The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on November 17, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Linda Marchinko, was employed by the Witteman Company, Inc., from 1966 until April 2003. The Witteman Company, Inc. (hereinafter "Inc.") was a division of the Dover Corporation. While employed by Inc., Petitioner held the position of traffic manager. The most recent description of the duties of the position of traffic manager reads as follows: Responsible for, but not limited to, traffic managerial duties, coordinate and arrange for all product shipments, required documentation, customer interaction, and providing back-up support as required to others within the Company. Work with minimum supervision, produce quality, complete and accurate work and be an active and positive participant on teams and committees to which assigned. In February 2003, Cryogenic Industries made an asset purchase of Inc. and established Witteman, LLC (hereinafter LLC). LLC engineers and sells carbon dioxide, recovery, and production equipment to soft drink and brewing companies. Whereas Inc. had a maximum of 110 employees, LLC was established with only 17 employees, as many departments such as purchasing, traffic, and accounting were eliminated or "farmed out." At the time of the asset purchase, all employees of Inc. were terminated due to the sale of the assets of Inc. Petitioner was terminated from employment with Inc. effective April 8, 2003. She signed a Severance Agreement and Waiver and Release of Claims, releasing Inc. from all claims, including any related to the Age Discrimination and Employment Act. The position of traffic manager has not and does not exist at LLC. Petitioner was not hired by LLC. Petitioner has never been employed by LLC and, therefore, was not terminated by LLC. A few employees of Inc. were hired by LLC. Petitioner was not one of them. Cara Brammer is one of the employees of Inc. who was hired by LLC. Her position is Comptroller. Petitioner contends that regardless of Ms. Brammer's title, Ms. Brammer performs the same functions that Petitioner used to perform for Inc. Petitioner believes that Ms. Brammer was hired by LLC because she is younger than Petitioner. At the time Ms. Brammer was hired by LLC, she was approximately 39 years old and Petitioner was 55 years old. Ms. Brammer's duties as Comptroller include accounts payable, cost accounting, and general ledger work. According to Ms. Brammer, the traffic manager duties previously performed by Petitioner were separated between two of LLC's sister companies in California, which handle all of the major equipment, including manufacturing and shipping for LLC. William Geiger is General Manager of LLC. According to Mr. Geiger, the manufacturing of the product was shifted to two divisions located in California. The primary shipping of the company's product was also shifted to California. This is consistent with Ms. Brammer's testimony. According to Ms. Brammer, a small portion of the shipping duties that had initially been sent to California are now handled by LLC. She estimates that she spends only four to five hours a week on these traffic duties, that Mr. Geiger handles some of these duties, and that "quite a bit" of these traffic duties have been farmed out to a company called Freight Forwarder. LLC employs people in their thirties, forties, fifties, and sixties. There is no competent evidence that LLC used age as a criterion in its determination of who would and who would not be hired for the newly formed company.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Linda Mishko, suffers a severe hearing impairment. In December, 1985, Petitioner contacted the Respondent to apply for a temporary position of employment. Petitioner was asked to take a transcription test which she passed without any mistakes. This is not necessarily inconsistent with her handicap, however, since medical evidence indicates she is able to hear higher frequency voices, (women), more easily than lower frequency voices (men). The transcription test dictation was by a woman and she was able to satisfactorily understand what was being said. However, she has difficulty hearing lower men's voices. After the test was graded, Petitioner was asked if she would take a transcribing job. She indicated she preferred not to and instead, was referred to Grumman Aerospace, (Grumman), in Stuart where she was employed to do strictly word processing. Petitioner reported to Grumman on January 3, 1986. The documentation relating to her assignment reveals that the assignment was clearly noted to be for one month. Petitioner worked at Grumman from January 3, through May 5, 1986 and all performance ratings rendered on her during that time indicated that she was an excellent worker. She was told by Grumman personnel, and Respondent's office manager confirms this, that had they been able to do so, they would have hired her on a permanent basis. However, funding did not permit it and in May, 1987, Petitioner was released when the job for which she had been hired as a temporary employee was completed. Petitioner is convinced that she was discharged because of her handicap and contends that she was told this by her supervisor at Grumman. There is no evidence to support this contention, however. A witness who Petitioner contends would have testified to it refused to appear even though Petitioner was granted a recess during the hearing to call her again. According to Petitioner, the witness was afraid for her job, but there is no evidence that this was the case. After being released by Grumman, Petitioner was shortly thereafter called by Ms. Malodobry to take a temporary job at an attorney's office. Initially, Ms. Mishko declined to accept the job because she was afraid she would not be able to understand a man's voice in dictation. After thinking about it for a while, however, she decided she needed the work and agreed to attempt the job. Immediately upon reporting to the attorney's office, she advised him of her handicap but agreed to try to satisfy him. After 10 minutes or so of finding it difficult to understand his voice on the transcription tape, she left the job and did not return. Petitioner admits that Respondent, Manpower Temporary Services, has not discriminated against her in any way. She contends that the discrimination against her was committed by Grumman which, she believes, discharged her because of her handicap, and that Manpower is involved in a conspiracy with Grumman to cover it up. She contends that the favorable written comments on the Grumman records of her employment are lies, Ms. Malodobry is lying, and in fact anyone who doesn't support her theory of discrimination and conspiracy is lying. Petitioner admits she has no evidence of conspiracy, however, and that she filed her complaint based on her "feeling". There is no evidence that Manpower in any way discriminated against her or is in any way participating with Grumman to cover up the latter's supposed discrimination against her. In fact, there was no discrimination by Grumman. Ms. Mishko was terminated at the end of the period for which she was hired and her departure had no relationship whatever to her handicap.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief filed by Linda Mishko be dismissed with prejudice. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 1st day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Linda Mishko 47 Southeast Erie Terrace Stuart, Florida 33497 Roy T. Mildner Esquire GOLDMAN, BRUNING & ANGELOS, P.A. 10020 South Federal Highway Port St. Lucie, Florida 33452 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his race in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, when Petitioner was an employee of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact From November 2004 until early 2008, which period includes all times relevant to this case, Petitioner Robinson Nelson ("Nelson") worked for Respondent Alutiiq-Mele, LLC ("AML") as a security guard. Nelson, who is black, alleges that on two discrete occasions, AML unlawfully discriminated against him based on race, once denying him an overtime shift which he requested, and the other time refusing to assign him "equal work hours." The first incident allegedly took place on "or about March 1, 2005." According to Nelson, he called his supervisor that day, using a telephone at his workstation, to ask that he be scheduled to work overtime on his day off. The supervisor, Nelson claims, told him that overtime had been "eliminated" and denied Nelson's request. Shortly thereafter, as Nelson tells it, the supervisor called Nelson's coworker, Nadja Abreu, and offered her the overtime that Nelson had just been denied. Nelson's story cannot be squared with AML's records, which the undersigned considers reliable and truthful and hence credits. Nelson's timesheet for the week of February 27 through March 5, 2005, shows (and it is found) that he worked all seven days that week, putting in 40 regular hours and 26 overtime hours. Ms. Abreu's timesheet for the same period shows (and it is found) that she worked four days, accruing 40 regular hours and four overtime hours. At hearing, Nelson claimed (apparently for the first time) that the telephone conversation with his supervisor regarding overtime had not occurred on or about March 1, 2005—— as he had alleged originally in his Charge of Discrimination (signed on November 20, 2005) and maintained as recently as the Joint Prehearing Stipulation (dated May 30, 2008)——but rather some two weeks later, on or about March 15, 2005. Again, however, credible contemporaneous records belie Nelson's claim. A payroll document shows (and it is found) that Nelson and Ms. Abreu each worked 40 regular hours during the week of March 13, 2005——and neither put in overtime. (Moreover, Nelson did not work on March 15 and 16, 2005, which means that, if Nelson called his supervisor on March 15, as he asserted at hearing, then he likely would not have been at his workstation at the time, which is inconsistent with his testimony that he placed the call while at work.) Regarding the second alleged incident of discrimination, Nelson claims that on Monday, October 31, 2005, shortly before 9:00 a.m., he received a telephone call at home from his supervisor, who wanted to know why Nelson had failed to report for work that morning. Nelson says he told his supervisor that he had not been scheduled to work that day, and he could not work because he was babysitting. Nelson complains that, in connection with this situation, AML "denied" him regular work hours because of his race. In addition to being facially illogical, Nelson's claim of discrimination is contradicted by reliable and persuasive documentary evidence. First, AML's payroll record shows (and it is found) that Nelson worked four hours on Sunday, October 30, and seven-and-a-half hours each day the next Tuesday through Friday, making a total 34 regular hours during the week of October 30, 2005. While this was not quite a full-time workweek, that Nelson worked fewer than 40 hours one week is not, of itself, proof that AML "denied" him six hours of work. In fact, AML did not "deny" Nelson a work opportunity, as other contemporaneous documents——not to mention Nelson's own testimony——show. In evidence are two work schedules pertaining to the week of October 30, 2005. One was printed on October 28, 2005, and the other on October 30, 2005. There are a number of differences between them; each, however, notes that "scheduled hours are subject to change as needed." On the earlier schedule, Nelson was to be off on Monday, October 31, 2005. On the subsequent schedule, he was to work from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. that day. Had Nelson reported to work on October 31, 2005, as (ultimately) scheduled——and as he was asked to do——Nelson would have worked more than 40 hours the week of October 30, 2005. Ultimate Factual Determinations Taken as a whole, the evidence in this case is either insufficient to establish that AML discriminated unlawfully against Nelson on the basis of his race; or it proves, affirmatively, that AML did not, in all likelihood, unlawfully discriminate against him. Either way, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that AML did not violate the civil rights laws in its treatment of Nelson while he was an employee of AML.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order finding AML not liable to Nelson for racial discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 23rd day of July, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Erwin Rosenberg, Esquire Post Office Box 416433 Miami Beach, Florida 33141 Christine L. Wilson, Esquire Jennifer A. Schwartz, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500 2 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner was terminated from her employment with Respondent for a discriminatory reason.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Sharon Singleton, was employed by Respondent in the Information Technology (IT) Department. Petitioner served, as did other IT employees, under an annual contract. Respondent is the administrative government entity for the public schools of Escambia County, Florida. Contracts of employment are with the Escambia County School Board. Mr. Johnnie Odom supervised Petitioner until the last eight months of her employment. Her supervisor was Kathy Cooper during the last eight months of her employment. For many years, Petitioner and the other technicians used a software program that supported the management of school records that was known as “TERMS.” During the last few years of Petitioner’s employment, the District changed the supporting software program from TERMS to a program known as “FOCUS.” This was a major conversion of software programs that took place over an extended period of time. When the FOCUS program was initiated, Respondent hired three additional technicians to support FOCUS. Petitioner disagreed with the hiring of new technicians to support FOCUS, but acknowledges she was not treated any differently from the other Tech III support staff. Her disagreement was over the hiring of the new technicians, rather than allowing the existing ones to serve as primary support for FOCUS. Petitioner sought a promotion to a higher level position in 2011. The promotion process was administered by a selection committee that interviewed and evaluated candidates. As a result of the competitive selection, Petitioner was not recommended or selected for the promotion. On two prior occasions, Petitioner had sought a promotion, and on both occasions a selection committee ranked and evaluated the candidates. Petitioner was not successful in being selected or promoted on those two prior occasions. For the 2011-2012 school year, Petitioner received unsatisfactory ratings for her administrative/professional techniques and skills, as well as for her professional relationships with staff. The evaluation contained a note stating that Petitioner has difficulty in resolving conflicts with her co-workers and that her supervisor would like to see her resolve conflicts with her co-workers in a more diplomatic manner. Petitioner had received some unsatisfactory or needs improvement marks in her previous years’ evaluations, so 2011- 2012 was not the first time she had received less than satisfactory marks. Nevertheless, following the 2011-2012 annual evaluation, Petitioner received an annual employment contract for the next school year. At the end of the next school year, Petitioner again received an unsatisfactory mark for her professional techniques and skills. She also was cited for needing improvement in other areas. The notes to that evaluation stated Petitioner had improved her relationships with co-workers, but was still having problems adjusting to the new programs that required modernizing her skill set. Despite a few negative marks on her evaluation, Petitioner received an annual contract for the 2013-2014 school year. Petitioner did not dispute the fact that her evaluator and supervisor, Mr. Odom, believed her performance was unsatisfactory. She disagreed, however, with his assessment of her performance. Petitioner believed she had been demoted in the 2013-2014 school year and testified she signed a paper acknowledging a demotion in a disciplinary meeting with the IT department director, Tom Ingram. She did not receive a reduction in salary or benefits, however. Mr. Ingram classified the action taken against Petitioner as a restriction of her duties to Level I telephone support, rather than the more challenging Level II telephone support duties that she had performed in the past. He did not consider this a demotion, but more of a recognition of assigning Petitioner to duties that he believed she could better handle with her skill set. Petitioner testified that Ms. Cooper told her on several occasions she should consider retirement. Petitioner took this as evidence of Ms. Cooper’s belief she was too old to perform her job. Ms. Cooper testified she made the suggestion because Petitioner had an elderly mother who lived in a nursing home and needed assistance. Ms. Cooper was responding to Petitioner having told her she was left with little time to care for her mother when she finished with work. Petitioner acknowledged that her mother was elderly and needed help and that she had told this to Ms. Cooper. During Petitioner’s final eight months of employment, she worked mainly telephone support under the direction of Ms. Cooper, the support manager for the District. Ms. Cooper manages the help desk and IT support staff. She manages two levels of support. Level I support involves matters that can be resolved by telephone, while Level II support is for matters that cannot be resolved in five minutes or less and require more expertise to cure. Ms. Cooper developed concerns about Petitioner’s support performance. She took her concerns to the Director of IT, Mr. Ingram. Similar concerns with Petitioner’s performance had been raised by another support technician, as well. That technician reported that one of the schools to which he and Petitioner had both been assigned, asked that Petitioner not be allowed to return there for support in the future. When Ms. Cooper brought her concerns about Petitioner to Mr. Ingram, he asked that she bring him documentation of her concerns evidencing recent issues concerning Petitioner’s performance. Mr. Ingram met with Petitioner on September 3, 2013, to review her performance. Mr. Ingram’s notes from that meeting document his concern with Petitioner’s performance and he restricted her duties at that time to telephone support because he did not believe she could independently provide on-site support to more schools. His notes further indicate that Petitioner was not satisfied with his conclusions regarding her performance. Mr. Ingram conducted a follow-up interview with Petitioner on September 4, 2013, because Petitioner wanted to share with him the evaluation she had received from Mr. Odom for the 2012-2013 school year. Mr. Ingram told Petitioner he agreed with the evaluation conducted and recorded by Mr. Odom. Mr. Ingram had yet another meeting with Petitioner in March 2014 regarding her performance. With Ms. Cooper present, Mr. Ingram reviewed documentation concerning Petitioner’s unsatisfactory performance. The meeting was held pursuant to a Notice of Consideration of Disciplinary Action served on Petitioner. As a result of the meeting, Mr. Ingram was not confident Petitioner could satisfactorily improve her performance. He believed that Petitioner refused to accept the representative examples he gave her of her unsatisfactory performance. After concluding at the March meeting that Petitioner’s performance would not sufficiently improve, Mr. Ingram decided not to renew Petitioner’s annual contract when it expired in June 2014. Petitioner believed she had been marginalized by her perceived demotion to a Level I telephone support technician. She also was removed from ZENworks, a scheduling program she had previously been involved with over the years, becoming the only employee on the support team that was not allowed to participate in that program. Petitioner believed that all the criticisms of her work by management were hyper-technical, and that she received little, if any, feedback or training during the period for which she was evaluated when the unsatisfactory findings were made. She also attempted to show that others who made errors similar to hers were given promotions. The evidence presented on this point was insufficient to support her claim of disparate treatment. Several retired or long-serving District employees testified that their interaction over the years with Petitioner resulted in responsive and high-quality service from Petitioner. None of these witnesses testified about specific support they received from Petitioner during the last three years of her employment, employing the new FOCUS system, which served as the basis for the non-renewal of her contract. Petitioner testified she should receive damages in the amount of $384,000 as the result of her employment being terminated while she was a participant in the midst of D.R.O.P.
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 Respondent did not commit the “unlawful employment practice” alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner’s employment discrimination charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Ryan M. Barnett, Esquire Whibbs and Stone, P.A. 801 West Romana Street, Unit C Pensacola, Florida 32502 (eServed) Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire The Hammons Law Firm, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 (eServed) Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race or color in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2003); and whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of facts are made: Respondent, whose correct name is AIG Marketing, Inc. is a subsidiary of American International Group, Inc. ("AIG"). Respondent supplies marketing services for AIG. Respondent is an employer as defined by Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes (2003). Petitioner is an African-American female. She began working for Respondent as an "insurance consultant" on April 22, 2003. Petitioner resigned her employment by letter dated February 17, 2004. Petitioner's last day at work for Respondent was March 2, 2004. Petitioner worked at Respondent's facility in Seminole County, Florida. An insurance consultant's primary job responsibility is to answer incoming telephone calls from prospective customers seeking information concerning automobile insurance. Respondent has an anti-discrimination and anti- retaliation policy. Respondent has a published policy specifically prohibiting discrimination and retaliation. The policy states that discrimination, including that based upon race and color "is strictly prohibited." The policy states that any employee found to have engaged in any form of discriminatory harassment will be subject to appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including termination. The policy states that Respondent will not tolerate any retaliation against any employee for making a complaint, bringing inappropriate conduct to the Respondent's attention, or for participating in an investigation of an alleged act of harassment. Respondent's management employees support and enforce its policies against discrimination and retaliation. After she was hired in April 2003, Petitioner received training for a period of approximately 10 weeks. Thereafter, on approximately July 1, 2003, she was placed on a "team" with other insurance consultants. The Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Melody Garcia-Muniz. While on Ms. Garcia-Muniz' team, Petitioner also received instruction, also called "coaching," from Nirmala Sookram. Ms. Garcia-Muniz is an Asian female. Ms. Sookram is an Indian female. Approximately one month after she was placed on Ms. Garcia-Muniz' team, on or about August 2, 2003, Petitioner had a confrontation with Ms. Sookram. Thereafter, by correspondence dated August 2, 2003, Petitioner wrote Respondent's Human Resources Office and Ms. Garcia-Muniz complaining of "the work condition, I have been experiencing with team leader Nirmala Sookram." As a result of Petitioner's August 2, 2003, letter, Respondent replaced Ms. Sookram as the team coach with another coach. Respondent also immediately investigated the allegations contained in Petitioner’s August 2, 2003, correspondence. This investigation was conducted by Ms. Garcia-Muniz and another management employee Dawn Bronwnlie. No evidence of discrimination was revealed. In approximately September or October 2003, Petitioner was transferred from Ms. Garcia-Muniz' team to a team supervised by Beverly Swanson. Ms. Swanson is a Caucasian female. This transfer was done pursuant to a reorganization of Respondent's shifts. Respondent had two business practices which are relevant to this matter and which are acknowledged by Petitioner. First, Respondent requires that its insurance consultants respond to in-bound calls from customers as soon as possible. Respondent has a policy prohibiting insurance consultants from making out-bound calls if there are in-bound calls waiting. Out-bound calls would typically be follow-up calls between an insurance consultant and a prospective customer. Second, Respondent has a policy prohibiting one insurance consultant from accessing an insurance quote being worked on by another insurance consultant. This policy is intended to prevent one insurance consultant from "stealing" a customer from another insurance consultant. Petitioner consistently violated Respondent's policy against making out-bound calls when in-bound calls were waiting. She was counseled with respect to this policy on August 5, 2003. Petitioner continued to violate this policy and received a verbal warning on September 19, 2003. The verbal warning confirmed Petitioner had been counseled in August with respect to this policy. The verbal warning confirms that for a 14-day period Petitioner made 649 out-bound calls while only receiving 444 in-bound calls. The verbal warning stated that at no time should Petitioner's out-bound calls exceed her in-bound calls. With respect to Respondent's policy prohibiting one insurance consultant from accessing a quote for a customer of another insurance consultant, Petitioner was advised on November 7, 2003, about the proper procedures to handle such situations. Though Petitioner claimed that she did not know accessing a quote for another insurance consultant's customer was inappropriate until November 7, 2003, she admits that on that date she was so advised and from that date forward knew that it was a violation of Respondent's policies. Nonetheless, on December 10, 2003, Petitioner's then supervisor Ms. Swanson was advised that Petitioner had accessed a quote for another insurance consultant's customer in violation of Respondent's policies. This occurred on December 9, 2003. Two days later on December 12, 2003, another insurance consultant, Steve Mintz advised Ms. Swanson that Petitioner had also accessed one of his insurance quotes. Ms. Swanson investigated and determined that Petitioner had, in fact, violated Respondent's policies by accessing the quote of another insurance consultant's customers. As part of that investigation, Ms. Swanson interviewed Petitioner and reviewed reports. Petitioner's statements were inconsistent with the reports, and Ms. Swanson ultimately determined that Petitioner had been untruthful with her during the investigation. As a result of Petitioner's violation of the policy, on December 16, 2003, Ms. Swanson issued Petitioner a written warning for inappropriate sales conduct. The written warning noted that Ms. Swanson had thoroughly investigated "several" complaints about Petitioner's sales conduct and confirmed that Petitioner had processed sales incorrectly despite several discussions with other supervisors as well as Ms. Swanson. The written warning also confirmed that Petitioner had been untruthful with Ms. Swanson during Ms. Swanson's investigation into this matter. As a result, Ms. Swanson placed Petitioner on a written warning which advised her that should her practices continue, her employment would be terminated. In accordance with Respondent's policies, Petitioner was ineligible to post for a position, switch shifts, or work overtime. Immediately after the December 16, 2003, meeting during which Ms. Swanson issued the written warning, Petitioner contacted Respondent's Human Resources department. As a result, Louisa Hewitt, Respondent's Human Resources professional, undertook an independent investigation to determine the accuracy or inaccuracy of Ms. Swanson's findings which formed the basis for the written warning. Ms. Hewitt is a Hispanic female. Ms. Hewitt's independent investigation determined that Petitioner had, in fact, improperly processed sales and inappropriately accessed quotes. Accordingly, Ms. Hewitt met with Petitioner on December 31, 2003. In attendance was another of Respondent's managers Patricia Brosious. During this meeting, Ms. Hewitt advised Petitioner that the written warning was appropriate. Despite the fact that the December 16, 2003, written warning prohibited Petitioner from switching shifts, Respondent allowed Petitioner to switch shifts in order to allow her to care for an ill relative. This request was received on or about December 21, 2003, and granted on December 22, 2003. Dawn Bronwnlie (one of the Respondent's assistant managers who investigated Petitioner's August 2003 complaint) requested the accommodation on Petitioner's behalf by e-mail dated December 21, 2003, sent to, among others, Petitioner's immediate supervisor Ms. Swanson. Petitioner and Respondent management employee Patricia Brosious were copied on the e-mail. Approximately one month later, Petitioner again requested a shift change. By e-mail dated January 26, 2004, Respondent's management employee Patricia Brosious informed Petitioner of all of the shifts that were open at that time to which a transfer was possible. Ms. Brosious copied Ms. Hewitt and Timothy Fenu on this e-mail. Mr. Fenu is the manager of Respondent's facility in Lake Mary, Florida, and the highest- ranking employee of Respondent at that facility. On January 27, 2004, Petitioner responded to Ms. Brosious' e-mail, which had advised Petitioner of the shifts that were available. In response, Mr. Fenu sent an e-mail to Petitioner advising her that the shifts offered to her were based on business need and current unit sizes. Mr. Fenu advised Petitioner that her response was inappropriate and requested her to advise Respondent if she desired to change shifts. After initially scheduling a meeting with Mr. Fenu, Petitioner canceled the meeting by e-mail dated February 10, 2004. Petitioner resigned her employment February 17, 2004. Petitioner presented no direct evidence of discrimination or statistical evidence of discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2006, 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 12th day of January, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cynthia McGee Post Office Box 550423 Orlando, Florida 32855 Daniel C. Johnson, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Box 1171 Orlando, Florida 32802 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawfully discriminatory employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of race and religion, and retaliated against him, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA").
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Lawrence N. Brown, III, is an African- American male and is of the Christian faith. Petitioner has been employed with Respondent since April 14, 2014, at its store located at 3800 Oakwood Boulevard, Hollywood, Florida (hereafter, the "Store"). As of the final hearing, Petitioner continued to be employed by Respondent at the Store. Respondent is a corporation doing business in Florida. Respondent owns and operates the Store at which Respondent was employed at the time of the alleged discriminatory and retaliatory actions. Employment Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief Petitioner filed an Employment Charge of Discrimination ("Discrimination Charge") with FCHR on or about March 10, 2016.4/ The pages attached to the Discrimination Charge form (which apparently was filled out in typewritten form by FCHR staff) were prepared by Petitioner. On or about July 18, 2016, Respondent issued a Determination: No Reasonable Cause, determining that Petitioner had not shown reasonable cause to believe that Respondent had committed unlawful employment practices against him. On or about August 16, 2016, Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Relief requesting a hearing to determine whether Respondent committed unlawful employment practices against him. The Petition for Relief alleges that Respondent engaged in unlawful discrimination against him on the basis of both his race and religion, and also alleges that Respondent engaged in unlawful retaliation. These charges, as specifically set forth in the Petition for Relief, are the subject of this de novo proceeding.5/ In the Petition for Relief, Petitioner claims that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race by failing to promote him into supervisory or managerial positions for which he claims he was qualified; by giving him lower scores on his employment evaluations than were given to a white employee working in the same position (part-time hardlines merchandiser); by not paying him as much as they paid that same white employee; and by retaining that same white employee as a part-time hardlines merchandiser in the Toy Department, while moving Petitioner to another position as cashier. Petitioner also claims that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion by scheduling him to work on Christmas Day 2015, while giving other employees that day off. Additionally, Petitioner claims that Respondent retaliated against him for complaining to Respondent's corporate legal department about having to work on Christmas Day 2015, by removing him as a hardline merchandiser in the Toy Department and reassigning him to a cashier position, then subsequently effectively "terminating" (in his words) his employment. Petitioner seeks an award of $5,000,000 in damages in this proceeding. Background Events As noted above, Petitioner was hired by Respondent on or about April 14, 2014. Petitioner initially was hired in a part-time position as a part-time overnight hardlines replenishment associate. In this position, Petitioner's work scheduling availability was between 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. When Petitioner was hired, Alberto Rodriquez was the Store manager. In his position as a part-time employee with Respondent, Petitioner was not guaranteed any specific number of weeks or hours of employment in any given calendar year, nor was he guaranteed that he would attain full-time employee status. The number of work hours Petitioner was assigned was dependent on the company's business needs and on Petitioner's ability to meet the applicable job performance standards. Petitioner acknowledged these and the other conditions of his employment as evidenced by his signature on the Pre-training Acknowledgment Summary dated April 14, 2014. As a result of the elimination of the overnight replenishment associate position, on or about October 26, 2014, Petitioner was transferred to another position as a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser. In this position, his work scheduling availability was between 6:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. As a hardlines merchandiser, Petitioner was responsible for stocking store shelves with merchandise, straightening merchandise on store shelves, putting returned merchandise on shelves, and generally keeping the hardlines departments neat and the shelves fully stocked. The Toy Department at the Store was one of several departments that were categorized as "hardlines" departments. In his duties as a hardlines merchandiser, Petitioner was not assigned to any specific hardlines department, and his responsibilities entailed working in any hardlines department as needed. However, as a practical matter, due to the work demand, Petitioner worked mostly, if not exclusively, in the Toy Department until he was reassigned to the cashier position after Christmas 2015. David Leach became the Store manager in April 2015. At some point before Christmas Day 2015, the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was posted. Petitioner was scheduled to work on Christmas Day, December 25, 2015. Petitioner did not volunteer, and had not otherwise requested, to work on Christmas Day 2015. The Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, which was a paid holiday for Respondent's employees. On or about December 23, 2015, Petitioner contacted Respondent's corporate legal department, requesting to be removed from the work schedule for Christmas Day 2015. Pursuant to a directive from Respondent's corporate office, Petitioner was removed from the work schedule for that day. Petitioner was not required to work on Christmas Day 2015, and he did not work that day. Petitioner was paid for the Christmas Day holiday. Although the Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, some Store employees were scheduled to work, and did work, that day on a volunteer basis, for which they were paid. On December 28, 2015, Leach presented Petitioner with a Request for Religious Accommodation form to sign. Petitioner signed the form. The form was marked as showing that Respondent "granted" the religious accommodation. Also on December 28, 2015, Leach informed Petitioner that he had eliminated the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position. He offered Petitioner other part-time positions, either as a cashier or in making pizza at the Little Caesar's pizza station in the Store. Leach did not offer any other positions to Petitioner at that time. Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, but informed Leach that he was unable to stand in a single place for long periods of time due to injuries he previously had sustained while working on the overnight shift. Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, effective January 3, 2016.6/ Petitioner's hourly wage did not change when his position changed to cashier. He continued to make the same hourly wage that he had made as a daytime hardlines merchandiser. At some point on or after December 28, 2015, Petitioner signed a Personnel Interview Record form that reflected his revised work hours associated with his position change to cashier. The form stated his availability to work between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The evidence is unclear as to whether Petitioner did (or did not) call in to inform the appropriate Store personnel that he would not be working on Tuesday, December 29, or on Thursday, December 31, 2015. Regardless, the persuasive evidence shows that Petitioner worked on Monday, December 28, 2015; did not work on Tuesday, December 29, or Thursday, December 31, 2015; and worked on Saturday, January 2, 2016. The work schedule for the week of January 3 through 10, 2016, was computer-generated some time during the week of December 27, 2015, through January 3, 2016. If an employee does not report to work when scheduled and does not call in to be excused from work on those days, this situation is termed a "no call-no show," and the employee will not be scheduled to work the following week. This is to ensure that there are cashiers available as needed to work on upcoming dates. Regardless of whether Petitioner did or did not call in to inform Respondent he would not be working on Tuesday, December 29, or Thursday, December 31, 2015, the posted work schedule for the week of January 3 through 10, 2016, showed Petitioner as not being scheduled to work that week. However, the evidence shows that Petitioner did, in fact, work a total of 15.90 hours the week of January 3 through 10, 2016. The work schedule posted as of Saturday, January 9, 2016, also showed Petitioner as not being scheduled to work the week of January 10 through 16, 2016. However, the evidence shows that Petitioner worked a total of 15.41 hours the week of January 10 through 16, 2016. At some point between January 13 and January 26, 2016, Petitioner was moved from the cashier position to the Store's date code specialist position. The date code specialist position also is a part-time position, for which Petitioner is paid the same hourly wage as he was paid as a daytime hardlines merchandiser. As of the final hearing, Petitioner continued to be employed by Respondent, working as the Store's date code specialist. Race Discrimination Claims As previously noted, Petitioner began working for Respondent at the Store on April 14, 2014. His initial employment position was as a part-time overnight replenishment associate. In October 2014, he moved to a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position. In both positions, he was responsible for stocking and restocking merchandise in all hardlines departments, so was not assigned exclusively to the Store's Toy Department. However, as noted above, due to work demand in the Toy Department, Petitioner did most, if not all, of his work in that department until he was moved to the cashier position in late December 2015.7/ Petitioner contends that starting in mid-2014,8/ he periodically requested to be promoted to "Toy Lead" or to another supervisory or managerial position. He testified that he had undertaken many activities and implemented various systems to improve the efficiency and productivity of the Toy Department and other departments at the store, and had documented these activities and transmitted that information to the Respondent for inclusion in his personnel file. He testified that rather than promoting him to a supervisory position in the Toy Department, Respondent instead hired a non-African-American person to fill that position.9/ Petitioner additionally testified that he periodically would request to be transferred or promoted to other supervisory positions, but that Respondent did not grant these requests. He contends that since he was qualified for these positions, the only basis for Respondent's decision to fill those positions with other employees was discrimination against him on the basis of his race. In response, Leach testified that there was no formal "Toy Lead" position at the Store; rather, the person supervising the Toy Department is an assistant store manager, a position that entails supervising other hardlines departments besides the Toy Department. Further, Leach testified that in his view, Petitioner was not qualified to occupy certain supervisory positions because of his lack of experience in those areas and his relatively short period of employment with Respondent. Leach also testified that Petitioner had not ever formally applied for a promotion through Respondent's online application process. Petitioner further asserts that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race because he was not paid the same amount as Corey Harper, a white male hardlines merchandiser who also often worked part-time in the Toy Department on the afternoon or evening shift, even though he worked harder and received higher evaluation scores than did Harper.10/ However, Leach credibly testified that Respondent does not currently base its pay rate for part-time employees on job performance evaluation scores, but instead pays them a set hourly pay rate. According to Leach, Respondent has not given an hourly pay rate raise to part-time employees since 2009, so that any pay differential depended on whether employees were hired before or after 2009. Leach credibly testified that Harper has been employed by Respondent since 2004, so had received hourly pay rate raises between 2004 to November 2008; this would result in his hourly pay rate being higher than Petitioner's, even though both are part-time employees. Petitioner testified that when he was moved from the daytime hardlines merchandiser position to the cashier position after Christmas 2015, he made it clear that he wanted to remain in the Toy Department; however, Respondent transferred him out of that department while allowing Harper to remain in a hardlines merchandiser position, which entailed work in the Toy Department. Petitioner also made clear that he wished to return to the hardlines merchandiser position in the Toy Department when such a position became available; however, at some point, Leach reassigned Carol Yaw, who was white, from her previous office manager job to a hardlines merchandiser position. Petitioner asserts that Respondent's actions in allowing Harper to remain as a part-time hardline merchandiser and reassigning Yaw to a hardlines merchandiser position constituted discrimination against him on the basis of his race. However, Leach credibly testified that the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position that Petitioner had occupied was eliminated because of the lack of work in that position, primarily due to declining Toy Department sales after the holiday season. Additionally, immediately after Christmas 2015, Leach consolidated the overnight merchandise unloading and daytime shelf stocking positions and moved the overnight unloading employees to the day shift, where their duties consist of unloading merchandise from trucks and stocking shelves.11/ Leach credibly testified that Harper was not moved from his position because Leach had specifically decided not to move others unaffected by this reorganization out of their existing positions, and that Harper was an afternoon/evening hardlines merchandiser. Leach also credibly testified that he had moved Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser position after her office manager position was eliminated because she was a 25-year employee of Respondent, and he felt that she deserved that position out of loyalty for being a long-term employee of Respondent. Petitioner also contends that Respondent's evaluation of his job performance was unfair because it was conducted by an assistant store manager, Marjorie McCue, who was not his direct supervisor. Specifically, he contends that McCue was unfamiliar with his job performance, so did not appropriately consider, in his evaluation, improved Toy Department sales performance and efficiency that were due to measures that he had implemented. Petitioner also contends that McCue initially deliberately gave him an inaccurately low job performance evaluation in an effort to create a record to support terminating his employment, but that when he complained, those lower scores were changed to higher scores. The only performance evaluation regarding Petitioner's job performance that was admitted into evidence is a document titled "Employee Review" that was dated January 31, 2015; Petitioner received a 3.10 overall performance score on this performance evaluation.12/ The Employee Review for Harper dated January 31, 2015, also was admitted into evidence; Harper's overall performance score was 3.00. Upon careful consideration of the competent substantial evidence in the record, it is determined that Petitioner failed to carry his burden13/ to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by Respondent on the basis of his race. To do so, Petitioner must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was subject to adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified to do the job; and (4) his employer treated similarly-situated employees outside of his protected class more favorably than he was treated.14/ It is undisputed that Petitioner, as an African- American, is a member of a protected class. However, the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner was subject to adverse employment action. With respect to his assertion that Respondent failed to promote him on the basis of his race, Petitioner needed to show that, in addition to being a member of a protected class, he applied for and was qualified for a promotion; that he was rejected despite his qualifications; and that other equally or less-qualified employees outside of his class were promoted.15/ While Petitioner frequently sent email correspondence to Respondent's corporate legal office requesting to be promoted, the evidence does not show that he followed Respondent's formal online application process for applying for promotions.16/ Further, although the evidence indicates that Petitioner is very hard-working, energetic, bright, and detail-oriented, he did not demonstrate that those characteristics necessarily qualified him for the supervisory positions about which he inquired. He also did not demonstrate that Respondent filled the positions about which he had inquired with less-qualified non-African-American employees. In fact, Petitioner acknowledged, in testimony at the final hearing and in email correspondence with Respondent's corporate legal office, that in his view, some of the individuals who had been promoted were qualified for the positions to which they had been promoted. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not demonstrate adverse employment action by Respondent by failing to promote him on the basis of his race. Petitioner also did not show that he received a lower pay rate and lower evaluation scores than did other similarly- situated employees who were not members of his protected class. The only comparator to which Petitioner referred was Harper, the other part-time hardlines merchandiser that sometimes worked in the Toy Department. However, as discussed above, the evidence showed that Harper actually scored lower than did Petitioner on the January 31, 2015, evaluation.17/ Further, Harper was not similarly situated to Petitioner with respect to pay rate because Harper is a longer-term employee who had received hourly pay rate raises in 2005 through 2008, before Respondent ceased giving raises of hourly pay rates in 2009, but Petitioner was hired in 2014, after Respondent ceased giving hourly pay raises. Petitioner also did not show, by the greater weight of the evidence, that Leach discriminated against him on the basis of his race by electing to reassign him, rather than Harper, to a cashier position after Christmas 2015, and by later reassigning Yaw to fill a full-time hardlines merchandiser position that included responsibilities of working in the Toy Department. As discussed above, when Leach decided to eliminate the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position, he chose not to reassign other employees who were not directly affected by the elimination of that position. The evidence shows that Leach did not reassign Harper to a cashier position because Harper's position was not directly affected by the elimination of the daytime hardlines merchandiser position——not because Leach favored Harper over Petitioner due to race. Also as discussed above, Leach reassigned Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser position after her office manager position——also a full-time position——was eliminated. Because Yaw was a full-time employee, she did not fill a position for which Petitioner was eligible as a part-time employee; furthermore, under any circumstances, she was not similarly situated to Petitioner because of her longer term of employment with Respondent. For these reasons, neither Harper nor Yaw are similarly situated to Petitioner for purposes of being comparators. For these reasons, it is found that Petitioner did not establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination against him by Respondent on the basis of his race. Further, even if Petitioner had established a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of race, Respondent articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions with respect to Petitioner. As discussed above, Respondent did not promote Petitioner because he did not go through Respondent's formal application process for seeking promotions, and also because Leach determined, on the basis of Petitioner's lack of experience and employment longevity, that Petitioner was not qualified for supervisory positions at that time. Additionally, Leach's decisions regarding reassigning Petitioner to a cashier position while retaining Harper and reassigning Yaw to hardlines merchandiser positions were management decisions based on business needs and requirements, rather than on the basis of race. Petitioner did not present evidence showing that these reasons were a pretext for discrimination against him on the basis of his race. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of his race, in violation of section 760.10(1)(a). Religious Discrimination Claim As previously discussed, shortly before Christmas Day 2015, the employee work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was posted in the Store. This schedule showed Petitioner as being scheduled to work from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Christmas Day, which fell on a Friday in 2015. The Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, which was a paid employee holiday; however, employees could work that day on a voluntary basis and they would be paid time-and-a-half for doing so. As noted above, Petitioner did not volunteer or otherwise indicate that he was willing to work that day. Upon seeing that he was scheduled to work on Christmas Day, Petitioner contacted Respondent's corporate legal department, which then contacted Leach. Leach had Petitioner removed from the work schedule for December 25, 2015. Petitioner was not required to work that day, did not work that day, and was paid for the Christmas Day 2015 holiday. Petitioner claims that by scheduling him to work on Christmas Day, Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion. Petitioner asserts, as evidence of Respondent's discriminatory intent, that there are others who worked in the Toy Department who were not of the Christian faith, so that if someone was needed to work on Christmas Day, one of those individuals could instead have been scheduled. As previously noted, on December 28, 2015, Leach presented Petitioner with a Request for Religious Accommodation form to sign. Leach credibly testified that the purpose of having Petitioner sign the form was to have a written record of Petitioner's religion so that Petitioner would not again be assigned to work on a Christian religious holiday. Petitioner signed the form, but protested being required to do so, because, in his view, Respondent already was on notice that he is of the Christian faith because he always had Sundays off of work. Petitioner testified that when he was hired in April 2014 (notably, before Leach became Store manager) he had verbally requested Sundays off, effectively placing Respondent on notice that he is of the Christian faith. On this basis, Petitioner asserts that Leach and other managers and supervisors at the Store knew that he is Christian and that they nonetheless intentionally scheduled him to work on Christmas Day. Petitioner acknowledged that he never heard Leach make any comments with respect to his (Petitioner's) religion. Leach credibly testified that before he was contacted by Respondent's corporate office regarding Petitioner's concerns about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015, he did not know that Petitioner was Christian, and he had not inferred that from the fact that Petitioner did not work on Sundays.18/ Leach testified, credibly and persuasively, that Petitioner was scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 by mistake. He explained that the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was generated using a pre-populated "template" method. This method, which is a method by which the Store sets its weekly work schedules, entails week-to-week copying of the regular——i.e., "template"——work schedule for all Store employees, then modifies that schedule as needed to address changes to individual employee work schedules. Leach explained that in using this method to establish the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, Respondent had inadvertently scheduled employees who had not volunteered to work on Christmas Day. He surmised that this was a possible explanation for why Petitioner mistakenly was scheduled to work that day. As noted above, Petitioner was not the only Store employee scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. Upon consideration of the competent substantial evidence in the record, it is determined that Petitioner failed to carry his burden to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by Respondent on the basis of his religion. To do so, Petitioner must show that he: (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) informed Respondent of this belief; and (3) suffered adverse employment action as a result of failing to comply with the employment requirement that conflicted with his belief. It is undisputed that Petitioner falls within a protected class for purposes of a discrimination claim on the basis of religion. However, Petitioner did not prove the existence of the other two elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of religion. Specifically, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent knew that he was Christian or that his Christian faith prohibited him from working on Christmas Day. As noted above, Petitioner was hired at the Store before Leach became Store manager. Further, because Petitioner had not been required to complete a written religious accommodation form when he was hired in April 2014, Respondent did not have any written notice in its possession that would have informed Leach that Petitioner was Christian or that Petitioner needed certain Christian holidays, such as Christmas Day, off of work. As noted above, Leach credibly testified that he did not know that Petitioner was Christian until Respondent's corporate legal office contacted him regarding Petitioner's religion-based complaint about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. The evidence also shows that Petitioner did not suffer any adverse employment action. As soon as Respondent was informed of Petitioner's complaint, Petitioner was removed from the work schedule for Christmas Day 2015, did not work that day, and was paid for that holiday. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not establish, by the greater weight of the evidence, a prima facie case of discrimination by Respondent against him on the basis of his religion. However, even if Petitioner had established a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of religion, Respondent produced credible, persuasive evidence showing a legitimate, non- discriminatory basis for its action——that is, that through the Store's use of the template work scheduling system, Petitioner was mistakenly scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. As noted above, as soon as Petitioner complained to Respondent, Respondent immediately accommodated his request by removing him from the Christmas Day 2015 work schedule. Petitioner did not present any evidence showing that Respondent's proffered reason for scheduling him to work on Christmas Day 2015 was a pretext for discrimination on the basis of his religion. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion, in violation of section 760.10(1)(a). Retaliation Claim Petitioner claims that Respondent retaliated against him for complaining to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 by reassigning him from his position as a daytime hardlines merchandiser——a position that he clearly liked and at which he believed he excelled——to a cashier position——a position that he clearly considered demeaning and that also was physically difficult for him to perform due to a previous injury. Petitioner was informed that he was being reassigned to a cashier position only five days (and the first workday) after he complained to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day.19/ Petitioner testified that Leach told him that the part- time daytime merchandiser position had been eliminated due to the lack of work demand, particularly in the Toy Department, after the Christmas season was over. Petitioner testified that when he asked Leach about available positions in to which he could transfer, Leach told him that only cashier or pizza-making positions were available. Petitioner provided evidence that a softlines customer service job, which he claims he would have preferred, was open at the time he was reassigned and that Leach did not inform him of that opening or offer him that position. Petitioner also disputes that the part-time daytime merchandiser job that he had occupied had been eliminated. As evidence, he contends that Harper continued to occupy that position, and also that Leach subsequently reassigned Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser rather than transferring him back into a hardlines merchandiser position, as he had requested. The part-time cashier position to which Petitioner was transferred was the same level of employment position in Respondent's employment hierarchy as was the part-time daytime merchandiser position that he previously held. Additionally, as discussed above, as a part-time cashier, Petitioner continued to receive the same hourly pay rate and work scheduling availability as he had received when he was employed as a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser. As discussed above, on or before January 26, 2016, Petitioner was reassigned to the Store's date code specialist position. According to Leach, that position came open after Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, and Leach believed that the date code specialist position would play well to Petitioner's strengths of being methodical and detail- oriented. Petitioner bears the burden, by the greater weight of the evidence, to establish a prima facie case of retaliation by Respondent. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Petitioner must show that: (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) he suffered a materially adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.20/ For the following reasons, it is found that Petitioner did not satisfy his burden to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. It is determined that Petitioner engaged in a "protected activity" when he complained to Respondent's corporate legal office, by email dated December 23, 2015, that he had been scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. The email stated: Attn: Legal My schedule states that I am scheduled for Christmas day. I am a Christian I exercise religious right no work on a high religious day. Christmas is the day I celebrate the birth of Christ thus the name Christmas day. A Jewish person was assigned to my department (toys) and was allowed to have off all the Jewish holidays. I was told that is his right and approved, I said fine, I don't know who was arguing this but this was fine with me, because I have many Jewish friends, so I understand. Easter which falls on a Sunday and Christmas are my holidays. I am requesting off. I am requesting Christmas day off with holiday pay as my religious day, just like I requested Sundays off. Only I can change my religious day and work on Sunday, which I might have to when promoted. If management tells me I cannot be promoted because I exercise my religious right not to work on the seventh day, then I will have to do as Jewish people have done for centuries, they are released from the commandment that they may only eat Kosher. If captured by the enemy they may eat to survive. So if I can only be manager if I give up my religious right not to work on Sunday, then I will do what management says is a requirement. Thank you. Lawrence Brown Kmart-Hollywood, Fl Oakwood Plaza To be a "protected activity," the activity giving rise to the alleged retaliatory action must, at the very least, communicate to the employer that the complainant believes the employer is engaging in discrimination against him. Petitioner's email can be read broadly to inform Respondent that he believed he was being discriminated against on the basis of his religion by being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. To that point, Petitioner specifically compared his circumstances to those of a Jewish employee who had requested and been allowed to have all Jewish holidays off of work. While not specifically using the word "discrimination," Petitioner's email can be reasonably read to place Respondent on notice that Petitioner believed he was being treated differently than a similarly-situated employee who was not a member of Petitioner's protected class and who had been excused from work on the holidays observed by his religion. Additionally, Leach was aware that Petitioner had complained to Respondent's corporate legal department about being scheduled to work on a Christian holiday. Accordingly, it is determined that Petitioner has established the "protected activity" element of his retaliation claim. However, Petitioner did not show that he suffered a materially adverse employment action as a result of having engaged in protected activity. His reassignment to the part-time cashier position effectively was a lateral transfer that did not affect his hourly pay rate or hours of work scheduling availability. Although Petitioner subjectively considered the cashier position to be demeaning and below his skill level21/ and although his job responsibilities changed, the evidence shows that Petitioner was not reassigned to an objectively less prestigious or otherwise inferior employment position. Furthermore, in any event, approximately three weeks after Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, Respondent reassigned him to a position as the Store's date code specialist——a position that he has officially held since January 26, 2016, and from which he has not requested to be transferred. In this position, Petitioner earns the same hourly wage and has the same number of hours of work availability as he did in the hardlines merchandiser and cashier positions. He is solely responsible in the Store for ensuring that date-coded merchandise on the shelves has not exceeded its expiration date—— a position that entails significant responsibility and, as Leach put it, is "very important." The evidence also does not support Petitioner's assertion that his removal from the work schedule in early January meant that he was effectively terminated. Although the evidence does not clearly show what days Petitioner did not work during the week after Christmas in 2015, or whether he did (or did not) call in to notify Respondent that he would be absent, the evidence does clearly establish that Petitioner was not scheduled to work the first week of January 2016, and it is also clear that management personnel at the Store did not believe that he had called in to notify them of his absence. Leach explained that if an employee does not report to work when scheduled and does not call in to notify the Store of his or her absence, the employee will not be scheduled to work the following week; this is to ensure that there are enough cashiers available as needed to work in the upcoming week. In any event, when Petitioner noticed that he had not been scheduled to work, he contacted the Store's human relations manager, who told him to come back to work. In fact, Petitioner worked the first and second weeks of January 2016, and thereafter, and he continues to be employed at the Store. Further, Petitioner was never told or otherwise notified, formally or informally, that his employment with Respondent had been terminated. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not suffer a materially adverse employment action by being reassigned for a short period of time from a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser to a part-time cashier position. Petitioner also did not demonstrate the existence of a "causal link" between a protected activity and adverse employment action. As discussed above, Petitioner's sending an email to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 constituted a "protected activity." However, as discussed above, it is determined that Respondent did not engage in an adverse employment action; thus, Petitioner's engagement in protected activity did not "cause" Respondent to take any material adverse employment action against him. Furthermore, in any event, Respondent articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for reassigning Petitioner to a cashier position shortly after Christmas Day 2015—— specifically, that the part-time daytime merchandiser position that Petitioner had held was eliminated due to seasonal workload decline and other business management decisions reallocating hardlines merchandise-related tasks between the overnight and daytime shifts. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, that Respondent retaliated against him for engaging in a protected activity, in violation of section 760.10(7). Damages Petitioner has requested an award of damages in the amount of $5,000,000. However, section 760.11(6), which governs the award of remedies in administrative proceedings brought under the FCRA, does not authorize DOAH to award damages. Further, the evidence establishes that Respondent did not engage in any unlawful employment practices with respect to Petitioner, and, in any event, Petitioner did not present any evidence to support his entitlement to an award of damages in this proceeding.
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 the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 14th day of June, 2017.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (''FCHR''), and, if so, what relief should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female. Petitioner began working for Respondent as a part-time Self-Checkout Host on February 1, 2017. Upon hiring, her initial rate of pay was $9.00 per hour. After three months of employment, Petitioner’s pay was increased to $10.00 per hour in May of 2017. Subsequently, Petitioner received pay increases raising her hourly rate to $11.00, and then $11.50. In April of 2018, Petitioner was promoted to the full-time position of Customer Service Manager (''CSM''). Along with the promotion, Petitioner also received a raise, bringing her rate of pay to $13.65 per hour. In April of 2019, Respondent gave Petitioner another raise, resulting in hourly pay of $13.90. Respondent maintained a Statement of Ethics, of which Petitioner was aware. The Statement of Ethics explained that Respondent’s overall operations were guided by four core Beliefs, which were: Respect for the Individual; Service to our Customers; Striving for Excellence; and Act with Integrity. Based on what she heard from her coworkers, Petitioner believed that she was entitled to a market-adjustment pay increase in April of 2019. She sought information about the pay increase from her store manager and others. Petitioner reported her belief that she was entitled to a pay increase, which she had not received, to Respondent’s Associate Relations Department (''Department''). After what was described as a thorough review of Petitioner’s concerns, the Department closed the matter. Petitioner testified that a white male named Chance was making more money than she, based on conversations between Petitioner and Chance. Chance worked as a Money Manager Associate, a position that Petitioner never held during her employment with Respondent. Ms. Durocher testified that Chance was not paid more than Petitioner. In 2019, there were ten individuals who held the position of CSM at the store where Petitioner worked. In addition to Petitioner, those who worked in CSM positions included multiple African-American females and one African-American male. Petitioner did not present any evidence to suggest or establish that any male, or non-African-American, employee was paid more than she was for performing similar work. On October 26, 2019, Petitioner discussed the problem she perceived with her rate of pay with Ms. Durocher. During their conversation, Petitioner raised her voice and the interaction escalated to the point that another employee went to enlist the assistance of the Store Manager. When the Store Manager arrived, he joined the conversation with Petitioner and Ms. Durocher. Ms. Durocher expressed to Petitioner that she believed that Petitioner was being paid commensurate with her skills and duties; and that her rate of pay had been investigated and was determined to be appropriate. Throughout the conversation, Ms. Durocher perceived Respondent’s conduct to be disrespectful. Ms. Durocher and the Store Manager repeatedly encouraged Petitioner to calm down, but their attempts were unsuccessful. On the same day, Petitioner’s employment was terminated by Respondent for violating the core Belief of Respect for the Individual.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of February, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk S BRITTANY O. FINKBEINER Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of February, 2021. Jamie Rotteveel, Esquire Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Jeruscha Toussaint 5835 Northwest Lomb Court Port St. Lucie, Florida 34986 Allison Wiggins, Esquire Littler Mendelson, P.C. 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1750 Orlando, Florida 32801 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Littler Mendelson, P.C. 2301 McGee Street, 8th Floor Kansas City, Missouri 64108 Kimberly Doud, Esquire Littler Mendelson, P.C. 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1750 Orlando, Florida 32801 Nancy A. Johnson, Esquire Littler Mendelson, P.C. 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1750 Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (Florida Civil Rights Act or the Act).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent at various times beginning in February 1999 and ending in her termination effective September 30, 2004. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. At all relevant times, Respondent is in the hotel business. Respondent provides related services and amenities to its guests and to the general public, including a restaurant and bar on the hotel premises. Petitioner commenced her employment with Respondent as a waitress and was eventually promoted to bartender. At all relevant times, she worked under the supervision of Kurt Pfister (Pfister). At no time prior to the commencement of her employment, nor at any time during her employment, did Petitioner advise Respondent that she was disabled in any way, or that she required any type of accommodation(s) for any medical condition or disability in order to perform her job. Likewise, Petitioner never advised Respondent that she had ever been diagnosed, treated, or hospitalized for any medical condition or disability. In fact, as Petitioner herself admits, she first claimed to be disabled approximately two weeks after she was terminated. Petitioner, as well as all of Respondent's employees, were trained in and required at all times to follow all of Respondent's policies and procedures generally applicable in its workplace. Additionally, every employee was trained in and expected to comply at all times with all policies and procedures applicable to his or her particular job. Violation of any of Respondent's policies or procedures subjected an employee to disciplinary action ranging from counseling to termination. As a bartender, Petitioner was trained and responsible for taking food and beverage orders; to present patrons with their bill(s); and to collect an approved form of payment, including cash. With regard to cash, Petitioner was trained in Respondent's policies and procedures known as "cash control policies." Cash control policies included a specific process for reconciliation of cash and tips at the end of each shift and a process for making cash drops and filling out deposit logs. Petitioner and all similarly situated employees were required to comply with cash control policies and were subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination if they failed to do so. Petitioner was qualified for her bartending position, and from the beginning of her employment through September 16, 2004, Respondent was well satisfied with Petitioner's work. Petitioner was often called upon to train new bartenders with regard to Respondent's policies, including cash control policies. She did so very well. For her efforts, Petitioner achieved the status of Respondent's most senior bartender, and as a reward was given the best shifts. Respondent enforced a policy against smoking on its grounds, except that smoking was permitted in a small, outside area at the south end of the premises. Petitioner was well familiar with the smoking policy and to Respondent's knowledge, complied with it until September 16, 2004. On that date, Petitioner was discovered smoking in a liquor storage room located inside the hotel building. She was given a written reprimand. Apart from the smoking infraction, Petitioner's September 16, 2004, shift was uneventful. She gave no indication to her customers or supervisors that she was in distress or could not perform her duties on account of disability or any other reason, nor that she required any type of accommodation(s) to perform her job. Yet, on that night, Petitioner failed to follow cash control policies at the end of her shift. Of most concern to Respondent was that Petitioner left work with her cash sales short for the evening in the amount of $97.64. On September 17, 2006, Pfister learned of the policy violations and the attendant cash shortage; he thereupon contacted Petitioner by telephone. Petitioner again did not indicate to Respondent that she could not perform her duties on account of disability or any other reason, nor that she required any type of accommodation(s) to perform her job and to comply with cash control policies. Petitioner conversed normally with Pfister and acknowledged that she had the $97.64 belonging to Respondent. Although she was not scheduled to work again until September 21st, she agreed to meet with Pfister and to return the money on September 19, 2004. Petitioner did not show up for the meeting. Neither did she return the money, or contact Pfister to advise when, or if, she would return the money. Respondent was entitled, at that point, to treat the matter as a theft; to terminate Petitioner's employment; and to seek law enforcement's assistance in recovering its money. Instead, Respondent exercised forbearance and gave Petitioner an indefinite suspension to afford her additional time to return the money and to explain to Pfister her reason(s) for failing to follow cash control policies on September 16, 2004. Respondent enforced a policy it called the no-call, no-show rule. Under the rule, employees are required to provide Respondent with four hours’ notice if for any reason they are unable to report on time for a scheduled shift. Absent extraordinary circumstances, which do not exist here, failure to provide the required notice is ground for disciplinary action. On September 21, 2004, and again the next day, Petitioner failed to report for her scheduled shift(s). She also failed to fulfill the four-hour notice requirement of the no call, no-show rule. For these two violations of the no-call, no-show policy, Petitioner was given a written warning. On September 23, 2004, Petitioner telephoned Pfister from an undisclosed location and advised she could not work previously scheduled shifts for the balance of the week. At first, Petitioner claimed she wanted time off on account of her “health.” Pfister offered her the opportunity to submit medical documentation in support of her request. At that point Petitioner stated that she was not seeing a doctor(s), and further stated that she was out of the state with her boyfriend. Petitioner added that she did not care about the hotel; that she was going to take care of herself first. Pfister responded that Petitioner should call him upon her return to town because the issue concerning the $97.64 could not remain unresolved. In the course of this conversation, Petitioner did not advise Respondent that she was disabled in any way, or that she required any type of accommodation(s) for any medical condition or disability in order to perform her job. Petitioner's next contact with Respondent was on September 29, 2004, when Petitioner called Pfister and said she was back in town and wanted to meet with him. It was agreed the meeting would take place the following day at 1:00 p.m. and would also be attended by Rick Reilly (Reilly), Respondent’s senior vice president. Petitioner did not arrive at the appointed time and did not call to explain her absence. Instead, she arrived at 2:10 P.M. Petitioner smelled of alcohol; she swayed, staggered, and slurred her speech. She was profane and belligerent. Petitioner again failed and refused to return Respondent's money or to explain why she took the money. As previously and repeatedly noted, Petitioner did not take this opportunity to advise Respondent that she was disabled in any way, or required any type of accommodation(s) for any medical condition or disability in order to perform her job. She did, however, state that she was "not coming back" and demanded a paycheck and vacation pay. Reilly asked her if she was resigning and she replied, "I guess so." Fearing that Petitioner would attempt to deny or to retract her ambiguous resignation when she sobered up, Pfister and Reilly made a reasonable determination, based upon legitimate non-discriminatory business reasons, to terminate her employment effective September 30, 2006. The termination was not pretextual. There was no evidence regarding who, if anyone, replaced Petitioner. There was no evidence Petitioner was, at any time, treated less favorably than any similarly situated co- worker on account of her membership in any protected class, or for any other reason. Petitioner did not dispute that Respondent had no reason, at any relevant time, to believe she needed accommodations of any sort to perform her job. On October 15, 2004, Pfister received a fax from Petitioner requesting a "leave of absence, medical reason." In apparent support thereof, Pfister also receive a fax purporting to be from a doctor and further purporting to provide a medical explanation for Petitioner's request for "leave of absence, medical reason." In the latter fax, a representation was made that Petitioner was presently hospitalized for "an undetermined amount of time" due to "depression symptoms for the last several month (sic) in context of stressors related to her job and impending hurricanes." This information, such as it was, was untimely and was insufficient to cast doubt upon the bona fides of Petitioner's termination. On November 1, 2004, Petitioner came to Pfister's office to pick up her check(s) and, at last, to return Respondent's money. She made no comment or complaint regarding any alleged disability; neither did she indicate in any way that she believed herself to be a victim of discrimination. In sum, Petitioner could have been terminated as early as September 16, 2004, for legitimate non-discriminatory business reasons. There is no persuasive evidence that disability played any role in Petitioner's termination. Indeed, there was no persuasive evidence that Petitioner was, at any time, disabled within the meaning of the Act, or within the meaning of any other state or federal law. There was no evidence that Petitioner was replaced by a non-disabled individual, nor that she was, at any time, treated less favorably than any similarly situated co-worker.
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 argument of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 9th day of November, 2006.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent imposed an unlawful employment practice upon the Petitioner, whether the Petitioner has a disability and was subjected to disability discrimination in the course of the purported unlawful employment practice or event.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Willstaff Crystal, Inc., (Willstaff) is engaged in the business of employee staffing for client companies who need employees. The process essentially concerts of prospective employees submitting employment applications for job placement to Willstaff. Willstaff then seeks to place that person as a hired employee with a firm or company which is one of its clients, (i.e., has requested that Willstaff assist it in finding employees for its business). On or about August 18, 2003, the Petitioner, Janet Shaffer, made application with Willstaff for employment placement. The application was not for employment as an employee of Willstaff, but rather for placement in a job with a company which might be a client of Willstaff. After placing Ms. Shaffer in two temporary job assignments with two different employers, she was assigned a job placement with Moldex Inc., on about October 27, 2003. Her duties at Moldex consisted of performing assembly line-type duties including cutting rubber hoses using an "air Knife." The placement and job assignments that Willstaff had secured for Ms. Shaffer during 2003 were designed to be temporary employment assignments. At some point during her shift, while employed with Moldex, Ms. Shaffer was required to place a box on a shelf above her head. She had some difficulty doing so, she says, because of her arm or shoulder injury, and requested assistance from a co-worker. Ms. Shaffer testified at hearing that due to a previous shoulder injury she is unable to lift her right arm above shoulder level. Her shoulder causes her pain, but she was not currently under a doctors care and her injury did not limit any major life activities. In any event after working only two days with Moldex, Inc., she was released from employment at Moldex, Inc.'s request due to low job productivity. Ms. Shaffer believes according to her testimony, that Moldex, Inc., terminated her as a proximate result of her requesting assistance from a co-worker due to her inability to reach above shoulder level because of her pre- existing shoulder injury. Her testimony establishes that if she an unlawful employment practice it was at the hands of Moldex, Inc.; not Willstaff. She indicated quite clearly in her testimony that she had no intent to pursue a claim against Willstaff, but only against Moldex, Inc.; because she believed that Moldex, Inc.; had terminated her, due to her limitation because of her shoulder injury. She stated that she named Willstaff as the Respondent in this case by her Petition for Relief because she was instructed to do so by some unknown individual who helped her prepare the Petition for Relief. Ursula Maurice testified as a representative of Willstaff. Her testimony establishes that Willstaff had no knowledge that Ms. Shaffer suffered from a disability. No adverse employment action was ever taken by Willstaff against the Petitioner. In fact, the Petitioner was never an employee of Willstaff. Moreover, Willstaff has an "EEO policy" in place and properly noticed its employees and Ms. Shaffer had never availed herself of it or made any formal complaint to anyone at Willstaff regarding discrimination, whether by Moldex, Inc. or any other entity. In any event, the Petitioner's own testimony establishes that she has no physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of her major life activities. She also failed to established that she was qualified for the job in question with or without reasonable accommodations, that is, the job she briefly occupied at Moldex, Inc. She did establish that she suffered an adverse employment action or decision because she was "let go" from her employment at Moldex, Inc. She did not establish clearly that Moldex, Inc., had any knowledge of her disability. Finally, and most to the point, the Petitioner has not established, and freely admits, that she was not an employee of Willstaff. Therefore, she did not suffer an adverse employment action or decision made by Willstaff. She clearly stated in her testimony that her complaint is properly against Moldex, Inc. Nonetheless, Moldex, Inc., has not been served with a petition, has not been made a party respondent, and has not been noticed of this proceeding, including the hearing. Therefore it is not legally charged with having to defend itself at this juncture, as to any employment decision it may have made regarding the Petitioner in this proceeding.
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 denying the Petition its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Janet Shaffer 6401 Da Lisa Road Milton, Florida 32583 John T. Bender, Esquire McFadden, Lyon & Rouse, L.L.C. 718 Downtowner Boulevard Mobile, Alabama 36609 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was terminated from his employment with the Respondent in the Hospitality Department at the Grand Floridian Hotel on or about March 18, 1993 on the basis of his national origin (Hispanic-Dominican Republic), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an employer under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. The Petitioner was employed by the Respondent at its Grand Floridian Hotel as a valet/greeter/bellman in the Hospitality Department during the relevant period of time, including March of 1993. The Petitioner is of Hispanic origin from the Dominican Republic and is a member of a protected class. In approximately October of 1988, the Petitioner began his employment with the Respondent at the Contemporary Hotel as a valet/greeter. In April of 1989, the Petitioner received a written reprimand for not logging in a piece of luggage. The Petitioner did not grieve the April 1988 written reprimand. In May of 1989, the Petitioner transferred to the Respondent's Grand Floridian Hotel, where he was a valet/greeter/bellman. In February of 1990, the Petitioner received an oral reprimand for three separate incidents of improperly logging luggage. 9. The Petitioner could not recall if he grieved the February, 1990 oral reprimand. In August of 1990, the Petitioner again received an oral reprimand, this time for mixing up luggage while loading it into vehicles. The luggage had to be mailed to each rightful owner at the Respondent's expense and caused an inconvenience to the guests. The Petitioner could not recall if he grieved the August 1990 oral reprimand. In December of 1991, the Petitioner mishandled luggage by failing to tag all of a guest's bags. In May of 1992, the Respondent's management discussed with the Petitioner his failure to tag a piece of luggage. In July of 1992, the Petitioner received a verbal reprimand for failing to log in a guest's luggage. The Petitioner's verbal reprimand in July of 1992 was the result of a direct complaint by a guest, who was required to search for a piece of his own luggage in the Hotel's storage room. The Petitioner could not recall if he grieved the July 1992 verbal reprimand. In September of 1992, the Petitioner received a verbal reprimand for approaching a guest to discuss splitting a tip with a bellman, an impermissible practice. The Petitioner was not suspended for this incident. In December of 1992, the Petitioner received a written reprimand for failing to follow proper procedures regarding a guest's luggage on two separate occasions. The Petitioner did not grieve the December 1992 written reprimand. The Respondent decided not to consider the two incidents in December of the Petitioner's luggage-mishandling as separate incidents for progressive discipline purposes, even though such action was permissible under the collective bargaining agreement. The Respondent's decision not to consider the two December 1992 incidents separately for progressive discipline purposes was based upon the Petitioner's length of service and his good performance in other areas. The Petitioner had a good attitude, had good people skills, and had received good guest comments during the course of his employment. In December of 1992, the Petitioner understood that he was in the progressive discipline process. In January of 1993, the Respondent met with the Petitioner and offered to remove him from the responsibility of handling luggage by putting him in a non-tipped, dispatcher position. Also, in January of 1993, the Respondent and the Petitioner's union representative were working together to preserve the Petitioner's job. The Petitioner was reminded by his union representative about his previous reprimands and that one more incident would cause his termination. The Petitioner was told by his union representative that the purpose of moving him to a dispatcher position was to get him away from the luggage-handling area. The Petitioner was told that if he remained free of similar reprimands for one year, he could return to the tipped position of valet/greeter with no loss of seniority. After initially refusing the dispatcher position, the Petitioner accepted. The Petitioner was given the shift that he requested when he was transferred to the dispatcher position. In February of 1993 while on duty as a dispatcher, the Petitioner received a three-day suspension, without pay, for using poor judgment. He interrupted a valet while the valet was servicing a guest. The Petitioner did not grieve the February 1993 suspension. The Petitioner's action as a dispatcher of interrupting a valet was grounds for the valet to grieve such actions to the union. The suspension in February of 1993 for the Petitioner's poor judgment as a dispatcher was not the basis for his termination. The Petitioner requested a reclassification back to valet/greeter/bellman position. The Petitioner understood that one more incident of any kind would result in his immediate termination. The Petitioner requested the change from dispatcher back to valet/greeter/bellman for personal financial reasons; and his union representative also advised him that if one more incident of any kind occurred, he would be terminated. On March 16, 1993, the Petitioner mishandled luggage. The Petitioner did not properly log in a guest's luggage (a garment bag). 35. The Petitioner was terminated on March 18, 1993 for poor job performance. The progressive discipline which the Petitioner received was consistent with the union contract. The contract provides that an employee can be terminated for the next offense following a single written reprimand. The Petitioner had the opportunity to grieve all of the reprimands he received, and his union representative was aware of the actions taken in connection with the Petitioner's employment. The Petitioner grieved his termination, and that grievance was denied. The Petitioner failed to provide evidence of any similarly-situated employee who was not terminated for mishandling luggage on as many occasions as he had. The Petitioner failed to provide evidence regarding any discrimination against other Hispanic employees, other than his own belief, speculation or conjecture. The Petitioner understood that the Respondent's management was closely checking into everyone's performance. Management asked all of the employees at the Grand Floridian Hotel to help the Hotel earn a five-star rating. The Petitioner was never part of the Respondent's management and did not attend manager meetings. During the course of his employment, the Petitioner was chosen to train other employees because he knew the proper procedures for his valet/bellman/greeter position. The Petitioner knew the proper procedures for handling luggage received from guests. The Petitioner knew the proper procedures for logging in and handling bags. The Petitioner received copies of the Respondent's policies and procedures for a valet/bellman, including luggage handling. The Petitioner did not report many of the alleged discriminatory actions of his co-workers to management. The Petitioner conceded that on those occasions when he did make reports to management, these alleged actions stopped. The Petitioner received the overtime and schedules which he requested because of his seniority. The number of minorities employed at the Respondent's Orlando, Florida, work site has increased from 1993 to 1996. The number of minorities employed at the Respondent's Grand Floridian Hotel has either remained the same or increased from 1992 to 1995. In January of 1993, the number of minorities in the Grand Floridian Hotel's Hospitality Department was 14, of which 11 were Hispanic; and there were four Hispanics in the valet/greeter classification. In February of 1996, the number of minorities in the Grand Floridian Hotel's Hospitality Department (including valets, bellmen, greeters and dispatchers) was 16, of which 12 were Hispanic; and there were four Hispanics in the valet/greeter classification. The Petitioner failed to produce any evidence of an overall plan by the Respondent's management to eliminate minorities, including Hispanics, from employment at the company. The Respondent allows employees to review their employment records at any time upon request. The Petitioner presented only his own beliefs, speculation or conjecture as a basis for his claims of national origin discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order which denies the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, 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 19th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-3990 The following constitute my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. The Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-20, 22-31, 33-39, 41-61. Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or as comment on the evidence: paragraphs 21, 32, 40. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Jorge V. Jimenez 2716 FDC Grove Road Davenport, Florida 33837 Myrna L. Galligano, Esquire Garwood, McKenna & McKenna, P.A. 731 North Garland Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Dana C. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
