The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by discharging Petitioner because of his age.
Findings Of Fact Respondent produces flexible packaging, develops technology to fill that packaging with liquids, and provides services to incorporate its flexible packaging systems into its customers' facilities. Respondent primarily produces "bag-in- box" products and manufacturing systems for customers such as Pepsi-Cola and Wendy's, as well as various customers in the milk, juice, and chemical business. Respondent operates two manufacturing facilities, one located at its headquarters in Romeville, Illinois, and another located in Union City, California. Petitioner was born on April 24, 1946. In 1996, Respondent hired Petitioner as a sales representative, and he served in that position until he was discharged on April 19, 2004. Petitioner initially was assigned to service the Upper Midwest Region and was based in Chicago, Illinois. In 1999, Respondent reassigned Petitioner to the Southeast Region. After his reassignment to the Southeast Region, Petitioner continued to live in the Chicago area for several years. However, in December 2002 or January 2003, Petitioner and Respondent mutually agreed that Petitioner would relocate to Florida. Because the move resulted from a mutual decision between Petitioner and one of Respondent's founders, Respondent paid $25,000 towards Petitioner's moving expenses. After the move, Petitioner continued to be responsible for the same geographical territory and the same customers as before the move. Joe Pranckus is Respondent's vice president of sales. At the time of Petitioner's discharge, the sales department consisted of a customer service department and four geographical sales territories: the Central, Western, Eastern and Mexico Regions. The Central and Western Regions (where Respondent's manufacturing facilities are located) each were overseen by a regional manager. The Eastern and Mexico Regions did not have regional managers. As Petitioner was located in the Eastern Region, Mr. Pranckus served as his direct supervisor. From 1999 until his dismissal, Petitioner was Respondent’s only sales representative in the Southeast. His primary responsibility was to maintain and increase Respondent’s business in that region of the country. The Rapak sales department as a whole is generally responsible for maintaining and increasing Respondent’s overall sales. This involves not only selling products and services, but also following up with customers to help them solve problems and otherwise to ensure their happiness. Because his primary responsibility was maintaining and increasing sales, Mr. Pranckus judged Petitioner almost exclusively by his year-to-date sales numbers as compared to the same period in the previous year. These numbers were calculated by Mr. Pranckus on a fiscal-year basis, from May 1st through April 30th. For the 2003-2004 fiscal year, Mr. Pranckus established a goal for Petitioner of 15 percent growth in sales. The minimum expectation was that Petitioner maintain at least the same amount of sales he had the previous year. During the 2003-2004 fiscal year, Mr. Pranckus e- mailed Petitioner his sales-versus-last-year figures on almost a monthly basis. By the end of June 2003, Petitioner had sold only 84 percent as much as he had sold through June 2002; by the end of July, only 87 percent as much as he had sold through July 2002; by the end of August, 91 percent; September, 81 percent; October, 90 percent; November, 85 percent; December, 87 percent; and by the end of March 2004 (eleven months into the fiscal year), he had sold only 88 percent as much as he had sold through the first eleven months of the 2002-2003 fiscal year. In short, as the fiscal year drew to a close, it was clear that Petitioner was going to suffer a net loss of business for the year. In late October 2003, Petitioner suffered a heart attack and underwent triple bypass surgery. Petitioner was unable to work for approximately two months while recovering from surgery. However, Petitioner returned to work in January 2004, initially working on a limited basis. Petitioner's sales numbers suffered because he lost some certain accounts owing to factors beyond his control (such as product quality and price issues). Nonetheless, Petitioner concedes that it was his job to replace his lost sales, no matter what caused his customers to switch suppliers. Mr. Pranckus typically holds one sales meeting each year for his entire staff. In February 2004, Mr. Pranckus held one of those meetings. At that meeting, Mr. Pranckus informed Petitioner that "changes would be made if [his] numbers didn't improve." In his application for unemployment compensation, Petitioner stated that Mr. Pranckus also warned him on March 10, 2004, that he needed to improve his sales numbers. Finally, Mr. Pranckus sent an e-mail to Petitioner on March 27, 2004. In that e-mail, Mr. Pranckus delivered the following written warning: Your territory is at a critical state. We can not continue along this path. Sales must be improved immediately or we will need to change. We agreed at our sales meeting to get this back on track. It is not showing up in the numbers and activity. Call me and let me know how we can help. On April 19, 2004, Mr. Pranckus discharged Petitioner because of his poor performance. His year-to-date sales figures were unacceptably low, as compared to the previous year, and Mr. Pranckus saw no evidence of plans or activity designed to improve matters. After Petitioner was discharged, he filed an application for unemployment compensation. On the application, Petitioner stated that he was discharged “for failure to achieve sales goals.” Later in that same application, in response to a request to “briefly summarize your reason for separation from this employer,” Petitioner wrote: “I did not achieve my sales goals.” Petitioner did not assert anywhere in his application for unemployment benefits that he was discharged because of his age. At the time of his discharge, Petitioner was 57 years old (almost 58). Mr. Pranckus did not know Petitioner’s exact age, but he would have guessed (based on physical appearance) that Petitioner was in his mid-50s at the time. Mr. Pranckus did not consider this to be “old.” In fact, Petitioner is not much older than Mr. Pranckus. Mr. Pranckus interviewed three individuals to fill Petitioner’s position. He ultimately selected Jim Wulff. Mr. Pranckus did not know their ages at the time of the interviews, but he would have guessed (again, by appearance) that Mr. Wulff was in his mid-50s and that the other two interviewees were in their mid- to late 40s and mid- to late 50s, respectively. In fact, Mr. Wulff was born on May 26, 1948, so he was 55 years old (nearly 56) when Mr. Pranckus hired him. Sales analysis from June 2003 showed that eight Rapak employees or representatives did not meet the 100 percent sales goal. Those listed were either Rapak non-supervising employees with direct responsibility for sales, supervising employees, or non-employee independent brokers. However, none of these employees, whether younger or older, was similarly situated to Petitioner at the time of his discharge. As an initial matter, there were four other non- supervisory employees with direct responsibility for sales: Dennis Hayes, Marvin Groom, Donald Young, and Keith Martinez. The other individuals responsible for sales were either supervisory employees or non-employee independent brokers. Because the two supervisors have management responsibilities and are responsible for their entire regions and the individuals who report to them, they are not judged primarily by whether they personally meet the 100 percent or 115 percent sales-versus- last-year objectives. Brokers, meanwhile, are not employees. Rather, they are independent contractors paid on a straight commission, so Respondent receives value from their services regardless of how much they sell. Mr. Hayes was the only other employee who performed the exact same job as Petitioner, but he reported to Regional Manager Dan Petriekis in the Central Region, not directly to Mr. Pranckus. Moreover, as of March 2004, Mr. Hayes had sold 127 percent as much as he had during the same period the previous year.1 Mr. Hayes is almost ten years older than Petitioner. Mr. Young was also responsible for sales, but he was semi-retired, serviced only one customer and received a base salary for his work. As of March 2004, however, Mr. Young had sold 115 percent as much as he had during the same period the previous year. Mr. Young is more than twelve years older than Petitioner. Finally, while Keith Martinez and Marvin Groom had some responsibility for sales, their positions were “radically different” from Petitioner’s. Whereas Petitioner could identify certain problems with Respondent’s machinery and products and would refer those problems to a service technician to assist his customers, Mr. Groom and Mr. Martinez were both originally hired as service technicians. Based on this experience, they could and did not only identify technical problems, but also performed the necessary maintenance and repair work on the spot, in addition to performing preventative maintenance. Petitioner, by contrast, has spent his entire working life as salesman. Accordingly, he was neither capable of, nor expected to, perform these additional maintenance and repair functions. As a result, Mr. Groom and Mr. Martinez received more leeway on their sales performance than Petitioner because they brought additional value to Respondent’s business that Petitioner could not offer. Nonetheless, as of March 2004, Mr. Groom was running at 100 percent versus the prior year and Mr. Martinez was running at 87 percent. Mr. Groom is roughly three years younger than Petitioner, and Mr. Martinez is 15 and one-half years younger than Petitioner. Respondent paid Petitioner $113,000 in salary and commissions during his last full calendar year of employment with Rapak. Petitioner was out of work for ten months after his dismissal. During that time, he received $8,000 in unemployment compensation from the State of Florida and $8,942.33 in severance pay from Respondent. In his new job, Petitioner projects that he will earn $100,000 in his first year but admits that he could make at least $113,000 because his compensation is once again dependent upon sales commissions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondent committed no unlawful employment practice and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of July, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 26th day of July, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, a restaurant, unlawfully discriminated against the Petitioner, who is African-American, by refusing to serve her because of her race.
Findings Of Fact At approximately 2:25 p.m., on July 2, 2003, Petitioner, an African-American resident of Minneapolis, Minnesota, entered the premises of a Denny’s Restaurant located at 14697 Duval Road, Jacksonville, Florida, to eat a meal. Petitioner had spent the previous night in Gainesville, Florida, and had interviewed for a position with the City of Gainesville that morning before driving to Jacksonville to fly home to Minneapolis. Petitioner approached the wait stand and waited approximately three minutes to be seated. Petitioner noticed only five guests in the restaurant at the time she was seated, all of whom were Caucasian. Petitioner was seated close to a Caucasian family of four and a single Caucasian male seated at another table. Petitioner did not claim that she had been segregated in the restaurant, and admitted that she had been seated close to tables with customers of other races. Immediately after being seated, Petitioner asked the hostess for a cup of hot water with lemons, which was promptly delivered to her by the hostess. Petitioner was treated respectfully by the hostess. After the hostess left, Petitioner drank her beverage while she reviewed the menu and waited to be greeted by her server and to have her order taken. Although there appeared to be three servers in the restaurant at the time of Petitioner’s visit, only one appeared to be serving. The others appeared to be completing their “side work,” that is, restocking and end-of-shift cleaning duties. The only person actually serving customers during Petitioner’s visit was Rhonda Nicks, a Caucasian woman. The restaurant was short staffed during this period due to a shift change and another server’s failure to show for her shift. While she waited to be served, Petitioner observed that two Caucasian women entered the restaurant, were seated, and were promptly served by Ms. Nicks who appeared to be the only server in the restaurant. Petitioner next observed as a Caucasian man and woman entered the restaurant, were seated, then promptly had their drink and food orders taken and served by Ms. Nicks. After waiting 20-25 minutes, and not having her food order taken, or even being acknowledged by the server, Petitioner went to the cashier’s stand where she was met by Audrey Howard, an African-American employee of the restaurant, who asked Petitioner if she wanted to see a manager. Petitioner replied that she did want to see a manager, and one was summoned. After waiting a few minutes, Petitioner was greeted by a Caucasian manager who identified himself as Mike Kinnaman. After speaking with Petitioner, Mr. Kinnaman offered to immediately put in Petitioner’s food order, to even cook the meal himself, and to provide the meal at no charge. Petitioner refused Mr. Kinnaman’s offer, stating that she had to return her rental car at the airport, then catch a flight. Mr. Kinnaman then offered Petitioner a business card on which he wrote “1 free entrée, 1 free beverage, 1 free dessert . . . Unit #1789." Mr. Kinnaman told Petitioner that she could use the card for a free meal at another time. This offer was made based upon the manager’s belief that Petitioner did not have time to eat and needed to leave for the airport. After speaking with the manager, Petitioner left the restaurant at approximately 3:00 p.m. She drove the short distance to the airport, removed her luggage and belongings from the rental car, turned in the car, and received her receipt which showed that she had turned in the car at the airport Hertz location at 3:20 p.m. Although Petitioner told the Respondent’s manager that she had to leave to catch a flight, the evidence showed that Petitioner’s flight was not scheduled to leave for another four hours. Petitioner’s rental car receipt documented the fact that she had a two-day rental and could have kept the car for almost another full day. Petitioner was in no jeopardy of incurring additional rental car charges or of missing her flight when she hurried from the restaurant at 3:00 p.m. Although Petitioner observed only nine other customers in the restaurant while she waited to be served, Respondent’s records and the testimony of Audrey Howard, a former cook at Respondent’s restaurant, 24 customers were served in the restaurant between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m. on the day of Petitioner’s visit. Although Petitioner testified that she was the only African-American customer in the restaurant, Ms. Howard recalled a table of two African-American patrons who were served during the time period when Petitioner was in the restaurant. She specifically recalled these patrons because the gentleman returned his omelet to the kitchen, asking for more cheese. During her time in the restaurant, Petitioner observed only five employees. Respondent’s records demonstrate that 14 hourly employees were in the restaurant between 2:25 and 3:00 p.m. From where she was seated in the restaurant, it is likely that Petitioner could not see every customer and employee in the restaurant. Petitioner never attempted to call a server over to her table, nor did she ask the hostess to either take her order or ask a server to provide her with service while she waited. Petitioner did not complain to the manager that she had been discriminated against. She complained that she had received poor service. Respondent requires training for all of its employees on diversity and discrimination issues before they are allowed to work for Respondent. Every server who testified at hearing had specifically undergone diversity and discrimination training. Although Respondent has a history of past discrimination against African-Americans as evidenced by a consent decree entered into by the company with the United States Justice Department, it has since received national awards and recognition for its strides in the areas of discrimination and diversity. Respondent takes claims of discrimination very seriously, and has a zero tolerance standard for acts of discrimination by its employees. Respondent’s managers are required to report all claims of racial discrimination to a 1-800 hotline. No call was made by the manager in this case because he did not believe that a claim of discrimination had been made by Petitioner when she claimed she had received poor service. Petitioner offered no evidence that she had suffered damages as a result of the poor service she received at the restaurant.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing Ms. McAdory's Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2004, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan S. Erdelyi, Esquire Marks Gray, P.A. Post Office Box 447 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Charlene McAdory 417 Oliver Avenue North Minneapolis, Minnesota 55405 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was the victim of a discriminatory employment practice perpetrated by the Respondent by the alleged discharge of the Petitioner on account of her handicap.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Sunshine Jr. Stores, Inc., is a Florida corporation, with the principal offices located in Panama City, Florida. The Respondent operates convenience stores in Marianna and Alford, Florida, along with numerous other locations. On December 14, 1990, the Petitioner, Jo-Ann Duffy, was hired as a sales associate and placed in the Marianna store. She indicated in her job application that she was willing to work in Chipley, Bonifay, Marianna and Panama City, Florida. The Petitioner received her employee training in the policies and procedures under which the Respondent operates. She received training in policy no. 030-040, the robbery/theft policy. She signed a "statement of understanding" to that effect, acknowledging that she had received such training. That statement of understanding acknowledges that if the Petitioner violated company policies, such as the robbery and theft policy, her employment was subject to termination by the Respondent. The Petitioner was described as a good worker, initially; and she had a good working relationship with her supervisor, Mr. George Susanka. Mr. Susanka was the store manager and ultimately received some complaints regarding the Petitioner's attitude toward customers. He verbally counselled her regarding this matter. On April 25, 1991, the Petitioner received a written reprimand for failure to perform assigned duties, specifically, noncompliance with policies and procedures, including with regard to inventory shortages. The reprimand was placed in her personnel file. All of the employees at that store, Store No. 190, were also given written reprimands concerning these matters. On May 2, 1991, the Petitioner suffered an injury due to slipping and falling on a wet floor at the Alford Store No. 190. The Petitioner was taken to the emergency room and treated for her injuries. The physicians determined that the Petitioner had suffered a cervical spondylosis, with no evidence of acute injury. After a two-week leave of absence, the Petitioner received permission to return to work from her doctor, Dr. Laubauah, an orthopedist. On June 14, 1991, he released her to return to work with restrictions on her bending and lifting of weight. The Respondent was aware of the Petitioner's work restrictions and that she was receiving worker's compensation benefits from the Respondent as a result of her injury. The Petitioner returned to work at Store No. 190 in Alford, Florida, under the supervision of Renate Ovaldson, who was then store manager. The Petitioner was placed on light duty which is generally defined as merely operating the cash register. She was allowed to sit on a stool behind the counter while she worked, in view of her condition. The Petitioner was later transferred to Store No. 226 in Marianna, Florida. That store was under the supervision of George Susanka, the Marianna store manager. The basis for transferring the Petitioner to that store was that Mr. Susanka was shorthanded and needed another sales associate. Mr. Susanka had previously maintained a positive working relationship with the Petitioner at Store No. 190, and the decision to transfer the Petitioner to Store No. 226 was deemed to be beneficial to the store and to Mr. Susanka. The Petitioner was given light duty at Store No. 226, also, and was given a stool to sit on while she worked. Mr. Susanka was aware that she was taking medication for her back injury. Mr. Susanka's supervisor, Keith Shipman, was not aware that the Petitioner was taking medication. Store No. 226 was considered a less busy store in terms of sales volume; however, the neighborhood was considered to be less desirable. Mr. Susanka soon began receiving verbal complaints regarding the Petitioner's attitude toward customers at Store No. 226. He received a verbal complaint from a Ms. Virginia Smith stating that the Petitioner had been flirting with several men one evening at the counter and had permitted them to go into the store cooler and leave the store with beer without paying for it. A written statement signed by Virginia Smith regarding this incident was later received by the Respondent and placed in the Petitioner's personnel file. Mr. Susanka confronted the Petitioner concerning this incident and asked her if she had been afraid to report the theft, and she indicated that she was not. Mr. Susanka and the assistant store manager, Mr. Coley, conducted a "night ride", whereby they parked their car across the street from the store to observe activities at the store while the Petitioner was on duty. Mr. Susanka witnessed a customer walk in the store and walk out with a small item without paying for it. The only door in which to enter and exit the store was a few feet directly in front of the cash register counter. Mr. Susanka submitted a written statement on the incident, which was placed in the Petitioner's personnel file by the Respondent. Mr. Susanka discussed the various complaints he had received concerning the Petitioner's attitude, performance, and the incident he observed with Mr. Coley with his district manager, Keith Shipman. Mr. Shipman had been aware of prior complaints which the Respondent had received about the Petitioner's attitude with customers, as well. Based upon the documents contained in the personnel file, customer complaints and the fact of customers leaving the store without paying for merchandise while the Petitioner was on duty, and Mr. Susanka's relation of the various incidents, Mr. Susanka and Mr. Shipman made a decision to terminate the Petitioner. The stated reason for Petitioner's termination was violation of company policy and poor customer relations. Mr. Susanka completed an employee status report terminating the Petitioner on July 24, 1991. That report stated that the reason for termination was "on Saturday, July 20, 1991, the clerk, Jo- Ann Duffy, was talking and laughing with six guys at the counter and at that time there was three to four guys in the cooler and walked out with beer and did pay for it and also has a bad attitude with customers". Mr. Susanka testified that the statement had been written in error and it should have read "did not pay for it". The employee status report was signed by Mr. Susanka and Mr. Shipman and placed in the Petitioner's personnel file. Mr. Shipman stated that due to the fact that inventory control was so important in the convenience store business, the Respondent simply could not afford to keep in its employee a sales associate who allowed merchandise to leave the store unpaid for. The Respondent's disciplinary and termination policy no. 040-003 generally states the procedures for discipline and termination. The robbery/theft Policy No. 030-040 states that an employee who violates the guidelines of the robbery and theft policy (as the Petitioner did) is subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-5313 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fac A-C. Accepted. D. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. E-F. Accepted. G-H. Accepted, but not in itself materially dispositive. I-J. Accepted, but not in themselves materially dispositive. Rejected, as not in accord with the greater weight of this witness' testimony which was that some violations, such as allowing theft to occur, are the proper subjects of first occurrence terminations. Accepted, but not itself material. Rejected, as immaterial. Rejected, as immaterial given the greater weight of the testimony and evidence, which the Hearing Officer has accepted and embodied in the above Findings of Fact. Rejected, as immaterial. Accepted. Accepted, but not materially dispositive. Accepted, but not materially dispositive in itself. S-T. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. The Respondent's position in this case does not depend upon all low inventory being the fault of the Petitioner. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-24. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esq. General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Ms. Jo-Ann Duffy Route One, Box 221-X Chipley, FL 32428 Kelly Brewton Plante, Esq. TAYLOR, BRION, BUKER & GREENE 225 South Adams Street Suite 250 Tallahassee, FL 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violation alleged in Petitioner's Public Accommodations Complaint of Discrimination and, if so, what relief should the Florida Commission on Human Relations grant Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is a black woman. On March 27, 2007, Petitioner went shopping at the Wal- Mart Supercenter located at 9300 Northwest 77th Avenue in Hialeah Gardens, Florida (Store). This was Petitioner's "favorite store." She had shopped there every other week for the previous four or five years and had had a positive "overall [shopping] experience." At no time had she ever had any problem making purchases at the Store. At around 5:00 p.m. on March 27, 2007, Petitioner entered the Store's electronics department to look for two black ink cartridges for her printer. In her cart were several items she had picked up elsewhere in the store (for which she had not yet paid). Because the cartridges she needed were located in a locked display cabinet, Petitioner went to the counter at the electronics department to ask for assistance. Maria Castillo was the cashier behind the counter. She was engaged in a "casual conversation," punctuated with laughter, with one of the Store's loss prevention officers, Jessy Fair, as she was taking care of a customer, Carlos Fojo, a non-black Hispanic off-duty lieutenant with the Hialeah Gardens Police Department. Lieutenant Fojo was paying for a DVD he intended to use as a "training video." The DVD had been in a locked display cabinet in the electronics department. A sales associate had taken the DVD out of the cabinet for Lieutenant Fojo. It was Store policy to require customers seeking to purchase items in locked display cabinets in the electronics department to immediately pay for these items at the electronics department register. Lieutenant Fojo was making his purchase in accordance with that policy. Two Store sales associates, Carlos Espino and Sigfredo Gomez, were near the counter in the electronics department when Petitioner requested assistance. In response to Petitioner's request for help, Mr. Espino and Mr. Gomez went to the locked display cabinet to get two black ink cartridges for Petitioner, with Petitioner following behind them. Ms. Castillo and Mr. Fair remained at the counter and continued their lighthearted conversation, as Ms. Castillo was finishing up with Lieutenant Fojo. Petitioner was offended by Ms. Castillo's and Mr. Fair's laughter. She thought that they were laughing at her because she was black (despite her not having any reasonable basis to support such a belief). She turned around and loudly and angrily asked Ms. Castillo and Mr. Fair what they were laughing at. After receiving no response to her inquiry, she continued on her way behind Mr. Espino and Mr. Gomez to the display cabinet containing the ink cartridges. When Mr. Espino arrived at the cabinet, he unlocked and opened the cabinet door and removed two black ink cartridges, which he handed to Mr. Gomez. Petitioner took the cartridges from Mr. Gomez and placed them in her shopping cart. Mr. Espino tried to explain to Petitioner that, in accordance with Store policy, before doing anything else, she needed to go the register in the electronics department and pay for the ink cartridges. Petitioner responded by yelling at Mr. Espino and Mr. Gomez. In a raised voice, she proclaimed that she was "no thief" and "not going to steal" the ink cartridges, and she "repeated[ly]" accused Mr. Espino and Mr. Gomez of being "racist." Instead of going directly to the register in the electronics department to pay for the cartridges (as she had been instructed to do by Mr. Espino), Petitioner took her shopping cart containing the ink cartridges and the other items she intended to purchase and "proceeded over to the CD aisle" in the electronics department. Mr. Espino "attempt[ed] to speak to her," but his efforts were thwarted by Petitioner's "screaming at [him and Mr. Gomez as to] how racist they were." Lieutenant Fojo, who had completed his DVD purchase, heard the commotion and walked over to the "CD aisle" to investigate. When he got there, he approached Petitioner and asked her, "What's the problem?" She responded, "Oh, I see you too are racist and I see where this is coming from." Lieutenant Fojo went on to tell Petitioner the same thing that Mr. Espino had: that the ink cartridges had to be taken to the register in the electronics department and paid for immediately ("just like he had paid for his [DVD]"). Petitioner was defiant. She told Lieutenant Fojo that she would eventually pay for the cartridges, but she was "still shopping." Moreover, she continued her rant that Lieutenant Fojo and the Store employees were "racist." "[C]ustomers in the area were gathering" to observe the disturbance. To avoid a further "disrupt[ion] [of] the normal business affairs of the [S]tore," Lieutenant Fojo directed Petitioner to leave and escorted her outside the Store. In taking such action, Lieutenant Fojo was acting solely in his capacity as a law enforcement officer with the Hialeah Gardens Police Department. Once outside the Store, Lieutenant Fojo left Petitioner to go to his vehicle. Petitioner telephoned the Hialeah Gardens Police Department to complain about the treatment she had just received and waited outside the Store for a police officer to arrive in response to her call. Officer Lawrence Perez of the Hialeah Gardens Police Department responded to the scene and met Petitioner outside the Store. After conducting an investigation of the matter, Officer Perez issued Petitioner a trespass warning, directing that she not return to the Store. At no time subsequent to the issuance of this trespass warning has Petitioner returned the Store (although she has shopped at other Wal-Mart stores in the area). While Petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity to shop at the Store, it has been because of action taken, not by any Store employee, but by Hialeah Gardens law enforcement personnel. Moreover, there has been no showing that Petitioner's race was a motivating factor in the taking of this action.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order dismissing Petitioner's Public Accommodations Complaint of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 10th day of September, 2006.
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 The issue is whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of his disability, and whether the Respondent’s discharge of the Petitioner from employment was unlawfully based upon his disability, in contravention of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2003), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 1201 et seq.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner worked for the Respondent from September 17, 1999 through July 9, 2002. At the time of his termination from employment on July 9, 2002, the Petitioner worked in the Respondent’s Pensacola, Florida, Store No. 1605 under the supervision of Front End Assistant Manager Jackie Lewis and Store Co-Manager Rodney Snyder. The Petitioner’s last position with Wal-Mart was as a “People Greeter,” working eight-hour shifts. The Petitioner suffers from diabetes. On his employment application, the Petitioner indicated that he was able to work any scheduled hours and was seeking full-time employment. The Petitioner’s diabetes did not interfere with his ability to secure full-time employment. The Petitioner began his employment with the Respondent in Pensacola, Florida, Store No. 1222 as a maintenance associate, handling janitorial tasks. During the time he worked as a maintenance associate the Petitioner had his diabetes “under control.” The Petitioner completed an ADA “Job Matrix” form provided by the Respondent, on which he represented that he was able to perform all essential functions of his position without the need for any accommodation. No mention was made by the Petitioner at that time of his diabetic condition or resulting need for an accommodation. The Petitioner had “run-ins” with store management during his tenure as an employee of the Respondent. The Petitioner had a “run-in” with a Meat Department Manager over an assignment to mop-up a sugar spill, which the Petitioner refused to do. The Petitioner complained about supplies, or the lack thereof, at the store. The Petitioner admitted that there were tasks he simply refused to perform. The Petitioner had several problems with his co- workers and managers. On August 28, 2001, the Petitioner’s poor work attitude was cited on his annual performance appraisal, which was termed “below expectations.” During the course of his employment with the Respondent, the Petitioner was disciplined on several occasions through Wal-Mart’s “coaching” process. On February 17, 2001, the Petitioner received a “written coaching” for his failure to perform assigned job tasks, and he was informed that he needed to improve his job performance. Neither the annual performance rating nor the “coaching” session was caused by the Petitioner’s medical condition. On July 31, 2001, the Petitioner received a more severe form of coaching, a “Decision-Making-Day.” The coaching indicated that the Petitioner failed to complete jobs in a timely manner, questioned the authority of his managers, and had trouble following the directions of supervisors. The Petitioner was informed that if his performance did not improve he would be terminated. The Petitioner was given a day off to consider whether he wanted to continue to work for the Respondent and to prepare a performance action plan. In his performance action plan, the Petitioner indicated he would be more productive and approach his work with a more positive attitude. Following his performance action plan, the Petitioner requested and was granted a transfer to the position of "People Greeter," who works at the front of the store and welcomes customers as they enter the store. A "People Greeter" also performs certain tasks related to security. The Petitioner claimed to have given the Respondent’s personnel office a doctor’s note on June 27, 2002, indicating that the Petitioner needed a break every two hours in order to properly regulate his medication. The note made no mention of the Petitioner’s diabetic condition. The Respondent disavows any knowledge of receipt of a note concerning the Petitioner’s medical condition and need for frequent breaks. The Petitioner claimed that he was not always given the breaks he needed to regulate his medication. Given the nature of retail operations, in terms of the ebb and flow of shoppers entering the store, regular breaks are not always possible. Prior to the alleged submission of the doctor’s note on June 27, 2002, the Petitioner received coaching from his supervisors. On June 22, 2002, the Petitioner received verbal coaching from Ms. Jacqueline Lewis concerning his lack of respect for Customer Service Managers and other store management. Ms. Lewis received a statement from the Petitioner’s trainer indicating he refused to follow Wal-Mart policies for the "People Greeter" position. Ms. Lewis received written complaints from other co- workers of the Petitioner concerning his performance as a "People Greeter." All of these statements were factors in Ms. Lewis’ evaluation of the Petitioner’s performance as a "People Greeter." On the day of his termination, the Petitioner shouted 75-feet across the front of the store to the Customer Service Manager, requesting that she contact Ms. Lewis about issues taking place in the front of the store. He called a second time when his first request went unheeded. This behavior took place in front of store customers. Based upon the shouting incident, the Petitioner’s violation of policies, and the written complaints from co- workers, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner’s employment on July 9, 2002. The specific reasons given for the Petitioner’s termination were his inability to perform his job and for his not being respectful of other associates. The Petitioner believes that his co-workers and supervisors were aware of his diabetes. No co-workers or supervisors of the Petitioner testified at hearing that they were aware of the Petitioner’s diabetes. Ms. Lewis, the Front End Assistant Manager in the store, was not aware of the Petitioner’s diabetes. Ms. Carolyn Miller, the head Customer Service Manager for the store, was not aware of the Petitioner’s diabetes. Mr. Snyder, the store co-manager, was not aware of the Petitioner’s diabetes. Upon termination from employment with Wal-Mart, the Petitioner secured a Florida security guard license on his first try and obtained work as a security guard. The Petitioner was able to work a full eight-hour shift while employed by the Respondent. The Petitioner was able to perform the duties of his maintenance position when he held that job. At the time of his termination, the Petitioner was actively seeking a new position with Wal-Mart in the heating and ventilation area. When the Petitioner was unable to perform tasks associated with his employment, he attributed this to “old age,” and not his diabetes. The Petitioner planned to open his own steam cleaning and air conditioning repair business while he worked at Wal-Mart and felt physically able to do so. Since his termination from Wal-Mart, the Petitioner has secured gainful employment as a security guard at various factories, involving activities such as walking and driving trucks. The Petitioner has plans to rewire his house by himself. The Petitioner’s diabetes is kept in control by medication, and he does not require insulin.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding that the Respondent did not discriminate against the Petitioner and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2004, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John M. Dickson 7870 Castlegate Drive Pensacola, Florida 32534-4555 Richard L. Ruth, Esquire Ford & Harrison LLP 225 Water Street, Suite 710 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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
The Issue Whether The Hertz Corporation (Hertz) committed the unlawful employment practices alleged in the employment discrimination charge filed by Petitioner and, if so, what relief should he be granted by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Black male who was employed by Hertz from 2001 until April 29, 2004, when his employment was terminated. At all times material to the instant case, Petitioner worked as a courtesy bus driver. His basic job duties included picking up Hertz rental car customers at the West Palm Beach airport and driving them to the Hertz station where they could pick up their rental cars, as well as driving Hertz customers from the Hertz station back to the airport after they turned in their rental cars. The events which precipitated Petitioner's termination of employment occurred during the night shift that began at 6:00 p.m. on April 16, 2004, and was scheduled to end at 4:00 a.m. on April 17, 2004. Events proceeded normally on that shift until about 2:00 a.m. on April 17, 2004. At that hour of the morning, Petitioner was the only courtesy bus driver on duty. At that hour the manager for the Hertz station at the West Palm Beach airport was Michael Thebner. At approximately 2:00 a.m. Petitioner dropped off some passengers at check-in who had just arrived on Jet Blue. After dropping off those passengers, Petitioner looked around to see if there were any passengers waiting to be taken back to the airport. Seeing no such passengers and believing that there were no other passengers at the airport waiting to be picked up by a Hertz courtesy bus, Petitioner parked the bus and decided to take a break. Petitioner left the outside lights of the bus turned on and left the bus motor on. He turned off the lights inside the bus, turned off the air-conditioning inside the bus, closed the bus doors, and walked to the back of the bus to take a break. While taking a break in the back of the bus, Petitioner fell asleep and remained asleep for several minutes. In the meantime, a few minutes after Petitioner parked the bus and began his break, the station manager, Thebner, received two telephone calls from Hertz customers who were waiting at the airport for the Hertz courtesy bus. Thebner immediately tried to contact Petitioner on the Nextel radio on the bus channel, but Petitioner did not respond. Thebner then paged Petitioner on the public address system, again with no response. Thebner next walked over to the bus Petitioner was operating that night and knocked first on the bus window and then on a bus door. There was no response to those knocks. Thebner tried unsuccessfully to page Petitioner on the intercom and searched for Petitioner in various places on the station premises, including the mens' room, the employee break room, and the security hut. When the search for Petitioner was unsuccessful, Thebner went back to the bus and pounded louder on the bus. This time he observed Petitioner waking up from sleeping in one of the passenger seats in the bus. Thebner told Petitioner that Petitioner was not supposed to be sleeping and Petitioner denied sleeping. Thebner then told Petitioner to drive to the airport and pick up the two waiting Hertz customers. Petitioner promptly complied and went to pick up the waiting Hertz customers. Before the end of the shift, Thebner wrote a report about the incident in which customers had to wait because Petitioner was asleep and could not be found. Thebner wrote the report because of Petitioner's conduct, which was contrary to company work rules. Thebner's decision to write the report had nothing to do with Petitioner's race. At all times material to this case, Michael Badders was the City Manager for the Hertz station at the West Palm Beach airport. Badders was the person to whom Thebner reported. On April 19, 2005, Badders received Thebner's report about the incident in which customers had to wait because Petitioner was asleep and could not be found. On April 20, 2005, Badders held a meeting with Petitioner and with a shop steward from Petitioner's union. During that meeting Petitioner denied being asleep during the incident described above. Petitioner also denied hearing the radio calls telling him there were customers waiting to be picked up. On April 20, 2004, Badders delivered a memorandum to Petitioner advising Petitioner that he was being suspended pending investigation. The substance of the memorandum read as follows: "You are hear [sic] by suspended pending investigation of violation of Company Rules and Regulations. Understand that based on the results of the investigation a determination will be made as to the status of your employment. Disciplinary action up to and including termination may result." By letter dated April 23, 2004, Badders advised Petitioner as follows: "Your employment with the Hertz Corporation has been terminated effective immediately for violation of rules and regulations. Please return your uniforms when you pick up your last check." Prior to the events in the early morning hours of April 17, 2004, Petitioner had already been through several steps of the Hertz progressive discipline policy as a result of several instances of prior breaches of Hertz work rules and policies. The termination of Petitioner's employment was consistent with established Hertz disciplinary policies applicable to all employees. Hertz has previously terminated the employment of another courtesy bus driver at its West Palm Beach facility who was discovered sleeping while he was supposed to be on duty.1 On one or more occasions Petitioner, in his capacity as Alternate Shop Steward of Teamsters Local Union #390, engaged in activity that was probably protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act, but there is no persuasive evidence that Petitioner engaged in any activity protected by Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.2 Specifically, there is no persuasive evidence that, as asserted in his original charge, Petitioner "had to bring to the company's attention its discriminatory practices toward Black employees."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR issue a final order in this case finding that Hertz is not guilty of any of the "unlawful employment practices" alleged by Petitioner and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 5th day of October, 2005.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Winn Dixie, discriminated against Petitioner, Simon Rowland, on the basis of his disability (cerebral palsy) in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an elderly man who has had cerebral palsy since birth. In August 2004, Petitioner went to work at the Dundee, Florida, Winn Dixie store as a courtesy clerk or bagger. His duties were to retrieve shopping carts from the parking lot, help customers, clean restrooms, and other general duties. He was not as fast a worker as others, but Winn Dixie accommodated him so that he could continue working. Petitioner claims that he was initially told he would work 20 to 25 hours per week. Winn Dixie asserts that he was given no indication of hours he might work. It is clear that Petitioner worked approximately ten hours per week during his employment. Lora Prine was the manager of the Dundee store, and Petitioner enjoyed working with Prine. Prine was later transferred to the Winter Haven store, and Petitioner asked to be transferred there, as well. There was no position open at first, but when a position became available, Prine contacted Petitioner to apply. When he was hired at the Winter Haven store, Petitioner was told that he would average between ten and 15 hours per week. While Petitioner was working at the Winter Haven store, Prine would make sure that his duties were consistent with his capabilities. She would make sure that Petitioner had assistance when lifting heavy objects, for example, when he was bagging groceries. Prine also allowed Petitioner to leave work early on many occasions due to illness and to miss work altogether at times, e.g., when he needed to visit his ailing brother in Gainesville. Petitioner freely admits that Prine and Winn Dixie accommodated him when he was working there. In November 2009, Petitioner was hospitalized for a week. The hospitalization involved an unnamed malady, but Petitioner was adamant that it did not involve a stroke. There is no evidence that Winn Dixie believes Petitioner suffered a stroke at that time. Upon release from the hospital, Petitioner was provided with portable oxygen. He said that the oxygen was supposed to be used while he was sleeping, but he used it a few times during the day right after he got out of the hospital. Prine learned from Petitioner's son that Petitioner was using oxygen. In mid-January 2010, Petitioner called Prine to see about coming back to work. Prine had just returned from medical leave and asked Petitioner to call her back in a few days. When Petitioner called back, he discussed his hospitalization and convalescence with Prine. He informed Prine of his need to utilize oxygen as a result of his illness. Prine suggested to Petitioner that maybe it was time for him to retire; Petitioner agreed with Prine that it was time. Prine annotated Petitioner's work file to indicate he was on retired status.
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 Petitioner, Simon Rowland's, Petition for Relief in full. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 2011, 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 19th day of April, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of Sections 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Conoco meets the statutory definition of an "employer" within the meaning of Section 760.02, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Marlan D. Williams, who is black, is a member of a class protected by this statute. Petitioner began work at Conoco on January 4, 1990, as a sales associate and was discharged from his employment on May 27, 1992. When Mr. Williams was hired on January 4, 1990, he was required to sign a new employee agreement. Section 3 of that agreement explains to new employees the importance of good customer relations. After reading the employment contract, Mr. Williams signed the agreement. Mr. Williams testified that he understood the importance of good customer relations. Mr. Williams also testified that he understood that he could be terminated for multiple customer complaints and was aware of a white employee who had been terminated for customer complaints. Conoco's personnel policies and procedures regarding termination state in relevant part that, "involuntary terminations occur for a reason, such as when an employee's performance does not meet acceptable standards, if the employee violates Company policy, or when there is no work available for the individual." The details of Conoco's policy were left up to each sales district's manager. In this case, the district manager was Tammy Hunter. Her policy was that three complaints involving customers would result in termination. Ms. Hunter was not concerned with the truth behind these complaints, but only with the fact of multiple complaints. In the past, Conoco, through Ms. Hunter, has consistently applied its termination policy to employees receiving complaints involving customers in a nondiscriminatory manner. In fact, there was no evidence presented at the hearing that the policy was not applied in a nondiscriminatory or had unintended discriminatory impact. 1/ Over the term of his employment Mr. Williams received at least three complaints. Two of the complaints were made by customers directly to Ms. Hunter. One complaint was reported by management to Ms. Hunter and involved a very heated and nasty argument between Mr. Williams and a manager trainee in front of customers. Numerous other incidences of nonspecific poor customer relations involving employees and poor attitude were noted by the store manager, Julia Meuse. Mr. Williams received informal verbal and written counseling regarding his poor behavior towards customers, from his store manager and two assistant store managers. Conoco accordingly discharged Mr. Williams for violation of the Company policy regarding acceptable performance standards in customer relations and customer complaints. The evidence did not demonstrate these reasons were pretextual. Petitioner failed to present any evidence that he was replaced by a person not from a protected class. Therefore Petitioner has not established a prima facie case of discrimination. Finally, the decision to discharge Mr. Williams was made in good faith, for legitimate nondiscriminatory business reasons, and was based upon the objective application of Conoco's policies. Since Petitioner has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the reasons given by the Respondent for discharging him were a mere pretext to cover up discrimination on the basis of race, Petitioner has failed to establish he was discriminated against and therefore the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was discriminated against because of his race in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act and that the petition be dismissed. DONE AND ORDERED this 2nd day of June, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 2nd day of June, 1994.
