigned has carefully considered the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law submitted by the petitioner and the respondent. The proposed findings of fact have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below. Petitioner: The document filed by the petitioner entitled "Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" contains neither factual findings nor legal conclusions. Instead, petitioner complains of the procedural rulings at the final hearing. The undersigned would only note that the final hearing occurred on a Friday and that the parties were advised that if the hearing were not completed on that day, it would be continued to a later date. It was only after the petitioner announced that he had no further witnesses that respondent moved for a directed recommended order and elected not to present any evidence after that motion was granted. Respondent: (NOTE: Any reference to the hearing transcript and Mr. Wiggins' deposition transcript are rejected inasmuch as neither transcript was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings.) 23 and 24. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial to the issues in dispute. COPIES FURNISHED: E. D. Wiggins 4843 Campenella Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Kathryn M. Lancaster, Esquire 501 First Avenue North Suite 626 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Leslie Reicin Stein, Esquires Post Office Box 110, M.C. 7 Tampa, Florida 33601 Donald A. Griffin, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Bldg. F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Regina McGriff, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Bldg. F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
Findings Of Fact The Other Eligibility Criteria The Petitioner is a corporation formed in 1984, whose sole stockholder, only Director, and President is Kathleen Weber, a minority person. Respondent, Department of General Services (DGS) concedes that Petitioner corporation meets all eligibility criteria for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) except for the number of permanent, full-time employees, which statutory component is the sole focus of the dispute in this cause. Eligibility in this regard hinges on the employment of "25 or fewer permanent full-time employees." Petitioner engages in the provision and installation of plumbing, HVAC ventilation, fire protection, process piping, and potable and waste water systems in the commercial construction field. Permanent, Full-time Employees Ms. Weber claims no part-time employees and considers all employees to be full-time. That is, all employees work, when they work, for a full forty hours per week. However, Ms. Weber classifies her employees, as of date of formal hearing, into two categories of full-time employees: office employees and field employees. Petitioner asserts that the office employees are permanent, while the field employees are not permanent. At the time of the hearing, petitioner had twelve permanent office employees whose positions included Ms. Weber, six project managers, accounting and estimating personnel, and clerical help. Office employees are paid for holidays, sick leave and vacation, and insurance. They are paid a salary on a monthly basis. They are covered by written corporate employment policies. The number of field employees fluctuates between sixty and ninety. Their number and makeup are determined on an "as needed" basis, depending upon the securing by petitioner of a construction contract upon which they can be employed, the size of the "job" and the stage of completion of each job undertaken by Petitioner at any given time. As individuals, these employees do not work on a guaranteed, regular, or predictable basis. The corporation does not have or display any written employment policies concerning them. Sometimes, field employees are hired through a labor company. Usually, as with most non- union construction companies, they are hired upon word of mouth, reputation, and as they present themselves at the job. Field employees are paid only for the hours that they actually work. They may be moved from job to job to accommodate the schedule on each job and to avoid Petitioner laying off personnel that may be needed again soon. Their pay scale ranges from $6.00 to $14.00 an hour with $8.00 being an average. Field employees' wages are set by Bob Pacitti, the head project manager. When a man in the field feels that he is entitled to a raise and asks for it, then a form is filled out by a superintendent who gives it to Bob Pacitti who approves or disapproves the raise. Final approval of a wage increase is made by Ms. Weber. There is no set beginning wage for field employees. Their hourly rate depends on the experience of the worker, the type of work, how badly an employee is needed, add if there is a labor crunch or not. There is no set review period for deciding whether a field employee is entitled to a raise. Field employees are not paid for sick time, holidays, or vacation time. The company designates a field worker, who is called a "foreman" for each job in progress. The "foreman" telephones on a daily basis to the office personnel to inform them of the time worked for all field workers on his particular job/site. After working for the company for one month, field employees are eligible to join the major medical group health insurance plan. The employee is automatically put on the insurance and the company pays the premium for an individual employee. Once an employee has stopped working for two weeks, he is taken off the insurance, retroactive to the last day he worked, and sent a letter indicating that he can assume the insurance premium payment himself through petitioner. Although there is no direct-testimony to that effect, it can be inferred from Ms. Weber's testimony that the health insurance premium for the company is somehow calculated on a regular basis to anticipate at least some number of continuously, employed field employee positions. Two separate payroll ledgers are generated by petitioner: one for field employees and one for office employees. Superintendents Frank Llama and Don De Silva are included in the field employees' weekly computerized payroll but are nonetheless considered by Ms. Weber as permanent employees. The monthly office employee payroll is done by hand. There were about ninety field employees on the last field employee payroll before the date of formal hearing. As of the date of formal hearing, Petitioner was working on twelve projects. The twelve projects have a contract amount ranging from $123,000 to $6,200,000, which may last from a few months to almost two years. The total contract amount for the twelve contracts is in excess of $14,000,000. Each project is assigned one of the six project managers who oversee the job. Frank Llama is a superintendent who is in charge of field operations. He travels from job to job making sure that things are done the way they are supposed to be done Don De Silva performs the same supervisory function, but his work is generally limited to supervision of the air conditioning aspects of the projects. There were thirty-three individual field employees (not counting superintendents Llama and De Silva) who were listed on the applicant's payroll as of 6/19/86 who were also listed on the last payroll for 1986. These employees were continuously employed throughout that time frame. There were twenty-two individual field employees (not counting Llama and De Silva) who were listed on the Petitioner's first payroll for the year 1987 and who were also listed on the last payroll for 1987. Most of these field employees were continuously employed by Petitioner for all or a significant part of that year. There were forty-seven field employees (not counting Llama and De Silva) who were listed on the first payroll for 1988 and who were also listed on the 9/08/88 payroll. Some non-supervisory field employees were employed continuously from one year to the next, and a few were continuously employed for all or the better part of the two or three years. Each had federal income and FICA taxes deducted from his salary while employed by Petitioner. During 1986, 1987, and the first two quarters of 1988, the Petitioner reported the following number of office and field employees on the initial Florida Employer's Quarterly Wage and Tax Report, for Florida Unemployment Compensation purposes: 1986 1987 1988 Jan. 77 74 97 Feb. 1st 91 79 105 March 93 81 107 April 116 96 96 May 2nd 117 98 96 June 108 105 96 July 127 122 August 3rd 100 122 Sept. 106 112 Oct 91 108 Nov. 4th 74 110 Dec. 68 110 Petitioner's gross receipts in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1986, were $5,702,138. Its gross receipts for 1987, $3,466,926. Its gross receipts for 1988, were $3,917,190. Non-Rule Policy Petitioner's initial application for MBE certification was deemed incomplete by DGS. The application did not respond to the question that says, "state-the number of current, full-time, permanent employees ", on page 3 of the Certification Application Form 1704. It did not give the name, home address, home telephone number and length of service for each current, full-time, permanent employee on an attached sheet of paper, also as required by the application form. It did not attach a copy of one or more of the following items: W-4 Social Security form for each current full-time employee. The most current Florida Quarterly Unemployment Report. The most current Federal Annual Unemployment Report. (R-13) Ms. Weber filled out only the questions relating to minority status. By letter dated December 15, 1988, Ms. Weber was requested to provide this information by Lloyd Ringgold, Minority Business Assistance Labor Employment and Training Field Representative of the Minority Business Enterprise Office. By letter dated December 23, 1986, Ms. Weber replied, "Falcon Mechanical, Inc., has 22 full-time, permanent employees. Ms. Weber also included an employee roster showing a list of twenty- two employees. When that employee roster was submitted to the MBE office, twelve of the employees on that roster were paid on a monthly basis and ten were paid on a weekly basis. At the time of the hearing, the applicant no longer employed eight warehouse employees from that roster, who had been paid on a weekly basis. (See Finding of Fact 11). Without needless elaboration, it is found that Mr. Ringgold and Ms. Weber did not have a meeting of the minds when, during an on-site interview, he requested her to define "full-time employee" and "permanent employee." Her responses then are not inconsistent with her testimony at formal hearing nor with the facts as found supra. Petitioner's President clearly always viewed the field employees as a transient, very flexible, changing labor force who were not office personnel and who did not individually work on both a regular and a predictable basis, whether they worked 40 hours a week in stretches or not. DOS personnel, however, did not understand her responses at the interview this way and applied what Mr. Ringgold thought Ms. Weber meant to both of the Petitioner's payroll ledgers to reach the conclusion that Petitioner employed more than twenty-five permanent full-time employees. DOS does not have a duly promulgated rule defining the term "permanent employee" which is a crucial component of the element, "permanent full-time employee," within the statutory MBE criterion "small business' which is here at issue. DOS also has no written statement of its policy with regard to such a definition but it asserts it has an unpublished, not publicly declared definition or method for determining the number of permanent full-time employees. DOS admittedly did not explicate, announce, or publish this method to Petitioner or anyone else. When an agency makes such an assertion, it must explicate and demonstrate the reasonableness of its non-rule policy on a case- by-case basis. MacDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance, 346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Florida Medical Center v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 463 So.2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). This is a heavy burden, and the non-rule policy does not have the presumption of validity which is afforded formally promulgated agency rules. Barker v. Board of Medical Examiners, 428 So.2d 720 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). From the testimony of Lloyd Ringgold, and the testimony of his supervisor, Marsha Nims, DGS Employment and Training Manager, it was established that DGS uses the information provided by the applicant on the application form, the Employer's Quarterly Wage and Tax (Unemployment) Reports, and other employee records to initially consider whether an applicant employs twenty-five or fewer permanent full-time employees. What formula, if any, is applied at that stage of agency review, other than a general discussion between DOS employees, was not fully explicated at formal hearing. However, after the first stage of review, if the reviewer has a question as to whether an applicant has more than twenty- five permanent full-time employees, DOS then conducts an on-site interview as it did in this case and relies on the applicant's definition of "permanent" and "full-time" employee given in that interview. The reasoning behind this approach by the agency is apparently that someone within DOS believed such an approach to be the fairest method for judging MBE applicants who represent diverse types of businesses, not all of which businesses are susceptible of easy analysis. No non-speculative rationale was advanced for this method of defining "permanent, full-time employee." This method has built-in external inconsistency and subjectivity as between applicants and is subject to manipulation and control by every applicant. Moreover, as the foregoing findings of fact demonstrate, ordinary conversational misunderstandings subject the method to internal inconsistencies in actual practice. The method/policy does nothing to apply presumed agency expertise to a program the agency is mandated by statute to administer. The method also was not demonstrated to conform with any generally recognized MBE or employment planning and reporting considerations. Therefore, DOS failed to explicate its non-rule policy and failed to demonstrate its reasonableness.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's request for certification as a Minority Business Enterprise be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 87-1950 The following constitute specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF 1-3,5. Accepted in substance but not adopted where subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative to the facts as found or never at issue. 4,7. Accepted. 6. Rejected as a FOF: covered in conclusions of law (COL). 8-9. Rejected as mere statements of position or argument. To the extent they address the evidence presented and are contrary, they are rejected for that reason. The non-rule policy is addressed within the RO and FOF made therein that conform to the greater weight of the evidence as a whole. 10-16. Accepted in substance but not adopted as cumulative, subordinate, and unnecessary to the facts as found. 17-18. Rejected as cumulative, subordinate, and unnecessary to the facts as found and portions are also mere argument or statement of position. 19. Accepted as Petitioner's classifications only. The second sentence is modified to conform to the relevant and material evidence as a whole. Respondent's PFOF 1-14. Accepted in whole or in substance except where subordinate, unnecessary, or cumulative. A portion of PFOF 3 has been rephrased so as not to constitute an ultimate conclusion of law. Mere recitations of testimony have been rejected as-such. 15-20. Generally accepted; what is rejected is rejected as contrary to the evidence, cumulative in part, and in part as mere recitations of testimony. Further explanation and rulings are contained within the RO itself. 21-23,25. Accepted in substance, modified to clarify or conform more closely to the record evidence as a whole. 24. Accepted in substance but conformed to the greater weight of the evidence as a whole in FOF 15. During year 1987, Respondent does not state that employees Budgett and Ocasio were not employed for a significant number of pay periods and seems to have confused Ruben Ocasio (59415) and Jose Ocasio (59400) throughout the pay periods as well as with regard to the first and last payrolls. In 1988, Figueroa and Zager were not employed for a significant number of pay periods. The Hearing Officer has read composite exhibit 6 with diligence and has conformed the FOF to the evidence, without cumulative verbiage. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald G. Sternstein, Esquire MacFarlain, Sternstein, Wiley & Cassedy, P.A. Suite 600 First Florida Bank Bldg. Post Office Box 2174 Tallahassee, Florida 32316-2174 Sandra D. Allen, Esquire Office of General Counsel Department of General Services 200 East Gaines Street Room 452 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955 Ronald W. Thomas Executive Director Department of General Services 133 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0955
The Issue Whether the City of Ocala (the City or Respondent), violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01- 760.11, Florida Statutes,1/ by discriminating against Nyleah Jackson (Petitioner) because of her race.
Findings Of Fact On May 2, 2016, Petitioner, who is an African-American female, was hired by the City as an Administrative Specialist II in its Electric Utility Department. On October 10, 2016, Petitioner moved to a lateral Administrative Specialist II position with the City’s Public Works Department to perform generally the same type of duties in that department’s sanitation division. An Administrative Specialist II is expected to regularly and competently prepare correspondence, maintain records, provide customer service, compile reports, and prepare schedules and payroll. As an Administrative Specialist II, Petitioner received mostly satisfactory, although never exceptional, ratings in her performance evaluation reviews in both the City’s Electric and Public Works Departments. In each of Petitioner’s performance evaluation reviews, her rater or supervisor was tasked with assigning a 1, 2, or 3 rating for each of 10 different tasks, examples of which include “Quality of Work,” “Efficiency,” “Responsibility,” and “Customer Focus.” A rating of 1 means that the employee performed a task below the standard. A rating of means that the employee meets task requirements. A rating of means the employee exceeds standards. Petitioner received a rating of 2 (Meets Standard) for every task on every review produced by the City, except for her April 19, 2017, evaluation on which Petitioner received a 1 in the category of “Responsibility” due to alleged problems related to tardiness and failure to properly notify her supervisors of absences. During January 2017, an Administrative Specialist III position became available within the City’s sanitation division because the person previously filling that position moved into another position. In accordance with the City’s hiring process governed by its City Employee Handbook, the City’s Human Resources Department (HR) reviewed the vacant Administrative Specialist III position, confirmed that it was budgeted and set to be filled, and evaluated whether it was governed by any collective bargaining agreements. Upon determining that the position was governed by the City’s collective bargaining agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, on January 13, 2017, the City posted the job internally for five days to allow existing City employees to apply for the position before allowing external applications. Similar to the Administrative Specialist II position, the City’s Administrative Specialist III position is required to regularly and competently prepare correspondence, maintain records, provide customer service, compile reports, and prepare schedules and payroll. An Administrative Specialist III, however, has expanded duties and responsibilities. While all administrative specialists throughout the City perform similar tasks, each division in the City may have a different distribution of duties for its employees due to the kind of work required for that division’s services. These differences would not be reflected in the listing for an open Administrative Specialist III position. Such listings were drafted by an outside consultant to generally describe the Administrative Specialist III position for all departments throughout the City. For the sanitation division, the Administrative Specialist III position has a substantial customer service component. Specifically, the Administrative Specialist III position in the sanitation division is required to answer a large volume of phone calls from angry citizens for various sanitation complaints. For that reason, the hiring managers placed importance on the applicants’ people skills, patience, and ability to maintain a calm, customer-friendly demeanor when dealing with angry citizens. Petitioner testified that the director of the City’s Public Works Department, Darren Park, suggested that she apply for the open Administrative Specialist III position due to Mr. Park’s belief that she had performed well in a previous interview. Therefore, Petitioner explained, on January 23, 2017, she applied for the City’s vacant Administrative Specialist III position in the sanitation division. In accordance with City policy, HR reviewed all of the internal applications for the position to preliminarily screen applicants who did not meet the minimal qualifications. Petitioner’s application and three other internal candidates’ applications were found to have met the minimal qualifications and were forwarded to the department’s hiring managers for interviews. Of the four internal applicants forwarded by HR to the hiring managers, the only other minority applicant was a Hispanic male. Shortly after the internal applications were submitted, the two hiring managers, Dwayne Drake and Cloretha McReynolds, reviewed the applications and interviewed the City’s internal applicants. Dwayne Drake, a Caucasian male, was the division head of sanitation. Cloretha McReynolds, an African-American female, was a supervisor in the sanitation division. A few days after the City received Petitioner’s application, Mr. Drake and Ms. McReynolds interviewed Petitioner for the open position. During Petitioner’s interview, as well as in all of the other interviews for the position, the hiring managers used a list of prepared questions, entitled “Sanitation Administrative Specialist III Behavioral Interview Questions.” The questions were designed to allow the hiring managers to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of an applicant’s personality traits, people skills, and behavioral characteristics. During her interview for the position, Petitioner admitted that one of her weaknesses was that her assertiveness could sometimes be mistaken for aggressiveness. This comment by Petitioner concerned Mr. Drake because the sanitation division has many callers already upset when they call. Mr. Drake felt that Petitioner’s comment was a “big hurdle” that Petitioner would have to overcome in order to be selected for the Administrative Specialist III position. Similarly, Ms. McReynolds testified that Petitioner’s response that her assertiveness could be misinterpreted as aggressiveness concerned her because “we were looking for a specific – we were looking for someone with a great personality.” When further pressed by Petitioner why customer service was valued so highly for the Administrative Specialist III position, Ms. McReynolds testified: Q. Okay. Are there different weights that you hold for one question than the other? For example, someone said they don’t have experience in payroll, but they also said that they are very well with handling customers, is there a system for you that you say: “Hey, well, this is more important than the other one? This one holds more weight than the other one”? A. Anyone can be taught to do payroll. Q. Right. A. Anyone can’t be taught to be respectful on the phone and customer friendly. I can teach someone how to do payroll, I can teach someone to do billing. I can teach someone how to do that position, but I can’t teach someone to be nice to the customers. And I needed a nice person, a person who is going to be able to, when they get yelled at, better keep calm and deal with it, calm the customer down. And that’s what I was looking for. After the internal interviews, and as provided for by the City Employee Handbook and its collective bargaining agreements, the hiring managers decided to list the available Administrative Specialist III position externally. Petitioner testified that, following her interview, Mr. Drake came to her office and told her that the hiring managers were looking for a “better fit” for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position and that the City would advertise the position externally. Petitioner testified that, based on this statement, she inferred that the hiring managers had already determined that the City would not hire any of the internal applicants for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position because they had already determined that none of the internal applicants were qualified. In his testimony, Mr. Drake confirmed that he spoke with Petitioner following her interview, but denied that he told Petitioner, or any other City employee applicant, that they were already disqualified. Instead, Mr. Drake explained that, following the internal applicant interviews, he spoke to Petitioner because she was a Public Works employee and he wanted to tell her in person that they were going to look for external applicants. Mr. Drake’s testimony is credited. After the open Administrative Specialist III position was listed externally, three external applications were forwarded to the hiring managers, who interviewed those candidates consistent with City policy, using the same prepared questions as used in the internal interviews. After completing the external interviews, the managers both decided Jenna Hylkema, a Caucasian female and external applicant, to be the best applicant, and she was hired for the position. Ms. Hylkema had a high school diploma, a bachelor degree in criminal justice and had previously worked for the City as a dispatcher for the Ocala Police Department. At the time she was hired for the Administrative Specialist III position, Ms. Hylkema was working at the Department of Children and Families investigating child abuse cases and related issues. Both of the hiring managers agreed that Ms. Hylkema’s employment history and performance in her interview made her the strongest candidate for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position. Notably, Ms. McReynolds testified that Ms. Hylkema “was a call – a 911 call person [at the police department], and she was able to deal with - I thought she would be better to deal with the stress level, as far as – and also her personality in accepting calls.” Both Mr. Drake and Ms. McReynolds confirmed that their ranking preference was informal and not reduced to writing, but that, after all of the interviews, they discussed each of their orders of preference out of the seven applicants. According to both hiring managers, Petitioner ranked third or fourth of the seven applicants. Although they believed Petitioner was qualified, the hiring managers thought that Jenna Hylkema’s work experience and performance in her interview made her the most qualified applicant for the position. Also notable, Ms. Hylkema performed better on the objective components of the interview process. Petitioner herself confirmed that Ms. Hylkema performed better than she had in the objective portions of the interview, including scoring twice as high in an objective typing speed test. Both hiring managers credibly testified that neither Petitioner’s race, Jenna Hylkema’s race, nor anyone else’s race influenced their decision to hire Ms. Hylkema for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position. A few months after Ms. Hylkema was hired for the vacant Administrative Specialist III position, another Administrative Specialist III position opened in the Public Works Street Division, which was filled by Erica Wilson, an African-American woman who, like Petitioner, was working as an Administrative Specialist II when she applied. Petitioner did not apply for this position. Petitioner confirmed this, but failed to provide any explanation as to why the City’s policies discriminated against her, as an African-American woman, but apparently did not discriminate against Erica Wilson in their decision to hire her for another open Administrative Specialist III only a few months later. When asked why she did not apply for the other Administrative Specialist III position, Petitioner testified that she wanted the Administrative Specialist III position in the sanitation division. Despite evidence indicating that there was no illegal discrimination in the City’s process of filling the position for which Petitioner had applied, Petitioner alleged that there were irregularities in the selection process. For example, Petitioner contends that Ms. Hylkema was not qualified because Ms. Hylkema held a criminal justice degree that did not include advanced business or secretarial classes in college. The evidence, however, demonstrated that the City’s hiring process was flexible enough to allow certain criteria to be waived in favor of other experience, and that all applicants who were interviewed met the minimal qualifications for the position. Petitioner also alleged improprieties in the hiring process on the grounds that the City’s hiring managers did not use a formal numerical scoring in their evaluations and failed to keep complete notes during their interviews to confirm that each question was asked to every candidate. The City’s hiring process for vacant positions, however, does not require any specific numerical scoring system or prescribed notation process. Rather, the evidence demonstrated that the hiring managers appropriately weighed their impressions of the candidates through their interviews and the other materials provided to determine who would be best to respond to angry phone calls that the City’s sanitation department would receive. Throughout that process, and with no evidence of illegal discrimination, the managers appropriately ranked Petitioner as the third or fourth best candidate for the Administrative Specialist III position. The evidence at the hearing did not reasonably suggest that the process used during the selection process was suspicious, vulnerable to arbitrariness, or indicative of illegal discrimination. When asked about the City’s interview procedure, Petitioner said that she had no objection to the City asking questions to discern whether or not, subjectively, the interviewers thought an applicant was a good fit for the job. In sum, the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner was not hired for the open position for which she applied because of her race, or that the City otherwise engaged in illegal discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2018.
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.
The Issue Whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to an unlawful employment practice on the basis of religion; or in retaliation to his engagement in a lawful employment activity, in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Escambia County, is a political subdivision of the state of Florida that is authorized to carry out county government, pursuant to section 125.01, Florida Statutes (2016). Escambia County is an employer as that term is defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act 1992. Petitioner, Mr. Love, was employed by Blue Arbor, Inc., a staffing agency. Blue Arbor had a contract with Escambia County for temporary labor services. Blue Arbor assigned Mr. Love to a temporary job with Escambia County, Public Works Department, Office of Engineering and Construction, as an engineering project coordinator. The assignment was for one year. Petitioner was assigned to the job from May 26, 2014, until his termination. On January 26, 2015, Escambia County terminated Petitioner’s temporary employment contract. Petitioner was an employee of Escambia County as that term is defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Mr. Love is a Christian. Petitioner timely filed a complaint with the Commission alleging Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by terminating Petitioner on the basis of his religion. As an engineering project coordinator, Petitioner’s job responsibilities included: management of complex projects, ability to prioritize work, and ability to exercise good interpersonal skills with co-workers, supervisors, and the public. Mr. Love earned a Bachelor of Science in Engineering Technology and Construction degree in December 2013. Mr. Love had no prior drainage or roadway experience before working for Escambia County. Mr. Love began working for Escambia County following a storm that was declared a disaster. Due to the disaster, staff was expected to be flexible and able to perform job duties without refusal or hesitation. Respondent asserts that it terminated Petitioner’s contract due to his inability to perform job responsibilities without objection or hesitation, work performance, and disruptive behavior. Mr. Love had multiple supervisors during his eight month tenure at Escambia County. While working at Escambia County, Mr. Love’s supervisors had issues with his work performance and his behavior. Mary Bush, a construction manager, supervised Mr. Love in 2014. Ms. Bush had issues with Mr. Love’s file storage practices and behavior. Ms. Bush testified that Mr. Love saved all his work on a personal computer and was told several times to save his work in the shared folder. Mr. Love refused to save his work on the shared drive on the basis that the documents were his work. During the time Ms. Bush supervised Mr. Love, she experienced two incidents with Mr. Love involving outbursts. On one occasion, Mr. Love was in Ms. Bush’s office seeking review of Mr. Love’s work. Mr. Love stated in a raised voice, “you need to review the report so I can do my job.” On another occasion, Ms. Bush directed Mr. Love to identify his documents using a certain description and explained the importance of the practice. Mr. Love objected on the basis that the practice was an asinine process. Mr. Love was reassigned to another supervisor due to the outbursts involving Ms. Bush. At no point did Mr. Love state that his objection to following directions was based on his religion. Chris Curb, an engineering manager for stormwater, also supervised Mr. Love during his tenure at Escambia County. Despite the direction from Ms. Bush, the file-sharing issue continued. On December 30, 2014, Chris Curb notified Mr. Love by email that his file saving was a “problem.” Mr. Curb advised Mr. Love that his file folder was not a standard subfolder and he needed to save all files in the proper shared subfolders. He explained that file sharing is important so Escambia County could comply with state regulations and records requests. He further explained that Mr. Love was not the sole owner of a project record because other employees would need access to the work. He concluded his email with instructions for Mr. Love to use designated file folders. A third supervisor, Jim Duncan, also had issues with Mr. Love’s work performance and behavior. Similar to his practice under prior supervisors, Mr. Love refused to save his files to the shared file folder. Mr. Love also repeatedly refused to attend mandatory meetings without a direct command. For example, on multiple occasions Mr. Love’s supervisor had to locate and direct him to attend the weekly department meetings. Mr. Love testified that he was reluctant to attend the meetings because he believed they “were unproductive and take up too much time.” Similar to other supervisors, Mr. Love engaged in an outburst with Mr. Duncan. Mr. Duncan was a construction manager when he supervised Mr. Love and thus, was responsible for directing Mr. Love to advance projects from conception to completion. One such project was ENG Flood 414-85, which was also referred to as the Beulah Road at Helms Intersection project (“Beulah-Helms project”). Mr. Love was the project coordinator for the project. In October 2014, Roads, Inc., a construction company, submitted a bid for the Beulah-Helms project. Brett Moylan is the vice-president and chief operating officer of Roads, Inc. The project was a pricing agreement contract. Pricing agreement contracts are contracts where prices are established for a period of one year and are adopted by the Escambia County prior to the award of any specific pricing agreement contract. Pricing agreements have a blackout period and bidding process that also takes place prior to acceptance of the pricing agreement. In December 2015, Mr. Love was in the final stages of the procurement process for the Beulah-Helms project. Roads, Inc. was the lowest bidder on the project. Mr. Love corresponded with Mr. Moylan regarding the documents necessary to approve the project. Mr. Love requested a construction schedule and MOT plan for the project before the work order could be approved. Mr. Moylan asserted in an email that the construction schedule would begin after the purchase order is issued. Mr. Moylan later submitted the MOT plan and signed the work order. On January 22, 2015, Mr. Love sent an email to Mr. Moylan requesting the construction schedule and another signed work order with the appropriate dates. Mr. Love advised Mr. Moylan that he would not begin the project until Mr. Moylan submitted the construction schedule. Although Mr. Moylan explained that he usually did not submit a construction schedule, he ultimately provided the construction schedule to Mr. Love indicating that the project would begin the following Monday and “be substantially complete within 60 days of commencement, and have a completion date within 90 days.” The construction schedule provided by Mr. Moylan was an acceptable schedule. For a reason that was not addressed at hearing, Mr. Love asked Mr. Moylan for the construction schedule again, despite receiving it. Mr. Moylan advised Mr. Love to accept the next lowest bidder. As a result of the email exchange with Mr. Moylan, Mr. Love planned to send Mr. Moylan a follow-up email about accepting the next highest bidder, which would purportedly cost Escambia County an additional $20,000 for the project. Before Mr. Love drafted the email, he called Mr. Moylan to discuss the issues referenced in the email. Mr. Love testified that before he called Mr. Moylan he “drove around the block a couple of times, before he could call Mr. Moylan because [he] knew that the conversation was going to get heated.” Mr. Love described the conversation as heated, and they “cut each other off” during the conversation. Mr. Moylan contacted Mr. Duncan to complain about Mr. Love’s behavior related to the Beulah-Helms project. Mr. Duncan approached Mr. Love to discuss the exchange between Mr. Love and Mr. Moylan. Mr. Duncan directed Mr. Love to award the Beulah-Helms project to Roads, Inc. Mr. Love objected to awarding the contract to Roads, Inc. He testified that his objection was based on his religion because “[he] had an obligation to utilize his moral and ethical judgment which is inherent to [his] religion.” Mr. Love stated that the religious accommodation was based on his request for additional information before he could feel comfortable awarding the project to Roads, Inc. Mr. Love testified that he told Mr. Duncan that he refused to award Roads, Inc., without the construction schedule “based on a matter of principal.” Mr. Love did not say he refused to approve the project based on his religion. He did not say he needed an accommodation for his religion. Mr. Duncan directed Mr. Love not to take any further action until they discussed Mr. Love’s objection with the department manager, Joy Jones. During the conversation, Mr. Love became angry and yelled at Mr. Duncan. Sharon Johnson, a project coordinator, witnessed the exchange between Mr. Love and Mr. Duncan. Specifically, Ms. Johnson observed Mr. Love and Mr. Duncan having the discussion about the Beulah-Helms project. Ms. Johnson described Mr. Love’s demeanor as unhappy and upset. She testified that he raised his voice and yelled at Mr. Duncan. At the same time, Mr. Duncan attempted to calm Mr. Love. Ms. Johnson could not recall the substance of the discussion, but she testified without hesitation that Mr. Love did not mention anything about his religion. Ms. Johnson’s testimony is found to be credible. On January 26, 2015, Escambia County terminated Petitioner’s contract. Joy Jones, the Engineering Department manager, made the final decision to terminate Mr. Love’s contract. Although Ms. Jones did not directly supervise Mr. Love, she was aware of the issues concerning his work performance and behavior through complaints from her staff who directly supervised Mr. Love. After several complaints of angry outbursts, difficulty meeting deadlines, failure to save critical documents to the shared drive, inability to move projects in the process without reluctance, and inability to work with several supervisors, Ms. Jones made the decision to terminate Mr. Love’s contract. Based on the evidence, Respondent has demonstrated that Mr. Love’s termination was based on a legitimate business decision due to poor work performance and disruptive behavior. Approximately one year after his termination, Mr. Love sent an email to the Escambia County Administrator, Jack Brown. The email complained of perceived damage to Mr. Love’s reputation, credibility, and career. Mr. Love did not mention any complaint of religious discrimination or retaliation. In his response to Mr. Love, Mr. Brown explained that “in the project coordinator position staff must examine and thoroughly understand applicable process. Refusal and hesitation to perform job duties affect production, grant reimbursement deadlines, and citizen expectations.” Mr. Love did not explicitly mention anything about his religion or religious discrimination to any of his supervisors before he was terminated from Escambia County.
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 discrimination complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2017, 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 24th day of May, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Benjamin David Love Post Office Box 1132 Gonzalez, Florida 32560 (eServed) Meredith D. Crawford, Esquire Escambia County Board of County Commissioners Suite 430 221 Palafox Place Pensacola, Florida 32502 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
