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.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Norma J. Nolan, was discriminated against by Respondent, K.D.P., Inc. d/b/a Western Sizzlin Steak House, in violation of the Human Rights Act of 1977, as amended, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, on the basis of handicap, constituting an unlawful employment practice. Whether Petitioner has established a basis for, or entitlement to, an award of damages if, in fact, the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: K. D. P., Inc., operated a restaurant known as Western Sizzlin Steak House in Bradenton, Florida, which business was established prior to the alleged incident of July 1990. This business has continued in operation to the current time under the same management and with many of the same employees, although the restaurant has subsequently become known as Cattle Company Cafe. The Respondent, K. D. P., Inc., d/b/a Western Sizzlin Steak House, now known as Cattle Company Cafe (KDP), owned by Jack Parrish, has been managed by Kevin Wreford for approximately twelve years. Parrish relies on Wreford for the day-to-day operation of the business, hiring and firing decisions, and supervisory responsibility. The Petitioner was employed from December 1989 through February 1990 by Upjohn Health Care on a part-time basis as a respite worker. While she was physically able to do that job, Petitioner chose to leave that employment as it had little work available for her with that agency and Petitioner wished to work at a location closer to her home. Petitioner applied for employment with KDP by way of written application on August 2, 1990. Petitioner's employment application did not indicate any physical handicap, disability or limitation. Wreford interviewed Petitioner for the position of part-time cashier in early 1991. During the interview, Wreford discussed with the Petitioner the duties of the position for which she had applied. Those duties included taking payment from customers at the cashier's stand, overseeing the salad and sundae bar, checking the women's restroom, cleaning glass in the area of cashier's stand and watching for walkouts (walkouts being customers who walk out without paying for their meals). Petitioner advised Wreford that she was capable of performing these duties but was concerned about her lack of experience in working with cash and making change. Wreford hired Petitioner as a temporary, part-time cashier, and Petitioner began work in that capacity for Respondent on February 3, 1991. Petitioner continued in the employment of the Respondent in the capacity of part-time cashier through July 17, 1991. At the time Petitioner was hired by Respondent on February 3, 1991 there was a large wooden bar stool located behind the counter where the cashier took payments for meals. All cashiers working for the Respondent, including Petitioner, were allowed to sit on this stool at times when they were not waiting on customers (cashiers were required to stand while waiting on customers) or performing other assigned duties as set out in Finding of Fact 6. Sometime around July 1, 1991, Wreford discussed with the cashiers, including Petitioner, his concerns about the cashiers not performing their other assigned duties when they were not waiting on customers. Performing other assigned duties required the cashiers to be away from the cashier's area. At this time, Petitioner made Wreford aware of her knee problem and advised him that she may have difficulty standing for long periods of time. There had been no mention of this problem previously nor had Petitioner experienced any problem with her knee previously. Likewise, Petitioner did not experience any problems with her knee in carrying out her assigned duties during the next two weeks. In fact, both Wreford and Parrish were pleased with Petitioner's performance during this period. On or about July 12, 1991, Parrish's wife who had become involved in the management of the restaurant advised Parrish that the stool needed to be removed from the cashier area because: (a) the stool was showing its wear and tear and was aesthetically unpleasing; (b) the stool was taking up too much room resulting in the cashiers not being able to perform their duties properly, particularly looking for walkouts and; (c) to prevent a certain cashier (not Petitioner) from abusing the privilege of the stool by sitting on the stool for extended periods of time and not performing her other assigned duties. On or about July 12, 1991, Parrish removed the stool from the caahier's area and placed it in his office where it remains today because the stool has a sentimental value in that Parrish used the stool in his first restaurant. On or about July 13, 1991, when Petitioner arrived for work and noticed the stool had been removed she met with Parrish and Wreford and advised them that she could not work without the stool because of her knee. Parrish and Wreford offered to accommodate her problem by allowing Petitioner to sit at a table adjacent to the cashier area when she was not waiting on customers or performing her other assigned duties. Petitioner advised Parrish and Wreford that she could not work under those conditions but that she would stay on until a replacement was found. Parrish and Wreford accepted Petitioner's resignation but encouraged Petitioner to continue her employment until she could determine if the accommodation would be satisfactory. Petitioner continued to work for Respondent until July 17, 1991, and was able to function without any problems with her knee under the accommodations provided by Respondent. However, after Petitioner resigned she never asked to be reinstated even though she was able to function under the accommodations provided by Respondent. Although Petitioner alleged that she had a physical disability/handicap because of problems she had related to an alleged right knee replacement done some years earlier, there was no medical evidence or other documentation establishing any physical handicap or restrictions/limitations in her ability to work. There were other cashiers employed by Respondent who had conditions similar to Petitioner's conditions who were able to function with the same accommodation offered Petitioner. One of those was the person hired by Respondent to take Petitioner's position. Petitioner collected unemployment compensation after leaving Respondent's employment, as well as other forms of assistance, such as food stamps and housing assistance. Additionally, after leaving Respondent's employment Petitioner developed "female problems" and is not seeking employment even though she attended computer school. There was no evidence as to the amount of damages suffered by Petitioner. There is insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that Petitioner was discriminated against on the basis of a handicap by Respondent or that any unlawful employment practice occurred. There is competent substantial evidence in the record to establish facts to show that there were legitimate, nondiscriminatory business reasons for the action taken by Respondent in removing the stool and providing other accommodations for the cashiers, including Petitioner. There was insufficient evidence to establish facts to show that the Respondent's articulated reasons for its action were pretextual.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a Final Order finding that the Petitioner, Norma J. Nolan, was not discharged due to her handicap in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, and that the Petition For Relief be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of June, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 8th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-3903 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed Findings of Fact 1 through 13 have been adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order, except where they may be subordinate, cumulative, unnecessary, irrelevant, immaterial or a restatement of testimony rather than presented as a finding of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Proposed Findings of Fact 1 through 32 have been adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order, except where they may be subordinate, cumulative, unnecessary, irrelevant, immaterial or a restatement of testimony rather than presented as a finding of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Norma J. Nolan, Pro Se 1109 Harvard Avenue Bradenton, Florida 34207 Donna L. Derfoot, Esquire Post Office Box 3979 Sarasota, Florida 34230 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahasse, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of age for the reasons stated in the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was born in 1953. At the time of the events which form the basis for his claim, he was more than forty years old. The Petitioner was born in Cuba and spent most of his life in Cuba. The Petitioner came to the United States of America approximately two years before the events which form the basis for his claim. The Petitioner speaks fluent Spanish, but does not speak English. In October of 1999, the Petitioner was hired by the City of Hialeah Gardens as a laborer in the Parks Department at a pay rate of $6.50 per hour. The Petitioner is still employed by the City of Hialeah Gardens as a laborer in the Parks Department at a pay rate of $6.50 per hour. The Petitioner's pay rate has never been changed during his employment with the City of Hialeah Gardens. During his employment with the City of Hialeah Gardens, the Petitioner has never held either the position of "Maintenance Supervisor" or the position of "Assistant Parks Director." During his employment with the City of Hialeah Gardens, the Petitioner has never been demoted from either the position of "Maintenance Supervisor" or the position of "Assistant Parks Director." The Mayor of the City of Hialeah Gardens has the sole authority and responsibility to make employment decisions. The Mayor appointed Nivaldo Rodriguez (Rodriguez) to the position of Assistant Parks Director. At the time of the appointment, Rodriguez was in his late twenties. At the time of the appointment, Rodriguez spoke fluent English and Spanish. At the time of the appointment, Rodriguez was a friend of the Mayor and the Mayor was aware of his qualifications for the position. The Mayor appointed Rodriguez to the position of "Assistant Parks Director" because he thought he was qualified for the position. The Mayor also thought that the Petitioner was not qualified for the position because, among other things, the Petitioner did not speak English. It is necessary to be able to speak English in order to fulfill all of the duties of the position of "Assistant Parks Director." The Mayor had credible non-discriminatory reasons to appoint Rodriguez as "Assistant Park Director," and not to appoint the Petitioner to that position. There is no credible evidence that the Mayor's reasons for appointing Rodriguez were pretextual. Age was not a factor in the decision to appoint Rodriguez rather than the Petitioner. The evidence regarding the Respondent's hiring and termination practices does not establish any pattern of age based discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the petition in this case and denying all relief sought by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 3rd day of January, 2002.
The Issue The issue in these cases is: a) whether the Department of Education is liable for attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of the Rushton case (DOAH Case No. 89-1551) and b) if so, whether such fees and costs should include those incurred in the prosecution of a rule challenge styled, Florida Education Association/United and Florida Teaching Profession/National Education Association v. Department of Education, DOAH Case No. 88-0847R.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Lewis Rushton is a person within the meaning of Section 760.02(5), Florida Statutes. Mr. Rushton is an individual within the meaning of Section 760.10(1). The Department of Education ("DOE") is a personwithin the meaning of Section 760.02(5). The School Board of Seminole County, Florida ("School Board"), which is also a person within the meaning of the same statute, was at all material times Mr. Rushton's "employer" within the meaning of Section 760.02(6). At all material times, Mr. Rushton was employed as a bus driver by the School Board, which removed him from this position on April 19, 1988. The reason for the School Board's action was that the continued service of Rushton, who was over 70 years of age, was contrary to Rule 6A-3.0141(a), Florida Administrative Code, which required mandatory retirement of bus drivers at age 70 years ("Rule"). The other Petitioners were similarly situated to Mr. Rushton. The only difference is that they were employed by different district school boards. The School Board gave Rushton the option to continue in employment as a bus monitor, which was a lower-paying job than bus driver. Rushton accepted this reassignment and experienced the resulting reduction in pay beginning the 1988-89 school year. At all material times, DOE, which promulgated the Rule, maintained standards affecting the ability of Rushton to engage in his occupation or trade within the meaning of Section 760.10(5). The Rule was part of these standards. On January 29, 1987, Rushton filed a Complaint of Discrimination, FCHR Case No. 88-5616, against the School Board. The Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissed this complaint on November 11, 1988. On May 3, 1988, Rushton timely filed and prosecuted a Complaint of Discrimination, FCHR Case No. 88-5703, against DOE. On September 7, 1988, the Florida Commission on Human Relations issued a Notice of Determination--Cause. The Notice of Determination names as the sole respondent the School Board, which had employed Mr. Rushton prior to requiring him to retire at age 70. After DOE filed a Request for Reconsideration on September 16, the Florida Commission on Human Relations issued on January 12, 1989, a Notice of Redetermination--Cause. The Notice of Redetermination names DOE as the sole respondent. The Notice of Redetermination states that DOE's "assertion that [the Rule] is an established 'bona fide occupational qualification' for employment has not been upheld." The quoted statement in the Notice of Redetermination is to a final order issued December 14, 1988. The final order found the Rule to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The final order was the culmination of a Section 120.56 challenge to the Rule that had been prosecuted against DOE by two unions representing the Petitioners. This rule challenge was styled, Florida Education Association/United v. Department of Education, DOAH Case No. 88-0847R ("Rule Challenge"). The Florida Teaching Profession/National Education Association was an intervenor on the side of the petitioner in the Rule Challenge. Lorene C. Powell represented the petitioner in theRule Challenge, and Vernon T. Grizzard, of Chamblee, Miles and Grizzard, and the law firm of Egan, Lev & Siwica, represented the intervenor. As the final hearing in the Rule Challenge approached, DOE requested abatements of the pending cases in which individual bus drivers had sought relief under Section 760.10. At that time, the cases of all Petitioners except Mr. Rushton were pending in the Division of Administrative Hearings. The grounds for the abatements were that the decision in the Rule Challenge "would substantially affect the outcome" of the pending individual cases. Each case was abated. The parties in the Rule Challenge stipulated that various counties, due to the Rule, had not rehired bus drivers who would have been rehired but for the fact that they had attained the age of 70 years. The parties also agreed that Sections 760.10 and 112.0444 [sic], together with cited federal law, "do not permit an age limitation on employment with the exception of where such an age limitation is based on Bona Fide Occupational Qualification." The stipulated issues for determination in the Rule Challenge included "whether the 70-year old age barrier . . . is a [bona fide occupational qualification] and thus a valid exception to the state and federal ban on age discrimination based solely on chronological age." By memorandum dated January 11, 1989, DOE informed school board superintendents of the final order invalidating the Rule. By letter dated February 9, 1989, the School Boardnotified Mr. Rushton that DOE was no longer requiring enforcement of the mandatory retirement rule and he could return to work as a bus driver if he could meet certain lawful requirements. Each Petitioner was so notified by his respective school board. By Petition for Relief filed March 21, 1989, Mr. Rushton sought relief against the School Board and DOE, including a finding that mandating his retirement due to age was an unlawful employment practice, an award of back pay and associated benefits, and an award of attorneys' fees in the prosecution of the subject proceeding and such other proceedings as were necessary or appropriate to obtain the relief and apportioning the fees between the School Board and DOE. With the filing of the Petition for Relief on March 21, 1989, John Chamblee of the law firm of Chamblee, Miles and Grizzard entered his appearance for Mr. Rushton. Mr. Chamblee had been retained for Mr. Rushton by his union, the Florida Teaching Profession/National Education Association. On or shortly after May 1, 1989, the School Board settled with Mr. Rushton by agreeing to compensate him for back pay, interest, and other benefits constituting relief otherwise available under Section 760.10. Similar settlements between the other Petitioners and their respective school boards resulted in the dismissal of all claims against the various school boards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitions for Relief in the above-styled cases. ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Chamblee, Jr. Chamblee, Miles and Grizzard 202 Cardy Street Tampa, FL 33606 Vernon T. Grizzard Chamblee, Miles & Grizzard 116 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Sydney H. McKenzie III General Counsel Carl J. Zahner Assistant General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, FL 32399 Lorene C. Powell, Assistant General Counsel FEA/United 208 W. Pensacola Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Ned N. Julian, Jr. Sun Bank Building, Suite 22 Post Office Box 1330 Sanford, FL 32772 Tobe Lev Egan, Lev & Siwica P.O. Box 2231 Orlando, FL 32802 Norman Smith Brinson, Smith & Smith 1201 W. Emmett St. Kissimmee, FL 32741 ROBERT E. MEALE 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 2nd day of May, 1990. William H. Vogel, Assistant Superintendent Personnel and Administrative Services P.O. Box 1948 Kissimmee, FL 32742-1948 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Margaret Jones, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed discriminatory employment practices against Petitioner in violation of Chapter 70 of the Pinellas County Code as alleged in the Complaint, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner is a 44-year-old African-American male. FMS is a package delivery company that does business in Pinellas County. According to Petitioner, FMS has more than 100 employees. FMS was provided due notice of the date, time, and location of the final hearing in this case, but no appearance was made on its behalf. Petitioner’s Job Duties and Salary at FMS Petitioner started working for FMS in late 1999 or early 2000 as a “driver.” Petitioner’s primary job responsibility was to drive a delivery truck along a designated route to deliver and pick up packages. Petitioner was also responsible for loading the to- be-delivered packages on his truck in the morning and then unloading any picked-up packages from his truck in the evening. Petitioner worked Monday through Friday. His shift started at 7:00 a.m. each day. Petitioner’s gross pay was initially $650 every two weeks, but at some point Petitioner's salary was increased to $750 every two weeks.1 Petitioner did not receive health or dental insurance or other benefits. Failure to Switch Trucks as Directed (Complaint, Count III) Chronologically, the first event alleged in the Complaint as a basis of Petitioner’s discrimination claim started on the morning of Friday, February 8, 2002, when Petitioner’s boss, Tom Aliotti, directed Petitioner to switch trucks with another driver named Eddie. Later that day, Mr. Aliotti told Petitioner that he would switch the trucks over the weekend. As a result, Petitioner and Eddie did not switch the trucks on Friday. The trucks were not switched over the weekend, and on the morning of Monday, February 11, 2002, Mr. Aliotti again directed Petitioner to switch trucks with Eddie. Petitioner did not switch the trucks on Monday morning as directed by Mr. Aliotti because he was too busy preparing to run his delivery route. Petitioner testified that Eddie was equally responsible for the trucks not getting switched because he could not switch trucks with Eddie without Eddie’s participation; however, it is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony what specifically Eddie did or did not do in regard to switching the trucks. After Petitioner failed to switch the trucks on Monday as directed, he was given a written reprimand for insubordination by Mr. Aliotti. The written reprimand, which is referred to as a Counseling Sheet (see Exhibit P4), stated: “[Petitioner] will switch trucks tonite [sic] 2/11/02 or [he] will not be working 2/12/02. Day off without pay.” Petitioner testified that he did not switch the trucks even after the directive on the Counseling Sheet. It is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony whether he was suspended without pay on February 12, 2002. According to Petitioner, Eddie was not reprimanded for the incident. It is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony whether a reprimand was appropriate for Eddie because it is unknown whether Mr. Aliotti also told Eddie to switch the trucks and, as stated above, it is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony what specifically Eddie did or did not do to frustrate the truck switching. Eddie, like Petitioner, is an African-American male. Attendance Issues in March 2002 (Complaint, Counts I and II) The other allegations of discrimination in the Complaint relate to discipline imposed on Petitioner for his unexcused absences from work on several occasions in March 2002. Petitioner submitted a written request for a half-day of leave on Friday, March 1, 2002, in which he stated that he needed to “go out of town to attend a funeral” because of a “death in [his] family.” See Exhibit P1, at page 3. That request was approved, and Petitioner was expected to be back at work on Monday, March 4, 2002. Petitioner attended the funeral of his brother in Largo, Florida, on Saturday, March 2, 2002. Later that same day, he traveled to Madison, Florida, to attend funeral services for his uncle. See Exhibits P2 and P3. For reasons that are unclear in the record, Petitioner did not return to work on Monday, March 4, 2002, as he was expected to do. If a driver was going to be unexpectedly absent from work, he or she was required to let the boss know before 7:00 a.m. so that a substitute or “on-call” driver could be contacted to take over the absent driver’s route. Getting another driver to take over the absent driver's route was important to FMS because some of the packages that the company delivers have to get to the customer by 10:30 a.m. Petitioner understood the importance of this requirement. According to Petitioner, he tried to call his boss before 7:00 a.m. on Monday to let him know that he would not be coming into work, but he was not able to reach his boss until several hours after 7:00 a.m. Petitioner did not produce any credible evidence to corroborate his testimony that he attempted to call his boss prior to 7:00 a.m. on Monday, and the documents introduced by Petitioner include conflicting statements as to whether Petitioner ever called on that date.2 Nevertheless, Petitioner’s testimony on this issue is accepted. When Petitioner returned to work on Tuesday, March 5, 2002, he was suspended for the day and, according to Petitioner, his delivery route was taken away. The Warning Letter that was received into evidence (Exhibit P1, at page 1) references the suspension, but not Petitioner’s route being taken away. According to Petitioner, his delivery route was given to a white female, whose identity Petitioner did not know. Thereafter, Petitioner was given menial tasks such as sweeping the floor and taking out the trash, although he also helped load packages onto the delivery trucks in the morning. Petitioner submitted a written request for leave on March 19 and 20, 2002, because he planned to be in Kentucky on those dates. Petitioner stated in the request that “I will be back to work on the [sic] 3-21.” See Exhibit P1, at page 2. The leave requested by Petitioner was approved, and he was expected to be back at work on March 21, 2002. Petitioner got a “late start” on his drive back from Kentucky, which caused him to miss work on March 21, 2002. According to Petitioner, he used his cellular phone to call his boss before 7:00 a.m. on March 21, 2002, to let him know that he would not be coming into work, but he was not able to reach his boss until 7:30 a.m. Petitioner did not present any credible evidence, such as his cellular phone records, to corroborate his claim that he attempted to call prior to 7:00 a.m. Petitioner’s testimony on this issue was not persuasive. The record does not reflect what, if any, discipline Petitioner received for not calling prior to the start of his shift to report that he would not be coming into work on March 21, 2002. Petitioner’s pay was not reduced at any point during his employment with FMS even though, according to Petitioner, his primary job duties were changed from driving a delivery truck to sweeping the floors and taking out the trash. Petitioner continued to work at FMS until April or May 2002 when he was injured on the job while lifting a box. Petitioner’s Post-FMS Activities and Employment After his injury, Petitioner could not and did not work for approximately one year. During that period, Petitioner collected workers' compensation at the rate of $500 every two weeks.3 Approximately one year after his injury, Petitioner’s doctor allowed him to return to work on “light duty.” Thereafter, in April or May 2003, Petitioner tried to return to work with FMS but, according to Petitioner, he was told that there were no available “light duty” positions. That effectively ended Petitioner’s employment relationship with FMS. The Complaint does not allege that FMS’s failure to re-hire Petitioner was a discriminatory employment practice, nor is there any credible evidence in the record that would support such a claim. From April/May 2003 to approximately March 2004, Petitioner held only one job. He worked for approximately one week cleaning floors at a nursing home, but he left that position because of his back problems. After leaving the floor cleaning job, Petitioner did not actively look for other employment. He briefly attended a training class to become a security guard, but he did not complete the class after learning that he would not be able to be licensed as a security guard “because of his prior record.” In approximately March 2004, Petitioner was hired by a former acquaintance to work as a driver for a mortgage company. In that position, Petitioner is paid $11 per hour and he typically works 40 hours per week, which equates to gross pay of $880 every two weeks. As of the date of the hearing, Petitioner was still employed by the mortgage company. Lack of Evidence Regarding Similarly Situated Employees Petitioner presented no credible evidence regarding any “similarly situated” employees, i.e., employees who engaged in conduct that was the same as or similar to that for which Petitioner was disciplined.4 Although Petitioner testified that he “had heard” of situations where other employees had “put a manager off,” rather than immediately doing what the manager told them to do, he was not able to offer any specific examples of such insubordination. Petitioner also presented no credible evidence regarding how other employees (of any race) were disciplined for conduct that was the same as or similar to that for which Petitioner was disciplined.5
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint against FMS. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 27th day of October, 2004.
The Issue Whether Respondent, National General Management Corporation (National General), discriminated against Petitioner, Charles Hinchey, on the basis of his handicap and age in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2018).1/
Findings Of Fact The final hearing was convened at 9:30 a.m., on October 30, 2019.5/ Respondent's representatives appeared at the hearing. Petitioner did not appear. Petitioner did not otherwise file any correspondence or evidence for consideration at the final hearing. The Respondent's representatives, who had flown in from out of state, confirmed that they received the Notice of Hearing and were aware of the date, time, and location of the final hearing on October 30, 2019.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding Petitioner, Charles Hinchey, did not prove Respondent, National General Management Corporation, committed an unlawful employment practice under the FCRA based on his age or handicap, and dismissing the Petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of November, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 6th day of November, 2019
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Melvin Blum ("Mr. Blum"), was employed by the Respondent National Enquirer, Inc. ("National Enquirer"), 2/ from 1962 until his voluntary resignation in June 1980. The National Enquirer publishes a weekly tabloid newspaper in Palm Beach County, Florida. Since joining the National Enquirer, Iain Calder ("Mr. Calder") has held various positions as an employee and officer of the publication and its affiliated companies. Mr. Calder first joined the Enquirer in 1964 as London Bureau Chief. In 1967, he came to the United States as articles editor, a position he held until the early 1970's. In due course, he was promoted to senior articles editor, executive editor, editorial director, and then editor in 1975. In 1976, Mr. Calder became President of the National Enquirer. After the death of the owner, Mr. Pope, in 1988, Mr. Calder became Chairman of the company in order to sell the publication. After new owners acquired the publication, Mr. Calder became editor-in-chief of the publication and executive vice- president of the parent company. In December 1995, Mr. Calder stepped down as editor-in-chief and president and assumed the position of editor emeritus. Mr. Calder has known Mr. Blum for close to 30 years. Mr. Calder was familiar with Mr. Blum's work. When Mr. Calder was editorial director and then editor, Mr. Blum indirectly reported to him through his department head. Additionally, Mr. Calder would occasionally sit in as managing editor to learn the business of layouts. During those occasions, he would directly supervise Mr. Blum. While not close friends, Mr. Calder and Mr. Blum occasionally socialized outside of work. In Mr. Calder's view, while Mr. Blum was talented in using photographs, he had problems with headlines and with writing. Malcolm Hayes ("Mr. Hayes") first joined the National Enquirer in 1973. On his first stint at the publication, he held the positions of deskman, assistant editor, associate editor, and then managing editor. Mr. Hayes left the National Enquirer in 1986. Upon his return in 1989, he served in the position of assistant managing editor and then assumed his current position of managing editor upon the death of the prior managing editor, Nat Chrzan. Mr. Hayes first met Mr. Blum when he joined the National Enquirer in 1973. They worked together for seven years. While working together, Mr. Hayes had an opportunity to observe Mr. Blum's work. It was Mr. Hayes' general impression that while Mr. Blum was efficient, thorough, and had good layout skills, he had problems with words and headlines. Mr. Blum has had a hearing impairment since he was 17 years old. During the 18 years Mr. Blum worked at the National Enquirer, he wore a hearing aid. Both Mr. Calder and Mr. Hayes knew Mr. Blum wore a hearing aid while he worked at the National Enquirer. Neither Mr. Calder nor Mr. Hayes felt it was an impediment to his work. It was never considered a negative factor. Mr. Calder believed he communicated well with Mr. Blum while he worked at the publication. Mr. Calder did not view it as limiting Mr. Blum's ability to perform his job in any way. In July of 1990, Mr. Blum wrote to Mr. Calder inquiring about the possibility of returning to work at the National Enquirer. Mr. Calder wrote a cordial letter in reply indicating that there were no openings for the position of a deskman. Additional letters were exchanged between Mr. Blum and Mr. Calder. In a February 1, 1991, letter, Mr. Calder wrote to Mr. Blum informing him there were still no available positions on the "desk." He further indicated that should a position become available, it would be the decision of the Managing Editor whether to rehire him. While Mr. Calder had the authority to hire and always retained veto power, it was his philosophy and policy not to mandate that his department heads hire a particular individual. Upon the resignation of a key member of Mr. Hayes' staff, Mr. Hayes attempted to fill a position on the "desk" with an individual who had in addition to "desk" experience, desktop publishing skills and management potential. The paper was moving into computers and was looking for someone with those skills. Additionally, Mr. Hayes' deputy at the time indicated that he did not want to serve in that role and fill-in for Mr. Hayes in his absence. As the term is used at the National Enquirer, a deskman is an individual who is a layout editor and writes headlines, writes captions, edits copy, and basically puts the pages together. Two members of Mr. Hayes' staff recommended William Condie ("Mr. Condie") for the position. Both individuals had worked with Mr. Condie when they were employed by the New York Post. Mr. Condie was at the Post at the time he was recruited. The National Enquirer had previously been very successful in recruiting newspaper people from the New York Post. Mr. Condie met both the experience requirements and the skill requirements that the National Enquirer was seeking. Mr. Condie had been involved in "desk work" for thirty years. He had served in various "desk" capacities at the London Daily Express, New York Daily News, and New York Post. Mr. Condie had a lot of experience in laying out pages. He was also a very good headline writer with good word skills. In addition to his extensive desk experience, Condie had worked with computers both at the New York Daily News and the New York Post. He also had a personal computer at home and was somewhat of a computer buff. Mr. Condie's background also reflected management experience. Prior to coming to the National Enquirer, Mr. Condie held the position of Night Managing Editor at the New York Post; the Post was considered one of the premier tabloids in the country. Mr. Condie was responsible for supervising all aspects of production of the newspaper after the first edition. He had performed in other management positions as well. Mr. Calder had known Mr. Condie for more than 30 years. Mr. Calder had an opportunity to work with Mr. Condie when Mr. Condie had previously worked at the National Enquirer. At one point in time early in their careers, Mr. Calder had reported to Mr. Condie. Based on his experience and skills, Mr. Condie was invited to the National Enquirer for a try-out in May 1991. At the end of the trial period, Mr. Condie was offered a position. The decision to hire Mr. Condie was made on or before June 5, 1991. Mr. Hayes made the decision to hire Mr. Condie which was approved by Mr. Calder. Mr. Condie began his full-time employment at the National Enquirer on July 8, 1991. The National Enquirer hired Mr. Condie on the basis of his qualifications. Since Mr. Condie was hired, no other positions on the "desk" became available at the National Enquirer. Neither Mr. Hayes nor Mr. Calder viewed the hiring process as a competition between Mr. Condie and Mr. Blum. Had Mr. Condie never been a candidate, Mr. Blum would not have been selected for the position. Mr. Blum lacked the qualifications that the National Enquirer was looking for in a candidate. Both Mr. Hayes and Mr. Calder were familiar with Mr. Blum's abilities and limitations. Mr. Hayes had worked with Mr. Blum for seven years. During that time, Mr. Hayes had an opportunity to observe Mr. Blum's professional work. While he felt Blum was efficient and thorough and had good layout skills, he felt Mr. Blum had problems with words and headlines. The nature of the publication had also changed since Mr. Blum had worked at the National Enquirer. Mr. Blum also did not have the management experience that Mr. Hayes was looking for in a candidate. During his entire time at the National Enquirer, Mr. Blum was never in a management position. Since leaving the National Enquirer, Mr. Blum's only managerial experience was at Senior Power, a free newspaper he started with another individual. While Mr. Blum was responsible for all business decisions, editorial decisions, and finances at Senior Power, it was a naive business concept and a financial failure. Given their personal experience with Mr. Blum, both Mr. Hayes and Mr. Calder felt that his personality was not conducive to supervising people. Additionally, Mr. Blum had no desktop computer experience at a major tabloid. Given their familiarity with Mr. Blum's experience and skills, neither Mr. Hayes nor Mr. Calder considered Mr. Blum a viable candidate for the position for which Mr. Condie was hired. Mr. Blum has no written evidence that the National Enquirer discriminated against him on the basis of his hearing. Mr. Blum knows of no statements made by Mr. Hayes, Mr. Calder, or anyone else evidencing discrimination against him on the basis of his hearing. In fact, Mr. Blum believes he was not rehired because of a grudge. Mr. Blum's hearing impairment played no role in the National Enquirer's decision not to rehire him. Mr. Blum filed his Charge of Discrimination on March 26, 1992.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case dismissing the Petition For Relief and denying all relief sought by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1996, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1996.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Bar-B-Que Management, Inc. d/b/a Sonny's Real Pit Bar-B-Q (Respondent), discriminated against Petitioner, Dorine Alexander (Petitioner), based on an alleged disability and her race.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a management company with employees at 16 franchise-owned restaurants in central and north-eastern Florida. Respondent has employment policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and disability. It also has policies that provide for reasonable accommodation of employees with disabilities. Respondent's policies inform employees about the procedure to be followed in reporting perceived race or disability discrimination. The policies prohibit retaliation against employees who report perceived discrimination. Petitioner is an African-American female. Respondent employed her as a cashier in its Belleview, Florida, location from July 14, 2008, to April 5, 2009. At the beginning of her employment, Petitioner was aware of Respondent's policies relative to discrimination. Respondent provided her with a copy of its Team Member Handbook containing the policies. Petitioner's duties included working as a cashier in both the drive-thru and at the front counter. She also was responsible for stocking all takeout areas and completing side work. Initially, Petitioner's job required her to perform deck scrubbing. However, when Petitioner notified her manager that deck scrubbing made it difficult for her to breathe, she no longer had to perform that task. Petitioner never complained that she continued to have breathing difficulties even when others were performing deck scrubbing. Respondent accommodated Petitioner's alleged breathing problem even though Petitioner never provided Respondent with requested medical documentation indicating that she had asthma or any other respiratory difficulties. There is no competent evidence to show that Petitioner is disabled. In the Fall of 2008, Respondent demoted the general manager at the restaurant where Petitioner worked. The demotion was based on poor performance, including not enforcing company policies and failing to hold employees accountable for compliance with company policies and performance standards. Respondent directed the new management team to enforce company policies and to issue discipline when appropriate. The directive was communicated to the restaurant's employees. After the change in management, Petitioner received numerous disciplinary write-ups. The write-ups included the following: (a) violation of Respondent's policy against use of cell phones during working hours; (b) violation of Respondent's policy against smoking on the premises and/or parking lot while in uniform during working hours; (c) violation of Respondent's attendance policy, requiring employees to arrive at work on time and to attend mandatory meetings unless excused; (d) violation of Respondent's cash-handling policy, resulting in cash overages and shortages; and (d) violation of Respondent's work performance standards by failing to stock supplies and complete other side work duties. Non-black employees received written discipline for the same violations as Petitioner. At least one white employee was terminated for violating the cell phone usage policy. Prior to February 2009, Petitioner worked an average of 25 hours per week. The fewest number of weekly hours worked by Petitioner after February 2009 was 19 hours. Petitioner worked 19 hours for only two weeks. Petitioner asserts that she was not allowed to "pick up" extra shifts when another cashier went on vacation for five days. Scheduling requests had to be submitted by Tuesday for the next week's schedule. Petitioner failed to timely request any of the extra available shifts. Instead, she approached the scheduling manager after the schedule was already completed. Despite the lateness of her request, the scheduling manager revised the schedule to assign Petitioner one extra shift. Beginning in January 2009, Respondent's schedules were created and posted on-line through a computer program called Hot Schedules. At all times relevant here, the schedule was posted late only three times. The late posting affected all employees, not just Petitioner. Petitioner asserts that she was assigned to work the drive-thru more than white employees. This assertion is without merit as shown by the following statistics. Petitioner worked 59 shifts between January 1, 2009, and her resignation on April 5, 2009. Respondent assigned Petitioner to work in the drive-thru on 23 of those shifts, approximately 39 percent of the total shifts. Petitioner worked at the front counter for the remainder of her shifts, approximately 61 percent of the total shifts. Two white cashiers, Brittany Knaul and Sarah Liles, worked a comparable number of shifts between January 1, 2009, and April 5, 2009. During that time, Ms. Knaul worked 54 shifts, with 25 shifts or 46 percent assigned to the drive-thru. Of the 86 shifts worked by Ms. Liles, 33 shifts or 38 percent were in the drive-thru. On the other hand, Beatrice McKoy, a black cashier, worked almost exclusively at the front counter between January 1, 2009, and April 5, 2009. Petitioner sought out and spoke with Respondent's Director of Operations, Josh McCall, on several occasions during her employment. The conversations involved her requested accommodation and complaints about the disciplinary write-ups. Petitioner never reported any perceived race discrimination. On one occasion, Mr. McCall asked Petitioner if she believed she was being discriminated against based on her race. Petitioner denied that she was being treated differently from non-black employees. Petitioner submitted a letter of voluntary resignation on March 30, 2009. Her last day at work was April 5, 2009. Petitioner asserts that she was constructively discharged. However, Petitioner failed to notify Respondent of the alleged discrimination until she spoke with Respondent's Area Manager on April 6, 2009, after her resignation and last day at work. Shortly after her last day at work for Respondent, Petitioner voluntarily resigned her other job with Internet Access. Petitioner resigned that job due to a dispute with her manager. Petitioner obtained subsequent employment which ended when that company closed in June 2009. Petitioner remained unemployed until February 2010. The only employment she held in the intervening six months was occasional work assisting her sister, who is a home health aide.
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 13th day of August, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 13th day of August, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Joanne B. Lambert, Esquire Jessica A. DeBono, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP 390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1285 Post Office Box 3389 Orlando, Florida 32802-3389 Dorine Alexander 307 Marion Oaks Course Ocala, Florida 34473 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has been subjected to an unlawful employment practice.
Findings Of Fact Chipola is a college located in Marianna, Florida, and offers two-year and four-year degrees. In August 2005, Ms. Tucker contacted personnel at Chipola inquiring about a faculty position. She sent an e-mail to Karan Davis (Ms. Davis), Chipola’s associate vice president of Human Resources and included a brief résumé. No positions were available at that time. On or about May 18, 2006, Ms. Tucker submitted an application for employment at Chipola as an adjunct instructor. An adjunct instructor position is a temporary position on an as- needed basis to instruct a specific course. Health benefits are not provided for adjunct instructors. The employment application which Ms. Tucker submitted requested that applicants complete a section on educational employment and a section on non-educational employment. In each section, the application provided space for the listing of three present or former employers. The application stated, “If you wish to further describe your work experience, please attach a resume to this application.” Ms. Tucker did not attach a résumé to the application. In the section for educational employment, Ms. Tucker listed employment as a substitute teacher for two school districts and one private school. In the section for non- educational employment, Ms. Tucker listed employment in 2006 at Florida State University, employment from 1979 to 1988 with the United States Postal Service, and a position as a legal secretary from 1975 to 1977. The application asked, “Have you ever been discharged or forced to resign from a previous position?” to which Ms. Tucker replied, “No.” The application contains an applicant certification, which states: I am aware that any omissions, falsifications, misstatement or misrepresentations may disqualify me for employment consideration, and if I am hired, may be grounds for termination at a later date. Ms. Tucker signed the applicant’s certification. Wendy Pippen (Ms. Pippen) is employed by Chipola as the human resources coordinator. She is responsible for coordination of the daily activities and tasks in the Human Resources Department, including review of employment applications and résumés. She did not receive a résumé from Ms. Tucker at any point during the hiring process. Ms. Tucker was interviewed for the position as adjunct instructor. During a conversation with Ms. Pippen following Ms. Tucker’s interview, Ms. Tucker mentioned that she had worked at the University of South Florida. Ms. Pippen did not recall seeing the University of South Florida listed as an employer on Ms. Tucker’s application. She checked Ms. Tucker’s application and confirmed that the University of South Florida was not listed on the application. Ms. Pippen immediately advised her supervisor, Ms. Davis, of the omission. Ms. Tucker told Ms. Pippen that she had omitted her employment with the University of South Florida because an employment agency had advised her to do so due to the potential for a negative reference. Ms. Tucker vehemently testified at the final hearing that the reason she did not list employment with the University of South Florida was that she was terminated for medical reasons, and it was “no one’s business.” However, she also testified that the University of South Florida gave “bad references.” She had told others that she was concerned that the University of South Florida would give her a bad reference. It was her opinion that the University of South Florida was not ethical in giving references on former employees. Having judged the demeanor of the witnesses, Ms. Pippen’s testimony is credited that Ms. Tucker told her the reason that she did not put the University of South Florida on her application was that she felt the University of South Florida would not give her a good reference. Upon being informed by Ms. Pippen that Ms. Tucker had worked at the University of South Florida, Ms. Davis contacted the University of South Florida to check Ms. Tucker’s past employment. Ms. Davis was advised that Ms. Tucker had been employed by the University of South Florida and that she had been terminated for medical reasons. Ms. Davis did not inquire why Ms. Tucker was terminated. That information was volunteered by personnel at the University of South Florida. Ms. Davis did not ask for an explanation of the medical reasons, and no explanation was volunteered. Ms. Davis did not inquire whether Ms. Tucker had a disability, and no one from the University of South Florida told Ms. Davis that Ms. Tucker had a disability. The decision was made not to hire Ms. Tucker as an adjunct instructor because she had failed to include the University of South Florida on her application and had stated in her application that she had not been discharged or forced to resign from a previous position. Ms. Davis perceived that the omission of the University of South Florida from the application and the failure to indicate that she had been discharged from previous employment amounted to falsification of the application, which was a reason for disqualification from employment as clearly stated in the application form. Ms. Tucker contends that Ms. Davis was aware that she had been employed by the University of South Florida because she had included the employment on the résumé that she sent to Ms. Davis in 2005. Ms. Davis did not recall seeing the résumé and given that there was a lapse of seven months from the time that Ms. Tucker sent her résumé in 2005 until she submitted an application in May 2006 without a résumé, it is reasonable that Ms. Davis would not recall seeing the résumé or was not aware that Ms. Tucker had listed the University of South Florida on a résumé. After Ms. Tucker was advised that she would not be hired as an adjunct instructor, she wrote Dr. Spires at Chipola, stating that she had not put the University of South Florida on her employment application because she had been advised by an employment agency to omit the University of South Florida because it had a long history of illegal employment practices. Ms. Tucker does not contend that she has a particular disability which served as the basis for Chipola’s failing to hire her, and she did not inform staff at Chipola that she has a disability or identify any medical condition she has. Her claim is that she was not hired because of a history of medical problems. The evidence overwhelmingly established that Ms. Tucker was not hired because she had made misrepresentations on her application and not because of any history of medical problems. It is clear that Ms. Tucker did not include the University of South Florida on her application and did not inform Chipola that she had been discharged because she was afraid that the University of South Florida would give her a bad reference.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entering finding that Chipola College did not discriminate against Ms. Tucker and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of November, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 2nd day of November, 2007.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the unlawful employment practice alleged in the Charge of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (“FCHR”), and, if so, what relief should Petitioner be granted.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a construction company. Petitioner is a black male who was employed by Respondent for almost six years as an electrical helper until his termination on February 2, 2015. The incident giving rise to Petitioner’s termination occurred on February 2, 2015, in Port Everglades, Florida. On that date, Petitioner was working on a project as an electrical helper. Petitioner and another employee in the area of the work reportedly violated Respondent’s “Lock out/Tag out” (“LOTO”) safety policy. LOTO is required to cutoff electrical power whenever construction, modification, testing, start-up, servicing, or maintenance is being performed on equipment or systems in which the unexpected energization, start-up, or release of stored energy, could cause injury to people or damage equipment. Any employee of Respondent whose job requires him or her to operate or use a machine or equipment on which construction, modification, testing, start-up, servicing, or maintenance is being performed under a LOTO, or whose job requires him or her to work in an area in which such activities are being performed, must comply with LOTO. Petitioner and another employee reportedly failed to comply with LOTO in an area in which they were working on February 2, 2015. Respondent considers the failure of an employee to comply with LOTO to be a terminable offense. Both Petitioner and another employee in the area were discharged by Respondent on February 2, 2015, for failing to comply with the LOTO policy. The persuasive and credible evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that Petitioner was terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons having nothing to do with his race, color, or national origin. Petitioner’s charge of discrimination is based on speculation and conjecture, and Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent’s reasons for his firing are a mere pretext for intentional race, color, or national origin discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ 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 December, 2016.
