The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on April 22, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male who was employed by Respondent from August 2008 until his termination on or about January 9, 2009. Respondent, Arena Sports Café (Arena), is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. Arena is a restaurant/night club which offers the viewing of televised sporting events, and is generally known as a sports bar. Arena is adjacent to The Coliseum, another establishment with the same owners, Trisha Lawrence and Randy Berner. The owners are Caucasian. The Coliseum is an entertainment venue with live and recorded music, dancing, and stage acts. The Coliseum does not serve food, and does not have a kitchen. When hired in August 2008, Petitioner worked as a prep cook as part of the kitchen staff. He performed various duties including preparation of meals in the kitchen as well as preparing food for Respondent’s large salad bar. Petitioner holds a Food Handling Certificate and a Safe Serve Certificate, which he attained through a local college. Petitioner was paid $12.00 per hour, and generally worked a 40-hour work week. At the time Petitioner was hired, the Arena was brand new and very popular. When the Arena opened in August 2008, it featured lunch and dinner seven days per week. Weekends were particularly busy because college and pro football games were televised in the fall. However, the Arena saw a drop in demand for weekday lunches. During the fall of 2008, Anthony Cyr, a Caucasian, was employed by Arena as its general manager. Petitioner was already employed by Respondent when Mr. Cyr began employment there. According to Petitioner, Mr. Cyr used the word “nigger” (the "N" word) in the context of telling a joke on three occasions in October and November 2008. Mr. Cyr used this word in the presence of the kitchen staff, including Petitioner. Petitioner informed Mr. Cyr that this was offensive and objected. Mr. Cyr did not use the "N" word other than these three occasions, and did not use it again after Petitioner objected. Petitioner did not report this incident to anyone, including the owners of Arena. As one of the owners of Arena, Ms. Lawrence would sometimes eat meals at Arena. At some point in January 2009, she voiced her displeasure to Mr. Cyr as to meals which she believed to have been prepared by Petitioner. She was never made aware of Petitioner’s allegations regarding the use of racial slurs by Mr. Cyr. According to Ms. Lawrence, she instructed Mr. Cyr to terminate Petitioner from employment because of his cooking abilities. Mr. Cyr informed Petitioner that his employment was terminated, and informed him that it was due to his job performance. Mr. Cyr also informed Petitioner that the decision to terminate Petitioner was Ms. Lawrence’s, not his. Mr. Cyr’s testimony regarding using the “N” word contradicts Petitioner’s testimony, and is somewhat inconsistent with Ms. Lawrence’s testimony regarding the reason Petitioner was fired. That is, Mr. Cyr denies using the “N” word in front of Petitioner. As for the reason he fired Petitioner, Mr. Cyr testified that it was due to a reduction in business following football season. There is no dispute, however, that Ms. Lawrence was the decisionmaker regarding the decision to fire Petitioner. Regarding the conflicting testimony as to whether Mr. Cyr used the “N” word, the undersigned finds Petitioner’s testimony in this regard to be credible and more persuasive. That is, the undersigned finds that Mr. Cyr did use the “N” word in front of Petitioner in the workplace. As for the reason Petitioner was fired, Ms. Lawrence did acknowledge that business slowed down at Arena around the time she instructed Mr. Cyr to fire Petitioner, and that the salad bar was phased out the month after Petitioner was terminated. However, she insists that she instructed Mr. Cyr to fire Petitioner because of the quality of his cooking. In any event, there does not appear to be a dispute that Mr. Cyr told Petitioner that he was being fired due to job performance issues. At some time after Petitioner was terminated, Mr. Cyr was terminated from Arena because, in Ms. Lawrence’s words, he “was not that great.” When Petitioner was terminated, two Caucasian cooks remained employed at Arena. While Petitioner was not actually replaced, his duties were assumed by the remaining Caucasian staff. Since his termination, Petitioner has worked for approximately three weeks at another eating establishment. Otherwise, he has been unsuccessful finding employment despite his efforts. Respondent employs minorities and non-minorities in positions with both Arena and The Coliseum. The undersigned has reviewed the evidence of record, oral and written, as to the number of minority and non-minority employees and as to whether Respondent hired primarily non-minority persons in the better paying positions. The evidence of record is insufficient to support a finding that Respondent engaged in racially motivated hiring practices. There is no evidence that Petitioner complained to Ms. Lawrence or the other owner of Arena that he was being discriminated against on the basis of race. When he complained to Mr. Cyr, the offending remarks stopped. There was no competent evidence presented that Ms. Lawrence knew of the racial slur used by Mr. Cyr in the workplace in Petitioner’s presence. There is no evidence that Ms. Lawrence’s decision to terminate Petitioner from employment was related in any way to any racial remark used by Mr. Cyr.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: David Glasser, Esquire Glasser & Handel 116 Orange Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Steven deLaroche, Esquire 1005 South Ridgewood Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, AAR Airlift Group, Inc. (Respondent), committed the unlawful employment practice as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner, Gabriel C. Gaudio (Petitioner), be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a male over 50 years of age. On or about May 9, 2009, a company located in North Carolina hired Petitioner to work as a Technical Publications Clerk. Petitioner was over 40 years of age at the time of his employment. Prior to March 2012, Petitioner relocated to Florida to continue employment with the company that then became known as AAR Airlift Group, Inc. Respondent does business in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida, and has over 15 employees, one of whom was Petitioner. At all times material to this matter, Respondent employed Steve Lane (Lane) and Melvin Zahn (Zahn) as supervisors with the company. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent had policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, disability, and any other reason prohibited by law. Any employee who believed discrimination had occurred was directed to report to the local Human Resources Department or to the Corporate Vice President of Human Resources. Respondent’s employees are considered “at will.” Respondent reserves the right to involuntarily terminate any employee for any reason or for no reason unless to do so would violate law. Petitioner maintains he was terminated in retaliation for a complaint he submitted because of his age, or because of his disability. All of the actions complained of occurred between March 2012 and June 2012 (when Petitioner was terminated). It is undisputed that Petitioner’s age would establish he is a member of a protected class. It is undisputed that Petitioner was terminated after he submitted a complaint against his co-workers. Although Petitioner asserted he is disabled, Petitioner presented no evidence to establish the nature of his disability or that Respondent required him to perform tasks contrary to his physical or mental limitations. There is no evidence that Respondent failed to accommodate any claimed limitation Petitioner might have had. In April 2012, Respondent issued a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) to Petitioner to outline areas of his job performance that needed improvement. It was anticipated that Petitioner would address the areas of concern and make improvement within 90 days. Upon receipt of the PIP Petitioner filed a claim of hostile work environment with the company’s human resources office. More specifically, Petitioner claimed two employees, Zahn , technical publications manager, and Rachel Grygier (Grygier), a technical publications librarian, had disparaged him regarding his age and disability. To address Petitioner’s complaint, Respondent initiated an internal investigation of the claim. As part of the investigation process, Respondent directed Petitioner not to disclose or discuss the accusations of his claim with anyone. Respondent sought to resolve the matter without having the allegations discussed among employees before individual statements could be taken. Contrary to the directive, Petitioner discussed his complaint against Zahn and Grygier with at least one other employee. That employee (Barnett) e-mailed support for Petitioner to JoAnne Paul (Paul), Respondent’s human resources compliance manager. When Paul confronted Petitioner as to whether he had discussed his complaint with Barnett, Petitioner falsely denied knowing Barnett. Paul took Petitioner’s failure to maintain confidentiality regarding his complaint to Lane, Respondent’s director of quality assurance and internal evaluations. Together, Paul and Lane decided to terminate Petitioner. The basis for the termination was two-fold: the failure to follow a directive not to discuss the complaint; and the lack of truthfulness when asked about knowing Barnett. Petitioner maintains that his termination was in retaliation for his complaint against Zahn and Grygier and that the company wanted him out. Petitioner presented no evidence that after his termination he was replaced with a younger employee. Even though Petitioner did not establish the nature of his disability, Petitioner presented no evidence that he was replaced by a non-disabled person or that his handicap caused Respondent to terminate him. Further, Petitioner did not establish that any area of concern noted in his PIP related to his disability. Neither Zahn or Grygier had anything to do with Petitioner’s termination. Finally, Petitioner failed to present credible evidence that filing a complaint against Zahn and Grygier was the genesis for his termination. Petitioner was a long-time employee with the company. He had started in North Carolina and moved to Melbourne with the company. Had Respondent wanted to terminate him for any reason it could have done so prior to the move or after the move. Petitioner’s claim that his complaint against Zahn and Grygier caused the termination is not supported by the weight of persuasive evidence.
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 no cause for an unlawful employment practice as alleged by Petitioner, and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gabriel Gaudio 259 Abernathy Circle, Southeast Palm Bay, Florida 32909 Chelsie J. Flynn, Esquire Ford and Harrison, LLP Suite 1300 300 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Michelle Wilson, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Respondent denied Petitioner employment opportunities in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner was employed by the Respondent as a part-time employee on or about March 10, 1981. At the time of her employment Petitioner executed a statement acknowledging that the Respondent did not guarantee weeks or hours of employment and that her employment was dependent, in part, upon the demands of the business. Petitioner's job title throughout her employment with Respondent was "warehouse worker." At all times material to this case, Petitioner was assigned to the Orlando distributing center that serves as a warehouse for items shipped to and for Respondent's retail system. During her employment with Respondent, Petitioner received acceptable work evaluations but was not elevated to full-time employment status when job openings occurred. For the first year of her employment, Respondent utilized an employee review form which rated Petitioner on a scale of 1 to 7; the lower number indicated unsatisfactory, the higher number indicated distinguished performance. For that review period, Petitioner received all 4s on her review. The 4 rating evidenced that Petitioner's performance had been consistently good and had met the requirements of the job to which she was assigned. For the review period ending April 1, 1985, the Petitioner received four 4s and one 3. The 3 rating was in the category "working relations" and found her performance to be fair. The 3 rating indicated that for the period reviewed Petitioner's performance was generally satisfactory, but sometimes fell below an acceptable level. Later in 1985, the Petitioner filed an EEOC complaint against the Respondent and alleged that the company had treated her unfairly on account of her sex. Petitioner did not prevail on that complaint. The Petitioner's employee performance review issued on June 10, 1986, the next evaluation after her EEOC complaint, evaluated her performance at all 3s with one 4 in the category of job knowledge. Petitioner did not challenge this review and did not, at that time, allege that the less favorable review had been issued by the company in retaliation for the EEOC complaint. Subsequent to the 1986 review, Respondent's evaluation form was amended to compute an employee's performance on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being the unacceptable end of the scale and 5 indicating distinguished performance. For the review period ending April 12, 1988, Petitioner received all 3s which established that her overall performance again met the employer's expectations. Throughout her tenure with the Respondent, Petitioner sought to increase her work hours. Petitioner complained to the company that work assignments were given unfairly. In June, 1987, Mr. Maupin, manager of the center, issued a notice regarding a change in the scheduling practices for part- time employees. That notice advised employees that the length of service with the company would no longer be the determining factor in assigning part-time hours. The notice provided: "Other factors such as performance, availability when needed and work experience (such as driving skills) will also be considered when determining who will be scheduled." Petitioner continued to be scheduled for work and, in 1988, received the second highest number of hours worked for the center's part-time employees. Petitioner did not receive full-time employment with the Respondent. Two employees who had not worked in the warehouse as long as Petitioner were placed in full-time positions. Petitioner did not offer evidence as to the qualifications of those individuals to perform the work requested of them. The employment history of the individuals chosen by the employer, together with the training, skills and aptitudes of such individuals are all unknown. Petitioner's assertion that she had performed the work in the past and, therefore, was the better qualified to receive the full-time job has not been deemed credible or, in itself, sufficient to prove affirmatively that others chosen by the employer were less worthy of the jobs for which they were selected. To the contrary, the Respondent posted full-time job openings and allowed interested parties to apply for same and be reviewed for employment based upon individual merit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petitioner's claim against this Respondent as Petitioner has failed to establish that the employer discriminated against her in retaliation for a prior assertion of discrimination. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5133 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1 through 3 are accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence or irrelevant. Paragraph 5 is rejected as irrelevant the petition filed in this cause does not allege Petitioner was unfairly disciplined. Paragraph 6 is accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 7 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as argument, hearsay not corroborated by direct evidence, or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 8 is rejected as irrelevant; it is undisputed that Petitioner perceived a bias against her, the evidence in this case does not, however, establish that such bias did exist. An employer's assessment that an employee has a poor attitude does not, of itself, lead to the conclusion that employer will, consequently, unlawfully discriminate against that employee. The first sentence of paragraph 9 is accepted. The balance of the paragraph is rejected as hearsay unsupported by direct evidence presented in this case or unsupported by the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 10 is rejected as unsupported by direct evidence presented in this case. Paragraph 11 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 12 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 13 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Paragraph 14 is accepted. Paragraph 15 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 16 is rejected as speculative, not supported by the evidence in this case. Paragraph 17 is accepted. Paragraph 18 is accepted. Paragraph 19 is accepted to the extent that the record reflects Petitioner retained an attorney to represent her; otherwise rejected as irrelevant or not supported by the record. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: Paragraphs 1 through 9 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 10, it is accepted that all of Petitioner's annual evaluations rated her work as acceptable. Paragraph 11 is rejected as inaccurate or contrary to the weight of the evidence. While Petitioner's reviews remained substantially the same, the forms and evaluation system did change. Important was that Petitioner's work was always deemed acceptable. With regard to paragraph 12, it is accepted that Petitioner worked forty days within the period described. Otherwise rejected as not supported by the record in this case. Paragraph 13 is accepted. Paragraph 14 is accepted but incompletely refers only to the delivery job; Petitioner had expressed an interest in two other jobs available. Paragraph 15 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence or an incomplete statement of fact. Petitioner did seek full-time employment with the Respondent. COPIES FURNISHED: Heather Morcroft 2431 Aloma Avenue Suite 285 Winter Park, Florida 32791 William E. Curphey Parker, Johnson, McGuire & Michaud 1300 Barnett Plaza 201 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Margaret Jones, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Ronald M. McElrath Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
The Issue Whether Respondent, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store (Respondent), committed the unlawful employment practice, as alleged, in the Petition for Relief filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner, Reza Mahallaty (Petitioner), be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner did not testify in this case. Based upon the undisputed testimony of the witnesses, Petitioner was employed by Respondent and served as a senior assistant manager (SAM). At all times material to the allegations of the case, Respondent employed Petitioner. As a nationally recognized purveyor of food and goods to the public, Respondent presumably employs more than 15 employees. At all times material to this matter, Respondent used a management structure at its stores that included managers in training, assistant managers, senior assistant managers, and general managers. Persons seeking to become general managers typically work their way through the ranks and serve as a SAM before promotion to general manager of a store. On or before August 2010, Petitioner sought a position with Respondent as a general manager. He did not get the promotion. Thereafter, he filed the underlying complaint with FCHR. The complaint stated: I have been employed by Cracker Barrel Old Country Store since June 26, 2006. My most recent position is Senior Associate Manager. I hereby allege that I have been discriminated against due to my race and national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964. The foregoing allegations were made under penalty of perjury and for purposes of this case have been accepted as to the facts alleged, but not as to the legal conclusion of discrimination. Petitioner presented no evidence as to his race or national origin. Petitioner’s Petition for Relief reiterated his conclusion that he had been discriminated against based upon his claim of being Iranian and of Persian origin. In addition to not having received promotions, Petitioner included complaints about retaliation that were not addressed by the FCHR. As previously indicated, retaliation issues are not part of the determination that was presented for administrative review. With regard to Petitioner’s attempt(s) to be promoted prior to August 2010, Petitioner did not present evidence that he was more qualified than the applicant Respondent chose. Respondent uses an interview process that rates the candidates for general manager by a selection team. The selection team looks at the candidates’ credentials, history with the company, and responses to the interview questions to rate each applicant for the position sought. Petitioner did not present evidence that he had achieved a higher score in the rating process than the applicant chosen. Petitioner did not present evidence that Respondent knew or should have known Petitioner was the best qualified candidate for the position of general manager. Petitioner did not present evidence that Respondent selected a candidate for general manager that had fewer years of employment with the company than Petitioner. Petitioner did not present evidence that any general manager Respondent selected in preference to Petitioner was of a race or national origin that received special deference over Petitioner. Other than Petitioner’s assertion that he must have been denied promotional opportunities due to his race and national origin, Petitioner failed to establish bias on Respondent’s part. To the contrary, Respondent asserted that Petitioner was not qualified to be a general manager because he was unwilling to master and fully support the company’s core operating systems, the company’s philosophies, and the company’s initiatives. Petitioner presented no credible evidence to refute Respondent’s assertion.
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 no cause for an unlawful employment practice as alleged by Petitioner, and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 10th day of April, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Shane T. Munoz, Esquire Ford and Harrison, LLP 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 900 Tampa, Florida 33602 Reza Mahallaty 656 English Lake Drive Winter Garden, Florida 34787 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner has been the victim of employment discrimination by reason of his being terminated, allegedly on account of his physical disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an "employee" as defined in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and the Respondent meets the statutory definition of "employer" appearing in that Chapter. The Petitioner is a truck driver by occupation and was employed by the Respondent, Gurley Refining Company, in that capacity from February, 1982 until February 11, 1988, with the exception of a very brief period of time when he performed some other duties for that firm. This cause arose under the auspices of the Florida Human Relations Commission, an agency of the State of Florida constituted in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. It is charged by that Chapter with oversight of working conditions and circumstances between employers and employees in Florida to the extent that the agency, under the mandate of Chapter 760, provides a procedure whereby employee claims of employment discrimination on account of race, age, sex, religion, national origin or disability can be adjudicated in a due process hearing environment, including hearings before the Division of Administrative Hearings in the event such claims culminate in formal disputes. During the course of the Petitioner's employment with Gurley Refining Company, in addition to being employed as a truck driver (the vast majority of his duties with that company), the Petitioner also had significant experience as a warehouse employee, handling the company's inventory and freight. The Petitioner had an unblemished record as a truck driver for the Respondent company. He had no disciplinary altercations with his supervisors and his attendance record was characterized by very few absences, sick leave and little tardiness. In approximately early January of 1988, the Petitioner suffered an acute myocardial infarction (heart attack), which necessitated his absence from work for a period of approximately thirty days. His treating physician, a cardiologist, Dr. Story, of Orlando, released him approximately a month after his heart attack, but admonished him to engage in light duties, and restricting him against lifting weight in excess of seventy pounds. During the course of his illness, the operations manager of the Respondent's Lake County facility and Petitioner's supervisor, Mr. Kenny Hart, had assured the Petitioner that his job would be waiting for him as soon as he recovered from his illness. In fact, however, in early February, when the Petitioner was released by his doctor to return to his job, with the restrictions mentioned above, the Petitioner requested his former job back and was refused. Mr. Hart indicated to the Petitioner that he would not hire him back, and in fact terminated him due to his medical condition, as Mr. Hart explained it. The Petitioner's doctor had not restricted him from doing his same job or from working an eight hour day, but merely had restricted him against lifting more than seventy pounds at any one time. When Mr. Hart refused to put him back to work in his old job, the Petitioner requested to be assigned to duties in the company's warehouse or bottling plant. The company had an operation involving bottling of windshield washer detergent fluid. The Petitioner had had substantial experience in those operations, especially as a checker of merchandise and as a forklift operator in the company warehouse. His physical disability would not preclude him from performing those functions. Mr. Hart, and his superior, Mr. Helton of the company's office in Memphis, Tennessee, declined to place the Petitioner in such an employment position with the company. There have been a number of instances in which the company accommodated employees by placing them at work at various positions in the company operations during the period of time they were on medical restrictions by their doctors due to some disability or illness. The Petitioner described one case in particular involving an employee who had surgery for amputation of his leg and who was allowed to come back to work performing various minor jobs during his convalescence in order to allow him some gainful employment, later being restored to more meaningful permanent duties. The Petitioner was not thus accommodated, however. The Petitioner could have performed any of the types of duties mentioned above, involving the warehouse or the bottling plant or driving a truck once again, because all were within the scope of his years of experience with the company and his physical abilities, even as restricted by his doctor. The Petitioner was making $7.80 an hour when he was terminated and during the year after his termination from February 11, 1988 to approximately February 1, 1989, the Petitioner was not able to get regular employment. For a time after termination, he was receiving unemployment compensation and thereafter worked at casual labor jobs involving loading and unloading trucks for a trucking company. He also worked at laying sewer lines, doing manual labor. During the year after his termination, the Petitioner and his wife earned approximately $18,000. Four thousand dollars of that sum was from the wife's part-time employment. The Petitioner had grossed approximately $30,000 in the past full year he worked for the Respondent company, that is, 1987. In February, 1989, the Petitioner again obtained full-time employment in a truck driving position with another firm. He is again making approximately $30,000 gross salary per year. At the time Petitioner was off work from his job with the Respondent due to his heart condition, and at the time of his termination, no mention was made or information given him about any right to medical disability to leave. The Petitioner apparently missed approximately thirty days of work, and then was terminated under the above conditions and circumstances.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, and the candor and the demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Human Relations Commission finding that an unlawful employment practice occurred by Respondent's discrimination against the Petitioner on account of his handicap, and that he be accorded all relief allowed under the above-cited authority, including back pay of $16,000 and related benefits in accordance with the requirements of Section 760.10(13), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 16th of October, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. P MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings, The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Allen Reynolds 2356 Oliver Avenue Leesburg, FL 32748 Mr. R. D. Helton Director of Operations Gurley Refining Company Post Office Box 626 Memphis, Tennessee 38101 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 240, Building F 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether the claim of employment discrimination contained in the Petition for Relief must be dismissed due to Petitioner's execution of a release at the time of his termination from employment.
Findings Of Fact Effective August 15, 2011, Petitioner's employment with Respondent was terminated. Two days later, Petitioner signed and delivered the Release. In the Release, Respondent agreed to pay Petitioner "severance pay" of about $5,000, net several items, provided Petitioner did not exercise his right to revoke the agreement within the seven days following execution, as provided by the Release. Petitioner did not revoke the agreement, and Respondent discharged its obligations under the Release. In exchange, Petitioner agreed to release Respondent from any and all charges, complaints, claims, liabilities, obligations, promises, sums of money, agreements, controversies, damages, actions, suits, rights, demands, sanctions, costs . . ., losses, debts, and expenses of any nature whatsoever, existing on, or at any time prior to, the date hereof, in law, in equity or otherwise, which [Petitioner] . . . had or [has] by reason of any fact, matter, cause or thing whatsoever. This Release includes . . . a release of all claims or causes of action arising out of or related to [Petitioner]'s employment and/or separation from employment with [Respondent] and . . . claims or causes of action arising under any federal, state or local law, including . . . Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 " Even taken as true, the above-quoted statement is not, on its face, evidence of discrimination based on national origin because it does not reveal that the speaker acted on his hatred of Petitioner; it merely describes hatred, the national origin or religion of the speaker, and the national origin of Petitioner. However, for the purpose of ruling on Respondent's Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction, it is assumed that a Jewish supervisor fired Petitioner on the ground of national origin. More importantly, perhaps, is the fact that, after concluding that his termination had constituted unlawful discrimination, Petitioner has not tendered back to Respondent the severance payment, nor has he offered to do so.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 12th day of April, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Albert B. Balzanti 4857 Northwest 93rd Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33351 Holly A. Dincman, Esquire Melissa F. Sale, Esquire Coppins, Monroe, Adkins, and Dincman, P.A. 1319 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black female. At all times material, Petitioner was employed by Respondent corporation in one of its general retail merchandise stores in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner was hired by Respondent's white male store manager, Mr. John Sasse, on October 20, 1992, as a stock clerk in the shoe department. Petitioner was terminated on January 10, 1993, within the ninety day probationary period published in Respondent's employee handbook. In making the foregoing finding of fact, it is recognized that Petitioner attempted to show that the probationary period for new employees was only sixty days. However, she only showed that the sixty day period was applicable in a different time frame than is material here. On October 31, 1992, while working in a stock room, Petitioner's back and neck were injured when a box fell on her. Supervisors called an ambulance, and Petitioner was transported to the emergency room of a local hospital. She was treated but not hospitalized. Respondent duly filed the "Notice of Injury" as mandated by Chapter 440 F.S., "The Florida Workers' Compensation Act," and began to pay Petitioner's medical expenses. Prior to her injury, Mr. Sasse considered Petitioner to be only a marginal employee. Petitioner was released by hospital doctors for return to work as of November 6, 1992. At that time, she had no work restrictions imposed by a doctor, so Mr. Sasse reassigned Petitioner to her usual duties. Petitioner worked at the tasks she felt she could do until November 11, 1992, when she returned to the hospital. She was examined and medicated. Later that same day, as is standard procedure with workers' compensation injuries wherein the employer pays for an injured worker's medical care and as a result has the legal right to specify which doctors attend the employee, Mr. Sasse ordered Petitioner to go to "Care One," a "walk-in" medical facility specializing in occupational medicine. Petitioner went to Care One, where she was again examined and medicated. Petitioner was released for work the same day with written work restrictions from the Care One doctor. Petitioner's resentment against Respondent that she had been injured in the first place apparently was a motivating force in her actions after she returned to work the second time. Petitioner's candor and demeanor while testifying, as well as her persistence in returning her testimony to the circumstances surrounding the box falling upon her in the storeroom, made it very clear that she considered it discriminatory, or at least unfair, that Respondent had "forced" her or anyone to work under the cluttered stock room conditions that had resulted in her initial accident or injury. In Petitioner's mind, at least, the fact that an accident or injury had occurred in the first place was sufficient to establish "dangerous working conditions" and "an unlawful employment practice." After November 11, 1992, she persisted with these complaints to the employer. However, no competent evidence established a nexus between Petitioner's race and her pre-injury job assignments, and no evidence demonstrated that after her accident, the Respondent-employer handled her workers' compensation medical care any differently because she was black. On November 11, 1992, Care One's written restrictions provided: Restricted Employee should avoid movements of the upper body and neck that would place undue stress on the neck, such as strenuous pushing and pulling, heavy lifting, and working above the shoulders. Employee should avoid lifting > 20 pounds, avoid frequent bending and twisting of the back, and avoid strenuous pushing and pulling. Mr. Sasse and his subordinate supervisors assigned Petitioner tasks consistent with Mr. Sasse's interpretation of Petitioner's written restrictions, as modified over time by subsequent information. On November 11, 1992, a position was created for Petitioner in the soft goods department. At this time, Petitioner became the only black clerk in the soft goods department. Initially, Mr. Sasse told her she was not to reach above her shoulders or bend to pick up anything below her knees. Petitioner complained that these tasks constituted too much physical exertion for her due to her physical condition. Petitioner continued to complain about the accident and her pain. The employer and insurance carrier continued to refer her back to Care One. There was a short delay with regard to some medical services requested by Petitioner or by referring and consulting doctors under the workers' compensation medical care delivery system, but the employer/insurance carrier in due course authorized physical therapy, a consultation with an orthopedic specialist, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for further diagnosis. Derrick Proctor, a black male employee and Petitioner's friend, presented as a credible witness, even though he claimed to have been fired by Mr. Sasse under what Mr. Proctor termed "suspicious circumstances" and at the time of formal hearing had some type of action pending against this employer. Mr. Proctor described Petitioner as "embittered" against the employer because of the employer's refusal or delay in dealing with Petitioner's medical concerns and stress. However, it appears that Petitioner's problems, if any, were common disputes and communication delays inherent in the workers' compensation medical care delivery system. For instance, when asked, the doctors reported directly to the employer, insurance carrier, and store manager concerning the Petitioner- employee's medical condition, consultant treatment, and recovery progress. On December 10, 1992, Mr. Sasse told Petitioner that he had received an oral report on her December 9, 1992 MRI results and that they were negative. This conversation occurred before any of the doctors had reported the MRI results to the Petitioner, and Petitioner inferred therefrom that information was being withheld from her. Later, on December 22, 1992, Petitioner learned, during a reprimand and counselling session for insubordination and failure to work up to her capacities, that the employer had been informed much earlier that she could return to work with no restrictions. (See Findings of Fact 32-36) Although Mr. Sassy and others had told her this before December 22, 1992, the events of December 22, 1992 triggered a belief in Petitioner that the employer was "out to get" her. Notwithstanding the extreme light duty assigned her, Petitioner complained about the work assigned and was uncooperative about helping supervisors find a job description she felt she could perform. Although Petitioner may not have known about it until November 25, 1992, on November 20, 1992 Care One deleted the prior restrictions on lifting items over 20 pounds, bending, and strenuous pushing and pulling, and narrowed her restrictions to the following: Restricted. Employee should avoid movements of the upper body and neck that would place undue stress on the neck, such as strenuous pushing and pulling, heavy lifting, and work above the shoulders. In December 1992, Mr. Proctor was required to close his department, hardware, every night, and Petitioner closed the soft goods department some nights. Petitioner considered being required to close some nights to be discrimination against her since she was the only black employee in the soft goods department at that time and the white female employee in soft goods had been switched to the day shift in Petitioner's place. The greater weight of the evidence shows that the whole store's evening hours increased from midnight to 1:00 a.m. due to the Christmas season, and on December 6, 1992, Petitioner was assigned to work nights so that she could go to daytime medical and physical therapy appointments. The employer's accommodation of Petitioner's situation in this respect was comparable to the accommodation given a white female employee in soft goods. Beginning November 23, 1992, that white female employee, Ms. Audrey, had been assigned to a daylight shift so that her husband, who had bad night vision, could drive her to and from work. Race was not a factor in the accommodation rendered Ms. Audrey or Petitioner. Who closed the store during December 1992 depended upon who worked the evening shift, not race. It is not entirely clear on the record whether, on December 3, 1992, Petitioner withdrew from physical therapy because she could not do the weight training assigned her or was rejected by the physical therapist as a client because she would not cooperate in weight training. Petitioner testified that she returned to physical therapy thereafter for ultrasound treatment. It is clear that Petitioner believed she was rejected by the therapist because she could not lift the heavy weights assigned her by the therapist as part of Petitioner's planned recovery. It is also clear that the decision to end the weight phase of Petitioner's treatment did not have employer input. By December 5, 1992, Petitioner's personally professed physical limitations and complaints about Mr. Sasse's treatment of her had resulted in Mr. Sasse accommodating her by creating a "make-work" job description. Under it, she was asked to push a cart that other employees had hung clothes on; she was not required to load the car with clothes. She was required only to pick up single articles of clothing that were left in the women's dressing rooms and return them to the racks. She was told only to bend if an occasional article of clothing was found on the floor. She was also told to open dressing room doors for customers and, if requested, fetch more clothes for them to try on while they remained in the dressing room. Petitioner was permitted to wear her softly padded neckbrace at all times, even though she presented no written doctor's instructions to do so. Petitioner described it as an "agony" imposed on her by the employer when, on December 5, 1992, Mr. Sasse ordered her not to sit continuously on the sales floor in a chair she had removed from the women's dressing room. Petitioner had previously complained because she had been required to sit for long hours on a very hard chair Mr. Sasse had provided for her, and this time she had gotten a different chair herself. On December 5, 1992, Mr. Sasse told her she must leave the dressing room chair in the dressing room for the customers, that she was not permitted to sit all the time on the sales floor where customers could see her, and she must not just sit without doing any work, until all her work was done. He told her to do a variety of the tasks of which she was capable, including but not limited to sitting while pricing goods. Petitioner considered these orders to be contrary to her doctor's limitations and to constitute "physical abuse." Petitioner repeatedly requested time off with pay so that she could recover completely through bed rest. Mr. Sasse would not allow her time off for medical reasons without a doctor's written approval. Petitioner considered this condition imposed by management to be "abusive." Petitioner described Mr. Sasse as being rude to her on December 6, 1992, when he refused to discuss her accusations of "physical abuse" and her request for time off in the presence of other employees and customers in the public buffet area of the store, and walked off, leaving her there. Petitioner referred to this incident as at least part of her "opposition to unlawful employment practices" which she believed resulted in her termination. Petitioner presented no evidence that a doctor had ever recommended that she stay at home and do nothing so that she could heal. From all the evidence, it is inferred that as a probationary employee, Petitioner had no accrued sick leave to expend for this purpose. Ms. Gardner was a long-time white female employee who had her doctor's approval for knee surgery and who required a month of bed rest at home afterwards. The employer allowed Ms. Gardner to use earned compensatory time as sick leave for that purpose during the month of December 1992. By mid-December, 1992, Mr. Sasse was frustrated because Petitioner refused to do every job he devised, even the "make work" ones, and he believed that she only pretended to be busy when he was watching her. Mr. Sasse had told Petitioner that she could do normal work again and she would not accept this from him without hearing it also from her doctor. Mr. Sasse decided to discipline Petitioner for not working up to her limitations as he understood them and for insubordination. He directed the soft goods manager trainee, Ms. Lynn Tyler, a white female, to "write up" Petitioner. Ms. Tyler and the assistant store manager, Ray Harding, a white male, met with Petitioner on December 22, 1992 to discuss the contents of the prepared memo. One of the supervisors' concerns at the time Petitioner was "written up" was that they could not get Petitioner to do anything at all without an argument, even after pointing out various light work job duties on a walk around the whole store. They were also concerned that without Petitioner doing some tasks, the employer had to pay other employees overtime to accomplish what Petitioner was not accomplishing in her regular shift hours. It was stipulated that Petitioner was never asked to work overtime. Petitioner refused to sign the December 22, 1992 memorandum of reprimand because she did not agree with it and because Tyler and Harding were, in her opinion, "grudgeful." Petitioner was informed later on December 22, 1992 by her Care One doctor that he had, indeed, released her for normal work activities effective December 16, 1992. His December 16, 1992 report which had been previously received by the employer read: Please note employee's current duty status is as follows: Regular May return to normal work activities full time. After her accident, Petitioner was observed by Derrick Proctor doing some of the same types of physical exertion the employer had required that she do before the accident, including reaching above her head to put clothes on and take them off clothes racks and picking clothes up from the floor, but he never knew her medical restrictions other than what she told him. He also observed her in agitated conversations with Ms. Tyler and Mr. Sasse while she was wearing a neck brace. On January 7, 1993, he saw Ms. Tyler "very out of sorts" when talking to the Petitioner. At first, he stated that he did not consider Petitioner to be rude or insubordinate on these occasions because the topic was working conditions, but later he admitted that he could not overhear what was actually said on all these occasions. Mr. Proctor also observed that, "Mr. Sasse rode everybody pretty hard," including white workers. It was "his way of getting things done." Mr. Proctor once observed Petitioner hiding in another department, behind racks, to avoid management. Petitioner acknowledged and described her "hiding out" at that time to Mr. Proctor as due to her "feeling mistreated" and "avoiding management." In her formal hearing testimony, Petitioner described it as "opposing unlawful work practices and abusive treatment." After learning on December 22, 1992 of her release from all medical restrictions, Petitioner continued to be uncooperative with management. Petitioner's testimony conceded that she had understood that all doctors had released her with no restrictions as of December 28, 1992 and that she had still refused to reach and bend in the stock room when ordered to do so by Mr. Sasse and Ms. Tyler on January 7, 1993. After evaluating Petitioner's continued failure or refusal to perform even the lightest of duties, Mr. Sasse decided to terminate Petitioner before her ninety days' probationary period ended. Mr. Sasse, who was terminated by Respondent-employer sometime later in 1993 and who, at the time of formal hearing, was litigating an unemployment compensation claim against Respondent, had no reason to fabricate information or testify favorably for the Respondent-employer. He was credible to the effect that the decision to terminate Petitioner in January 1993 was his unilateral decision and that he made his decision without reference to, or motivation by, Petitioner's race. Specifically, it was Mr. Sasse's foundational assessment that Petitioner could physically do the light work he assigned her after reasonable accommodation for a temporary disability but that she would not do the work assigned by him that caused him to terminate her. Petitioner testified that she was replaced by a white female. In fact, a white female was hired approximately one or two weeks prior to Petitioner's January 10, 1993 termination, with a due date to report to work on January 11, 1993, which subsequently turned out to be the day immediately following Petitioner's termination. The employer did not hire this white female with the intent of replacing Petitioner, but she was ultimately placed into the soft goods department. Mr. Proctor testified that other blacks worked in soft goods after Petitioner's termination. Within four weeks of Petitioner's termination, three new employees were hired. None of these were assigned to the soft goods department. Mr. Standley Gillings, a black male, was originally employed in another of Respondent's Ocala stores. In October 1993, Mr. Gillings was demoted with a loss of pay and transferred to the store from which Petitioner had been fired ten months earlier. His new immediate supervisor in that store was also black. Respondent continued to employ Mr. Gillings under the black supervisor until Mr. Gillings found another job and quit.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of August, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of August, 1994.
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 issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was not re-employed as a "mechanic-carpenter" by the Respondent school board based upon the Petitioner's age.
Findings Of Fact James W. Jones was employed from 1983 to 1993, as a mechanic-carpenter by the school board. In early 1993 he traveled to the Bicentennial Youth Park (BYP) to deliver supplies from his shop to Mr. Evans, the teacher assigned to the BYP. At that time Mr. Evans informed Jones of an upcoming opening at the BYP for a carpenters position and asked him if he would be interested in filling the position. The Petitioner replied that he would be interested. The position in question was posted and advertised as two part-time carpenter positions. Mr. Jones did not wish a part-time position and eventually the administration of BYP gained authorization and funding for a temporary, full-time position at the BYP. Mr. Jones, had been trying to leave the facilities maintenance department because of personality conflicts with his supervisor, Buel Lee. He consequently accepted the temporary, full-time position at the BYP on April 23, 1993. Prior to accepting the temporary position at BYP, the Petitioner was informed by Mr. Al Evans, Billy Wiesneski, and Terry Ellis that the position was temporary and would only last as long as funding for the position was available. In fact, Mr. Jones signed a letter, dated May 3, 1993, confirming his understanding that the position at BYP was temporary and that its duration was dependent upon the duration of funding allocated by the school board. He signed that letter in the presence of Mr. Ellis and Mr. Lee on May 4, 1993.1 Additionally, Mr. Jones admits that he signed a Notice of Personnel Action form on April 23, 1993, describing the job as temporary from April 23, 1993, to June 30, 1993, and stating that "annual re-appointment will be based on availability of project funds. . .". Mr. Jones also told a co-worker, John Driggers, that he knew the position could end in a year but that he was going to take the position anyway because by that time he would have the 10 years of service required to be vested in the pension plan. Mr. Driggers was also aware that Mr. Jones wished to transfer out of the facilities maintenance department at that time. In summary, although Mr. Jones denies that he knew the position was temporary, that is not the case, as shown by the preponderant evidence discussed in the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact on this subject matter. In any event, the only issue properly before the Division and the undersigned Judge, is whether Jones was not hired into a mechanic-carpenter position in the facilities maintenance department at a later date because of his age. His knowledge regarding the temporary nature of the position at the BYP is wholly irrelevant to a decision in this case because of the issues pled and noticed to the opposing party in the Petition. In any event, after voluntarily accepting that position he knew to be temporary, the funding finally ran out on March 31, 1994.2 Because funding no longer existed to support the carpenter position at BYP, the Petitioner was not re-appointed to that position and therefore his employment with the Volusia County School Board ended on March 31, 1994. Subsequently, on May 20, 1994, a mechanic-carpenter position became available in a the facilities maintenance department under the supervision of Buel Lee, for whom Jones had worked prior to taking the position at BYP. The Petitioner applied for that position. He was interviewed by Mr. Lee and considered for employment as a new applicant who had never before worked for the Respondent, as opposed to a laid-off employee under the applicable collective bargaining agreement arrangement concerning re-hire of laid-off personnel. The Petitioner was not entitled to preference in hiring normally given to laid-off employees because he had not been "laid-off." The lay-off provision in the collective bargaining agreement defines "lay-off" as "the separation of employee for lack of work or funds without any fault or delinquency on the employee's part." The lay-off provision applies only to employees who have been given an appointment for a definite duration and the funding for the position is cut by the government before the appointment naturally expires by its own terms. Since Jones was simply not re-appointed upon the natural expiration of his appointment, the lay-off provisions would not be applicable to his situation. Jones was not entitled to nor was he given preference over other applicants for the 1994 mechanic-carpenter position based on seniority because he was not the most senior applicant for the position. In fact, under the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, he lost all seniority when he terminated from employment or was not re-appointed on March 31, 1994. Therefore, when he applied for the mechanic-carpenter position 1994, he as not entitled to any more consideration than is given to a new applicant. When he applied for that position in 1994, Mr. Lee, the hiring supervisor, interviewed all applicants and made the ultimate decision to hire Walter "Ed" Hayman for the position, instead of the Petitioner. Mr. Lee interviewed every applicant for that position. He treated Jones as a new applicant rather than a laid-off or senior employee, consistent with the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. On the other hand, Mr. Lee was required by the collective bargaining agreement to give Hayman preference over Jones since Hayman had worked for the Respondent on an uninterrupted basis since 1991. Lee had received a letter of reference from a Mr. Frye, an independent contractor and Hayman's previous employer, indicating that Hayman had worked as a journeyman for 5 years. Mr. Lee thus believed that Hayman met the qualifications for the job. Lee felt that both Hayman and Jones were skilled in carpentry and did not make his decision based upon his judgment of their respective skills in their profession. Rather, Mr. Lee made a determination that Hayman was the best qualified for the position based on his knowledge of how each of them got along with others in the work place. Mr. Lee knew, and Jones admits, that during the time that he previously worked for Lee, Gary Gallencamp requested that he not have to work beside Jones any longer. Jones admits that in fact he had a lot to do with the reasons Gallencamp did not want to work with him anymore. Lee also knew, and Jones admits, that during the time that he previously worked for Lee, another employee, Ed Owensby, requested that he not have to work with Jones any longer. In fact, he stated that he would be forced to quit if he were required to continue working with Jones. Finally, Mr. Lee called Mr. Evans, Mr. Jones' most recent supervisor, to ask him for a reference regarding Jones' performance at the BYP. Mr. Evans told Mr. Lee that Jones had trouble getting along with the maintenance man, Earl Green, when working at the BYP. Even Jones admits that he had problems with Mr. Green's work. Contrarily, Mr. Lee had observed Hayman getting along well with the co-workers during the time he performed work in conjunction with the facilities maintenance department when he was working for the Respondent as a "grounds man." Therefore, based upon personal experience and the information he received from others, Mr. Lee made the decision to hire Mr. Hayman instead of Mr. Jones. Lee never even considered the ages of Hayman or Jones when making that hiring decision. In fact, Lee himself was approximately 48 or 50 years old when he hired Hayman. Lee does not have a history of hiring younger workers. In fact, the very person Lee hired to replace Jones, when Jones transferred to the BYP, was Mr. Fred Jacobs, who was then aged 57. The only three applicants hired by Lee after Jones transferred to the BYP and before Hayman was hired, were approximately 40 years old. During that time frame, Lee hired Eric Hoffman, who was 43 or 44 years old. Jeff Straker was in his late thirties or forties, and Fred Jacobs was 57. Thus, in their totality, Mr. Lee's hiring practices do not reflect any-age related bias. In addition, neither the Respondent's pay plan, nor its pension plan, set forth in the collective bargaining agreement, are related to age. The Respondent's pay ranges are based upon job classification (i.e., mechanic-carpenter) and years of service. Upon being separated from his employment, Jones was being paid at a level commensurate with 11 years of service. Had he begun his employment with the school board immediately upon completion of his vocational training, he would have been 34 or 35 years old and earned the same salary he was making in March 1994, when he was separated from employment. Likewise the pension plan provides that every employee, regardless of age, vests after having provided 10 years of service.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That for all of the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner has not established that the school board discriminated against him because of his age in making the subject re-hiring decision. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1998.
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her gender, age, and race as stated in the Petition for Relief, in violation of Subsection 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following facts were established by clear and convincing evidence: Petitioner is a 49-year-old, African-American female. Petitioner was hired as a customer service representative at Respondent's Maitland, Florida, location on June 3, 2002. Petitioner received a copy of NuVox’ Employee Handbook, which addressed Respondent's anti-discrimination policies, as well as its policies regarding employee conduct, attendance, paid time off, and termination. Respondent provides voice and data communications services to businesses. On or about August 24, 2009, Petitioner was discharged from her employment with Respondent. Arleen Couvertier was Petitioner's supervisor between January 30, 2009, and May 2009. On February 20, 2009, Petitioner received a verbal warning for violating a policy regarding breaks, when she left for a break during a team meeting. Petitioner was informed that failure to comply with the expectations stated in the warning could result in further disciplinary action up to, and including, immediate termination. On April 8, 2009, Petitioner asked to have May 13, 2009, off as she had been subpoenaed to be in court. Petitioner was advised that she would not have enough paid time off to cover an absence on May 13, 2009, as she had already been approved for a three-day vacation at the end of May into early June, which would put her time off balance at an unacceptable negative 15 hours. Respondent suggested that Petitioner reduce her planned vacation by one day in May so the requested May 13, 2009, time off could be approved. Petitioner was reminded that if she kept her vacation hours, the May 13, 2009, court day would be an unplanned absence, which would result in an unpaid occurrence in accordance with Respondent's policies. Petitioner did not rearrange her vacation schedule and took May 13, 2009, off as an unapproved, unpaid absence, thus, earning an attendance occurrence. On May 11, 2009, Katylyn Weems became Petitioner’s supervisor. In May and June, Petitioner did not meet her performance goals. Petitioner's supervisor reviewed her performance statistics with Petitioner and suggested ways that she could improve. On July 30, 2009, Petitioner received a verbal warning from Ms. Weems, which was witnessed by her former supervisor, Ms. Couvertier, for an attitude problem that was borderline insubordinate, because Petitioner failed to acknowledge or respond to three different managers’ in-person, email, and instant message communications on July 29, 2009. Ms. Couvertier felt that Petitioner’s body language, her failure to answer a question asked from three feet away, and subsequent failure to turn away from her computer to answer the same question asked by Ms. Couvertier directly to Petitioner, was insubordination. On August 6, 2009, Petitioner was placed on a Final Written Warning for poor performance. In addition to her low work quality scores in May (45 percent) and June (54 percent), Petitioner scored equally as low in July (49 percent), compared to her goal of 85 percent through August. Petitioner was informed that she had to show significant performance improvement in 11 specific areas, including, but not limited to, continue to be on time at the start of the shift. Petitioner was told that she was expected to show immediate and sustained improvement in her performance and that failure to comply with the expectations in the final warning could result in further disciplinary action up to, and including, immediate termination. On August 10, 2009, Petitioner asked her supervisor to allow her to take Thursday, August 20, 2009, off from work. Ms. Weems denied her request, explaining that she had previously approved Petitioner’s request to take off Monday, August 24, 2009, and Wednesday, August 26, 2009, which was going to create a negative 13-hour balance and, therefore, she could not approve any greater negative time off balance. On August 20, 2009, Petitioner left a message for Ms. Weems that she would not be in that day because she had an appointment, which was later repeated by email. Petitioner did not appear for work on August 20, 2009. Ms. Weems sent an email to Petitioner informing her that she had earned a third unpaid occurrence for her August 20, 2009, absence without paid time off available, along with information about her two other occurrences. Ms. Weems also informed Petitioner that her day off on August 24, 2009, was no longer approved due to her lack of paid time off. On Friday, August 21, 2009, Petitioner called in to say she would not be in to work. Ms. Weems verbally informed Petitioner on the telephone that because she had taken unapproved time off on August 20 and 21, 2009, the approvals for time off on August 24 and 26, 2009, had both been rescinded and the days off would have to be rescheduled as she had no more available paid time off. Knowing that Petitioner had been subpoenaed to appear in court on August 26, 2009, Ms. Weems suggested that she try to come in on August 21, 2009, even arriving late, so that she would still have a paid time off day available to use on August 26, 2009. Petitioner said, “okay” before she ended the call, but did not come in to work at all on August 21, 2009. On August 24, 2009, Ms. Weems reminded Petitioner that her absence on August 20, 2009, was unapproved and that Petitioner had taken that day off anyway, as well as August 21, 2009. Ms Weems further reminded Petitioner that the August 20 and 21, 2009, absences had caused the approvals for time off on August 24 and 26, 2009, to be rescinded as Petitioner had no paid time off and could not have a further exception. In response, Petitioner emailed Ms. Weems, "I understand[,] but I will not be here on the 26th[.] I will be in court." As a result, on the same day, Petitioner was terminated due to insubordination related to her attendance and poor performance. The "insubordination" is related to Petitioner taking both August 20 and 21, 2009, off when she was told that she could not have August 20, 2009, as paid time off. Respondent presented evidence that credibly supports its assertion that its attendance policy was applied equitably without consideration of race, sex, or age.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that Respondent, NuVox, did not discriminate against Petitioner, Jacquelyn Brown, and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 2010, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 2010.
