The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an act of discrimination against Petitioner on the basis of her gender and national origin, and subject to retaliation in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Wanda I. Perales, was born in Puerto Rico and moved to the United States in 2008 when she was approximately 32 years old. She has lived in Florida since that time. She considers her national origin to be Hispanic. Petitioner was hired by EZPAWN in November 2009 as a sales and lending representative. Her position at EZPAWN was the first she was able to obtain in the United States after looking for employment for over a year. Respondent has policies and procedures in place that prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender, national origin, or any other protected characteristics or classes of employees. Respondent’s policies and procedures also prohibit retaliation. Petitioner received a copy of, and read, the employee handbook containing all of Respondent’s anti-discrimination policies. She was well aware that EZPAWN had anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation policies. When Petitioner first began working for Respondent, she worked at its Palm Bay Road location in the Melbourne, Florida, area. At that time, she received training on Respondent’s employee handbook and about obtaining customer IDs. She was taught that “[w]hen a customer comes to the store to see jewelry and the value is more than $500, we have to ask for one ID, keep it . . . in the jewelry case. And then we can hand the . . . jewelry to the customer.” This policy is found in the employee handbook. The policy states that Class A Misconduct, which “may result in termination of employment on the first occurrence,” includes: Behavior that creates actual harm or loss to another person or to the Company; damage to Company property or to the property of others while on Company time or on Company premises. This includes, but is not limited to: . . . [f]ailure to obtain a customer’s ID prior to allowing the customer to handle jewelry that is priced at $500 or more (resulting in loss). Petitioner understood that if she violated this policy she could be subject to discharge or termination. Petitioner testified that the training did not address what to do if two people came into the store at the same time. It was her understanding that if a couple came into the store together, she was only required to ask for one ID. Both Joseph Roberts from Respondent’s human resources, and Aban Basch, the store manager, testified that the policy applies as it is written and that if a couple comes into the store, the ID must be received from the person (or persons) to whom the jewelry is actually handed. One ID is all that is required if only one member of the couple will handle the jewelry. There is also a sign in the jewelry case at each of Respondent’s locations that states, “[a] state issued photo identification is REQUIRED for all jewelry items being shown valued over $500.” While working in the Palm Bay store in January 2010, “John” (last name unknown by Petitioner) became Petitioner’s supervisor. She alleged that on a few occasions he wanted to transfer her because of the language barrier. After Petitioner complained of John’s comments, Mr. Roberts, the human resources business partner overseeing Central Florida, went to the store to investigate. Mr. Roberts coached John on his comments and provided him with additional training. Petitioner seemed to be satisfied with these results. John never made derogatory comments about Puerto Ricans or women. Further, John never took any adverse employment action against Petitioner. In July 2010, Petitioner requested a transfer to a store closer to where she lived. This was at her request and was not disciplinary on the part of her employer. She had never been written up or disciplined by Respondent while in the Palm Bay store. Petitioner’s transfer request was granted and she moved to a store located on South Semoran Boulevard in Orlando, Florida. At the Semoran store, the majority of EZPAWN’s customers (estimated by the manager at 80-85 percent) are Hispanic. Petitioner communicated with them in Spanish as necessary for those who only spoke Spanish. Of the 12 employees Petitioner worked with at the Semoran store, ten of them were Puerto Rican or Hispanic, and seven were women. At some point, Mr. Basch became Petitioner’s supervisor. In February 2012, he brought in flowers and chocolates for all the employees for Valentine’s Day. Petitioner rejected the gifts and believed that thereafter, Mr. Basch changed completely when dealing with her. Petitioner believes Mr. Basch cut her hours on one occasion because she had rejected the candy and flowers he brought her and the other employees. Mr. Basch testified he cut hours because his district manager had directed him to reduce hours for that week to manage payroll. When she thought Mr. Basch was being disrespectful, Petitioner called the employee hotline and made a complaint against him. In response to the complaint, Mr. Roberts visited the store to investigate, and Petitioner also spoke with Cindy Bradley, Respondent’s Vice President of Human Resources. Both Mr. Roberts and Ms. Bradley found Petitioner’s claims to be unsubstantiated. On April 8, 2013, a man and a woman walked into the Semoran store. Petitioner assumed they were together since they asked to look at engagement rings. The woman gave Petitioner her photo ID, and Petitioner handed the ring valued at $1,500 to the man. Upon receiving the ring, the man ran from the store. Petitioner admitted she gave the ring to a person from whom she had not secured a photo ID. District Manager Corey Day, Manager Mr. Basch, and Assistant Manager Valdemar Santos (of Puerto Rican descent) were in the store when the incident occurred. According to Petitioner, Mr. Santos ran from the store in pursuit of the individual who took the ring. Petitioner believed that running after someone who steals from the store is a violation of company policy. This was contradicted by Messrs. Roberts and Basch who both said it was important to pursue a thief to be able to tell the police in which direction he or she ran and whether the thief got into a vehicle which they could later identify to law enforcement. The only reason given by Petitioner that she was discriminated against based on her gender is that Mr. Santos, a male employee, was not terminated for following the shoplifter out of the store, an act she believed to be in violation of company policy. Following the incident, Mr. Basch called the police who came to the store. They approached the suspect, but were not able to retrieve the ring because he no longer had it in his possession. The stolen ring was never returned to EZPAWN. Since Petitioner violated EZPAWN’s policy of securing an ID from any person who is handed a piece of jewelry valued at more than $500, resulting in a loss of the property, the decision was made to terminate her employment with Respondent. Mr. Roberts made the decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment after discussing the matter with Messrs. Day and Basch. Mr. Roberts testified that the decision to terminate Petitioner’s employment had nothing to do with her national origin or gender. During Petitioner’s next scheduled work shift, Mr. Day asked to speak with her in the manager’s office. Mr. Basch was also present. Mr. Day told Petitioner that the decision had been made to terminate her employment after conferring with Messrs. Roberts and Basch. He told Petitioner that he would give her a good reference for future employment because he believed her to be a good employee, who violated a company policy that requires termination. Petitioner did not say anything during the meeting and left EZPAWN. She did not complain to her bosses assembled at the meeting that she believed she had been discriminated against for her gender or national origin. Petitioner testified that no one told her she was terminated for being Puerto Rican or for being a woman. She specifically stated she did not believe she had been terminated because of her Puerto Rican heritage. Petitioner was unable to identify any other store employee who had not been terminated for violating the policy concerning securing a photo ID when showing jewelry with a value of more than $500. She was aware of another employee named Jose in a different one of Respondent’s stores who had been terminated for violation of the same policy. Mr. Roberts confirmed Petitioner’s testimony when he testified that every employee who violated the ID for jewelry policy had been terminated from employment. Petitioner was aware of one other employee named Jessica who left the jewelry case keys on the counter that caused rings to be stolen. Jessica was not terminated, however, because the rings had been recovered. While working at EZPAWN, no employee had made derogatory comments to Petitioner about her gender or national origin. Further, Petitioner had never complained to anyone at EZPAWN about being discriminated against on the basis of her gender or national origin. She testified that, if she needed to make a complaint, she was aware of the process for doing so. She responded “yes” when asked if she knew to call the hotline if she felt she had been discriminated against.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding Respondent did not commit the “unlawful employment practice” alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner’s employment discrimination charge. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of February, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 2015. COPIES FURNISHED: Erich Schuttauf, Esquire Erich E. Schuttauf Attorney at Law 7901 Kingspointe Parkway, Building 9 Orlando, Florida 32819 (eServed) Laura Steege, Associate General Counsel 2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 460 Austin, Texas 78746 Jason Matthew Leo, Esquire Littler Mendelson, P.C. 111 North Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1250 Orlando, Florida 32801 (eServed) Cheyanne Michelle Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Tammy Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue Whether Respondent, Coastal Properties (“Respondent” or “Coastal Properties”), discriminated against Petitioner, Harry (Hal) Hingson (“Petitioner”), based upon his age and race in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, sections 760.01-760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes.1/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Caucasian male who was 60 years old in May of 2014, when Respondent allegedly discriminated against him by terminating his employment because of his age. Respondent is a management company for third-party owners of apartment communities, home owners associations, and condominium associations. Respondent employed Petitioner as a maintenance worker at the Twin Oaks apartment complex, a 242-unit apartment complex in Tallahassee, Florida. On May 6, 2014, after work, Petitioner and his supervisor, Clint Creel, were involved in a physical altercation off the job site, while fishing together on a boat. After the boat returned to the dock, Petitioner went inside his home. Rather than securing himself in his residence and calling law enforcement, Petitioner retrieved a gun from his residence, exited his residence, and fired the gun multiple times at Mr. Creel. Mr. Creel was struck in the back of the leg by a bullet and received medical treatment for his gunshot wound. Although he was shot, Mr. Creel returned to work the next day. Petitioner did not return to work the day after the incident as he was seeking medical treatment for the injuries he sustained during the physical altercation. Two days after the shooting, Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment. The decision to terminate Petitioner was made by the Respondent's Vice-President, Ray Allen, in consultation with the President, Dennis Fuller, after Mr. Allen spoke to both Mr. Creel, and Petitioner, about the shooting. Respondent presented the undisputed testimony of Mr. Allen and Mr. Ray that Petitioner's employment was terminated to protect the safety of the other employees and the residents at the Twin Oaks property. Mr. Creel expressed concern about his safety to Mr. Allen if he had to continue working with Petitioner. Mr. Allen and Mr. Fuller also were concerned about the safety of Mr. Creel, as well as the other employees and residents, if Petitioner and Mr. Creel continued to work together. Petitioner's Discrimination Complaint alleges that Petitioner was discriminated against based on race and age. In particular, Petitioner alleges that he was discriminated against because he was terminated after the off-the-job altercation, but his younger supervisor was not. The evidence adduced at the final hearing, however, failed to substantiate Petitioner's claim of discrimination. Other than testifying that he at one time, prior to the incident, was told that he was moving slow and at another time was told he was acting feeble, Petitioner did not present any direct or circumstantial evidence sufficient to reasonably suggest that Respondent discriminated against him in employment because of his age. Even if Petitioner had presented evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, Respondent provided a legitimate non- discriminatory reason for terminating Petitioner's employment. Petitioner admitted that Mr. Allen advised him that he was being terminated because he no longer wanted Petitioner and Mr. Creel to work together. Petitioner admitted Mr. Allen told him that he would have continued to employ Petitioner by moving him to another property, but there were no other openings. Respondent’s evidence demonstrated that the day after Petitioner was terminated, of its 59 employees, 25 were over the age of 40, 11 were over the age of 50, and one employee was older than Petitioner. The evidence also showed that 54 days after Petitioner was terminated, of Respondent’s 64 employees, 25 were over the age of 40, 10 were over the age of 50, and one employee was older than Petitioner. Petitioner failed to establish Respondent's reason for terminating his employment was a pretext for age discrimination. Petitioner's Discrimination Complaint further alleges he was discriminated against based on his race because another employee, a younger African-American, was arrested for DUI but was not terminated. Petitioner presented no evidence at the final hearing to substantiate that allegation, and Petitioner failed to present any evidence whatsoever to show that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner because of his race. In sum, Petitioner failed to show that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner by treating him differently, or terminating his employment because of his race 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 dismissing Petitioner’s Discrimination Complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida32399-3060 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 2015.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Barbara Jerrel, became employed by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the Respondent, in May, 1987. She worked as a sales trainee in the field of life and health insurance sales and servicing. She was interviewed and hired by Doreen Blake in the "Gator Branch" office located in Gainesville, Florida. The manager of that office was Jerry Cummings, who was the Petitioner's supervisor. Mr. Cummings initially worked with the Petitioner in training her to solicit life and health insurance business and in making and closing sales of insurance policies both over the telephone and in person. When she initially became employed he accompanied her and supervised her in making sales solicitation calls on potential clients. On one occasion, soon after she was initially hired, the Petitioner maintains that she was working at her computer station in the office when Mr. Cummings sat beside her and began rubbing her arm. She states that she remonstrated with him about this conduct and told him to stop, whereupon he became angry and thenceforth instructed her to call him "Mr. Cummings." Soon after this alleged incident she was sent to a training school for approximately a month to learn the skills and requirements necessary to be a sales representative of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. She received above average scores on graded work during her school period of instruction and received favorable reports on her leadership and sales ability from her instructors. After her school training was completed, she returned to the Gainesville office to work. On approximately June 23, 1988, she testified that she and Mr. Cummings were riding in her car to an appointment with a client. He was traveling with her in order to assist with her training in meeting and discussing insurance matters with clients and in closing sales. She maintains he began talking about things other than insurance and said "I hope you don't tell your husband what we talk about . . . because it's really making me hot." She also contends that he made a statement to the effect that he "wondered how long it would take before she got him to a motel room." The Petitioner testified that she went home that day and tried to decide whether to quit her job or not. She decided to seek a transfer to the Ocala office, where Mr. Wine was the manager. She conferred with Mr. Wine by phone and he allegedly told her that she could come to his office as a new applicant. In reality, as revealed by Mr. Wine in his own testimony, he did not want her to come to work in his office and did not encourage her to do so. In the meantime, Ms. Jerrel was appointed as a Sales Representative of Metropolitan at the "Gator" branch office in Gainesville, effective June 8, 1987, following her "pre-appointment training." That pre-appointment training provides job applicants with an opportunity to get acquainted with the company's business, to obtain necessary licenses, and enables the management to determine the aptitude of the applicant for the sale of the company's product. She was provided the same training accorded all such individuals after initial hiring. Following her appointment as a Sales Representative in the Gainesville office she continued to receive training and assistance as was provided all those newly appointed. Ms. Jerrel met the initial production requirement so that she could be appointed Sales Representative. However, her performance began to deteriorate in July, 1987. She had written 11 applications for insurance (with Mr. Cummings' assistance) by the time of her appointment as a Sales Representative and wrote five by July 10, 1987. Thereafter, she wrote no business at all for two of the next four weeks. She wrote one application for insurance in the week of August 3, 1987 and none for the next three consecutive weeks. She wrote one application in the week of August 31, and had none thereafter during her employment with the company. The Petitioner alleges that on or about August 28, 1987, Mr. Cummings made a suggestion that the Petitioner and Cummings and another couple "play golf, smoke pot, and go to the beach and make love." Petitioner apparently took offense at that, as it was one of the bases for the subject action. Upon her commenting about it to another female employee however, that employee, who knew Cummings for a longer period of time than the Petitioner, advised her to disregard it because it was her belief that he was "just joking." The Petitioner also alleged that several days after this incident on or about August 31, 1987, that Cummings was engaged in a conversation with her while kneeling beside her chair where she was working at her computer terminal. She alleges that he put his arm around her shoulder while conversing with her, let his hand rest on her breast and massaged her breast whereupon she states that she stabbed him with her "ink pen." These allegations are of somewhat dubious credibility. The Petitioner herself testified that after the August 31 date, at which the last of the above incidents allegedly occurred, Mr. Cummings still praised her as an employee and predicted that she would get the "Eagle Award." It is also established, by Petitioner's own testimony, that during this period of time in August, 1987, she was undergoing treatment for depression. There is some indication that she was having marital discord with her husband and, indeed, an incident occurred shortly after, on September 10, 1987, which indicates that her relationship with her husband might have interfered somewhat with her job performance. On that date she met agent Michael Ray from the company's Jacksonville office, whom she had known in insurance school. They went to a local establishment where, according to her own testimony, they had a "couple of drinks" whereupon she got sick and went home. Her husband apparently became upset by this episode and shortly thereafter went to the company's Jacksonville office in an attempt to confront agent Ray about apparently interfering with his relationship with his wife, the Petitioner. Later that day, the Petitioner called her own office in Gainesville to warn them that her husband might be coming there armed with a gun. While this is commendable on the Petitioner's part, it does indicate that there was some marital discord which may have interfered with her job performance and together with the fact of her depression and treatment for it, may have influenced her thinking and her perception of what was actually occurring in her encounters with Mr. Cummings. He was described by another employee as a "touchy person" who frequently touched people in an innocent manner while engaged in a conversation with them. These factors, considered together, coupled with Cummings' denial that the incidents occurred, in the case of his allegedly touching the Petitioner's breast, and his testimony that if he touched someone, it was without any wrongful intent, lead the Hearing Officer to find that the incidents either did not occur, that they did not happen in the manner perceived by the Petitioner, or that the motive behind them was misconstrued by the Petitioner. On September 16, 1987, Mr. Cummings offered to try to obtain a transfer for Ms. Jerrel to another office if she would like and offered to give her two weeks in which to decide whether she wanted a transfer and to "tie up loose ends." The Petitioner later refused his offer of a transfer to another office. The offer of transfer, according to the Petitioner, was because of her husband's influence on her performance in her work place, as evidenced, in part, by the incident referenced above. On September 20, a Sunday evening, Ms. Jerrel called manager Cummings at his home. She asked him to meet her at the office. Manager Cummings declined to go to the office, suggesting that they discuss whatever her problem was over the telephone. Ms. Jerrel refused to do that so then Cummings suggested that she come to his home (where his wife would be present) to discuss the matter with him and she declined. Ms. Jerrel then hung up but called back a few minutes later and said that if Manager Cummings refused to meet her at the office then she would file a sexual harassment charge against him. He was taken aback by this statement but then advised her to do what she chose but he was still not going to meet her at the office that evening. Mr. Cummings met with Ms. Jerrel in the branch office the next morning and telephoned his Regional Manager, in Ms. Jerrel's presence, to relay to him the information regarding her claim of sexual harassment. Arrangements were then made, in accordance with established company procedures, in evidence, for Agency Vice President, James Higgins, to meet with Ms. Jerrel on September 24, regarding her claim of sexual harassment. When Mr. Higgins met with her and heard her allegations, he advised her of the company's policy against sexual harassment, and assured her that if the incidents had occurred as alleged, he would correct the situation and there would be no recurrence. He also took that opportunity to discuss with Ms. Jerrel her performance as a sales representative. He advised her that upon review of her performance, he had noted that she had been "blank"; that is, without any sales or production for several weeks. He informed her that that was not a satisfactory performance level. He told her that she would have to produce a satisfactory record of sales accomplishments or her employment would be terminated. As a result of this discussion she agreed to submit an "action plan", delineating in detail what steps she proposed to take to correct her unsatisfactory production level. That action plan included her assurance that she would participate in "telephone prospecting classes" with her supervisor. Mr. Higgins also interviewed Manager Cummings with respect to Ms. Jerrel's allegations of sexual harassment. Mr. Cummings denied them. Mr. Higgins then warned Manager Cummings that if he were found to have engaged in such conduct, his employment would be terminated. Respondent's exhibit 14 is a letter from Mr. Higgins to Manager Cummings delineating the problems with the Petitioner's lack of sales performance. The exhibit contains a detailed discussion of her action plan goals designed to try to correct her lack of production of insurance sales. The letter admonishes Manager Cummings to monitor her performance, particularly her telephone prospecting time and methods, as well as her other prospecting and sales efforts and methods. The letter emphasizes, on the second page, the monitoring and establishment of a schedule of in-office telephone prospecting time, to be monitored by Mr. Cummings. In that letter is a handwritten memorandum of a telephone conversation which Mr. Higgins later had with Mr. Cummings, on the same day the letter went out to Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cummings informed Mr. Higgins that Ms. Jerrel had already missed two scheduled telephone prospecting classes which she had agreed to attend in her "action plan", designed to correct poor sales performance. Since she did not report to the scheduled telephone prospecting class sessions on September 25th and September 28th, Mr. Higgins ordered Manager Cummings to terminate her effective October 1, 1988. The reason for her termination was established to be her low- performance record and her failure to comply with the action plan which she, herself, prepared and submitted, designed to correct her poor sales performance. The termination did not result from the altercation that the Petitioner was involved in with her husband and agent Michael Ray of the Jacksonville branch office. In fact, the Branch Manager, Mr. Cummings' superior, had a discussion of that issue with Mr. Cummings and informed him that the New York home office had indicated that the Petitioner's husband's interference with her job or office operations was not a sufficient reason to terminate her. The company's policies and procedures regarding sexual harassment claims, equal employment opportunity, affirmative action and prevention of unlawful discrimination are in evidence. The record does not reflect that those policies were departed from in the situation at bar.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the petition of Barbara Jerrel be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of March, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 27th day of March, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Dana Baird, Esq. Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Suite 240 Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Rodney W. Smith, Esq. P.O. Box 628 Alachua, FL 32615 Wi1liam G. Pappas, Esq. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company One Madison Avenue New York, NY 10010-3690
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner because of a handicap.
Findings Of Fact Sometime in July 2002, Petitioner was hired by Respondent as a Store Clerk (now known as a Sales Associate) at Store No. 3727 in Panama City, Florida. On March 1, 2003, Petitioner was promoted to Lead Sales Associate. Sometime around December 2005, Petitioner was diagnosed with absolute glaucoma and cataracts. As a result of her deteriorating eyesight, Petitioner asked the Store’s Manager, Michaelene Mellor, to be reassigned to her earlier Sales Associate position. Although there was some conflict in the evidence on whether Petitioner was reassigned as a “store stocker,” the better evidence demonstrated that Dollar General did not have a formal position known as a “store stocker.” Dollar General did have a position known as a “Sales Associate.” The Sales Associate position consisted of a variety of duties. Essential to the position were the following: assist in setting and maintaining planograms and programs; build merchandise displays; operate a cash register; itemize and total a customer’s purchase; collect payment from a customer and make change; operate a handheld scanner; and assist with ordering merchandise and maintaining inventory in the store. Planograms are shelving strips that contain shelf tags. They are the method that employees use to place merchandise in the store and on the shelves. They also help in inventory control. Petitioner was reassigned by Ms. Mellor. Her primary duties were to stock the store by using the planograms and shelf tags. Ms. Mellor advised the District Manager about the reassignment. However, she did not inform the District Manager that Petitioner would primarily be limited to stocking the store. Under Ms. Mellor’s tenure as Store Manager, Store 3727 was not properly managed. The store was dirty, had incorrect or out-of-date signage, incomplete or nonexistent planograms, merchandise on the floor and blocking the aisles, and a high incidence of inventory loss. Because of these problems, Ms. Mellor was terminated in October 2006. That same month, Thomas Rector became the Store Manager. His goal was to bring the store into compliance with Dollar General’s operation policies and to reduce the store’s inventory loss. At the time Mr. Rector took over Store 3727, the store had 4 positions and 7 employees allotted to it. The positions were Store Manager, Assistant Store Manager, Lead Sales Associate and Sales Associate. Each store was allotted a specific number of labor hours, excluding the hours worked by the manager, to cover the hours the store is open for business. Because Store 3727 had only 7 employees, only two or three employees worked during any given shift. With so few employees to cover each shift, it was essential that all employees be able to perform all the duties of the position that they filled. In this case, it was essential that Petitioner be able to read a scanner, run the cash register, make change, read a planogram, read a shelf tag, locate merchandise and stock merchandise. For the next several months, Mr. Rector observed that Petitioner could not clock herself in or out of work. More importantly, he observed that Petitioner had difficulties in stocking merchandise in the proper place. He observed that other employees had to sometimes help Petitioner with stocking. Improperly stocked items caused inventory control problems, increased the labor hours used by the store because time was required to correctly place store items and could result in lost revenue due to improper pricing. He also observed that she had trouble reading the scanner, the planograms and shelf tags. Based on his observations, Mr. Rector concluded that Petitioner could not fulfill the duties of a Sales Associate. He contacted the District Manager, Joe Peebles, and advised him that Petitioner could not perform the duties of a Sales Associate. On June 6, 2007, Mr. Peebles met with Petitioner. He read her the list of duties that a Sales Associate must perform and asked her if she felt she could perform those duties. Those duties are outlined above. Petitioner admitted she had difficulty with reading a planogram and operating a cash register. Likewise at the hearing, Petitioner admitted and demonstrated that she could not accurately read a planogram or shelf tag. She admitted she could not build a merchandise display, could not operate a cash register and could not make change for a customer. The evidence was clear that Petitioner could not perform the essential functions of a Sales Associate. Eventually, Petitioner was placed on leave and was told that, if her vision did not improve, she would be terminated. At no time did Petitioner ask for or identify any reasonable accommodation that could be made by Respondent to enable her to perform her duties as a Sales Associate and the evidence did not reveal that any such accommodations existed or were available. Ultimately, Petitioner was terminated because she could not perform the duties of a Sales Associate. The evidence did not demonstrate that her termination was discriminatory or the reasons given for her termination were pretextual. Finally, the evidence did not demonstrate that Petitioner’s vision impairment could be reasonably accommodated. Given these facts, Petitioner’s Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
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 the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 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 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 January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 Jean Marie Downing, Esquire 221 Thomas Drive Panama City Beach, Florida 32408 Alva L. Cross, Esquire 2300 SunTrust Financial Centre 401 East Jackson Street Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact Born in Rio de Janeiro, petitioner Paul Sergio Inacio emigrated to the United States from Brazil in 1961, when he was still a teenager. He first worked for respondent for a brief time in 1976. On June 6, 1980, he returned to respondent's employ as a journeyman welder mechanic at Crist Electric Generating Plant, a position he still held at the time of hearing. A "mile square with seven generating units" (T.187), the plant is in Florida, as are respondent's headquarters. Several hundred people work for respondent at Crist Electric Generating Plant alone. In "late June, 1980" (T.235) somebody began calling Mr. Inacio "Julio," nicknaming him after a Hispanic character in a television series (Sanford & Son). The actor portraying Julio "used to drag a goat through the living room . . . and acted . . . stupid." T.236; T.64. Despite (or perhaps because of) petitioner's telling people he did not like being called "Julio," the sobriquet caught on. Even during his initial eight-month probationary period, he made his objections known. T.115, 180. He felt freer to press the point, once the probationary period ended, although at least one friend advised him to do so might be counterproductive T.235-6. Mr. Inacio never referred to himself as Julio. T.28, 99-100, 115, 146-7, 180, 194, 198. Once "he almost got in a fight with [a co-worker] because the guy called him my little Puerto Rican buddy Julio." T.28. Before he retired from his employment as a supervisor with respondent, on July 30, 1987, Murdock P. Walley repeatedly addressed, or referred to petitioner in his presence, as "Julio," "wop," "spic," and "greaser." Mr. Walley's last day at work was "in April or along about then." T.472. Behind petitioner's back, Mr. Carnley heard Mr. Walley refer to petitioner as "wetback," "wop" or "the greaser." T. 27. Co-workers have called him "spic," "wetback," and "greaser" to his face, (T.30) as well as behind his back. Mr. Peakman, another maintenance supervisor, testified that he was guilty of a single lapse: I didn't see him and I asked, "Where's Julio?" And then I caught myself, I said, "Excuse me, where's Mr. Inacio?" I corrected myself right then. T.455. In or about January of 1989, (T.271), Jimmy Lavon Sherouse, maintenance superintendent since May of 1987, referred to petitioner as "Julio" at least once, in the break room. Willard A. Douglas, a supervisor of maintenance at the plant since December of 1981, referred to petitioner as "Julio" frequently. Described as abrasive, Mr. Douglas, also known as "Bubba," has "single[d] Paul out." T.46. But it appeared at hearing at least as likely that Mr. Douglas singled petitioner out because of a run-in which had nothing to do with Mr. Inacio's background, as that he discriminated against him on account of national origin. Prior to June of 1989, continuously since 1981 (T.29), Howard Keels, Calvin Harris, Mike Taylor, Ronnie Yates, and Bill Sabata, Control Center supervisors, C. B. Hartley, supervisor over the coal docks, John Spence and David Hansford, both maintenance supervisors at the time, Mike Snuggs, Joe Patterson, Ed Lepley, Tommy Stanley and Dennis Cowan, supervisors of the laboratory department, Dennis Berg and Joe Kight, schedulers, Tom Talty, the assistant plant manager, Joe Lalas and Larry Swindell, both operations supervisors, all called petitioner "Julio" "[t]o his face in [the] presence" (T.27) of Ricky Carnley, a fellow welder mechanic who testified at hearing. T.21-26. Others also heard supervisors call petitioner "Julio." T.79-80, 110, 144-6, 178-9, 195-6, 237-9, 537-8. Not without reason, petitioner came to feel that "(a)nything associated with Hispanic heritage that could come up, I was called at some point or other by practically anybody." T.267. Angelo Grellia, a fellow mechanic who testified "I'm a wop, you know" (T.79) (emphasis added) remembered co-workers calling petitioner a "wop." A newspaper cartoon posted on a bulletin board in the employee break room (not the bulletin board reserved exclusively for management's use) depicted a man using a two-by-four. Petitioner "is known for using two-by-fours a lot to move stuff, pry stuff for leverage." T.34. The cartoon was labelled "Julio." Another time somebody posted a newspaper clipping, a report of a parricide, complete with picture; the killer's name had been lined through and Mr. Inacio's had been substituted. T.112, 158, 179. After two days, a fellow employee took it down (T.158), apparently without Mr. Inacio's ever seeing it. Still another time somebody posted "a National Geographic picture" (T.181) that resembled petitioner "and the caption said, can you guess who this is." T.181. Somebody had guessed and written in "Julio." T.243. According to uncontroverted testimony, white Anglo-Saxon men "were not selected to be the butt of these sorts of jokes." T.159. Over the plant's public address system, in Mr. Talty's presence, Charles Brown referred to petitioner as "Paul Inasshole," a play on his surname. T.25. No other employee was ridiculed in such a fashion, as far as the evidence showed, (T.49) but broadcasts in a similarly offensive vein ("An asshole" "A nasty hole") took place repeatedly over respondent's public address system. T. 24-25, 48-49, 71, 144-146, 163, 240. At all pertinent times, respondent had widely disseminated written equal opportunity and affirmative action policies with the stated "intent . . . to provide all employees with a wholesome work environment." Respondent's Exhibit No. 2. "Company policy prohibits intimidation or harassment of its employees by any employee or supervisor." Id. But, as Barbara Louise Mallory, an "Equal Employment Opportunity representative" (T.477) in respondent's employ, conceded, the "conduct that went on was against [Gulf Power's] policies and against the law." T.484. Respondent's Exhibit No. 2 stated that employees "subjected to conduct which violates this policy should report such incidences to their immediate supervisor, a higher level of supervision, or the Company's Equal Employment Opportunity Representative in the Corporate Office." Id. In the present case, both respondent's immediate supervisors and "a higher level of supervision," were well aware of the harassment to which petitioner was subjected, before he officially reported it. Supervisors were themselves guilty of harassment. On February 8, 1988, Mr. Sherouse, the maintenance superintendent, addressed "a routine shift meeting with employees [and] discussed with them the need to refrain from destruction of employees' or company property." Respondent's Exhibit No. 8. Mr. Sherouse "essentially said . . . some employees . . . were being singled out . . . . " T.295. He told employees at the meeting that "such an incident . . . could result in an action up to termination." Id. At the same meeting he "also discussed cartoons and calendars that could be considered . . . racial or sexual harassment . . . [directing that] they must be removed now." Respondent's Exhibit No. 8. These matters were also discussed at an employee information meeting in January of 1989. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. But harassment of petitioner continued. "[Q]uite frequently . . . thick heavy grease would get smeared on his toolbox, underneath the drawers of his toolbox." T.34. The lock on his locker was glued or "zip-gripped" shut several times, and had to be cut to open the locker. Respondent's Exhibit No. He is the only employee (T.39) who had to change clothes because some sort of itching powder was put in his clothes. Somebody put "Persian Blue," a particularly persistent dye, in his glove. At respondent's counsel's behest a list was prepared of "employees who have experienced problems with someone tampering with their tools or person[a]l lockers," Respondent's Exhibit No. 10, during the two years next preceding the list's preparation on August 4, 1989. Of the nine employees listed, seven were white Caucasians whose tools or books had been lost or stolen. 1/ Unlike the native-born men on the list, petitioner and Debbie Mitchell, the only other person listed, were subjected to repeated instances of vandalism and other harassment, including unflattering references in cartoons posted on the bulletin board in the break room. Although petitioner did not request it, management assigned him a new locker, something they did for no other employee. According to a co-worker, petitioner, who once taught welding at Pensacola Junior College, "likes to do a good, clean, responsible job" (T.185) of welding. But, on October 22 and 23, 1988, when petitioner and Millard Hilburn worked on "the #7 bottom ash discharge piping," Respondent's Exhibit No. 21, at Willard Douglas' behest, they failed to stop seepage from the pressurized pipe (which was in use while they worked) by welding, and resorted to epoxy which, in Mr. Douglas' "opinion[,] . . . [was] bad judgement and very poor workmanship." Id. Of 30 or 40 welders respondent employed at Crist, only one or two "still have a clean record. Eventually somebody is going to get a leak." T.202. Petitioner's work record is basically a very good one, although not perfect. Nevertheless Mr. Sherouse, after putting petitioner's name on a list of three "employees who for different reasons are not performing their jobs," Respondent's Exhibit No. 7, summoned petitioner to a conference about his job performance, on January 20, 1989. The other two employees were Scott Allen, whose problem was "attitude . . . distrust, dislike . . . just unbelievable" (T.443; 420) and Ed Lathan who "hadn't been there since June of '87" (T.420) except sporadically "working light duty." T.420. Mr. Sherouse also prepared various memoranda concerning petitioner; and caused other managers to prepare still other memoranda. Only after the January conference was petitioner involved in the repair of a boiler tube that failed. (He welded one end of a replacement piece that may have been improperly sized and had already been welded in place by others.) In contrast to petitioner's involvement in two incidents (only one of which occurred before the filing of the complaint), at least one other welder mechanic working for respondent had made five welds that failed in short order. On April 11, 1989, petitioner was assigned the job of cleaning plugged nozzles on intake screens for units four and five (although ordinarily operators themselves did such routine maintenance.) He first went to the control room for units four and five and asked directions to the intake screens, which are part of the cooling system. Misunderstanding directions, he went to the wrong cooling system intakes, those for units six and seven, instead of those for four and five, and started work without finding a red tag (used to indicate that somebody from operations had "isolated" the equipment) and without placing his own tag on an electrical switch that equipment operators use. He did, however, place tags on valves that had to be opened in order for the system to operate. When Mr. Sherouse heard what had happened he sent Mr. Inacio home from work. Although Mr. Sherouse did not at that time "announce termination or non- termination, pay or no pay" (T.436), petitioner was eventually paid for the time off, which lasted two days during the purported pendency of an investigation, which consisted of "going back and looking at his files." T.437. Without credible contradiction, several people testified that mistaking one piece of equipment for another occurred not infrequently (T.85) at the Crist plant. The evidence showed that much more serious safety lapses had, in general, elicited much milder responses from management. Petitioner was criticized more harshly than non-minority employees for the same or comparable performance. T.31-33, 73-74, 112-120, 130-131, 148-9, 150-4, 186-7, 197, 257- 263. Petitioner's safety record was "better than most." T.424. An Indian who works at the Crist steam plant, Ron Taylor is known as "Indian" or "Chief." T.52. Supervisors referred to Nicholas Peterson as "a damned Greek" (T.111) when he worked at respondent's Crist plant. "From January 1982 until March 1990," just about every supervisor at Crist "refer[red] to some . . . blacks as being niggers." T.135. Objection was sustained to admission of colored Beetle Bailey comic strips crudely altered to depict cartoon characters engaged in oral sex. But Ms. Mitchell testified without objection to other "extremely vulgar cartoons" (T.157) she saw posted on the bulletin boards including one with her name on it. T.159. (When she complained to Mr. Sherouse, he eventually reported back to her that the reference was to a different Debbie.) At Crist Electric "they use the good ole boy theory . . . [i]f you fit into their select group, you're taken in, you're trained . . . you get better selection of jobs. If you're not, you're an outcast." T.136. Petitioner "definitely" got more than his share of "dirty jobs," specifically precipitator work and condenser work. T.183; 85-86, 147-8. Petitioner's "pride was hurt." T.265. He felt humiliated. Unfair criticism affected his morale. T.36. At least one co-worker "could sense . . . that he felt like he was not wanted there." T.37. He considered leaving his employment and even told at least one Gulf Power official that he was doing so. See Respondent's Exhibit No. 3. Discriminatory treatment affected his ability to concentrate, and so his job performance. T.36, 37.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the FCHR order respondent to refrain from harassing or otherwise discriminating against petitioner on account of his national origin. That the FCHR award petitioner reasonable attorney's fees and costs. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of May, 1991.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was terminated from his position with the Respondent in retaliation for reporting an unlawful employment practice that occurred in June 1995.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an "employer" within the definition found in Section 760.02(6), Florida Statutes. Petitioner was an "employee" of the Respondent as defined in Section 760.02, Florida Statutes, and was employed by Respondent for approximately two years. Aaron Rents, Inc., is a national furniture rental and sales company which does business in some locations, including locations in Florida, as Aaron's Rental Purchase. Petitioner, Jerome Carter, was employed by the company at an Aaron's Rental Purchase store in Kissimmee, Florida, from approximately August 2, 1993, until August 19, 1995. Petitioner was initially hired as a delivery driver and progressed to Assistant Credit Manager, Credit Manager, and finally Sales Manager of the Kissimmee store. In August 1995, Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Store Manager Steven Liberti. Liberti reported to District Manager Leonard Alonzo, who was supervised by Florida Regional Manager Joseph Fedorchak. As the Sales Manager, one of Petitioner's most important job duties was greeting and interacting with customers. He typically had the first contact with each customer as they walked into the store, and his demeanor, as he greeted them, influenced whether they felt comfortable and were likely to make a purchase. Petitioner, however, was not appropriately welcoming and friendly. Petitioner's attitude was withdrawn and not very cordial. Petitioner himself admitted that he "never look[s] happy." Petitioner's sullen demeanor was the topic of numerous discussions with his supervisors. In an effort to address the Petitioner's concerns and improve his work performance, the District Manager initiated a conversation to elicit any complaints the Petitioner might have. Petitioner expressed dissatisfaction with his position as a Credit Manager and the length of time since his last raise. As a result, Alonzo transferred the Petitioner to the Sales Manager position and gave him a pay increase. After the transfer, however, Petitioner's demeanor did not brighten. Concerned, the District Manager again inquired about the cause of the Petitioner's apparent unhappiness. Petitioner merely acknowledged that his attitude needed improvement and promised that he would "straighten up" and "be more outgoing." Each time they had that discussion, however, Petitioner's behavior would improve for only a short time, then return to his previous melancholy. The Store Manager also talked to Petitioner at least twice about his attitude toward his job, telling him that he needed to smile more often. Although the Petitioner's behavior would temporarily change after these discussions, Liberti observed that the improvement lasted only about 24 hours. In August 1995, sales at the Kissimmee store were at an all-time low. Petitioner's supervisors attributed the location's failure to meet its sales goals at least in part to the Petitioner's inability to interact with customers and make sales. After their repeated discussions with him did not result in lasting improvement, the Managers felt they had no choice but to terminate Petitioners employment. Fedorchak concurred that, because the Petitioner could not seem to display an appropriate attitude and demeanor for a Sales Manager, his services were no longer needed. Petitioner admits that when he was discharged, the reason that he was given was that he "did not look happy." Approximately two months before Petitioner left the Kissimmee store, one incident with racial overtones was brought to the Store Manager's attention. In June 1995, store employees Mark Mars and/or Jesus Rivera reported to Liberti that another store employee, Michael Flowers (who is white), had used the term "nigger" during a discussion with store employee Kenny Tatum (who is black). Liberti informed Alonzo about the complaint and an investigation was conducted. When the Managers spoke with Tatum, he explained that Flowers had used the expression "nigger, please," which was slang for "you've got to be kidding," during a conversation between the two men. He assured them that he had not been offended. Nevertheless, because Alonzo and Liberti felt it was highly inappropriate for Flowers to use such language in the store, they gave him a reprimand and warning. In his deposition testimony, Petitioner recalled learning about the occurrence from several other employees. Petitioner did not personally witness it or hear Flowers use the offensive term, but merely claimed to have reported to Liberti what he had been told. According to Petitioner, Liberti responded to this information by affirming that such behavior would not be tolerated. Petitioner admits that he was never told, and had no reason to believe, that Aaron's authorized, encouraged, or instructed Flowers to use racially derogatory language in the store or that he had done so on Aaron's behalf. When Petitioner allegedly reported the occurrence to Liberti, he only believed that a co-employee had made an inappropriate comment at work. The incident involving Flowers and Tatum was unrelated to Petitioner's discharge. None of the three individuals involved in the decision to discharge Petitioner associated him with the incident or any opposition to it. Liberti does not recall discussing the incident with Petitioner, and neither Alonzo nor Fedorchak knew that Petitioner even claimed to have had some involvement in reporting it until after he was discharged. Moreover, none of the conversations among the three about their decision to terminate Petitioner included any reference to Flowers' comment or the subsequent events. No one who opposed the incident suffered any adverse consequences. Rivera and/or Mars reported the comment, and neither of them experienced any unfavorable employment actions as a result.
Recommendation Based upon the testimony and evidence submitted on the record in the formal hearings on this matter and by application of the relevant or governing principles of law to the findings of facts established on such record, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order which dismisses the Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 13th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerome L. Carter, Sr. 2188 McClaren Circle Kissimmee, Florida 34744 Daniel F. Piar, Esquire Kilpatrick Stockton LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, Georgia 30309-4530 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 249 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 249 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Respondent, Popeye’s Louisiana Kitchen (“Popeye’s”), discriminated against Petitioner, Desmond A. Lucas, in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Mr. Lucas is an African-American male who contends he was discriminated against by his employer, Popeye’s, while working at one of its restaurants in Pensacola, Florida. He states the basis of the discrimination to be his gender, male. At the time of the final hearing, Mr. Lucas was residing in Oveido, Florida. As noted above, Mr. Lucas did not make a live appearance at the final hearing held in this matter. Popeye’s is a corporation which, at the time of the final hearing, owned approximately 130 restaurants in the southeastern United States, four of them being in northwest Florida. Store No. 28 is located at 3411 North Pace Boulevard, Pensacola, Florida. Mr. Lucas was hired in 2011 as a cashier/drive-through operator for Popeye’s Store No. 28. He worked there until the termination of his employment on September 1, 2015. During most of his employment, Lucas was considered a good employee. He was deemed a fast learner and was especially adept at cleaning his work area. Management talked to Mr. Lucas about entering the manager training process, but he at first refused, citing the need to care for his ailing mother. Around July 2015, Mr. Lucas finally began training as a manager. Up until that time, Mr. Lucas had been a very good employee, never being written up for failing to do his job properly. Later, Mr. Lucas began to develop a bad attitude toward his primary manager and other employees. On August 24, 2015, while Mr. Lucas was in training to be a manager, he and the night manager, Mr. Abram Gordon, were tasked with closing the store once business hours ended. Mr. Gordon did not testify, but Mr. Lucas said the manager gave him no specific instructions as to how to perform the “closing” duties, saying only, “You’ll figure it out.” Mr. Lucas had been working at Store No. 28 for four years, so management expected him to have a good idea about what needed to be done. He apparently did not. By all credible accounts, Mr. Gordon and Mr. Lucas did not do a good job cleaning up the store that evening. The following morning, Ms. McPherson, the head manager of Store No. 28, came in to work to find the mess left behind from the prior night’s closing. She was very upset and set about cleaning up the area so that it would be presentable when the store opened. She then proceeded to draft a written reprimand or “write-up” against both Mr. Gordon and Mr. Lucas for failing to close the store properly. She wrote up Mr. Gordon because as the manager on duty, he was ultimately responsible for closing; Mr. Lucas was written up for failing to clean his area properly. Mr. Gordon apparently discussed the write-up with Mr. Lucas before the latter’s arrival at work that day. Although Mr. Lucas admits that he talked with Mr. Gordon before coming to work that day, he maintains they never discussed the write-up. His testimony in that regard is not credible. His demeanor and attitude upon arrival at work that day bespeak prior knowledge of the reprimand and that he had a chip on his shoulder about it. When Mr. Lucas refused to accept Ms. McPherson’s criticism that the store had not been cleaned properly, she showed him some pictures she had taken that morning. Mr. Lucas said the pictures were inaccurate and he refused to accept any responsibility for the messy storefront. Mr. Lucas, in response, showed her some pictures he had taken of the store when it had previously been left in a messy condition, apropos to nothing. That someone else had not done their job previously did not excuse Mr. Lucas’ non-performance of his duties. Ms. McPherson gave the written reprimand to Mr. Lucas, but he refused to sign it, maintaining he had done nothing wrong. Mr. Gordon on the other hand accepted his write-up without objection and signed it. Mr. Lucas noticed that Ms. McPherson’s supervisor, Ms. Bishop, had arrived at the store for a routine site visit. He quickly approached Ms. Bishop and demanded a meeting to discuss the closing dispute and the write- up. Ms. Bishop, who has extensive training and experience dealing with angry employees, told Mr. Lucas she would set up a meeting to discuss the matter with him later after he had had an opportunity to calm down. This was not satisfactory to Mr. Lucas. Mr. Lucas then demanded the telephone number of Willie Barnes, an operations specialist who was Ms. Bishop’s supervisor. That request was denied because Ms. Bishop was not prone to giving out Mr. Barnes’ personal contact information. This made Mr. Lucas even angrier, and he continued to loudly complain about the situation. One of his co-workers, Cheyenne Ford, attempted to get Mr. Lucas to calm down and stop talking so loudly. Ms. Bishop could hear Mr. Lucas’s continuing complaints, and eventually she directed Ms. McPherson to tell Mr Lucas to clock out and go home for the day. Meanwhile, Ms. Bishop asked Mr. Gordon to set up a meeting to be attended by her, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Gordon and Ms. McPherson. The meeting was scheduled for September 1, 2015. When Mr. Lucas was told by Ms. McPherson to go home, he stopped outside the store and called the Popeye’s “Employee Hotline,” a service provided by Popeye’s through its human resources department. The content of the call was reduced to writing by the individual who answered. Strangely, the writer referred to Mr. Lucas as “she” throughout the report. Apparently she mistook him for a female, although he did not sound effeminate during the final hearing (at which he appeared via telephone). The call to the Employee Hotline was not in keeping with the established order of making complaints. Mr. Lucas should have waited until after his meeting with Ms. Bishop and Ms. McPherson before calling the hotline. During the hotline call, Mr. Lucas did not make any claim of discrimination based on his gender. Ultimately, Mr. Lucas appeared at the scheduled September 1, 2015 meeting. The meeting was held in a corner of the lobby at Store No. 28 and was attended by the aforementioned persons. Mr. Lucas, after waiting several minutes for the others to arrive, was given the opportunity to state his position and to make whatever complaints he desired. The managers, in turn, explained to Mr. Lucas what shortcomings they saw in his work and behavior. The meeting seems to have been somewhat heated, but everyone was allowed to express themselves. One of the issues discussed at the meeting was Mr. Lucas’ show of disrespect for Abbas Momenzadeh, vice president of operations for Popeye’s. Mr. Momenzadeh had come into the store on several occasions to observe and ask questions of the employees, as was his normal practice. He was always friendly to employees and attempted to engage them in conversation. When he spoke to Mr. Lucas, there was no response until one of the managers chastised Mr. Lucas. He then gave a grudging “Hey” to the vice president. According to Mr. Momenzadeh, this happened on more than one occasion.3/ Mr. Lucas was given the opportunity to “change his ways” and to fall back in line with corporate guidelines. He, however, did not see any need to change his behavior or work practices and announced that he had no intention of doing so. At that, Ms. Bishop decided to terminate his employment and did so, ending the meeting. When he arose to leave, Mr. Lucas produced his telephone to the others, indicating (they believed) that he had been recording the meeting. Ms. Bishop informed Mr. Lucas that it was illegal and improper to record someone’s statements without their consent, but he just smiled and walked away, waving his phone in the air. Mr. Lucas then filed his claim of discrimination, claiming that he and other male employees were treated badly while female employees were not. He claimed that Ms. Bishop and Ms. McPherson would only train females for manager positions, passing over qualified males. He claimed that Ms. McPherson talked much more sharply to male employees than female employees, allowing females to get away with things for which males were chastised. No direct evidence as to any of those allegations was presented at final hearing by Mr. Lucas. There is absolutely no credible, believable, or competent evidence in the record to support Mr. Lucas’ claims. By way of example, when he asked Ms. Bishop to identify the managers in the four stores she supervised, she responded that nine managers were female and nine were male, numbers that do not suggest that Popeye’s discriminates on the basis of gender. Also, Mr. Gordon, who was written up at the same time and for the same reason as Mr. Lucas, is still an employee (manager) for Popeye’s. Hearsay statements from a female employee offered into evidence by Mr. Lucas were neither competent evidence nor indicative of any discrimination against males by Popeye’s or its store managers. Mr. Lucas took the position that since he had never been disciplined before this incident, discrimination was the likely reason for termination of his employment. When asked why Popeye’s had not disciplined Mr. Lucas previously, the manager just noted that “we have a lot of tolerance.” Indeed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Popeye’s Louisiana Kitchen, did not discriminate against Desmond A. Lucas. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of March, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 9th day of March, 2017.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner has been subjected to employment discrimination by termination, allegedly based upon race, and by retaliation, for filing a charge of discrimination.
Findings Of Fact On or about November 29, 2005, the Petitioner applied for a job as a part-time sales clerk with the Respondent. The Petitioner indicated that she was available to work on Sundays, Mondays, and Wednesdays from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This was because she was already employed in another job. During the course of the hiring and orientation process, the Petitioner learned of the policies of the Respondent against harassment and discrimination of all types. She was instructed in those policies and acknowledged receipt of them. The Petitioner began her employment with the Respondent on December 27, 2005, as a part-time sales clerk at a convenience store (No. 31) in Milton, Florida. When she began her employment, the Store Manager was Bob Kukuk. The Assistant Managers for that store were Michael Morris and "Cynthia." There were also two other sales clerks, Cherie Dorey and Lugenia Word. Both Ms. Dorey and Ms. Word are white. Soon after the Petitioner was hired, Mr. Kukuk announced his resignation as store manager. On January 31, 2006, the Petitioner attended the new employee training session in Milton, Florida, which included training in the equal employment and non-harassment policies of the Respondent. During the question and answer session, concerning the harassment and discrimination portion of the training, the Petitioner told Training Manager, Robert Birks that she had a problem at her store involving a conflict with another employee. She felt that she was being required to do things that other employees were not required to do. Mr. Birks advised Ms. Myles that she should provide a written statement concerning her complaints to her supervisor and he provided her with pen, paper, and envelope to do so on the spot. The Petitioner wrote out a note and returned it to Mr. Birks in a sealed envelope and he gave the envelope to the District Advisor, Jamie Galloway on that same date. After reading the Petitioner's note, Ms. Galloway met with Petitioner on that same day to discuss her complaints. The Petitioner informed Ms. Galloway that Michael Morris, an Assistant Manager at her store, was telling employees that he was going to be the new store manager. The Petitioner told Ms. Galloway that she felt Morris did not like her because of her race. Ms. Galloway informed the Petitioner that, in fact, Morris would not be selected as store manager for store No. 31 and that Mr. Kukuk would be replaced with someone else other than Morris. She also informed the Petitioner that the Respondent had a zero tolerance for harassment and discrimination and that if the Petitioner had any problems with Mr. Morris that she should personally contact Ms. Galloway. In her capacity as District Advisor, Ms. Galloway supervised the day-to-day operations of a number of stores. In fact, during the above-referenced time period, Ms. Galloway was supervising her own normal district area, as well as that of another district manager who had resigned. The three sales clerks at store No. 31, Ms. Dorey, Ms. Word, and Ms. Myles were all reprimanded ("written-up") in February 2006, because of their cash registers being "short," or containing insufficient funds at the close of the business day or shift. The Petitioner was also counseled for insubordination on this occasion because she told Ms. Word, in front of customers, that she was not going to take out the trash because Mr. Morris and Ms. Dorey would be into work soon and "they never did anything anyway." Ms. Word confirmed that Ms. Myles had made that statement to the store management. Sometime in February 2006 the Petitioner expressed the desire to transfer to a store on the West side of Pensacola because she was no longer employed in her other job in the Milton area. She therefore wanted to work for Tom Thumb at a location closer to her residence. The Manager, Mr. Kukuk at that time, informed Ms. Galloway of this wish on the part of the Petitioner. Ms. Galloway contacted the District Advisor for the West side of Pensacola, Bill Jordan, to inquire whether any positions were available that would fit the Petitioner's schedule. Ms. Galloway followed up on the question with Mr. Jordan several days later, but Mr. Jordan said that he had no employment positions available at that time. The Petitioner then filed her Charge of Discrimination on February 16, 2006, (her first charge). In her Discrimination Charge the Petitioner maintains that she was constantly "getting written-up" for unnecessary matters by Mr. Morris, the Manager. In fact, however, she was written-up only once while Mr. Morris was the Assistant Manager of the store, as were Ms. Word and Ms. Dorey, the other clerks. Both Ms. Word and Ms. Dorey are white. Patricia Merritt was installed as the new store manager at store No. 31 on February 24, 2006. Ms. Merritt has worked for the Respondent for 17 years as a clerk, assistant manager, and manager. Ms. Merritt had the responsibility of managing the store, ascertaining that all duties involved in store operation were accomplished and supervising and monitoring the performance of other store employees. She imposed discipline, including termination if necessary, and also hired employees. Mr. Morris failed to appear for work, beginning the first week of March 2006. He was terminated from his employment with the Respondent on March 9, 2006. In February or early March, Ms. Merritt informed Ms. Galloway that she had overheard another employee referring to the Petitioner having filed a claim against the Respondent because of Mr. Morris. Prior to that time Ms. Merritt was unaware of any problem between Mr. Morris and the Petitioner. Between the time that Ms. Galloway met with the Petitioner on January 31, 2006, and the time she heard from store manager Merritt that the Petitioner was still having a problem with Morris in late February or early March, the Petitioner had not contacted Ms. Galloway to report any problem. After being advised of the matter by Ms. Merritt, Ms. Galloway advised Ms. Merritt to contact the Petitioner to find out her version of the events which occurred and to offer her a transfer to any one of five stores that Ms. Galloway was responsible for on the East side of Pensacola. Ms. Merritt met with the Petitioner and offered her the transfer opportunity, which the Petitioner refused at that time because she had a mediation pending. When Ms. Merritt began duties as store manager a misunderstanding occurred about the Petitioner's schedule. Ms. Merritt understood, mistakenly, that the Petitioner was available for fewer hours of work than she actually was. This resulted in the Petitioner being scheduled to work fewer hours for two or three weeks. Ms. Merritt was then informed of the Petitioner's actual scheduling availability by someone from the management office. On March 20, 2006, the Human Resource Manager, Sheila Kates, met with the Petitioner. The Petitioner complained about her reduced hours which Ms. Kates discussed with Ms. Merritt. As soon as Ms. Merritt realized that she had misunderstood the Petitioner's hours of availability she increased the Petitioner's hours on the work schedule. The Petitioner agreed that Ms. Merritt had been unaware about any problem between the Petitioner and Mr. Morris, when she reduced the Petitioner's work hours schedule because of her misunderstanding of the Petitioner's availability. Ms. Kates again offered to allow Ms. Myles to transfer to another store if she wished (apparently to help her avoid her apparent conflict with Mr. Morris), but the Petitioner again declined. Ms. Galloway, as part of her duties as District Advisor, conducted store inventory audits. She conducted a store inventory audit for Store No. 31 on May 30, 2006. During that audit she discovered that the store had a significant inventory shortage. Ms. Galloway therefore scheduled a "red flag" meeting the next day with each employee at the store, as well as meeting with them as a group to discuss inventory control. All of the employees at the store were counseled regarding the inventory shortage, including Ms. Myles and Ms. Word. Ms. Word, who is white, was issued a written reprimand on March 24th and April 24th, 2006, because of cash shortages. Ms. Word was subsequently terminated on June 16, 2006, for causing inventory shortages by allowing her friends to come in and take merchandise out of the store without paying for it, as well as for excessive gas "drive offs," or instances where people pumped gas into their vehicles and failed to pay for it. The Petitioner was given a $1.00 per hour raise by Ms. Merritt on or about April 2006. Ms. Merritt also changed the Petitioner from a part-time to a full-time employee in May 2006. This change enabled the Petitioner to become eligible for employee benefits. Ms. Merritt also, however, reprimanded the Petitioner for a cash shortage on July 14, 2006. The Petitioner admitted that her cash register was $48.00 dollars short on that day. The Petitioner complained to Ms. Galloway sometime in July of 2006 that Mr. Morris, the former store manager, and no longer an employee, had been vandalizing her car when he came to the store as a customer. Although these allegations were uncorroborated at that time, Ms. Galloway advised the Petitioner to call the police about the matter and to contact Ms. Kates directly, in the Human Resources office, if there were any more such incidents. The Petitioner filed a retaliation claim against the Respondent on August 7, 2006. Ms. Merritt had been considering the Petitioner for promotion to assistant store manager. The Petitioner completed a background check authorization for that position on September 19, 2006. Mark Slater is a Regional Manager for the Respondent. His duties include supporting the District Advisor's position, which includes recruitment, hiring and training of managers, reviewing sales trends, and reviewing any other financial trends, such as cash shortages, "drive offs" and inventory losses. In mid-October 2006, in the course of a routine review of reports from Store No. 31, Mr. Slater became aware of a possible problem regarding excessive gasoline drive offs, and an unusual purchase-to-sales ratio. Shortly after his review of those reports, Mr. Slater went to Store No. 31 to review the store's electronic journal. The electronic journal contained a record of all the store transactions. In his review of that journal, he focused on "voids," "no sales," and "drive offs," which could explain the irregularities that he had observed in his initial review. In his review of the "voids" at store No. 31 during the period in question, Mr. Slater noted quite a few voids for cigarette cartons, for large amounts, in a very short period of time. Specifically, in the course of seven minutes, he observed voids in the total amount of $406.23. He found this to be highly irregular and suspicious. Mr. Slater also looked at the drive-offs, because he had noticed some trends on that report as well. In reviewing drive-offs, he noticed that the same employee number was involved in both the voids and the drive-off transactions. Mr. Slater noted in his review that one drive-off was held on a void and then brought down as a drive-off, which appeared suspicious to him. Mr. Slater than matched up the electronic journal transactions with the security video tape that corresponded with that journal entry. In observing the video tape, Mr. Slater identified the transaction entered as a drive-off, but saw from the video tape that a customer had in fact come in and paid for the gas in question with cash. When he began his review Mr. Slater did not know which employee had the employee number that was used in association with the voids and the gasoline drive-offs. However, after he had concluded his investigation, he researched that number and found out that it was the number assigned to the Petitioner. Mr. Slater thus knew that the Petitioner had voided the drive- off transaction, as shown in the electronic journal, while the video tape showed that the Petitioner had actually served the customer who, in fact, did not drive-off without paying, but had paid $20.00 in cash for the gasoline in question. When she was asked about the security video showing the Petitioner accepting the $20.00 for the transaction which she had entered as a gas drive-off, the Petitioner responded that she did not recall it. Mr. Slater concluded that the Petitioner had not properly handled the transaction and took his findings to the Human Resources Manager, Sheila Kates. After consulting with Ms. Kates, the decision was made to terminate the Petitioner's employment. Prior to making his investigation and prior to making his conclusions, Mr. Slater was unaware of any issues between the Petitioner and Michael Morris. None of his findings and decisions regarding the situation with the Petitioner's voids and drive-offs had anything to do, in a retaliatory sense, with any issues or complaints the Petitioner might have had against Michael Morris or to the Respondent concerning Michael Morris. After being discharged for related types of conduct, neither Ms. Lugenia Word, who is white, nor the Petitioner, Ms. Myles, are eligible for re-hire by the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the charges of discrimination and retaliation at issue in their entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Latarsha Myles 2103 Haynes Street, Apt. C Pensacola, Florida 30326 Cathy M. Stutin, Esquire Fisher & Philips LLP 450 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Cecil Howard, 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 The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Publix Super Markets, discriminated against Petitioner, Babak Sharifzadeh, on the basis of his national origin (Iranian), religion (Muslim), and/or in retaliation, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an Iranian-born male who is Muslim (or, as he refers to it in his complaint, a Moslem). He has worked for Respondent since being hired as a part-time front service clerk (historically known as a "bag boy") at Publix Store 0133 in Orlando, Florida. Petitioner, thereafter, went to full-time employment and was promoted several times before becoming a store manager in April 2006 at Store 1024 in Montgomery, Alabama. In March 2007, Petitioner agreed to step down to the position of assistant store manager in exchange for a transfer back to Florida. He was transferred to Store 0758 in Poinciana, Florida. On July 13, 2008, Petitioner was transferred to Store 1181 (the "Store") in Kissimmee, Florida, and promoted to store manager.1/ Until his transfer to the Store, Petitioner had not received any disciplinary actions from Respondent. However, in late January 2009, Petitioner was accused of sending several sexually explicit messages to a female employee. The messages contained graphic and crude language that made the recipient uncomfortable. The employee said that in addition to the messages, Petitioner had hugged her a few times when she worked at the Store. Petitioner admitted hugging the employee and giving her a ride home on occasion. He denies sending the messages to her, even though the messages apparently were traced to Petitioner's computer. Petitioner speculated that his son may have used his (Petitioner's) password and sent the messages or perhaps someone hacked into the employee's computer. Petitioner's testimony in that regard lacks credibility. Petitioner was counseled about the need for appropriate behavior at all times and warned that any further incidents could result in loss of his position. Respondent did not feel Petitioner was being honest about the incident with the employee, but decided to give Petitioner the benefit of the doubt. Petitioner was therefore warned, an associate counseling statement was issued, and the matter was resolved. Before long there were new allegations against Petitioner related to sexually inappropriate comments to employees and store customers. Petitioner allegedly discussed the appearance of an employee's breast with another employee, a produce manager. He was also said to have made inappropriate comments about customers to that same produce manager. Petitioner admitted making comments about customers, but denied making any comments about the employee, Ms. Ramos. The produce manager, however, confirmed that he and Petitioner had made the comments. Ramos refused to corroborate the produce manager's statement, but she appeared to be protecting herself, rather than being forthright with Publix investigators. Ultimately, Publix decided that the allegations had merit. Petitioner was counseled by Respondent about the Ramos issue on May 3, 2010. He was warned that further incidents would not be tolerated. During the counseling for the Ramos matter, Petitioner became angry with his supervisors and accused them of harassing him. He did not express at that time that the reason for their harassment was his religion and national origin.2/ Petitioner accused the district manager, Hall, of giving him inferior department managers in an effort to make him fail. He also said neither the district manager nor the retail associate relations specialist, Houk, provided him any support. He did not, however, equate the alleged treatment he was receiving to discriminatory behavior based on religion or national origin. In her report dated November 1, 2011, Susan Brose, human relations legal specialist, wrote that during the May 3, 2010, counseling session, Petitioner said his treatment by Houk and Hall was due to his religion and national origin. That hearsay statement was not corroborated or confirmed by Houk and Hall. No complaint was filed against Houk and Hall despite Petitioner's remonstrations that he would file such complaints. Petitioner testified that his store was excellent and operated above average. Petitioner always received an annual raise and received more than the minimum salary for a person in his position. As late as March 25, 2011, Petitioner wrote in his performance review session that "I appreciate all Mr. Hall has done for me and my team." By all accounts, Petitioner continued to operate without any sanctions or discipline throughout his employment at Publix.3/ Petitioner was issued two Associate Counseling Statements after the Ramos incident: One statement was for his comment to Ramos; one statement was for his belligerence during the counseling session. No sanctions were imposed as a result of the incident. In October 2010, Publix received an email from someone identifying himself as Craig Bancoff (which was apparently an alias for the writer). According to the email, Bancoff had seen Jennifer Gerini and her manager, referred to as "Bob," kissing and drinking alcohol while at work.4/ Bancoff alleged that Gerini and Bob were having an affair. Publix took the email to mean that Petitioner and Gerini, another Publix employee, were having a personal relationship in derogation of Publix policies. Gerini at that time was going through a divorce. It was later pointed out to Publix that the email from Bancoff contained a physical address that was the same as Gerini's address before she separated from her husband. It is likely--but not proven-- that the email came from Gerini's estranged husband. Petitioner denied any relationship with Gerini and acknowledged that it would be against company policy for him to be romantically involved with an employee. He did say that he had tried to give Gerini comfort and support during the time of her divorce. Six months later, however, Petitioner told Hall that he would be unable to attend an event scheduled for store managers because his girlfriend was pregnant and needed care. When questioned, Petitioner told Hall that his pregnant girlfriend was Gerini. However, Petitioner maintains that no relationship existed between him and Gerini while she was an employee at his store. Gerini left the Store in November 2010. She claims to have moved in with Petitioner in December 2010 and gotten pregnant by Petitioner in January 2011. In February 2011, she resigned from Publix. Petitioner and Gerini's child was born September 22, 2011--just over ten months from the Bancoff email.5/ Bancoff's email, coupled with the fact that Gerini gave birth to Petitioner's child seven months after resigning from Publix, strongly suggests that Petitioner and Gerini were involved in an intimate relationship while both were Store employees. If so, then Petitioner was not truthful to his employers and was in violation of the rules of conduct for Publix employees. It is also possible that Petitioner and Gerini only started their relationship after Gerini was transferred from the Store in November 2010. Petitioner stated in a document dated July 14, 2011, that any one of the ten people he disclosed therein could confirm that no relationship existed between him and Gerini. Only one of those persons (Rosa) testified at the final hearing. Rosa did not address the Gerini-Petitioner relationship in his testimony. Another employee who worked at the Store with Petitioner and Gerini (Jimenez) wrote statements to management saying that Gerini had admitted to her that there was a sexual relationship between Gerini and Petitioner. Jimenez said she saw Petitioner's name come up on Gerini's home telephone screen and that Gerini said she had performed oral sex on Petitioner a number of times at the Store. Jimenez testified that "[Petitioner and Gerini] acted very friendly [and] took frequent smoke breaks together. At that point, Jennifer was taken off cash and she was put on some other miscellaneous jobs and every time you couldn't find Jennifer, she was usually with Bob." She had a strong suspicion that there was something going on between Petitioner and Gerini, even though she never witnessed any physical or sexual contact. It was not until later that her suspicions were confirmed. Gerini said that Jimenez never came into her house and that she never told Jimenez she was in a relationship with Petitioner. Petitioner suggested that Jimenez was not an honest person and that her testimony could not be believed. However, from observation, Jimenez appeared truthful and honest. She was no longer an employee at Publix and, thus, had nothing to gain from her testimony. Although Gerini said she and Jimenez were never really friends, Petitioner offered into evidence a document indicating fairly personal Facebook messages between Jimenez and Gerini, an indication of some sort of friendship, at least. In total, Jimenez' testimony was more believable that Gerini's.6/ Publix's perception of the alleged relationship between Petitioner and Gerini was sufficient to warrant termination of Petitioner's employment. Publix scheduled a Discharge Review on July 18, 2011, to inform Petitioner of its intent to discharge him from employment and to give him an opportunity to respond. At the Discharge Review meeting, Petitioner, for the first time, accused Hall of referring to him as "Bin Laden" and making derogatory comments concerning September 11, 2011, and shoe bombers. Again, there is no documented evidence that Petitioner ever made such complaints prior to being notified of his impending termination from employment. According to his district manager (Hall), Petitioner had never made a complaint about any discriminatory actions against him based on his national origin or religion. One of Petitioner's assistant managers, Rosa, testified as to one incident of alleged discriminatory language, to wit: Rosa said that Hall told Petitioner that he (Petitioner) did not understand a reference to the television show Six Million Dollar Man because that show was not shown in Iran. Hall denied ever making the comment. Of the two witnesses, Rosa was least credible. He had recently been discharged from his position at Publix and was planning to file a legal action against Publix. In fact, Rosa's attorney accompanied him to the final hearing in this matter. There is no documented evidence that Petitioner ever complained to his superiors about discrimination until after a decision had been made to terminate his employment with Publix. Petitioner states that he made several complaints, but none of his supervisors recall ever receiving such a complaint. One of Petitioner's alleged complaints was that a store manager, Van Der Berg, called him a shoe bomber and other such derogatory things. However, on the day that Petitioner was called to the district office to be discharged from employment, he called Van Der Berg to say he was being called to the office. It does not seem congruent for Petitioner to call to chat with a person who had maligned him. Upon review of all the evidence, including the fact that Petitioner received positive annual evaluations and raises, there is no basis for a finding of fact that Petitioner raised discrimination claims prior to July 12, 2011 (the date a Notice of Discharge was issued). It is counterintuitive to believe that Publix hired, promoted, and rewarded Petitioner for years and, then, suddenly decided to discriminate against him because of his place of national origin and religion.7/ Publix has a long-standing policy against employees at a single store being romantically involved. The so-called No Conflict Policy prohibits employees who are romantically, emotionally, or sexually involved from working together. Every employee is made aware that such fraternization can result in termination of employment. Publix, if it failed to take appropriate action against an employee, could be liable should a subsequent event occur. Thus, it was incumbent upon Publix to strictly enforce its policies. Under Publix's rules of unacceptable conduct, being dishonest is the first and most important rule. Publix gave Petitioner numerous opportunities to comply with the rules and policies governing its employees. Instead of sanctioning Petitioner or imposing a disciplinary action against him, Publix issued counseling statements. Such statements are not considered discipline by Publix. Ultimately, when Publix concluded that Petitioner engaged in a relationship with an employee and then was untruthful about his actions, he was terminated from his position.8/ Publix has discharged a number of managers for violating the rules relating to inappropriate behavior and untruthfulness. Publix provided a list of five Caucasian men and one woman who were found to have engaged in improper sexual relationships with employees and were terminated. Although the facts of each of their cases were different, and each case had its own individual issues, it is clear Publix treats all its employees similarly. Petitioner's treatment was no more or less severe than that afforded to other managers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations denying the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 June, 2012.
