The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner because of his alleged disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Charles H. Miller, was employed by the Respondent, Department of Transportation, for approximately 15 years. In October 1999, Mr. Miller injured his ankle in a work-related accident. He experienced chronic pain and mobility limitations as a result of the accident and continually received medication and psychological and/or physical therapy to help relieve the symptoms of his condition. Mr. Miller wore a brace on his injured foot and took various narcotic pain relievers. On May 2, 2001, Petitioner began seeing Lewis Fabrick, Ph.D., a licensed clinical social worker. Dr. Fabrick determined that Mr. Miller was suffering from depression, anxiety and stress that resulted partly from the pain from the physical injury and partly from the side effects of the medication. However, the Department was not aware of the nature or extent of Mr. Miller's mental or emotional issues. Prior to December 2000, Mr. Miller reported directly to Thomas Malerk, the State Materials Engineer. At that time, Mr. Miller was acting as the data center manager and supervised several other employees. Around November 2000, Mr. Malerk assigned another employee to supervise Mr. Miller and eliminated Mr. Miller's supervisory responsibilities. Mr. Miller's pay and benefits were not affected by this change. Mr. Malerk took this action to correct problems with the data center that had resulted in complaints about Mr. Miller and the data center. Mr. Miller's physical condition was not a factor in Mr. Malerk's decision to change Mr. Miller's job. In December 2000, Mr. Miller complained to the Department's ombudsman that coworkers were making fun of his ankle brace and physical limitation. Mr. Miller alleged that Mr. Malerk had joked about Mr. Miller needing a boot on the other foot to match and that the personnel officer, John Cooper, would pretend to "draw like a cowboy" in a manner that ridiculed Mr. Miller's condition. Mr. Miller also alleged that another co-worker, Gale Page, was harassing him by making fun of his physical limitations. Neither Mr. Cooper or Mr. Page had any supervisory responsibility over Mr. Miller. After receiving Mr. Miller's complaint, the ombudsman contacted Mr. Cooper and Mr. Malerk to inform them of Mr. Miller's concern. At approximately the same time, Mr. Miller also told Mr. Cooper that he was being harassed by Mr. Page, Mr. Malerk, and Mr. Cooper. When Mr. Cooper asked Mr. Miller to specifically identify the harassment that had occurred, Mr. Miller only specifically reported that Mr. Page had made fun of his walk or his leg. Mr. Cooper then informed Mr. Malerk of Mr. Miller's complaint and approached Mr. Page. Mr. Cooper told Mr. Page that he should refrain from making comments about Mr. Miller's condition. When Mr. Malerk learned of Mr. Page's remark to Mr. Miller, he reprimanded Mr. Page and requested that he apologize or otherwise clear the matter. Mr. Malerk also discussed the matter with Mr. Miller. Mr. Malerk apologized to Mr. Miller for anything he might have said that was insensitive and asked Mr. Miller if he had made any inappropriate remarks. Mr. Miller told Mr. Malerk that they did not have a problem and that he considered the matter with Mr. Page closed. Other than the incident with Mr. Page, and the accompanying accusations involving Mr. Malerk and Mr. Cooper, neither Mr. Cooper or Mr. Malerk had any reason to believe that any Department employee might be harassing Mr. Miller or making jokes about his injury or condition. Contrary to Mr. Miller's claim, the evidence does not indicate that either Mr. Malerk or Mr. Cooper even made fun of Mr. Miller's condition. Mr. Miller and Mr. Malerk have known each other since 1997 and were friendly with each other. On May 22, 2001, the Department dismissed Mr. Miller. The decision to dismiss Mr. Miller was based upon a number of violations of the Department's conduct standards, including Mr. Miller's insubordination, absence without authorized leave, display of an uncooperative or antagonistic attitude, and a violent outburst by Mr. Miller on May 21, 2001, when he was advised of the Department's intention to dismiss him. The issues relating to Mr. Miller's dismissal were fully litigated in a proceeding before the Public Employees Relations Commission, which culminated in a Recommended Order and Final Order upholding the Department's decision to dismiss Mr. Miller for violation of the Department's conduct standards. Mr. Malerk was responsible for requesting Mr. Miller's dismissal. Mr. Malerk requested Mr. Miller's dismissal for the violations of the Department's conduct standards that were included in the dismissal letter and was not motivated to request his dismissal in any part by Mr. Miller's physical problems.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore,
Findings Of Fact A transcript of the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge was not filed with the Commission. We adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s findings of fact. FCHR Order No. 05-093 Page 2 Conclusions of Law We find the Administrative Law Judge’s application of the law to the facts to result in a correct disposition of the matter. We note that the Administrative Law Judge concluded, “Mr. Dill, on a single occasion, behaved in a prejudiced, rude and verbally abusive manner to Petitioner. Although he was named in the Petition for Relief, no valid address was provided for him. He has had no notice of this proceeding, and therefore, jurisdiction over him by the Division has not been acquired. To rule with regard to his rights at this time would be a denial of due process...the undersigned is not satisfied that, as a mere employee of the other Respondents, Mr. Dill could bear any liability to Petitioner under the facts of this case...” Recommended Order, {| 29. We note that the Commission has concluded that individuals can bear liability under the Fair Housing Act. See, Thorhill v. Admiral Farragut Condominium Association, et al., FCHR Order No. 01-018 (March 15, 2001); see, also, Sections 760.22(8) and 760.34(1), Florida Statutes (2005). Further, we note that in a case involving findings of the utterance of racially repugnant remarks, a Commission panel has stated, “We note the Hearing Officer’s finding that, ‘The racially repugnant comments of the Respondent, in the absence of any acts infringing on the tenants’ free use of the leasehold, are not a violation of Section 760.23, Florida Statutes.’... We hereby clarify that this finding does not mean that racially-repugnant comments can never amount to a violation of the Fair Housing Act.” Fletcher v. Hatfield, 18 F.A.L.R. 1590, at 1591 (FCHR 1995). Nevertheless, given the Administrative Law Judge’s finding that Mr. Dill had no notice of the proceeding, and the finding that “[bly firing Mr. Dill, Oak Pointe and Flournoy took steps to prevent further bad acts or bad words by him against Petitioner and others (Recommended Order, § 28),” and in the absence of a transcript of the proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge, we adopt the Administrative Law Judge’s conclusions of law, with these clarifying comments. Exceptions Neither party filed exceptions to the Administrative Law Judge’s Recommended Order. Dismissal The Petition for Relief and Housing Discrimination Complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice. The parties have the right to seek judicial review of this Order. The Commission and the appropriate District Court of Appeal must receive notice of appeal within 30 days of the date this Order is filed with the Clerk of the Commission. Explanation of the right FCHR Order No. 05-093 Page 3 to appeal is found in Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, and in the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.110. DONE AND ORDERED this _9"__ day of September , 2005. FOR THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS: Commissioner Mario M. Valle, Panel Chairperson; Commissioner Dominique B. Saliba, M.D.; and Commissioner Billy Whitefox Stall Filed this_ 9" day of September 2005, in Tallahassee, Florida. Vit braferd Violet Crawford, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, FL 32301 (850) 488-7082 Copies furnished to: Karla Maxwell Post Office Box 438 Monticello, FL 32345 Oakpointe Apartments and Flournoy Properties c/o Jack R. Lee Vice President, Flournoy Properties 2673 Mountain Brook Road Canton, GA 30114 Ella Jane P. Davis, Administrative Law Judge, DOAH James Mallue, Legal Advisor for Commission Panel 1 21S wom ernest FCHR Order No. 05-093 Page 4 THEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed to the above listed addressees this gt day of September , 2005. By: Vite Cumefrsl Clerk of the Commission Florida Commission on Human Relations
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2004),1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on her age, race, and/or national origin.
Findings Of Fact The Department is an employer as that term is defined in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's race is black and her nation of origin is Jamaica. She was born on January 12, 1933. Petitioner completed a State of Florida employment application on August 7, 2002, for the position of Human Services Worker II at the Department's Gulf Coast Center in Fort Myers. The state employment application does not require an applicant to list her age or date of birth. All applicants for the Human Services Worker II position were required to sign a "willingness survey" indicating the applicant's willingness to work beyond the hours of a normal shift and/or willingness to work on an assigned day off, if such was required, in order for the facility to meet its minimum staffing requirements. Petitioner read and signed the willingness survey. The Department hired Petitioner for the Human Services Worker II position on September 13, 2002. Her letter of appointment informed Petitioner that she was required to complete a 12-month probationary period before attaining permanent status. Petitioner is a certified nursing assistant ("CNA"), and the job for which she was hired involved the provision of direct care, supervision, and assistance to residents of the Gulf Coast Center. Gulf Coast Center is a 24-hour licensed intermediate care facility for the developmentally disabled, primarily the mentally retarded. Gulf Coast Center's license requires that a minimum number of direct care staff be present and on duty 24 hours per-day, every day of the year, for each residential unit. See 42 C.F.R. § 483.430(d)(3). Petitioner was assigned to the second shift (2:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.), with Mondays and Tuesdays as her days off. She worked in the Madison Cottage, which houses 16 profoundly retarded adult females exhibiting a variety of extreme behaviors, including self-injury and aggression towards facility staff. The third shift in Madison Cottage began at 10:45 p.m. and ended at 6:45 a.m. The minimum staff required for the second shift was six persons. The minimum staff required for the third shift was three persons. To ensure that the minimum staff requirements were met, Gulf Coast Center promulgated a "holdover policy," which was in effect at the time Petitioner was hired and throughout her employment. The policy provided that staff persons on one shift could not leave the facility until the next shift met the minimum staffing requirement. In practice, the holdover policy was most commonly invoked when an employee from an incoming shift called in sick. The supervisor of the outgoing shift would first invoke the "pull policy," contacting other cottages in Gulf Coast Center to ascertain whether they could pull an employee from their incoming shifts to fill the slot of the absent employee. If no one was available from another unit, the supervisor would then seek a volunteer from her own cottage to work the incoming shift. If no one volunteered, the supervisor was then required to "hold over" an employee from the current shift. Having signed the "willingness survey," this employee was required to work the extra shift, later receiving compensatory leave to ensure that she did not work more than 40 hours in a given week. Employees were given the opportunity to choose which day of the week they would be available for holdover. If the employee failed to choose a day, then her supervisor would assign a day. Petitioner failed to choose a day and was assigned Wednesday as her holdover day. Prior to May 21, 2003, Petitioner had worked at least one holdover shift without incident. On Wednesday, May 21, 2003, Laurie Whidden was the acting supervisor of Madison Cottage for the second shift. She was informed that a third-shift employee had called in sick. Ms. Whidden attempted to pull an employee from another cottage to cover the shortage, but no one was available. She asked for volunteers to work the third shift, but received no response. Ms. Whidden then informed Petitioner that she would be required to hold over and work the third shift. Petitioner responded that she could not work the third shift, because she could not leave her sick husband at home alone for 16 hours. Petitioner's husband suffered from heart disease, and at that time, his condition was precarious. Petitioner testified that she frequently had to take her husband to the emergency room. However, Petitioner gave Gulf Coast Center no prior notice that she could no longer work a holdover shift, nor did she make any arrangements for the care of her husband on Wednesday, which she knew was her potential holdover day. On May 21, 2003, Petitioner made no effort to ask a fellow second-shift employee to cover for her that night. Petitioner simply went home at the end of the second shift. There was some dispute as to whether Petitioner answered, "Hell, no," when Ms. Whidden asked her to hold over for the third shift. The weight of the evidence supports Petitioner's assertion that her statement was directed at another employee's remark that Petitioner could sue the state if she came home after working the third shift and found her husband dead on the floor. Petitioner was indicating to the other employee that she wanted her husband alive, not money from the state. Petitioner and Beverly Morgan, another second-shift employee, testified that another employee was sent over from another cottage to work the third shift on May 21, 2003, meaning that Petitioner's refusal to stay had no real impact on the staffing of Madison Cottage. Ms. Whidden testified that no one came from another cottage to cover the shortage and that Ms. Whidden herself stayed to work the third shift. Ms. Whidden's testimony is credited on this point. Ms. Whidden informed Colette Fritts, the residential services supervisor of Madison Cottage, that Petitioner refused to hold over for the third shift on May 21, 2003. Ms. Fritts forwarded the report to Gulf Coast Center's human resources division with a recommendation for disciplinary action against Petitioner. The superintendent of Gulf Coast Center terminated Petitioner's employment. Petitioner produced no credible evidence that her age was a factor in the decision to terminate her employment. Ms. Morgan claimed that one night she overheard Ms. Whidden and Leoncia Trevino, another Human Services Worker II in Madison Cottage, discussing Petitioner's age, saying that if she was too old to hold over, she should quit. Given that Petitioner only once refused to hold over, on the night of May 21, 2003, this testimony is not credible. Further, the evidence established that in March and June 2003, probationary employees in their twenties were terminated for refusing to hold over at the end of their shifts. Petitioner produced no credible evidence that her national origin played a role in the decision to terminate her employment. Petitioner, Ms. Morgan, and Carmel Henry, another Madison Cottage employee, all testified that Ms. Whidden, the acting supervisor, wanted to "get rid" of the Jamaican employees in Madison Cottage before the regular supervisor, Monica Franks, herself a Jamaican, returned from sick leave. However, none of them could point to any action by Ms. Whidden to put such a plan into effect or even any statement by Ms. Whidden that would indicate an animus toward Jamaicans. Ms. Whidden testified that at the time of the events at issue, she knew Petitioner was from an island, but didn't know which one. The source of the rumors regarding Ms. Whidden's intention to get rid of the Jamaicans appears to have been Leoncia Trevino. The other workers in Madison Cottage believed that Ms. Trevino had the ear of management. Ms. Whidden credibly testified that she had no special friendship with Ms. Trevino, who was moved out of Madison Cottage on June 24, 2003, after a confrontation with Ms. Henry, and then resigned her employment at Gulf Coast Center the next day. Petitioner produced no evidence that her race played any part in the decision to terminate her employment. Petitioner was still a probationary employee at the time of her dismissal, meaning that she could be dismissed "at will." See Fla. Admin. Code R. 60L-36.005(3). At the time of her hiring, Petitioner received a copy of the Department's Employee Handbook, which informed her that she could be dismissed at will as a probationary employee. Petitioner was aware of the holdover policy and consented to abide by that policy at the time of her employment. On May 21, 2003, Petitioner refused the lawful order of her duly-delegated supervisor to hold over. This refusal constituted insubordination, which would provide cause for dismissal even for a permanent career service employee. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 60L-36.005(3)(d). The evidence produced at hearing demonstrated that the sole reason for Petitioner's termination was her direct refusal to follow the lawful order of her supervisor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that the Department of Children and Family Services did not commit any unlawful employment practice and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his national origin or race in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Manuel Rodriguez ("Rodriguez") is a middle- aged white man of (in his words) "Spanish and Italian" descent who at all times relevant lived in Vero Beach, Florida. Respondent Indian River County Habitat for Humanity, Inc. ("Habitat"), is a nonprofit charitable corporation that makes interest-free loans to qualified applicants for the purchase of affordable housing, which the buyers, in return, must help build or renovate. In or around December 2018, Rodriguez submitted a "pre- screening" application for a Habitat home. By letter dated January 3, 2019, Habitat informed Rodriguez that, according to the information he had provided, he fell "within the income guidelines." This meant that Rodriguez could progress to the next step (group orientation) of the multi-step application process. As it happened, however, he did not make it all the way. In a letter dated February 19, 2019, Habitat told Rodriguez that his application could not be approved because his monthly income was insufficient to cover the estimated debt service. Rodriguez presented no evidence at hearing suggesting that Habitat had denied his application for any reason other than the one given to him, namely that "you [Rodriguez] do not earn enough to support a mortgage." Rodriguez was not satisfied with this rationale and arranged to meet with a Habitat employee named David Willis to discuss the matter. Rodriguez believes that Mr. Willis was rude and disrespectful to him. Further, Rodriguez testified that, during their conversation, Mr. Willis used the phrase, "you people." Clearly, this is a potentially offensive remark, and Rodriguez was, in fact, offended by it. When pressed, however, Rodriguez admitted that he did not consider the comment to have been a slur against Spanish or Italian people; rather, he took it as a more focused insult——against, for example, disputatious people. In any event, there is no evidence that Mr. Willis intended to disparage an ethnic or racial group. Determinations of Ultimate Fact There is no persuasive evidence that any of Habitat's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Rodriguez, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by discriminatory animus. Thus, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of any sort of unlawful housing discrimination could be made. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that Habitat did not commit any prohibited act.
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 finding Habitat not liable for housing discrimination and awarding Rodriguez no relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 15th day of August, 2019.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful housing practice in violation of Section 760.23, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operated Hickory Hill Mobile Home Park where tenants could rent spaces or lots for the placement of their mobile homes. By notice dated August 26, 1993, all tenants were notified of the closure of the park, effective one year from the date of the notice. On Friday, August 26, 1994, Respondent's representative, Patricia Tripp, preparing for the closure of the park, was notifying persons still in the park that their motor vehicles would have to be moved. She "tagged" cars with notices to owners to the effect that the cars must be moved or the cars would be towed after the conclusion of that day. Extensions were given by Tripp to those persons who requested them if their cars were going to be moved within a few days. At least one extension was granted to a white female tenant who informed Tripp that her car would be gone within a specific number of days of the deadline of August 26, 1994. On August 13, 1994, Petitioner, who is African-American and the former lessee of lot 31, purchased the trailer on lot 25 from the lessee of that lot. The lessee of lot 25 subsequently vacated the premises. Following his purchase, Petitioner then moved into the trailer on lot 25 without formally notifying Respondent. Petitioner moved his original trailer from lot 31 and from Respondent's park on August 18, 1994, continuing to reside at the trailer on lot 25. Under provisions of the form lease between Respondent and tenants of the park, tenants were required to park vehicles in the driveway to individual lots. No parking of vehicles on the street was permitted. Additionally, all motorized vehicles were required to meet state legal requirements to be operated in the park. On August 26, 1996, Petitioner still had a number of vehicles in the park, in addition to his newly acquired mobile home. The vehicles included a bus, manufactured in 1950; a 1978 pickup truck; a 1948 Chrysler automobile; and an ice cream truck. Some of the vehicles were not parked on Petitioner's lot. Tripp questioned Petitioner on August 26, 1994, regarding whether the vehicles belonged to Petitioner. Petitioner responded that they did. Tripp told him that the vehicles would need to be moved since the park was closing and informed him of the deadline. The discussion between the two became heated and eventually Tripp, who felt threatened by Petitioner's attitude and actions, left. Petitioner did not request an extension of the deadline with regard to his vehicles. On Monday, August 29, 1994, Petitioner's vehicles had not been towed. Around 2 p.m. in the afternoon, a tow truck arrived accompanied by a law enforcement officer. After verifying that Petitioner's vehicles met legal requirements and speaking with Respondents' representatives at the scene, the law enforcement officer left. None of Petitioner's vehicles were towed away. Petitioner eventually moved from the park on September 12, 1994, and Respondent's threat to tow Petitioner's vehicles was never realized. Petitioner suffered no quantifiable damages. FCHR's Determination Of No Reasonable Cause was issued on April 5, 1996, documenting FCHR's determination of the non-existence of reasonable cause to believe that a discriminatory housing practice had occurred. Petitioner subsequently filed his Petition For Relief on May 10, 1995.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition For Relief. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Albert Jerome Lee Post Office Box 1232 Hawthorne, Florida 32640 Claude R. Moulton, Esquire Emmer Development Corporation 2801 Southwest Archer Road Gainesville, Florida 32608 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (“Walmart”), discriminated against Petitioner, Ramon Santiago Lopez (“Petitioner”), based upon his national origin or age, and/or terminated his employment in retaliation for engaging in protected activity, in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2016).1/
Findings Of Fact Walmart is an employer as that term is defined in section 760.02(7). Walmart is a national retailer. Petitioner is a Cuban (Hispanic) male. He was 62 years old when he was hired by Walmart in November 2005 and was 72 years old at the time of his dismissal. Petitioner was initially hired to work at a store in Jacksonville, but transferred to Tampa. In June 2010, Petitioner requested a transfer back to Jacksonville and was assigned to Store 4444 on Shops Lane, just off Philips Highway and I-95 in Jacksonville. The store manager at Store 4444 was Scott Mallatt. Mr. Mallatt approved Petitioner’s transfer request and testified that he “very much” got along with Petitioner. Petitioner confirmed that he never had a problem with Mr. Mallatt. Petitioner testified that when he first started at Store 4444, he had no problems. After about four months, however, he began reporting to a supervisor he recalled only as “Lee.” Petitioner described Lee as “kind of a maniac.” Lee would harass Petitioner and give him impossible assignments to accomplish. Petitioner testified that he complained repeatedly to Mr. Mallatt about Lee’s abuse, but that nothing was ever done about it. Eventually, Petitioner gave up complaining to Mr. Mallatt. Mr. Mallatt testified that Petitioner never complained to him about being discriminated against because of his national origin or age. Petitioner apparently did complain about being overworked, but never tied these complaints to any discriminatory intent on the part of Lee. Petitioner testified that Lee no longer worked at Store 4444 in January 2016. From 2010 to 2015, Petitioner worked from 1:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. in various departments, including Grocery, Dairy, Paper, Pet, and Chemical. In 2015, Petitioner spoke with Mr. Mallatt about working at least some day shifts rather than constant nights. Mr. Mallatt approved Petitioner’s request. In August 2015, Petitioner was moved to the day shift in the Maintenance department. As a day associate, Petitioner typically worked from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Assistant Store Manager April Johnson transferred to Store No. 4444 in October 2015. Petitioner reported directly to Ms. Johnson. On January 14, 2016, Petitioner was scheduled to work from 8:30 a.m. until 5:30 p.m. He drove his van into the parking lot of Store No. 4444 at approximately 7:58 a.m. He parked in his usual spot, on the end of a row of spaces that faced a fence at the border of the lot. Petitioner liked this spot because the foliage near the fence offered shade to his vehicle. Closed circuit television (“CCTV”) footage, from a Walmart camera with a partial view of the parking lot, shows Petitioner exiting his vehicle at around 8:00 a.m. Petitioner testified that he could see something on the ground in the parking lot, 50 to 60 meters away from where his van was parked. The CCTV footage shows Petitioner walking across the parking lot, apparently toward the object on the ground. Petitioner testified there were no cars around the item, which he described as a bucket of tools. Petitioner stated that the bucket contained a screwdriver, welding gloves, a welding face mask, and a hammer. The CCTV footage does not show the bucket. Petitioner crosses the parking lot until he goes out of camera range.3/ A few seconds later, Petitioner returns into camera range, walking back toward his car while carrying the bucket of tools. When Petitioner reaches his van, he opens the rear door, places the bucket of tools inside, then closes the rear door. Petitioner testified that after putting the tools in the back of his van, he went to the Customer Service Desk and informed two female African American customer service associates that he had found some tools and put them in his car. Petitioner conceded that he told no member of management about finding the tools. Walmart has a written Standard Operating Procedure for dealing with items that customers have left behind on the premises. The associate who finds the item is required to take the item to the Customer Service Desk, which functions as the “lost and found” for the store. Mr. Mallatt and Ms. Johnson each testified that there are no exceptions to this policy. Petitioner was aware of the Standard Operating Procedure. On prior occasions, he had taken found items to the Customer Service Desk. Petitioner conceded that it would have been quicker to take the bucket of tools to the Customer Service Desk than to his van. However, he testified that he believed that he could have been fired if he had taken the tools to the desk before he had clocked in for work. Petitioner cited a Walmart policy that made “working off the clock” a firing offense. It transpired that the policy to which Petitioner referred was Walmart’s Wage and Hour policy, which states in relevant part: It is a violation of law and Walmart policy for you to work without compensation or for a supervisor (hourly or salaried) to request you work without compensation. You should never perform any work for Walmart without compensation. This language is plainly intended to prevent Walmart from requiring its employees to work without compensation. Petitioner, whose English language skills are quite limited, was adamant that this policy would have allowed Walmart to fire him if he performed the “work” of bringing the tools to the Customer Service Desk before he was officially clocked in for his shift. Therefore, he put the tools in his van for safekeeping and informed the Customer Service Desk of what he had done. Petitioner was questioned as to why he believed it was acceptable for him to report the situation to the Customer Service Desk, but not acceptable for him to bring the tools to the desk. The distinction he appeared to make was that the act of carrying the tools from the parking lot to the desk would constitute “work” and therefore be forbidden, whereas just stopping by to speak to the Customer Service Desk associate was not “work.” The evidence established that Petitioner would not have violated any Walmart policy by bringing the tools to the Customer Service Desk before he clocked in. He could have been compensated for the time he spent bringing in the tools by making a “time adjustment” on his time card. Mr. Mallatt testified that time adjustments are done on a daily basis when associates perform work prior to clocking in or after clocking out. Petitioner merely had to advise a member of management that he needed to make the time adjustment. Mr. Mallatt was confident that the adjustment would have been granted under the circumstances presented in this case. Petitioner did not go out to retrieve the tools after he clocked in. Mr. Mallatt stated that employees frequently go out to their cars to fetch items they have forgotten, and that Petitioner absolutely would have been allowed to go get the tools and turn them in to the Customer Service Desk. Later on January 14, 2016, Ms. Johnson was contacted by a customer who said tools were stolen off of his truck.4/ Ms. Johnson had not heard anything about lost tools. She looked around the Customer Service Desk, but found no tools there. Ms. Johnson also called out on the store radio to ask if anyone had turned in tools. Finally, the customer service manager at the Customer Service Desk told Ms. Johnson that Petitioner had said something about tools earlier that morning. Ms. Johnson called Petitioner to the front of the store and asked him about the missing tools. Petitioner admitted he had found some tools in the parking lot and had placed them in his vehicle. Ms. Johnson asked Petitioner why he put the tools in his vehicle. Petitioner told her that he was keeping the tools in his car until the owner came to claim them. Ms. Johnson testified that Petitioner offered no other explanation at that time. He just said that he made a “mistake.” Ms. Johnson explained to Petitioner that putting the tools in his vehicle was not the right thing to do and that he should have turned them in to “lost and found,” i.e., the Customer Service Desk. Petitioner was sent to his van to bring in the tools. After this initial conversation with Petitioner, Ms. Johnson spoke with Mr. Mallatt and Mr. Cregut to decide how to treat the incident. Mr. Cregut obtained approval from his manager to conduct a full investigation and to interview Petitioner. Mr. Cregut reviewed the CCTV footage described above and confirmed that Petitioner did not bring the tools to the Customer Service Desk. Ms. Johnson and Mr. Cregut spoke with Petitioner for approximately an hour to get his side of the story. Petitioner also completed a written statement in which he admitted finding some tools and putting them in his car. Mr. Cregut described Petitioner as “very tense and argumentative” during the interview. As the interview continued, Mr. Cregut testified that Petitioner’s reaction to the questions was getting “a little bit more hostile [and] aggressive.” Mr. Cregut decided to try to build rapport with Petitioner by asking him general questions about himself. This tactic backfired. Petitioner volunteered that he was a Cuban exile and had been arrested several times for his opposition to the Castro regime. Petitioner then claimed that Mr. Cregut discriminated against him by asking about his personal life and prejudged him because of his activism. Mr. Cregut credibly testified that he did not judge or discriminate against Petitioner based on the information Petitioner disclosed and that he only asked the personal questions to de-escalate the situation. Mr. Cregut’s only role in the case was as an investigative factfinder. His report was not colored by any personal information disclosed by Petitioner. At the conclusion of the investigation, Mr. Mallatt made the decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment. The specific ground for termination was “Gross Misconduct – Integrity Issues,” related to Petitioner’s failure to follow Walmart policy by bringing the tools to the Customer Service Desk. Mr. Mallatt testified that his concern was that Petitioner intended to keep the bucket of tools if no owner appeared to claim them. Mr. Mallatt credibly testified that had Petitioner simply taken the tools to the Customer Service Desk, rather than putting them in his vehicle, he would have remained employed by Walmart. Walmart has a “Coaching for Improvement” policy setting forth guidelines for progressive discipline. While the progressive discipline process is used for minor and/or correctable infractions, such as tardiness, “serious” misconduct constitutes a ground for immediate termination. The coaching policy explicitly sets forth “theft” and “intentional failure to follow a Walmart policy” as examples of serious misconduct meriting termination. Petitioner conceded that no one at Walmart overtly discriminated against him because of his age or national origin. He testified that he could feel the hostility toward Hispanics at Store 4444, but he could point to no particular person or incident to bolster his intuition. Petitioner claimed that his dismissal was in part an act of retaliation by Ms. Johnson for his frequent complaints that his Maintenance counterparts on the night shift were not adequately doing their jobs, leaving messes for the morning crew to clean up. Ms. Johnson credibly testified that Petitioner’s complaints did not affect her treatment of him or make her want to fire him. In any event, Ms. Johnson played no role in the decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment. Petitioner’s stated reason for failing to follow Walmart policy regarding found items would not merit a moment’s consideration but for Petitioner’s limited proficiency in the English language. It is at least conceivable that someone struggling with the language might read the Walmart Wage and Hour policy as Petitioner did. Even so, Petitioner was familiar with the found items policy, and common sense would tell an employee that he would not be fired for turning in customer property that he found in the parking lot. At the time of his dismissal, Petitioner had been working at Walmart for over 10 years. It is difficult to credit that he was completely unfamiliar with the concept of time adjustment and truly believed that he could be fired for lifting a finger to work when off the clock. Walmart showed that in 2016 it terminated three other employees from Store 4444 based on “Gross Misconduct – Integrity Issues.” All three were under 40 years of age at the time their employment was terminated. Two of the employees were African American; the third was Caucasian. Petitioner offered no evidence that any other employee charged with gross misconduct has been treated differently than Petitioner. At the hearing, Petitioner’s chief concern did not appear to be the alleged discrimination, but the implication that he was a thief, which he found mortally offensive. It could be argued that Mr. Mallatt might have overreacted in firing Petitioner and that some form of progressive discipline might have been more appropriate given all the circumstances, including Petitioner’s poor English and his unyielding insistence that he never intended to keep the tools. However, whether Petitioner’s dismissal was fair is not at issue in this proceeding. The issue is whether Walmart has shown a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Petitioner’s employment. At the time of his dismissal, Petitioner offered no reasonable explanation for his failure to follow Walmart policy. Mr. Mallatt’s suspicion regarding Petitioner’s intentions as to the tools was not unfounded and was not based on any discriminatory motive. Petitioner offered no credible evidence disputing the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons given by Walmart for his termination. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Walmart’s stated reasons for his termination were a pretext for discrimination based on Petitioner’s age or national origin. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that his termination was in retaliation for his engaging in protected activity. The employee who was allegedly retaliating against Petitioner played no role in the decision to terminate his employment. Petitioner offered no credible evidence that Walmart discriminated against him because of his age or national origin in violation of section 760.10.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of October, 2018.
