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
The Issue Whether Respondent violated the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as alleged in the Employment Complaint of Discrimination filed by Petitioner on December 27, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female who at all times material to this case was employed with Respondent as a production worker. Respondent, Hamilton Products, Inc., manufactures various animal related products such as horse tack and pet collars and is an employer within the meaning of the Florida Civil Rights Act. Allegations of Race Discrimination Petitioner's Employment Complaint of Discrimination alleged discrimination on the basis of race and retaliation and reads in pertinent part: I believe that I have been discriminated against based on race, Black, which has resulted in discipline, unfair terms and conditions, and denial of promotion. Since 2003, I have noticed disparate treatment between White and Black employees. One example of this is that Black employees are rarely if ever promoted to management positions. Another example of this is that a Black coworker of mine, Deloise, would often harass me and when I complained to my supervisor Mrs. Robinson, she took the matter to Mrs. Lake. Mrs. Lake merely asked the woman to not do that again. This harassment continued and I repeatedly complained about it so that finally, I was moved to a different location. A similarly situated White female, Elaine, experienced similar treatment from Deloise but when she complained Deloise was stopped from repeating the behavior almost immediately. I was very upset about this obvious disparity that I contacted Mrs. Benfel and explained to her what was transpiring. She asked me to gather together my complaints and those of others which I did and submitted it to her in a letter. Almost immediately after I began to receive retaliation for my complaint. I was disciplined, verbally harassed and moved away from the other employees. Martha Robinson is a supervisor employed by Respondent for over 16 years. She was Petitioner's direct supervisor for some of the time Petitioner worked for Respondent. Ms. Robinson is a white female. A coworker, Delores,1/ who sat near Petitioner would tap her foot on a wooden box while working. Petitioner found this annoying and complained to Ms. Robinson. Ms. Robinson asked Delores to stop tapping her foot and had fleece put on the box. However, Delores continued to tap her foot. After three or four employees complained about Delores' foot tapping, Ms. Robinson took the box away from Delores and put it in Ms. Lake's office. Karen Benfield is the office manager for Respondent, where she has been employed for 19 years. Petitioner went to Ms. Benfield's office to complain about working conditions. Ms. Benfield described the complaints made by Petitioner as vague and broad-based, consisting of general assertions that employees were unhappy at work. Petitioner's complaints to Ms. Benfield did not include any allegation of racial discrimination about her or anyone else. Ms. Benfield asked Petitioner for specifics, to put her complaints on paper and she would make sure management saw it. She did not ask Petitioner to solicit comments from other employees and told Petitioner she could only speak for herself. Petitioner collected written complaints from her co- workers and delivered them to Ms. Benfield. Petitioner received a Warning Notice dated October 26, 2004, for disruptive influence on the workforce. It read as follows: The purpose of this warning is to make sure that you understand the structure of Hamilton Products and the parameters of acceptable behavior at work. Lately, you have brought a number of suggestions and grievances to the management of Hamilton Products on behalf of yourself and others. There is no single employee representative to management at Hamilton Products. You do not and may not speak on behalf of other employees. Every employee at Hamilton Products, including yourself, enjoys the right to share ideas, suggestions or grievances with management. Such communication is encouraged as long as it is made properly. There is a clear chain of command at Hamilton Products, and you must follow that chain of command when communicating with management. You must speak to your immediate supervisor or place a suggestion in the box provided for suggestions at the north end of the nylon department. It is not acceptable to go around the chain of command to a higher supervisor, as this disrupts the operations of Hamilton Products. In the future, you must follow the chain of command or use the suggestion box, and speak only for yourself. Failure to follow the procedure outlined herein will result in further disciplinary actions up to and including discharge. After the hurricanes of 2004, Petitioner's entire department was reprimanded by the plant manager for missing work. This was upsetting to Petitioner because Ms. Robinson had told these employees not to call in. She felt that Ms. Robinson should not have let him "talk trash" to the employees. There is no evidence that Petitioner or anyone else was singled out in any way by the plant manager regarding this incident. Petitioner believes that white employees were given opportunities for promotion and resulting raises. However, no employees on the production floor were promoted during the time Petitioner worked for Respondent. There is no competent evidence in the record to support Petitioner's claim that white employees received promotions and black employees did not. At some point, Petitioner was moved when the production department was reorganized. Petitioner was placed in the center of the plant, facing the rest of her department. She had no one on either side of her which resulted in her not being able to talk to coworkers while working.
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 Employment Complaint of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of February, 2007, 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 9th day of February, 2007.
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 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 The issue in the case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by terminating her employment in violation of the Age Discrimination Employment Act.
Findings Of Fact Lombardi started her employment as a judicial assistant with Dade County in 1971. Judge Mattie Belle Davis was the first judge who hired Petitioner. Judicial Assistants serve at the pleasure of the appointing Judge.1 Judge Bruce Levy hired Lombardi as his judicial assistant after Judge Davis retired. In December 2004, Judge Levy lost his re-election bid and Petitioner no longer had a full-time position as a judicial assistant with a judge. Lombardi started working in the temporary pool of judicial assistants. The position allowed Petitioner to retain her benefits while seeking a permanent judicial assistant position. While serving in the pool, Petitioner worked for Judge Leon Firtel from February 14, 2005, through February 28, 2006, before he let her go. Petitioner then worked for Judge Rosa Rodriguez from April 1, 2006, through May 23, 2007, until she let her go. Petitioner last worked for Dade County when she served as retired Judge Roger Silver's ("Silver") judicial assistant from September 1, 2007, until January 7, 2008. Lombardi was terminated in Silver's chambers with a bailiff and Ms. Suarez from Human Resources present. Silver informed the Petitioner her services were no longer needed and he was letting her go. Petitioner questioned why she was being terminated; however, Silver did not provide an explanation. Silver terminated Petitioner because he was not happy with her work performance. Silver testified that Petitioner had the following problems regarding her work: taking lunch breaks beyond the one hour he had discussed with her; numerous complaints from attorneys; selling Avon at the work place; not answering the phones and allowing calls to go to voicemail; and repeatedly setting unnecessary hearings on the docket. Prior to terminating Lombardi, Silver inquired with Human Resources about a replacement and was informed that he could not be assured that he would be able to get a temporary assistant to replace Lombardi due to the unavailability of funding. He still choose to terminate Petitioner because, "[he] felt having no one was better than what [he] had under the circumstances." Petitioner was not able to go back in the "temporary pool" of judicial assistants as she had in the past after Silver terminated her. In 2008, the Eleventh Judicial Circuit had a hiring freeze whereby the temporary pool was no longer funded. Human Resources eventually sent Elizabeth Gonzalez, whose date of birth is May 26, 1965, to Silver as a temporary judicial assistant. Silver had never met Gonzalez prior to her coming to work for him. There was no discussion of age when Silver requested a judicial assistant or when Gonzalez was assigned to him. Gonzalez served as Silver's temporary judicial assistant for a number of weeks and, when personnel advised him he could hire someone, including Gonzalez, Silver hired Gonzalez on or about March 10, 2008, because he was pleased with her work. Gonzalez worked with him until his retirement in December 2008. At the time when Petitioner filed her Charge of Discrimination, Petitioner was unaware of the exact age of her replacement. Petitioner's date of birth is May 18, 1948.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether, on the basis of Petitioner's age, Respondent (a staffing agency) unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner by having him terminated from his position with Respondent's client, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Respondent inSync Staffing, Inc. ("inSync"), is a company that recruits for, and supplies employees to, its clients, including, as relevant here, NBTY, Inc. ("NBTY"). inSync is an "employment agency" as that term is used in the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA"). See ¶ 13, infra. inSync does not meet face-to-face with most of the candidates it places with clients. On or around August 19, 2015, a recruiter at inSync forwarded the résumé of Petitioner Adalberto Lopez ("Lopez"), then 75 years old, to NBTY in hopes that NBTY might hire Lopez to fill the position of "QA Floor Inspector – Shift 1," a job that paid $13.50 per hour. About a week later, NBTY interviewed Lopez, and, on September 2, 2015, inSync informed Lopez that NBTY was offering him the job. Lopez accepted the offer. NBTY, not inSync, made the decision to hire Lopez. At all times, inSync acted essentially as a go-between, introducing Lopez to NBTY and helping him apply for the job, informing Lopez of NBTY's training and drug test requirements for new employees, and providing him with documents that NBTY wanted completed and returned in the ordinary course of new-hire onboarding. One of the documents that Lopez was required to sign and submit was the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9), which is used by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, administrator of the federal E-Verify program, to determine whether an employee is authorized to work in the United States. The E-Verify program provided NBTY with a result of Tentative Nonconfirmation ("TNC"), meaning that there was, at a minimum, some discrepancy between the information provided in Lopez's Form I-9 and that available in other public records. A TNC does not necessarily disqualify an employee from continuing to work, but it does need to be resolved to avoid the possibility of termination. In this instance, there is no persuasive evidence that the TNC led NBTY to take any adverse action against Lopez. There is, moreover, no evidence that inSync took any adverse action against Lopez as a result of the TNC. Lopez's first day of work at NBTY was September 14, 2015. The next day, NBTY terminated Lopez's employment. Nevertheless, Lopez showed up for work on September 16 and was told, again, that he no longer had a job. There is no persuasive evidence that inSync played any role in NBTY's decision to fire Lopez. inSync did, however, communicate this decision to Lopez, telling him that he had "been terminated due to not catching on fast enough." This was the reason for the termination given to inSync by NBTY. There is no persuasive evidence that this was not, in fact, NBTY's reason for firing Lopez. There is no persuasive evidence that NBTY eliminated Lopez's job, but there is, likewise, no evidence that NBTY filled the vacant position after Lopez's termination, nor (it obviously follows) any proof regarding the age of Lopez's successor (assuming NBTY hired someone to replace Lopez). There is no evidence concerning the candidates, if any, that inSync referred to NBTY after Lopez had been fired. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no persuasive evidence that any of inSync's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Lopez, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by age-based discriminatory animus. Indeed, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of unlawful age discrimination could be made. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that inSync did not discriminate unlawfully against Lopez on the basis of his 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 inSync not liable for age discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of October, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of October, 2017.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice by failing to hire Petitioner on the basis of age or in retaliation.
Findings Of Fact On February 24, 1994 (amended March 10, 1994), Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination, based on age and retaliation, with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. That charge listed the most recent discrimination as October 18, 1993 and alleged that Petitioner had been rejected for a post in Panama City; that Respondent, through a Ms. Retherford, had denied Petitioner access to other applicants' records for ten days; and that Ms. Retherford, Ms. Jenkins, and Ms. Ciccarelli of Respondent's District 2, had made sure everyone in their District knew Petitioner's name and to avoid hiring him. To further specify his charges, Petitioner attached a December 16, 1993 memorandum from Ms. Radigan to Mr. Clary. (See below, Finding of Fact No. 56). The Charge of Discrimination then concluded, "the specific job for which I applied was set in Marianna and closed on 18 October; though I had been referred to that job by Karen Dalton, an HRS specialist at HRS headquarters, I never had a chance at that job." (P-2) By a "Determination: No Cause", dated March 20, 1995, the Commission advised Petitioner that he could file a Petition for Relief within thirty-five days, pursuant to Section 760.11 F.S. On April 22, 1995, Petitioner filed his Petition for Relief, which was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal evidentiary hearing, pursuant to Section 120.57(1) F.S.. That timely Petition for Relief alleged both age and retaliation discrimination by Respondent's failure to hire Petitioner for a number of posts, none of which the Petition specifically named by position number or date. The retaliation allegation was based on Petitioner's "causing trouble," not due to his filing any prior formal complaints with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or Florida Commission on Human Relations or upon his participation in these types of litigation on behalf of anyone else. Although the subject matter jurisdiction of the Division of Administrative Hearings is bounded by the Charge of Discrimination, the Petition for Relief, and Chapter 760 F.S., the parties were permitted to present some historical information. Even so, the parties' presentation of evidence did not always clearly correlate Respondent's dated employment advertisements for named, numbered, or described positions to specific applications of Petitioner and/or specific interviews or hirings of other persons. Respondent agency demonstrated that as of October 13, 1993, it was employing at least one employee older than Petitioner, at least one in her sixties, others in their fifties, and hundreds who were over 39 years old. However, none of this information is particularly helpful in resolving the issues in this case. While Respondent's figures may speak to longevity of employees or duration of their employment with Respondent, they are silent as to each employee's age as of the date Respondent first hired each one. (R-9) Petitioner is a white male who at all times material was 63-65 years of age. Petitioner repeatedly applied for job vacancies advertised by Respondent agency and was not hired for any of them. Every position for which Petitioner applied required, at a minimum, that applicants have a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university plus three years' professional experience in one or more of the following employments: abuse registry; developmental services; law enforcement investigations; licensed health care; children, youth, and family services; child support enforcement; economic services; aging and adult services; licensed child day care; mental health; or elementary or secondary education. Specific types of bachelor's degrees or any master's degree could substitute for one of the three years' required experience in the named programs. Specific types of master's degrees could substitute for two years of the three years' required experience in the named programs. However, no matter how many or what type of college degrees an applicant had earned, Respondent still required applicants to have at least one year of specialized experience. (P-1, R-1, R-2, R-4, R-5, and R-7). In fact, Petitioner met the foregoing requirements at all times material. "In the late summer of 1992," Petitioner first responded to one of Respondent's advertisements for a Protective Investigator position in Panama City. (P-1, P-14) He was turned down without an interview for that position by a letter dated September 22, 1992. (P-1). Feeling that he was qualified for the foregoing position and that he should have at least been given the opportunity to interview, Petitioner made an appointment with Ms. Charlie Retherford, who had advertised the position. The contents of Ms. Retherford's explanation about ten days later is not of record, but Petitioner remained dissatisfied. Petitioner next made a request pursuant to Chapter 119 F.S., The Public Records Act, to view the records of other applicants. Petitioner felt he was "hassled" over this request, but admitted that Respondent provided the records within two weeks. Petitioner did not elaborate upon why he felt "hassled," only stating that he felt two weeks was an "unreasonable delay." Petitioner analyzed the records and formed the opinion that "there was good reason to believe" Respondent did not interview him because he was over 60 years old. Petitioner testified that those applicants selected by Respondent for interviews averaged 29 years old, but Petitioner did not offer in evidence the records he had reviewed so as to substantiate his assertion. In correspondence and interviews which occurred after September 22, 1992, Petitioner revealed his age to various employees of Respondent. (See Findings of Fact 14, above, and 24, 41, and 45 below). However, an applicant's age or birth date is not required on Respondent's standard employment application form, and on Petitioner's September 5, 1992 application received by Respondent September 9, 1992 (P-14), Petitioner had left blank the "optional" line for date of birth. Therefore, it was not established that the Respondent knew, or even how the Respondent could have known, Petitioner's age prior to its September 22, 1992 failure to hire him. Despite Petitioner's testimony as to the average age of interviewees, the mean age of all the applicants up to September 22, 1992 was not established, so it is not clear whether any twenty-nine year olds or persons younger than Petitioner also were not interviewed as well as Petitioner, who was not interviewed and who was in his sixties. Additionally, no nexus between any other applicant's qualifying credentials and Petitioner's qualifying credentials was put forth. Therefore, it is impossible to tell if those applicants who were interviewed prior to September 22, 1992 were more or less qualified than Petitioner, or if there was any pattern of Respondent refusing to interview applicants of any age. By a November 24, 1992 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator with its Aging and Adult Services Unit in Chattahoochee. (P-4). By a November 24, 1992 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-5) By a January 22, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-6) By a January 27, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Services Abuse Registry Counselor after he was interviewed. (P-3, P-7) (See Findings of Fact 24 and 41, below. By a February 25, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application for Research Assistant Position No. 05396 at Florida State Hospital. (P-8) Petitioner did not offer in evidence any of his applications corresponding to the Respondent's refusals to hire him between September 22, 1992 and February 25, 1993. 1/ For the period of September 22, 1992 through February 25, 1993, Petitioner's only evidence of age or retaliation discrimination was his subjective personal conviction that age was a factor in Respondent's refusal to hire him and the Radigan memorandum issued ten months later and discussed in Findings of Fact 56-65, below. Affording Petitioner all reasonable inferences, the undersigned infers that due to Petitioner's post- September 22, 1992 interview with Ms. Retherford, Respondent's District 2 hiring personnel could have been aware of Petitioner's age from late September 1992 onward. However, there was no evidence presented by which it can be affirmatively determined that between September 22, 1992 and February 25, 1993 that Respondent knew the age of all other applicants before deciding which ones to interview or that there was a pattern of only interviewing persons under a certain age. 2/ Further, in an August 12, 1993 letter, Petitioner stated to the Secretary of Respondent agency that he had, in fact, been interviewed by Respondent in January 1993. (P-3) (See below, Finding of Fact 41.) It also must be inferred from that information that Respondent did not systematically exclude Petitioner from the interview process on the basis of age or retaliation at least through January 1993. Petitioner's last application before October 14, 1993 which was admitted in evidence is dated April 8, 1993. It was stamped "received" by Respondent on April 9, 1993. It also does not give his age or date of birth. It specifies that Petitioner was applying for a Protective Investigator position closing April 12, 1993. (P-15). In April 1993, Brenda Ciccarelli, an official in Respondent's District 2, requested Karen Dalton, a recruitment coordinator in Respondent's Personal Services Section, to review Petitioner's employment application to determine if he met the minimum requirements for employment in the advertised position. Ms. Dalton's testimony is not altogether clear as to which application or applications she reviewed in April 1993, but from the evidence as a whole, it is inferred that she reviewed Petitioner's September 5, 1992 (P-14) and/or his April 8, 1993 (P-15) applications or applications by Petitioner which were substantially similar. Ms. Dalton analyzed Petitioner's application(s) and determined that Petitioner did not meet Respondent's minimum requirements. She satisfied herself that she had made a correct analysis by conferring with Mr. Joe Williams of the Department of Management Services. By a May 7, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application as a Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-9) Ms. Retherford for Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County from May 24, 1993 to June 7, 1993. (R-1) Respondent readvertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County from June 21, 1993 to July 26, 1993. (R-2) Effective August 6, 1993, Respondent hired Jack Connelly, then 45 years old, for Position No. 48210 in Port St. Joe, Gulf County. (R-3) Respondent introduced a tabulation of the ages of the applicants for Position No. 48210 which was completed as of the effective date the position was filled. It included columns listing birth dates of applicants, if known; a column indicating applicants' handicaps, if any; a column indicating whether an applicant was eligible; and a column indicating which applicants were interviewed. (R-3) Mr. Connelly, the successful applicant, was interviewed, as were eleven other applicants. Ten applicants, among them Petitioner, were not interviewed. (R-3) The applicants who were interviewed were respectively forty-five, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, thirty-seven, fifty-eight, one unlisted, forty- four, forty-one, forty-four, and thirty-one years of age. The ages of those not interviewed were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-nine, and thirty-two. (R-3) There is nothing in the record to show that the qualifications of the applicants interviewed or those of Jack Connelly, who was hired, were lower than Petitioner's qualifications. There is no discernible pattern of excluding anyone by age. 3/ Ms. Retherford for Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308, Position No. 50968 in Panama City, Bay County from May 17, 1993 to May 31, 1993. (R-4) Respondent readvertised Protective Investigator/8308 Position No. 50968 in Panama City, Bay County from June 21, 1993 to July 6, 1993. (R-6) By a July 20, 1993 letter, Respondent turned down Petitioner's application for Protective Investigator in Panama City. (P-10) Effective August 6, 1993, Respondent hired Edward Bonner, then fifty- three years old, for Position 50968. He was one of the applicants interviewed. (R-6) Respondent presented another columnar tabulation completed as of the effective date Mr. Bonner was hired. It showed that the interviewed applicants were ages fifty-three, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, twenty-seven, fifty-eight, one unlisted, forty-six, forty-one, forty-four, and thirty-one, respectively. The uninterviewed applicants were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-seven, and thirty-two respectively. (R-6) Again, there is no discernable pattern of excluding anyone by age. 4/ There is nothing in the record to show that the qualifications of the interviewees or of Edward Bonner were lower than Petitioner's qualifications. On August 12, 1993, Petitioner wrote the agency Secretary, Mr. H. James Towey, complaining that he had been discriminated against because of his age, which he then gave as This letter listed the dates of discrimination as 9/22/92, 11/24/92, 11/24/92 again, 1/22/93, 1/27/93, 2/25/93, 5/7/93/ and 7/20/93. Therein, Petitioner admitted that Respondent had interviewed him approximately January 1993 for a System Abuse Registry Counselor position and that the interview had gone very well from his point of view. (P-3) Respondent advertised Protective Investigator/8308 (anticipated vacancy) Position No. 04385 in Panama City from June 21, 1993 to July 6, 1993. (R-7) Effective September 3, 1993, Respondent hired Johnnie A. Knop (female), DOB unlisted, for Position No. 04385. Respondent's tabulation completed on the effective date of hiring Ms. Knop showed that not counting Ms. Knop, whose age does not appear, the interviewees were thirty-eight, fifty, forty-six, forty-one, thirty-three, fifty-eight, forty-four, forty-one, forty- four, and thirty-one years of age, respectively. The non-interviewees were fifty, one unlisted, forty-five, Petitioner's age also was unlisted, thirty-six, thirty-one, twenty-three, thirty-three, forty-nine, and thirty-two years of age. (R-8) Once more, there is no discernible pattern of excluding anyone by age. Moreover, it is not possible to tell whether or not Respondent hired someone older or younger than the Petitioner. 5/ There is nothing in the record to show that Johnnie Knop's qualifications were lower than Petitioner's. In September, 1993, Ms. Dalton had a conversation with Petitioner which lasted approximately ninety minutes. Based upon the contents of Petitioner's Exhibit 13, it is found that this conversation occurred on September 13, 1993 in response to letters of complaint written by Petitioner on May 20 and August 12, 1993. The Petitioner's May 20 letter is not in evidence, but it is inferred that the August 12 letter referenced in P-13 was Petitioner's complaint to Secretary Towey (P-3) concerning age discrimination and discussed above in Finding of Fact 41. During their conversation, Ms. Dalton discovered that some of Petitioner's remote job experiences were useful for certifying him qualified. Together, Petitioner and Ms. Dalton worked through a list of Respondent's job openings, and Ms. Dalton sent one of Petitioner's applications on to Cheryl Nielsen who was hiring for a position in Marianna. At formal hearing, Ms. Dalton explained credibly that she had not originally categorized Petitioner as meeting the professional experience requirement in the "elementary or secondary education" category because she misunderstood his prior application(s) which she had reviewed. Where the September 5, 1992 application had related Petitioner as employed as "a teacher at Dozier School for Boys (Washington County Program at Dozier)" and the April 8, 1993 application listed him as " a teacher at Dozier School for Boys" for eleven months in 1990-1991, Ms. Dalton previously had understood that his employment merely constituted "shopwork, independent living", which is literally part of what Petitioner had written. Ms. Dalton previously had not equated that phraseology with professional teaching experience in an elementary or secondary school. Ms. Dalton also credibly explained that she had the erroneous perception of Petitioner's past experience listed as "supervisor, driver education" at Parks Job Corps Center as being solely employment in a private driver's education school. Petitioner had written "vocational training center," to describe the Center's function. Less understandable but unrefuted was Ms. Dalton's testimony that she had not equated Petitioner's teacher status for eight years in the Oakland County, California Public Schools as "teaching" because of the way Petitioner's application(s) had presented that prior employment which had occurred in the late sixties and early seventies. Despite both applications clearly stating this was public school teaching, Ms. Dalton had once again erroneously assumed that Petitioner had worked in a driver education school, when he had, in fact, been teaching a regularly scheduled minor course curriculum of driver's education in the standard curriculum of a public high school. Apparently, she had given less emphasis to this and had become confused by the explanatory material that Petitioner had added to explain the other things he had done besides teaching. She also gave less emphasis to other employments involving several years even if they included the word "teacher" because they were remote in time. (P-14 and P-15; compare P-16). After their clarifying interview, Ms. Dalton considered Petitioner qualified for the position(s) applied for, even though his qualifications previously had not been apparent to her from his written application(s). Convinced that Petitioner's application style did not present him to best advantage, Ms. Dalton advised Petitioner how to re-do his application to emphasize the factors significant to Respondent and maximize his employment opportunities with Respondent. On the basis of their conversation alone, Ms. Dalton sent a September 15, 1993 letter to Petitioner, and copied Ms. Jenkins and Ms. Ciccarelli, both employed in Respondent's District 2, to the effect that Petitioner met the eligibility requirements for the Protective Investigator classification. (P-13) Petitioner revised his application to detail that some of his school activities which were remote in time actually involved teaching. He submitted the rewritten application to Ms. Dalton approximately October 14, 1993. (P-16). After the revision, Ms. Dalton credited Petitioner with three years and nine months of "teaching in an elementary or secondary school" based only on his teaching during the 1960's. She also forwarded the revised application to Marianna and Ms. Nielsen. A review of the Petitioner's only three applications in evidence (September 5, 1992 at P-14; April 8, 1993 at P-15; and October 14, 1993 at P-16) reveals that Petitioner's original application style is so detailed and thorough that some portions September 1992 and April 1993 applications are less than clear as to what entity employed him and what his title was. For instance, he frequently used job titles that were more administrative, like "program manager", than educational, like "teacher". While a thorough reading of either of the applications in Petitioner's original style would probably reveal that he had, indeed, been employed in public school teaching positions approximately 30 years before, Petitioner's original applications require much more concentrated reading than does his revision in order to sort through the material matters and exclude extraneous and cumulative material that had no significance to Respondent's application process. The unrevised applications are not clear that he actually "taught" for a total of three years and nine months in public elementary or secondary schools as understood by Respondent's assessment system. According to Cheryl Nielsen, the position in Marianna for which Petitioner was certified eligible by Ms. Dalton and which closed October 18, 1993 was a temporary position. It existed solely because the individual holding the permanent position had been on workers' compensation leave. When it became apparent to Ms. Nielsen that the injured job holder would not be returning permanently, she decided not to continue the hiring process for the temporary position. Instead, she decided to advertise and fill the position in Marianna as a permanent position once the appropriate waiting period ran out. This was a reasonable decision because it would require six weeks' training before any hiree would be useful and because by going directly to the hiring of permanent personnel, Ms. Nielsen could avoid having to repeat the training process with a different person in a short period of time. No one was interviewed or hired for the temporary position for which Petitioner applied. There is no evidence in this record to tell the undersigned if Petitioner applied for Miss Nielsen's permanent position. Indeed, there is no evidence that Petitioner applied for any positions with Respondent after October 14, 1993. On November 26, 1993, Petitioner wrote Mr. Clary, Respondent agency's Deputy Secretary for Administration. The "Re:" line of this letter states that the letter refers to "'contracts' which cost HRS a fortune but serve no legitimate purpose." A fair reading of Petitioner's letter is that he was complaining concerning a letter from Dr. James Henson of Tallahassee Community College (TCC) which constituted a reply to Petitioner's inquiry concerning a TCC job vacancy announcement. Neither Petitioner's letter to Dr. Henson nor Dr. Henson's reply letter to Petitioner are in evidence to further explain what was actually going on. In his November 26, 1993 letter to Respondent's Deputy Secretary Clary, Petitioner characterized Dr. Henson's letter to him as "condescending" and "elitist" and stated Petitioner's opinion that Respondent should not have contracted with TCC to recruit field instructors because it was a waste of money. Petitioner's letter is entirely coherent, but its tone is agitated and vituperative. It attacks the agency's expenditure of funds to Dr. Henson and TCC and their qualifications. It does not mention Petitioner's age or job applications to Respondent in any way. (P-12) Apparently as a result of yet another of Petitioner's letters dated November 19, 1993, which November 19, 1993 letter is not in evidence, Ms. Radigan, Respondent's Assistant Secretary for Children and Family Services, wrote the following December 16, 1993 memorandum to Deputy Secretary Clary, copying Secretary Towey and the Assistant to the President of TCC. I wanted to give you some feed back on this issue. Mr. Sondel has written many such letters across the last six to eight years. He is very well known by the recruitment and personnel professionals in the Tallahassee area, in both the private and public sectors. Bob Roberts discussed this issue with Mr. Marshall Miller, special assistant to Dr. Henson at Tallahassee Community College (TCC). Mr. Miller suggested that DHRS [Respondent agency] should make no response to or take any action pertinent to the letter. Dr. Henson would prefer that he or his attorney make any response as he sees proper. The field instructor position in question is one of twenty new contracted professionals being recruited state wide that will be located in each district to provide clinical expertise, technical assistance, job coaching and staff training for a four unit staff in the Children and Family Services Program. Due to the nature of the job tasks that will be assigned to the new contracted professionals, the Districts expect that they will have relevant professional training and work experience in public child welfare systems. Please let me know if you have any questions, or wish to have additional information. Emphasis and bracketted explanatory material supplied. (P-11)57. The language emphasized above was not emphasized in Ms. Radigan's original memorandum, but has been characterized in Petitioner's testimony as "the smoking gun" upon which Petitioner relies to demonstrate that Ms. Radigan, via "retaliatory slander", had prevented Respondent agency from hiring Petitioner throughout 1992- 1993. He attributed her remarks to be the result of his letters to the Respondent complaining of age discrimination. Petitioner testified credibly and without refutation that he had never applied for employment with Respondent before the summer of 1992 and that he was first denied employment by Respondent on September 22, 1992. This is accepted. At the time of Ms. Radigan's memorandum, Petitioner had filed no formal charges of discrimination against Respondent. Therefore, it is impossible for any retaliation by Respondent between September 22, 1992 and October 18, 1993, if it existed, to have been based upon formal charges by Petitioner. Petitioner's subjective reading of the Radigan memorandum to the effect that it presents him as a "kook who should not be taken seriously" is one possible interpretation, but otherwise, Petitioner's interpretation is flawed. The Radigan memorandum is dated well after Respondent's last failure to hire Petitioner. That alone is not conclusive to show that its contents did not affect Respondent's hiring process between September 22, 1992 and October 18, 1993 because it could relate back to Respondent's prior retaliatory non- hiring practices. However, a clear reading of the memorandum itself does not permit such an interpretation. First, the memorandum refers to a letter by Petitioner dated approximately a month after the Respondent's last failure to hire Petitioner. Although Petitioner claimed that the Radigan memorandum refers to Petitioner's complaints of age discrimination, that was not proven. Since the Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter, which the Radigan memorandum addressed, is not in evidence, it is impossible to determine precisely which of Petitioner's complaints Ms. Radigan's memorandum addressed, but even if Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter had complained of age discrimination, that complaint was made after Petitioner had ceased to apply with Respondent. Therefore, retaliation at that point could not relate backwards to hiring practices already concluded. The letters of Petitioner over six to eight years to which the body of the memorandum refers apparently include his letters to private sector entities as well as government agencies other than Respondent agency. Therefore, the fact that Petitioner had only been applying to Respondent for two, not six or more, years (see Finding of Fact 58, above) does not establish any intentional misstatement of fact by Ms. Radigan. If these letters and Petitioner's November 19, 1993 letter to Respondent all contained complaints of age discrimination, then it was appropriate for Ms. Radigan to report that fact, but there simply is insufficient evidence in this record to determine if that is what happened here. Ms. Radigan's memorandum says nothing to the effect that Respondent should not hire Petitioner, that TCC should not hire him for itself, or that TCC should not recruit him for a position with Respondent. Nothing in the memorandum permits the inference that Ms. Radigan did anything except investigate the situation existing between Petitioner and TCC and report back to her superior all available information, including gossip about Petitioner from both the public and private sectors. Gossip is always reprehensible, but people talking about unspecified letters Petitioner wrote without more does not constitute retaliatory discrimination or age discrimination. Whether the situation between Petitioner and TCC had to do with TCC's failure to recruit Petitioner or with Petitioner's complaint about the cost of Respondent's contract with TCC to do its recruiting is unclear in this record. (P-12) (See Finding of Fact 55 above). If anything, the latter is more likely since in his Charge of Discrimination (P-2), even Petitioner described the Radigan memorandum as addressing "a matter only tangentially related to my employment possibilities." Therefore, no retaliation discrimination for raising the issue of age discrimination has been clearly proven.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying and dismissing the Petition for Relief. RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 14th day of December, 1995.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Black female. As such, she is a member of a protected class. Respondent is a rental and sales company. It rents and sells household furnishings and appliances to consumers. Around the end of June 2008, Petitioner was hired by Respondent as an account manager at its Crawfordville store. Petitioner’s scheduled start time was 7:30 a.m. Petitioner’s account manager duties included delivery of household furniture and appliances to customers, loading and unloading her truck, and collection of money (also known as collecting credits) from customers. Petitioner’s primary delivery route was the south side of Tallahassee, Florida. Her direct supervisor at the Crawfordville store was James Shaw. Mr. Shaw is a Black male. Petitioner alleged that in July 2008, James Shaw began to sexually harass Petitioner, inviting her to a hotel and on one occasion, locking her in the store, pushing her against some furniture, and groping her. Shortly after allegedly being groped, Petitioner reported the incident to Craig Carricino, Store Manager at RAC’s Tallahassee store, and Kevin Besette, the then District Manager. She also called RAC’s complaint hotline. Petitioner reported the incident to Mr. Carricino because she knew him from past dealings with him at the Tallahassee store and felt more comfortable reporting the incident to him. Petitioner made it clear that she did not want to return to the Crawfordville store and desired to be transferred to another location. On the day of Petitioner’s complaint, Brad Donovan, Coworker Relations Manager, initiated an investigation into Petitioner’s claim. Additionally, Mr. Donovan was aware of Petitioner’s desire to transfer to another store and immediately offered Petitioner the opportunity to transfer to RAC’s Tallahassee location. Petitioner readily accepted the offer and was transferred to the Tallahassee store where Mr. Carricino was the manager. After Petitioner’s transfer, Mr. Donovan proceeded with his investigation into her allegations of harassment. He interviewed Mr. Shaw, who denied Petitioner’s allegations. He interviewed Petitioner, who provided him with the name of a witness to Mr. Shaw’s sexual advances. Mr. Donovan interviewed this other witness. The witness reported that he had not seen any inappropriate conduct on the part of Mr. Shaw towards Petitioner. Petitioner never advised Mr. Donovan or any other person at RAC of any other witnesses to the alleged sexual misconduct of Mr. Shaw. In essence, Petitioner’s allegations could not be established because no independent evidence existed to support her allegations of sexual harassment. However, Respondent promptly addressed Petitioner’s allegations of sexual harassment. It investigated her claims and immediately transferred her to another store. Respondent also counseled Mr. Shaw about sexual harassment, but took no further action against him because of the absence of any independent evidence to support Petitioner’s allegations. Clearly, Respondent exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly address Petitioner’s allegations of sexual harassment. Irrespective of whether Petitioner’s allegations against Mr. Shaw are true or believed, RAC did not engage in an unlawful employment action against Petitioner because it acted appropriately in addressing Petitioner’s allegations based on the investigation and conclusions it had reached about Petitioner’s allegations. RAC was not obligated to do more even if Petitioner disagreed with the company’s decision not to discipline Mr. Shaw. After her transfer, Petitioner felt she was harassed/retaliated against by Mr. Carricino when she was “written up” for being late to work. Petitioner identified Scott Taff, who is White, as the only non-minority employee who had allegedly been treated differently than her. She based her assertion on the fact that Scott Taff was not fired when he was late after being ‘written up’ for tardiness. Without going into the mostly hearsay evidence presented at hearing, Petitioner’s own testimony revealed that she was not fired for being late several more times after being ‘written up’ and warned for such tardiness. Additionally, there was no evidence presented regarding Mr. Taff’s disciplinary history or that he had a chronic tardiness problem. Given these facts, the evidence did not demonstrate that non-minority or male employees were treated differently than Petitioner. The evidence, also, did not demonstrate that Petitioner was subjected to any retaliation for her earlier sexual harassment complaint. The evidence did show that her employer wanted her to be at work on time and endeavored to stress its desire to her. Such action does not constitute an unlawful employment practice, especially when the employee has a tardiness problem. Petitioner also alleged she was harassed/retaliated against when she was told that she would have to lift 150-lb. sofas, and, if she complained about the duty, she would be fired. Petitioner did not testify about any specifics regarding this allegation. However, Petitioner’s job required that she be able to deliver a variety of products made available by Respondent, including sofas. Moving furniture, loading and unloading her truck, and picking up and delivering furniture was not specifically required of Petitioner, but was required of all similarly-situated account managers. By her own testimony, Petitioner described times when she had help in moving furniture and times when she did not have help in moving furniture. The store’s manager testified that Petitioner, like other employees, received help moving furniture when other employees including himself, were available to help and not performing their own similar job duties. There was no credible evidence that Petitioner was denied help moving furniture based on her race, sex or in retaliation for her earlier allegations of sexual harassment. Finally, Petitioner alleged that she was harassed/retaliated against when she was not allowed to “collect credits” from customers because she was sent on deliveries and later disciplined for not “running these credits.” However, all account managers were required to collect money from customers and make deliveries. Petitioner was not singled out in being required to collect money from customers and make deliveries. All account managers had to figure out how to perform both functions. Petitioner’s testimony regarding being prohibited from collecting money on Saturday was not established by the evidence. The evidence showed that, for a short time, account managers were instructed not to use the computer system on Saturday mornings to help them in collecting money from customers because of some issue related to the computer system. However, the policy later changed to allow account managers to use the computer system on Saturday mornings. Moreover, there was no evidence that Petitioner could not otherwise collect money from customers without the aid of Respondent’s computer system. The computer may have made the collection process easier because customer contact information was stored in the computer system; however, the lack of use of that system on Saturday mornings did not prevent Petitioner from collecting money from customers. Customer information was available to Petitioner during the rest of Respondent’s time at work. Petitioner, again without any necessary specifics, claims that Mr. Taff was allowed to collect money on Saturdays. No computer records were introduced into evidence and no evidence of the time period when Mr. Taff allegedly collected money on Saturdays was adduced at hearing. Respondent denied that Mr. Taff collected money when he was not supposed to. The evidence did not demonstrate that Mr. Taff or any other similarly-situated employee was treated differently than Petitioner. The evidence did demonstrate that Petitioner had the lowest collection rate at the Tallahassee store and was consistently below that store’s standard for the collection of money. The District manager, Carney Anderson, who is Black, testified that he had no trouble meeting company expectations for collecting money from customers when he was an account manager in a similar, but larger, area and saw no reason why Petitioner could not meet the expectations of the company in the area she was assigned in Tallahassee. Petitioner did not perform up to the Respondent’s standards for the collection of money from customers. Importantly, a former male employee who failed to adequately collect money from customers was similarly disciplined for failing to perform this important job duty. Because Petitioner failed to meet the standards of the Respondent for the collection of money from customers, Mr. Carricino informed Petitioner that she would be terminated for her inability to meet those standards. Mr. Carricino offered Petitioner the option of resigning and assured her that he would provide a favorable recommendation to her, if she did. Petitioner elected to resign and wrote a letter of resignation. The letter did not mention discriminatory or retaliatory treatment and read as follows: “Thank you for everything. I am grateful for the opportunity that you gave me to work at Rent-a-Center, but at this time, I am unable to perform my duties as a mother to my kids due to the overwhelming hours. I am giving my two weeks notice today 11/10/08 in hopes of returning one day in good standing.” Mr. Anderson, who worked at the Tallahassee store every Monday, spoke with Petitioner about the basis of her resignation. She did not mention any belief she had that she had been retaliated or discriminated against. During Petitioner’s final two weeks, Mr. Anderson noticed a serious decline in Petitioner’s attitude and a decline in her work performance. He was not surprised because he had seen other short-term employees have a similar decline. Therefore, on November 15, 2008, Mr. Anderson instructed Mr. Carricino to terminate Petitioner’s employment immediately and Petitioner was terminated that day. There was no evidence that Respondent’s reason for terminating Petitioner was false or a pretext to hide discriminatory or retaliatory behavior. Moreover, given the short time that Petitioner had remaining at RAC and the fact of her resignation; the evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioner suffered an adverse employment action when she was terminated early during her final two weeks with RAC. Given these facts and the lack of evidence to support Petitioners allegations, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Massa Dionna Hill 1613 Quazar Road Tallahassee, Florida 32311 Andrew Trusevich, Esquire Rent A Center, Inc. 5501 Headquarters Drive Dallas, Texas 75024 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was denied training, subjected to unequal terms of employment and denied promotion to three jobs including the position of Lead Custodian with the Respondent in the Physical Plant Department in 1993, on the basis of his gender (male) and race (African- American), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an employer under the 1992 Florida Civil Rights Act. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a custodian in the Physical Plant Department since July 1989 and during the relevant period of time including 1993 and 1994. Petitioner is a male African-American, and a member of a protected class. Petitioner applied for a promotion to three different positions at the college between August 26, 1993 and December 6, 1993. In late August, 1993, Petitioner applied for the part-time position of House Manager at the college theatre. Petitioner was not selected because his present work schedule would overlap the position at the theatre and his prior work experience was not relevant to the position. In addition, another candidate possessed better interpersonal and communication skills, and his education and work experience was more relevant to the position than the Petitioner's. In early October, 1993, Petitioner applied for the position of HVACR (heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration) apprentice. The position is a learning position which requires working with a lead mechanic. Part of the job requirement for the apprentice position was the ability to attend trade school in HVACR. During the employment interview Petitioner expressed reservations about attending the HVACR training because he was presently enrolled in night classes at Rollins College. In addition to Petitioner, two white males and a Hispanic male applied for the position. A Hispanic male was selected for the position who had better qualifications. Thereafter, the racial make-up of the HVACR Department consisted of two whites, one black and one Hispanic male. On October 14, 1993, three vacancies for the newly created position of Lead Custodian in the Physical Plant Department was advertised by Respondent. Petitioner was one of nine applicants for the position. The nine individuals who applied for the position of Lead Custodian consisted of four African-American males, three African-American females and two Caucasian females. Following the review of each persons application and file and a personal interview, two African-American males and one African-American female were selected for the positions. Petitioner was not recommended for one of the vacancies. The selection process was based on relevant work experience and work history, and was not based on improper or discriminatory race or gender considerations. Petitioner was not denied training based on his race or gender. Petitioner applied for and attended six seminars covering a variety of subjects over the last several years. Respondent's stated reasons for its promotion and training decisions were not proven to be pretextual.
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 24th day of October, 1995, 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 24th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: Accepted in substance: paragraphs: none Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or as comment on the evidence: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. COPIES FURNISHED: Lea Ann Banks, Esquire BAKER & HOSTETLER P. O. Box 112 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Ulysses B. Williams 1020 Polk Avenue Orlando, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding are whether Petitioner was terminated from his employment with Respondent because of his race, his alleged disability, and in alleged retaliation for his attempt to file a workers' compensation claim in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. Petitioner also has been diagnosed with obsessive/compulsive disorder and major depression. On March 21, 1997, Petitioner began his employment with Florida Department of Corrections as a substance abuse counselor at Lancaster Correctional Institution. Petitioner's employment status was in career service, probationary status for six months from the date of his employment. A probationary status employee can be terminated without cause. Petitioner's employment as a counselor required him to be present at the institution a reasonable amount of time in order to perform his counseling duties. From March 21, 1997 through September 2, 1997, Petitioner failed to report for work 39 full workdays out of a possible 115 workdays. In addition, Petitioner had five other workdays that he only worked part of the day, with a total of 16 hours of leave used over those days. Sixteen hours is the equivalent of two full workdays missed by Respondent. As a result, Petitioner was absent from work approximately 35 percent of the time. Thirty-five percent absence rate was excessive based on Petitioner's job duties. Most of the leave was without pay because Petitioner had not accumulated enough sick or annual leave to cover his absences. The leave was taken for various reasons, but a large part of the leave was taken when Petitioner was hospitalized due to his mental condition. Petitioner's doctor released him from his hospitalization on August 8, 1997; however, Petitioner did not return to work until August 20, 1997. The last pay period ran from Friday, August 22, 1997 to Thursday, September 4, 1997. Petitioner only worked 20 hours out of 40 the first week and two hours out of 40 the second week. Around September 1, 1997, Petitioner went to the personnel office to inquire about filing a workers' compensation claim based on his disability. The staff person he spoke to did not know the procedure for filing a workers' compensation claim. She told Petitioner she would find out the procedure and asked him to return the next day. Other than Petitioner's speculation about the events following his initial inquiry about filing a workers' compensation claim, other material evidence regarding the events following his initial inquiry and Respondent's response thereto was submitted into evidence. The evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions of a factual or legal nature regarding Petitioner's workers' compensation claim and his termination. Petitioner was terminated on September 2, 1997, the day following his initial inquiry about workers' compensation. Petitioner received his letter of termination on September 2, 1997. Petitioner was a probationary status employee when he was terminated. Eventually, Petitioner filed a workers' compensation claim. The claim was denied by the Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security. In 1997, L.D. "Pete" Turner was the warden at Lancaster Correctional Institution. As warden, Mr. Turner supervised Petitioner. Mr. Turner made the decision to terminate Petitioner due to his excessive absences. Mr. Turner did not terminate Petitioner based on Petitioner's race, his alleged disability, or because of Petitioner's attempt to file a workers' compensation claim. Petitioner was needed at work and he was not there a sufficient amount of time to fulfill his job duties. In fact, there was no competent evidence that there was any connection between Petitioner's termination and/or his race, disability, or desire to file a workers' compensation claim. Petitioner alleged that two employees at the institution were excessively absent but were not terminated. The employees were Doris Jones and Victoria Englehart. Both individuals were career service employees with permanent status. They were not probationary status employees. Doris Jones is an African-American female. Victoria Englehart is a white female. No other evidence was produced at the hearing regarding these two employees, their attendance records, job duties or anything else of a comparative nature. Clearly, the evidence is insufficient to make any comparison between these two employees and Petitioner's employment and termination.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 6th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Otis Ware Post Office Box 2155 Trenton, Florida 32693 William J. Thurber, IV, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blairstone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Azizi M. Dixon, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
