The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to a hostile work environment condoned by Respondent due to Petitioner's race and sex in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was previously employed by the Auditor General, Division of Public Assistance Fraud. That program, along with Petitioner, co-workers, and the persons in her chain of command, were later legislatively transferred to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. On January 28, 1999, Petitioner filed a complaint of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR), alleging that the State of Florida, Office of the Auditor General discriminated against Petitioner in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Sections 760.01- 760.11, Florida Statutes (1999). Allegedly, the discrimination was based on Petitioner's race (African- American) and sex (female). Petitioner claimed that Respondent's actions created a hostile work environment as a consequence of her race and/or sex. Petitioner has not been demoted, reassigned, or terminated by her employer. Petitioner complained of certain events that occurred in 1994 regarding the assignment of particular cases. She alleged that she was not being fairly treated in the assignment of pending cases. These events, which occurred in 1994, are time-barred from further consideration by virtue of Section 760.11(1), Florida Statutes, which requires filing of a complaint within 365 days of occurrence of an alleged violation. On one occasion on an unspecified date during her employment, a co-worker asked Petitioner whether her ponytail was real. On March 11, 1998, Regional Supervisor William Martin, a white male, typed a memorandum for Petitioner. The memorandum was precipitated by a conference between Petitioner and her immediate supervisor in which procedures regarding work hours, breaks, and lunch hours were discussed. Petitioner was told in the course of the conference that some staff members perceived Petitioner as "not playing by the rules." Petitioner responded through the memorandum typed by Martin. The memorandum set forth Petitioner's complaints concerning her work situation, inclusive of her observation that others were committing the same violations of policy of which she was accused with no repercussions occurring to them. Petitioner had the opportunity to review a draft of the memorandum and made corrections to the draft. Petitioner then signed the final version of the memorandum, which included Petitioner's express declination to pursue the matter further, stating that she "wanted my personal concerns and feelings on record." Nowhere in the memorandum does Petitioner allege that she has been treated differently on the basis of her race or her sex. There are two supervisors in Respondent's Jacksonville, Florida, office. Petitioner’s immediate supervisor is Laverne McKinney, an African-American female. The other supervisor in the Jacksonville office is Stan Stephens, a white male. The relationship between Stan Stephens and Petitioner is strained. The strained relationship is not due to racial or sexual discrimination. On one occasion during Petitioner's employment, Stan Stephens asked Laverne McKinney to instruct Petitioner to let him know when Petitioner would not be available to work until 5:00 p.m., so that the office could be properly manned until that time. The request followed an incident when Stephens, who usually leaves the office at 4:30 p.m., was unable to find someone to mind the office when he left. Unknown to Stephens, Petitioner had left early to perform official business for Respondent. On another occasion during Petitioner's employment, while Laverne McKinney was the designated "Acting Regional Supervisor," Stan Stephens called William Martin, a former supervisor at the time, on a travel issue regarding Petitioner. Martin was working in Respondent's Miami, Florida, office at the time and McKinney was away from the Jacksonville Office.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DON W. DAVIS 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 13th day of February, 2001.
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner because of his race or age when he was not selected as Lead Mechanic in Area I KA/Nitric.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black male who was over 40 at the time he applied for the Area I (One) Lead Mechanic position. At the time Petitioner applied for the Area I Lead Mechanic position, he was a lead mechanic in the Central Maintenance Compressor and Gear Box shop, pay grade level 28 position. Pay grade level 28 is the highest nonexempt pay grade at Solutia, Inc. On January 25, 1999, Solutia posted a job opening for a lead mechanic position in Area I KA/Nitric, a pay grade level 28 position. Petitioner applied for the Area I Lead Mechanic position. Had Petitioner been selected for the Area I Lead Mechanic position, it would have been a lateral transfer and not a promotion because Petitioner was already at a level 28 pay grade. No evidence was received that the incumbent of the Area I Lead Mechanic position would have had more authority or promotion opportunities than the position previously held. Petitioner, along with three other mechanics, interviewed for the Area I Lead Mechanic position. The other three applicants were: William G. Cook (a white male); Joseph S. Mann (a white male); and David Wolfe (a white male). Petitioner admits that all the applicants were qualified for the Area I Lead Mechanic position. Respondent used a ranking procedure to evaluate the applicants for the Area I Lead Mechanic position. The applicants were ranked by subjectively grading their answers to questions in five areas: 1) problem-solving and decision-making ability; 2) teamwork and coaching ability; (3) communication ability; (4) honoring differences; and (5) results orientation and initiative. The applicants were given a score from one to five by each panel member based upon the panel members' subjective assessment of applicants’ answers on each of the five criteria. Five was the highest grade and one being the lowest. The points were totaled and converted into a percentage score. The applicant having the highest overall score was selected to fill the job. The applicants were interviewed by a panel composed of six employees: Nikki Owens; Mike Conley; Darren Dobson; Tony Williams (a black male); Terry Wilcox (who was over 40 at the time of the interview); and Greg Barker. All of these persons were from Area I. The majority of the panel worked regularly with the person ultimately selected. Petitioner admits that there was no overtly discriminatory questions or activity in the interview. There were no questions or discussions amongst the panel members about the applicants' race or age. The panel members scored each applicant separately without knowing how the other panel members scored the applicants. The panel members scored the applicants as follows: W. Cook S. Holly J. Mann D. Wolfe Nikki Owens 45% 77% 90% 67% Michael Conley 53.3% 63.3% 70% 63.6% Darren Dobson 40% 63% 70% 67% Greg Barker 40% 57% 73% 57% Tony Williams 57% 73% 67% 50% Terry Wilcox 33% 66.6% 76.6% 57.7% After the individual panel members totaled their respective scores, the applicants were ranked. Joseph Mann was ranked first by five of the six panel members, and one panel member, the black male, ranked Petitioner first. The panel discussed the results and reached a unanimous consensus to offer the Area I Lead Mechanic position to Joseph Mann. The panel prepared and provided feedback to all the applicants. Petitioner's shortcoming was that he failed to give specific examples to questions posted during his interview. When he was not selected, Petitioner complained about the outcome, believing he was the most qualified applicant and was rejected for racially motivated reasons. Rachel Gold (a black female) and Lerissa Rowe, who both worked in Respondent's Human Resources Department, investigated Petitioner's complaint. During their investigation, it came to their attention that a panel member, Terry Wilcox, stated to a co-employee, "I don't think that there would ever be two black people in charge of a group of white mechanics in a shop." After learning of Terry Wilcox' comment, Respondent took the following action: (a) Respondent recalculated the panel's score leaving out Terry Wilcox' score; and (b) Respondent disciplined Terry Wilcox by suspending him for two days without pay. After recalculating the scores, Joseph Mann still had the highest overall score. Petitioner's overall score remained the same. Petitioner remained with Respondent until he voluntarily retired effective November 1, 1999. No one forced Petitioner to retire. The decision was Petitioner's alone, prompted in part by a change in Respondent's retirement plan. Petitioner admits that none of the panel members had ever discriminated against him because of his race or age prior to the complained of selection. Since retiring, Petitioner has not sought employment elsewhere. He is basically enjoying retirement.
Recommendation Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the instant petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 30th day of November, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Sylvester A. Holly, Jr. Post Office Box 301 Cantonment, Florida 32533 Erick M. Drlicka, Esquire Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon 30 South Spring Street Pensacola, Florida 32596 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawfully discriminatory employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of race and religion, and retaliated against him, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA").
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Lawrence N. Brown, III, is an African- American male and is of the Christian faith. Petitioner has been employed with Respondent since April 14, 2014, at its store located at 3800 Oakwood Boulevard, Hollywood, Florida (hereafter, the "Store"). As of the final hearing, Petitioner continued to be employed by Respondent at the Store. Respondent is a corporation doing business in Florida. Respondent owns and operates the Store at which Respondent was employed at the time of the alleged discriminatory and retaliatory actions. Employment Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief Petitioner filed an Employment Charge of Discrimination ("Discrimination Charge") with FCHR on or about March 10, 2016.4/ The pages attached to the Discrimination Charge form (which apparently was filled out in typewritten form by FCHR staff) were prepared by Petitioner. On or about July 18, 2016, Respondent issued a Determination: No Reasonable Cause, determining that Petitioner had not shown reasonable cause to believe that Respondent had committed unlawful employment practices against him. On or about August 16, 2016, Petitioner timely filed a Petition for Relief requesting a hearing to determine whether Respondent committed unlawful employment practices against him. The Petition for Relief alleges that Respondent engaged in unlawful discrimination against him on the basis of both his race and religion, and also alleges that Respondent engaged in unlawful retaliation. These charges, as specifically set forth in the Petition for Relief, are the subject of this de novo proceeding.5/ In the Petition for Relief, Petitioner claims that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race by failing to promote him into supervisory or managerial positions for which he claims he was qualified; by giving him lower scores on his employment evaluations than were given to a white employee working in the same position (part-time hardlines merchandiser); by not paying him as much as they paid that same white employee; and by retaining that same white employee as a part-time hardlines merchandiser in the Toy Department, while moving Petitioner to another position as cashier. Petitioner also claims that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion by scheduling him to work on Christmas Day 2015, while giving other employees that day off. Additionally, Petitioner claims that Respondent retaliated against him for complaining to Respondent's corporate legal department about having to work on Christmas Day 2015, by removing him as a hardline merchandiser in the Toy Department and reassigning him to a cashier position, then subsequently effectively "terminating" (in his words) his employment. Petitioner seeks an award of $5,000,000 in damages in this proceeding. Background Events As noted above, Petitioner was hired by Respondent on or about April 14, 2014. Petitioner initially was hired in a part-time position as a part-time overnight hardlines replenishment associate. In this position, Petitioner's work scheduling availability was between 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. When Petitioner was hired, Alberto Rodriquez was the Store manager. In his position as a part-time employee with Respondent, Petitioner was not guaranteed any specific number of weeks or hours of employment in any given calendar year, nor was he guaranteed that he would attain full-time employee status. The number of work hours Petitioner was assigned was dependent on the company's business needs and on Petitioner's ability to meet the applicable job performance standards. Petitioner acknowledged these and the other conditions of his employment as evidenced by his signature on the Pre-training Acknowledgment Summary dated April 14, 2014. As a result of the elimination of the overnight replenishment associate position, on or about October 26, 2014, Petitioner was transferred to another position as a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser. In this position, his work scheduling availability was between 6:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. As a hardlines merchandiser, Petitioner was responsible for stocking store shelves with merchandise, straightening merchandise on store shelves, putting returned merchandise on shelves, and generally keeping the hardlines departments neat and the shelves fully stocked. The Toy Department at the Store was one of several departments that were categorized as "hardlines" departments. In his duties as a hardlines merchandiser, Petitioner was not assigned to any specific hardlines department, and his responsibilities entailed working in any hardlines department as needed. However, as a practical matter, due to the work demand, Petitioner worked mostly, if not exclusively, in the Toy Department until he was reassigned to the cashier position after Christmas 2015. David Leach became the Store manager in April 2015. At some point before Christmas Day 2015, the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was posted. Petitioner was scheduled to work on Christmas Day, December 25, 2015. Petitioner did not volunteer, and had not otherwise requested, to work on Christmas Day 2015. The Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, which was a paid holiday for Respondent's employees. On or about December 23, 2015, Petitioner contacted Respondent's corporate legal department, requesting to be removed from the work schedule for Christmas Day 2015. Pursuant to a directive from Respondent's corporate office, Petitioner was removed from the work schedule for that day. Petitioner was not required to work on Christmas Day 2015, and he did not work that day. Petitioner was paid for the Christmas Day holiday. Although the Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, some Store employees were scheduled to work, and did work, that day on a volunteer basis, for which they were paid. On December 28, 2015, Leach presented Petitioner with a Request for Religious Accommodation form to sign. Petitioner signed the form. The form was marked as showing that Respondent "granted" the religious accommodation. Also on December 28, 2015, Leach informed Petitioner that he had eliminated the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position. He offered Petitioner other part-time positions, either as a cashier or in making pizza at the Little Caesar's pizza station in the Store. Leach did not offer any other positions to Petitioner at that time. Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, but informed Leach that he was unable to stand in a single place for long periods of time due to injuries he previously had sustained while working on the overnight shift. Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, effective January 3, 2016.6/ Petitioner's hourly wage did not change when his position changed to cashier. He continued to make the same hourly wage that he had made as a daytime hardlines merchandiser. At some point on or after December 28, 2015, Petitioner signed a Personnel Interview Record form that reflected his revised work hours associated with his position change to cashier. The form stated his availability to work between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The evidence is unclear as to whether Petitioner did (or did not) call in to inform the appropriate Store personnel that he would not be working on Tuesday, December 29, or on Thursday, December 31, 2015. Regardless, the persuasive evidence shows that Petitioner worked on Monday, December 28, 2015; did not work on Tuesday, December 29, or Thursday, December 31, 2015; and worked on Saturday, January 2, 2016. The work schedule for the week of January 3 through 10, 2016, was computer-generated some time during the week of December 27, 2015, through January 3, 2016. If an employee does not report to work when scheduled and does not call in to be excused from work on those days, this situation is termed a "no call-no show," and the employee will not be scheduled to work the following week. This is to ensure that there are cashiers available as needed to work on upcoming dates. Regardless of whether Petitioner did or did not call in to inform Respondent he would not be working on Tuesday, December 29, or Thursday, December 31, 2015, the posted work schedule for the week of January 3 through 10, 2016, showed Petitioner as not being scheduled to work that week. However, the evidence shows that Petitioner did, in fact, work a total of 15.90 hours the week of January 3 through 10, 2016. The work schedule posted as of Saturday, January 9, 2016, also showed Petitioner as not being scheduled to work the week of January 10 through 16, 2016. However, the evidence shows that Petitioner worked a total of 15.41 hours the week of January 10 through 16, 2016. At some point between January 13 and January 26, 2016, Petitioner was moved from the cashier position to the Store's date code specialist position. The date code specialist position also is a part-time position, for which Petitioner is paid the same hourly wage as he was paid as a daytime hardlines merchandiser. As of the final hearing, Petitioner continued to be employed by Respondent, working as the Store's date code specialist. Race Discrimination Claims As previously noted, Petitioner began working for Respondent at the Store on April 14, 2014. His initial employment position was as a part-time overnight replenishment associate. In October 2014, he moved to a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position. In both positions, he was responsible for stocking and restocking merchandise in all hardlines departments, so was not assigned exclusively to the Store's Toy Department. However, as noted above, due to work demand in the Toy Department, Petitioner did most, if not all, of his work in that department until he was moved to the cashier position in late December 2015.7/ Petitioner contends that starting in mid-2014,8/ he periodically requested to be promoted to "Toy Lead" or to another supervisory or managerial position. He testified that he had undertaken many activities and implemented various systems to improve the efficiency and productivity of the Toy Department and other departments at the store, and had documented these activities and transmitted that information to the Respondent for inclusion in his personnel file. He testified that rather than promoting him to a supervisory position in the Toy Department, Respondent instead hired a non-African-American person to fill that position.9/ Petitioner additionally testified that he periodically would request to be transferred or promoted to other supervisory positions, but that Respondent did not grant these requests. He contends that since he was qualified for these positions, the only basis for Respondent's decision to fill those positions with other employees was discrimination against him on the basis of his race. In response, Leach testified that there was no formal "Toy Lead" position at the Store; rather, the person supervising the Toy Department is an assistant store manager, a position that entails supervising other hardlines departments besides the Toy Department. Further, Leach testified that in his view, Petitioner was not qualified to occupy certain supervisory positions because of his lack of experience in those areas and his relatively short period of employment with Respondent. Leach also testified that Petitioner had not ever formally applied for a promotion through Respondent's online application process. Petitioner further asserts that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of race because he was not paid the same amount as Corey Harper, a white male hardlines merchandiser who also often worked part-time in the Toy Department on the afternoon or evening shift, even though he worked harder and received higher evaluation scores than did Harper.10/ However, Leach credibly testified that Respondent does not currently base its pay rate for part-time employees on job performance evaluation scores, but instead pays them a set hourly pay rate. According to Leach, Respondent has not given an hourly pay rate raise to part-time employees since 2009, so that any pay differential depended on whether employees were hired before or after 2009. Leach credibly testified that Harper has been employed by Respondent since 2004, so had received hourly pay rate raises between 2004 to November 2008; this would result in his hourly pay rate being higher than Petitioner's, even though both are part-time employees. Petitioner testified that when he was moved from the daytime hardlines merchandiser position to the cashier position after Christmas 2015, he made it clear that he wanted to remain in the Toy Department; however, Respondent transferred him out of that department while allowing Harper to remain in a hardlines merchandiser position, which entailed work in the Toy Department. Petitioner also made clear that he wished to return to the hardlines merchandiser position in the Toy Department when such a position became available; however, at some point, Leach reassigned Carol Yaw, who was white, from her previous office manager job to a hardlines merchandiser position. Petitioner asserts that Respondent's actions in allowing Harper to remain as a part-time hardline merchandiser and reassigning Yaw to a hardlines merchandiser position constituted discrimination against him on the basis of his race. However, Leach credibly testified that the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position that Petitioner had occupied was eliminated because of the lack of work in that position, primarily due to declining Toy Department sales after the holiday season. Additionally, immediately after Christmas 2015, Leach consolidated the overnight merchandise unloading and daytime shelf stocking positions and moved the overnight unloading employees to the day shift, where their duties consist of unloading merchandise from trucks and stocking shelves.11/ Leach credibly testified that Harper was not moved from his position because Leach had specifically decided not to move others unaffected by this reorganization out of their existing positions, and that Harper was an afternoon/evening hardlines merchandiser. Leach also credibly testified that he had moved Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser position after her office manager position was eliminated because she was a 25-year employee of Respondent, and he felt that she deserved that position out of loyalty for being a long-term employee of Respondent. Petitioner also contends that Respondent's evaluation of his job performance was unfair because it was conducted by an assistant store manager, Marjorie McCue, who was not his direct supervisor. Specifically, he contends that McCue was unfamiliar with his job performance, so did not appropriately consider, in his evaluation, improved Toy Department sales performance and efficiency that were due to measures that he had implemented. Petitioner also contends that McCue initially deliberately gave him an inaccurately low job performance evaluation in an effort to create a record to support terminating his employment, but that when he complained, those lower scores were changed to higher scores. The only performance evaluation regarding Petitioner's job performance that was admitted into evidence is a document titled "Employee Review" that was dated January 31, 2015; Petitioner received a 3.10 overall performance score on this performance evaluation.12/ The Employee Review for Harper dated January 31, 2015, also was admitted into evidence; Harper's overall performance score was 3.00. Upon careful consideration of the competent substantial evidence in the record, it is determined that Petitioner failed to carry his burden13/ to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by Respondent on the basis of his race. To do so, Petitioner must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was subject to adverse employment action; (3) he was qualified to do the job; and (4) his employer treated similarly-situated employees outside of his protected class more favorably than he was treated.14/ It is undisputed that Petitioner, as an African- American, is a member of a protected class. However, the evidence does not support a finding that Petitioner was subject to adverse employment action. With respect to his assertion that Respondent failed to promote him on the basis of his race, Petitioner needed to show that, in addition to being a member of a protected class, he applied for and was qualified for a promotion; that he was rejected despite his qualifications; and that other equally or less-qualified employees outside of his class were promoted.15/ While Petitioner frequently sent email correspondence to Respondent's corporate legal office requesting to be promoted, the evidence does not show that he followed Respondent's formal online application process for applying for promotions.16/ Further, although the evidence indicates that Petitioner is very hard-working, energetic, bright, and detail-oriented, he did not demonstrate that those characteristics necessarily qualified him for the supervisory positions about which he inquired. He also did not demonstrate that Respondent filled the positions about which he had inquired with less-qualified non-African-American employees. In fact, Petitioner acknowledged, in testimony at the final hearing and in email correspondence with Respondent's corporate legal office, that in his view, some of the individuals who had been promoted were qualified for the positions to which they had been promoted. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not demonstrate adverse employment action by Respondent by failing to promote him on the basis of his race. Petitioner also did not show that he received a lower pay rate and lower evaluation scores than did other similarly- situated employees who were not members of his protected class. The only comparator to which Petitioner referred was Harper, the other part-time hardlines merchandiser that sometimes worked in the Toy Department. However, as discussed above, the evidence showed that Harper actually scored lower than did Petitioner on the January 31, 2015, evaluation.17/ Further, Harper was not similarly situated to Petitioner with respect to pay rate because Harper is a longer-term employee who had received hourly pay rate raises in 2005 through 2008, before Respondent ceased giving raises of hourly pay rates in 2009, but Petitioner was hired in 2014, after Respondent ceased giving hourly pay raises. Petitioner also did not show, by the greater weight of the evidence, that Leach discriminated against him on the basis of his race by electing to reassign him, rather than Harper, to a cashier position after Christmas 2015, and by later reassigning Yaw to fill a full-time hardlines merchandiser position that included responsibilities of working in the Toy Department. As discussed above, when Leach decided to eliminate the part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser position, he chose not to reassign other employees who were not directly affected by the elimination of that position. The evidence shows that Leach did not reassign Harper to a cashier position because Harper's position was not directly affected by the elimination of the daytime hardlines merchandiser position——not because Leach favored Harper over Petitioner due to race. Also as discussed above, Leach reassigned Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser position after her office manager position——also a full-time position——was eliminated. Because Yaw was a full-time employee, she did not fill a position for which Petitioner was eligible as a part-time employee; furthermore, under any circumstances, she was not similarly situated to Petitioner because of her longer term of employment with Respondent. For these reasons, neither Harper nor Yaw are similarly situated to Petitioner for purposes of being comparators. For these reasons, it is found that Petitioner did not establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination against him by Respondent on the basis of his race. Further, even if Petitioner had established a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of race, Respondent articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions with respect to Petitioner. As discussed above, Respondent did not promote Petitioner because he did not go through Respondent's formal application process for seeking promotions, and also because Leach determined, on the basis of Petitioner's lack of experience and employment longevity, that Petitioner was not qualified for supervisory positions at that time. Additionally, Leach's decisions regarding reassigning Petitioner to a cashier position while retaining Harper and reassigning Yaw to hardlines merchandiser positions were management decisions based on business needs and requirements, rather than on the basis of race. Petitioner did not present evidence showing that these reasons were a pretext for discrimination against him on the basis of his race. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of his race, in violation of section 760.10(1)(a). Religious Discrimination Claim As previously discussed, shortly before Christmas Day 2015, the employee work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was posted in the Store. This schedule showed Petitioner as being scheduled to work from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Christmas Day, which fell on a Friday in 2015. The Store was closed on Christmas Day 2015, which was a paid employee holiday; however, employees could work that day on a voluntary basis and they would be paid time-and-a-half for doing so. As noted above, Petitioner did not volunteer or otherwise indicate that he was willing to work that day. Upon seeing that he was scheduled to work on Christmas Day, Petitioner contacted Respondent's corporate legal department, which then contacted Leach. Leach had Petitioner removed from the work schedule for December 25, 2015. Petitioner was not required to work that day, did not work that day, and was paid for the Christmas Day 2015 holiday. Petitioner claims that by scheduling him to work on Christmas Day, Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion. Petitioner asserts, as evidence of Respondent's discriminatory intent, that there are others who worked in the Toy Department who were not of the Christian faith, so that if someone was needed to work on Christmas Day, one of those individuals could instead have been scheduled. As previously noted, on December 28, 2015, Leach presented Petitioner with a Request for Religious Accommodation form to sign. Leach credibly testified that the purpose of having Petitioner sign the form was to have a written record of Petitioner's religion so that Petitioner would not again be assigned to work on a Christian religious holiday. Petitioner signed the form, but protested being required to do so, because, in his view, Respondent already was on notice that he is of the Christian faith because he always had Sundays off of work. Petitioner testified that when he was hired in April 2014 (notably, before Leach became Store manager) he had verbally requested Sundays off, effectively placing Respondent on notice that he is of the Christian faith. On this basis, Petitioner asserts that Leach and other managers and supervisors at the Store knew that he is Christian and that they nonetheless intentionally scheduled him to work on Christmas Day. Petitioner acknowledged that he never heard Leach make any comments with respect to his (Petitioner's) religion. Leach credibly testified that before he was contacted by Respondent's corporate office regarding Petitioner's concerns about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015, he did not know that Petitioner was Christian, and he had not inferred that from the fact that Petitioner did not work on Sundays.18/ Leach testified, credibly and persuasively, that Petitioner was scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 by mistake. He explained that the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, was generated using a pre-populated "template" method. This method, which is a method by which the Store sets its weekly work schedules, entails week-to-week copying of the regular——i.e., "template"——work schedule for all Store employees, then modifies that schedule as needed to address changes to individual employee work schedules. Leach explained that in using this method to establish the work schedule for the week of December 20 through 26, 2015, Respondent had inadvertently scheduled employees who had not volunteered to work on Christmas Day. He surmised that this was a possible explanation for why Petitioner mistakenly was scheduled to work that day. As noted above, Petitioner was not the only Store employee scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. Upon consideration of the competent substantial evidence in the record, it is determined that Petitioner failed to carry his burden to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by Respondent on the basis of his religion. To do so, Petitioner must show that he: (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) informed Respondent of this belief; and (3) suffered adverse employment action as a result of failing to comply with the employment requirement that conflicted with his belief. It is undisputed that Petitioner falls within a protected class for purposes of a discrimination claim on the basis of religion. However, Petitioner did not prove the existence of the other two elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination on the basis of religion. Specifically, Petitioner did not prove that Respondent knew that he was Christian or that his Christian faith prohibited him from working on Christmas Day. As noted above, Petitioner was hired at the Store before Leach became Store manager. Further, because Petitioner had not been required to complete a written religious accommodation form when he was hired in April 2014, Respondent did not have any written notice in its possession that would have informed Leach that Petitioner was Christian or that Petitioner needed certain Christian holidays, such as Christmas Day, off of work. As noted above, Leach credibly testified that he did not know that Petitioner was Christian until Respondent's corporate legal office contacted him regarding Petitioner's religion-based complaint about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. The evidence also shows that Petitioner did not suffer any adverse employment action. As soon as Respondent was informed of Petitioner's complaint, Petitioner was removed from the work schedule for Christmas Day 2015, did not work that day, and was paid for that holiday. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not establish, by the greater weight of the evidence, a prima facie case of discrimination by Respondent against him on the basis of his religion. However, even if Petitioner had established a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of religion, Respondent produced credible, persuasive evidence showing a legitimate, non- discriminatory basis for its action——that is, that through the Store's use of the template work scheduling system, Petitioner was mistakenly scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. As noted above, as soon as Petitioner complained to Respondent, Respondent immediately accommodated his request by removing him from the Christmas Day 2015 work schedule. Petitioner did not present any evidence showing that Respondent's proffered reason for scheduling him to work on Christmas Day 2015 was a pretext for discrimination on the basis of his religion. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondent discriminated against him on the basis of his religion, in violation of section 760.10(1)(a). Retaliation Claim Petitioner claims that Respondent retaliated against him for complaining to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 by reassigning him from his position as a daytime hardlines merchandiser——a position that he clearly liked and at which he believed he excelled——to a cashier position——a position that he clearly considered demeaning and that also was physically difficult for him to perform due to a previous injury. Petitioner was informed that he was being reassigned to a cashier position only five days (and the first workday) after he complained to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day.19/ Petitioner testified that Leach told him that the part- time daytime merchandiser position had been eliminated due to the lack of work demand, particularly in the Toy Department, after the Christmas season was over. Petitioner testified that when he asked Leach about available positions in to which he could transfer, Leach told him that only cashier or pizza-making positions were available. Petitioner provided evidence that a softlines customer service job, which he claims he would have preferred, was open at the time he was reassigned and that Leach did not inform him of that opening or offer him that position. Petitioner also disputes that the part-time daytime merchandiser job that he had occupied had been eliminated. As evidence, he contends that Harper continued to occupy that position, and also that Leach subsequently reassigned Yaw to a full-time hardlines merchandiser rather than transferring him back into a hardlines merchandiser position, as he had requested. The part-time cashier position to which Petitioner was transferred was the same level of employment position in Respondent's employment hierarchy as was the part-time daytime merchandiser position that he previously held. Additionally, as discussed above, as a part-time cashier, Petitioner continued to receive the same hourly pay rate and work scheduling availability as he had received when he was employed as a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser. As discussed above, on or before January 26, 2016, Petitioner was reassigned to the Store's date code specialist position. According to Leach, that position came open after Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, and Leach believed that the date code specialist position would play well to Petitioner's strengths of being methodical and detail- oriented. Petitioner bears the burden, by the greater weight of the evidence, to establish a prima facie case of retaliation by Respondent. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, Petitioner must show that: (1) he engaged in a protected activity; (2) he suffered a materially adverse employment action; and (3) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.20/ For the following reasons, it is found that Petitioner did not satisfy his burden to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. It is determined that Petitioner engaged in a "protected activity" when he complained to Respondent's corporate legal office, by email dated December 23, 2015, that he had been scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. The email stated: Attn: Legal My schedule states that I am scheduled for Christmas day. I am a Christian I exercise religious right no work on a high religious day. Christmas is the day I celebrate the birth of Christ thus the name Christmas day. A Jewish person was assigned to my department (toys) and was allowed to have off all the Jewish holidays. I was told that is his right and approved, I said fine, I don't know who was arguing this but this was fine with me, because I have many Jewish friends, so I understand. Easter which falls on a Sunday and Christmas are my holidays. I am requesting off. I am requesting Christmas day off with holiday pay as my religious day, just like I requested Sundays off. Only I can change my religious day and work on Sunday, which I might have to when promoted. If management tells me I cannot be promoted because I exercise my religious right not to work on the seventh day, then I will have to do as Jewish people have done for centuries, they are released from the commandment that they may only eat Kosher. If captured by the enemy they may eat to survive. So if I can only be manager if I give up my religious right not to work on Sunday, then I will do what management says is a requirement. Thank you. Lawrence Brown Kmart-Hollywood, Fl Oakwood Plaza To be a "protected activity," the activity giving rise to the alleged retaliatory action must, at the very least, communicate to the employer that the complainant believes the employer is engaging in discrimination against him. Petitioner's email can be read broadly to inform Respondent that he believed he was being discriminated against on the basis of his religion by being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015. To that point, Petitioner specifically compared his circumstances to those of a Jewish employee who had requested and been allowed to have all Jewish holidays off of work. While not specifically using the word "discrimination," Petitioner's email can be reasonably read to place Respondent on notice that Petitioner believed he was being treated differently than a similarly-situated employee who was not a member of Petitioner's protected class and who had been excused from work on the holidays observed by his religion. Additionally, Leach was aware that Petitioner had complained to Respondent's corporate legal department about being scheduled to work on a Christian holiday. Accordingly, it is determined that Petitioner has established the "protected activity" element of his retaliation claim. However, Petitioner did not show that he suffered a materially adverse employment action as a result of having engaged in protected activity. His reassignment to the part-time cashier position effectively was a lateral transfer that did not affect his hourly pay rate or hours of work scheduling availability. Although Petitioner subjectively considered the cashier position to be demeaning and below his skill level21/ and although his job responsibilities changed, the evidence shows that Petitioner was not reassigned to an objectively less prestigious or otherwise inferior employment position. Furthermore, in any event, approximately three weeks after Petitioner was reassigned to the cashier position, Respondent reassigned him to a position as the Store's date code specialist——a position that he has officially held since January 26, 2016, and from which he has not requested to be transferred. In this position, Petitioner earns the same hourly wage and has the same number of hours of work availability as he did in the hardlines merchandiser and cashier positions. He is solely responsible in the Store for ensuring that date-coded merchandise on the shelves has not exceeded its expiration date—— a position that entails significant responsibility and, as Leach put it, is "very important." The evidence also does not support Petitioner's assertion that his removal from the work schedule in early January meant that he was effectively terminated. Although the evidence does not clearly show what days Petitioner did not work during the week after Christmas in 2015, or whether he did (or did not) call in to notify Respondent that he would be absent, the evidence does clearly establish that Petitioner was not scheduled to work the first week of January 2016, and it is also clear that management personnel at the Store did not believe that he had called in to notify them of his absence. Leach explained that if an employee does not report to work when scheduled and does not call in to notify the Store of his or her absence, the employee will not be scheduled to work the following week; this is to ensure that there are enough cashiers available as needed to work in the upcoming week. In any event, when Petitioner noticed that he had not been scheduled to work, he contacted the Store's human relations manager, who told him to come back to work. In fact, Petitioner worked the first and second weeks of January 2016, and thereafter, and he continues to be employed at the Store. Further, Petitioner was never told or otherwise notified, formally or informally, that his employment with Respondent had been terminated. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not suffer a materially adverse employment action by being reassigned for a short period of time from a part-time daytime hardlines merchandiser to a part-time cashier position. Petitioner also did not demonstrate the existence of a "causal link" between a protected activity and adverse employment action. As discussed above, Petitioner's sending an email to Respondent's corporate legal office about being scheduled to work on Christmas Day 2015 constituted a "protected activity." However, as discussed above, it is determined that Respondent did not engage in an adverse employment action; thus, Petitioner's engagement in protected activity did not "cause" Respondent to take any material adverse employment action against him. Furthermore, in any event, Respondent articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for reassigning Petitioner to a cashier position shortly after Christmas Day 2015—— specifically, that the part-time daytime merchandiser position that Petitioner had held was eliminated due to seasonal workload decline and other business management decisions reallocating hardlines merchandise-related tasks between the overnight and daytime shifts. For these reasons, it is determined that Petitioner did not prove, by the greater weight of the evidence, that Respondent retaliated against him for engaging in a protected activity, in violation of section 760.10(7). Damages Petitioner has requested an award of damages in the amount of $5,000,000. However, section 760.11(6), which governs the award of remedies in administrative proceedings brought under the FCRA, does not authorize DOAH to award damages. Further, the evidence establishes that Respondent did not engage in any unlawful employment practices with respect to Petitioner, and, in any event, Petitioner did not present any evidence to support his entitlement to an award of damages in this proceeding.
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 for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of June, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 14th day of June, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner based upon her race.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an "employer" within the meaning of section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner, an African-American female, submitted an application for employment directly with the store manager, Jerry Wienhoff. Mr. Wienhoff personally interviewed Petitioner and hired her within 48 hours of her application for the afternoon clerk position. She began working for Respondent on July 21, 2009. Petitioner received a notice of a disciplinary issue on March 9, 2010. Respondent cited Petitioner for failure to complete her work in a timely manner. Petitioner was warned that if her work did not improve, her employment would be terminated. Not long after issuance of this disciplinary notice, Mr. Wienhoff, the store manager and Pensacola Regional Manager for 17 years, began receiving complaints about Petitioner's behavior. One complaint came from a long-time customer, while another came from a co-employee. The complaints were that Petitioner treated them rudely. During her employment, Petitioner complained that her work duties were heavier than those of the morning clerk. Mr. Wienhoff relieved Petitioner of certain duties related to tagging each garment dropped off during the afternoon shift. None of the other stores out of the four area stores had similar requests to remove this duty. Petitioner testified that the morning clerk, a white female, Amanda Sidner, was given a lighter workload. Petitioner further testified that Ms. Sidner was given additional hours during Petitioner's vacation, yet Petitioner was not given additional hours during Ms. Sidner's vacation. Mr. Wienhoff testified and Petitioner admitted that she took vacation days during the same week that Ms. Sidner took vacation days. Further, Petitioner was given additional hours during the days Ms. Sidner was on vacation, and the balance of those hours that Petitioner was not interested in working went to Petitioner's daughter, Anastarsia Martinez, also an African- American female. On December 14, 2010, Petitioner was issued her second and final corrective action report by Mr. Wienhoff. At that time, Mr. Wienhoff terminated Petitioner due to the ongoing complaints about her behavior in the workplace. Respondent also established the racial composition of every employee under Mr. Wienhoff's supervision. The company profile in Pensacola shows a racially diverse mix of employees. Petitioner candidly testified that she never heard Mr. Wienhoff make racially insensitive comments to her or any other employee. Her claim of discrimination is based upon favoritism. She believes that other employees were treated better than she, but did not tie this perceived favorable treatment to their race.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order finding that no act of discrimination was committed by Respondent and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of January, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of January, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas A. Groendyke, Esquire Douberley & Cicero 1000 Sawgrass Corporate Parkway, Suite 590 Sunrise, Florida 33323 Mary Cottrell 776 Backwoods Road Century, Florida 32535 Christopher J. Rush, Esquire Christopher J. Rush & Associates, P.A. 1880 North Congress Avenue, Suite 206 Boynton Beach, Florida 33426 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was denied training, subjected to unequal terms of employment and denied promotion to three jobs including the position of Lead Custodian with the Respondent in the Physical Plant Department in 1993, on the basis of his gender (male) and race (African- American), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an employer under the 1992 Florida Civil Rights Act. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a custodian in the Physical Plant Department since July 1989 and during the relevant period of time including 1993 and 1994. Petitioner is a male African-American, and a member of a protected class. Petitioner applied for a promotion to three different positions at the college between August 26, 1993 and December 6, 1993. In late August, 1993, Petitioner applied for the part-time position of House Manager at the college theatre. Petitioner was not selected because his present work schedule would overlap the position at the theatre and his prior work experience was not relevant to the position. In addition, another candidate possessed better interpersonal and communication skills, and his education and work experience was more relevant to the position than the Petitioner's. In early October, 1993, Petitioner applied for the position of HVACR (heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration) apprentice. The position is a learning position which requires working with a lead mechanic. Part of the job requirement for the apprentice position was the ability to attend trade school in HVACR. During the employment interview Petitioner expressed reservations about attending the HVACR training because he was presently enrolled in night classes at Rollins College. In addition to Petitioner, two white males and a Hispanic male applied for the position. A Hispanic male was selected for the position who had better qualifications. Thereafter, the racial make-up of the HVACR Department consisted of two whites, one black and one Hispanic male. On October 14, 1993, three vacancies for the newly created position of Lead Custodian in the Physical Plant Department was advertised by Respondent. Petitioner was one of nine applicants for the position. The nine individuals who applied for the position of Lead Custodian consisted of four African-American males, three African-American females and two Caucasian females. Following the review of each persons application and file and a personal interview, two African-American males and one African-American female were selected for the positions. Petitioner was not recommended for one of the vacancies. The selection process was based on relevant work experience and work history, and was not based on improper or discriminatory race or gender considerations. Petitioner was not denied training based on his race or gender. Petitioner applied for and attended six seminars covering a variety of subjects over the last several years. Respondent's stated reasons for its promotion and training decisions were not proven to be pretextual.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order which DENIES the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: Accepted in substance: paragraphs: none Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or as comment on the evidence: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. COPIES FURNISHED: Lea Ann Banks, Esquire BAKER & HOSTETLER P. O. Box 112 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Ulysses B. Williams 1020 Polk Avenue Orlando, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by VOTRAN from June 6, 1977, until his discharge on January 19, 1982. He started as Serviceman; was promoted to Mechanic B on October 31, 1977; to Night Leadman on August 7, 1978; to Mechanic A on January 13, 1980; and to permanent Night Leadman on November 30, 1981. He was the senior mechanic in the maintenance department and, prior to December, 1981, was Leadman on the day shift. Effective November 30, 1981, the position as Leadman on the day shift was abolished and these duties were absorbed by the Maintenance Superintendent, Owen Davis. Pursuant to the Union contract in effect at VOTRAN, available jobs are bid by seniority and go to the most senior qualified man seeking the position. When the Day Leadman position was abolished, Petitioner bid on the Night Leadman position and, as senior mechanic, was awarded the job. Working days (or nights) for the Night Leadman are Tuesdays through Saturdays, with Sundays and Mondays off. This was known to Petitioner at the time he submitted his bid and was awarded this position. After a short time as Night Leadman, Petitioner requested leave on Saturday to attend an uncle's funeral in Georgia. Davis told Petitioner this would leave them shorthanded. Petitioner then told Davis that he did not like working on Saturday and wouldn't come in. Davis reported this incident to the General Manager, Kenneth Fischer. Late in December Petitioner met with Fischer, at which time Petitioner told Fischer he was unable to handle the job of Night Leadman. Fischer offered Petitioner the option of swapping jobs with a Mechanic A on the day shift but that job paid less and Petitioner turned it down. On another occasion, Fischer learned Petitioner had called in and said he could not come to work on Saturday because he had to move furniture. That resulted in a memo of January 12, 1982 (Exhibit 3) memorializing the December 29, 1981, meeting between Petitioner and Fischer in which Fischer repeated his warning to Petitioner against calling in sick on Saturdays unless his illness could be documented. This memo was delayed getting into Petitioner's box and was not received by him until the following Friday. Fischer was off Saturday, Petitioner was off Sunday and Monday, and on Tuesday, January 19, 1982, Petitioner met with Fischer. After Fischer had entered his car in the parking lot around 6:00 p.m. preparing to go home, Petitioner approached the car and told Fischer he would like to speak to him. Fischer got out of his car, they walked back into the building, Fischer unlocked his office, and they entered. Petitioner tossed the memo of January 12, 1982, on the desk complaining that he thought he was being discriminated against and that if the rules respecting sick leave of less than three days were being changed they should apply to all employees and not just to Petitioner. The meeting quickly escalated into a confrontation with Petitioner telling the younger Fischer that Petitioner was a 40-year-old man with a family, and that Fischer was not man enough to fire him. Whereupon Fischer told Petitioner to "hit the door." Petitioner then told Fischer that he would get VOTRAN's "shit" together and for Fischer to get Petitioner's "shit" together, and Petitioner left. Petitioner's voice immediately prior to his departure was sufficiently loud to be heard by two employees from 200 feet down the hall from Fischer's office. Petitioner's testimony conflicted with the above finding of what went on at the fateful meeting of January 19. Petitioner testified that he remained calm during the meeting, that he never told Fischer that the latter was not man enough to fire him, that he told Fischer they should discuss the matter like grown men, that he used the word "shit" to indicate personal property, and that Fischer is the one who got angry and told Petitioner to "sit down" before he told Petitioner to "hit the door." Petitioner also testified that during the little ever a month he was Leadman on the night shift he missed one or two Saturdays, that the memo of January 12 made him feel he was being treated differently from others, and that he and Fischer had at least three conferences before January 19, 1982, when he was fired. VOTRAN is a publicly owned transportation company subsidized by Volusia County and originally financed by the Federal Government. While funded by the Federal Government VOTRAN was subject to and in compliance with all federal laws proscribing discrimination. Of the 83 employees of VOTRAN, 20 are black. In Volusia County blacks constitute approximately 13 percent of the population. While employed at VOTRAN, Petitioner attended three schools to improve his training and VOTRAN paid the tuition. Although there was a discrepancy between Petitioner's testimony that he was the only black mechanic employed by VOTRAN, and VOTRAN's testimony that there were two blacks employed as mechanics, the evidence was unrebutted that following Petitioner's discharge another black mechanic was hired by VOTRAN. To further support his claim that he was fired because of his race, Petitioner testified that as a Leadman he was never issued a white shirt, that white shirts and blue pants were provided supervisors (including leadmen) by VOTRAN, and that blue shirts were issued to other workmen except in the bodyshop where the workers were issued white pants and shirts. Petitioner mentioned this difference to one of the shop's stewards who told Petitioner that if he felt wronged he should file a grievance. Petitioner never filed a grievance and neither the Superintendent nor the Director of Maintenance was asked by Petitioner to provide him with a white shirt. Other witnesses testified that some leadmen wore white shirts, others wore blue shirts, and it was generally left to the choice of the leadman which color shirt he wore. One witness called by Petitioner testified that he once overheard a Fischer and Davis conversation at which the phrase "dumb niggers" was used. Both categorically denied ever making such a racial slur. No other witness testified to any incident which could lead to a conclusion that Fischer was in any manner prejudiced or racially discriminatory. His reputation among the bus drivers is that he "goes by the book." As another ground to support his charge of racial discrimination, Petitioner testified that while he was Night Leadman he was not provided a key to the Superintendent's desk which other night leadmen had been provided; and that when it was necessary to get into the desk for special tools kept there, it was necessary to call the Superintendent, who would come down and unlock the desk. The Superintendent, Davis, confirmed that Petitioner had not been issued a key because a short time before Petitioner started the night shift too many keys had been issued, all of these keys had been called in, and, when he found his presence was frequently required at night to open the desk, he reissued a key to the Night Leadman. By this time Petitioner had been terminated. The contract between VOTRAN and the Teamsters Union provided for arbitration of grievances. This document also provides that neither employer nor Union will discriminate against any individual with respect to recruitment, hiring, training, promotion, or other employment practice for reasons of race, etc. (Exhibit 1, Article 9). When Petitioner told the shop's steward (also black) that he had been fired, he did not indicate he was fired by reason of race. Petitioner was advised by the shop's steward that he could file a grievance with the Union and his firing could go to arbitration if not settled prior to that step. Petitioner was not a dues-paying member of the Union, and, although covered by the contract, did not feel he would get a sympathetic ear from the Union. The General Manager, William Barrett, who preceded Fischer, was called as a witness by Petitioner. Barrett was General Manager when Petitioner was hired, approved the various training programs taken by Petitioner at VOTRAN's expense, and found Petitioner to be a good and reliable employee. Barrett further testified that it was necessary to maintain discipline in order to operate effectively and that if an employee challenged his authority he would have no choice but to fire the employee immediately.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner was not hired for a position with the Respondent in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: On or about November 2, 1989, Petitioner executed a pre-employment application with the Respondent and sought full-time work as a cashier. That application indicated Petitioner was over 18 years of age but did not otherwise state her age. In late November, 1989, Deanna Clements telephoned the Petitioner's home to arrange for an employment interview. Since Petitioner was unavailable, Ms. Clements left a message for Petitioner to telephone the store to schedule an appointment. The next day, Petitioner went to the store (without having scheduled an appointment) and asked to see Ms. Clements who was not available. Ms. Chan, the store attendant, advised Petitioner that she could come back to see when she could be scheduled. Whereupon Petitioner left the store. Approximately thirty minutes later, Petitioner returned to the store and again asked to see Ms. Clements. Again, Ms. Chan advised Petitioner that Ms. Clements was not available at that time. Petitioner then elected to wait for an opportunity to see Ms. Clements and began to circulate among the store's customers. It was then that Petitioner claimed she observed a male customer attempting to shoplift a key chain. Petitioner confronted the customer who was upset by the accusation. The customer went to the counter where Ms. Chan was located and emptied his pockets to verify that he had taken nothing. When Petitioner came into the store a third time and Ms. Chan again informed her that Ms. Clements was not available to interview her, Petitioner became upset, made several derogatory comments to Ms. Chan, tore up an application and threw it at Ms. Chan. Some days later, Pamela Smith (then employed as a personnel assistant) telephoned Petitioner to arrange a job interview. Ms. Smith was unaware of the activities that are described in paragraphs 2 through 6 and scheduled an appointment for the next day to interview Petitioner. Ms. Smith interviewed Petitioner and found her less than attentive to the requirements of the job. For her part, Petitioner was anxious to have full- time employment and did not consider the demands of the position beyond her capabilities. Following the interview, Ms. Chan observed Petitioner leaving the premises and advised Ms. Clements and Mr. Wright of the incidents that had occurred earlier. Upon being advised of those matters, Mr. Wright told Ms. Smith to remove Petitioner's application from those to be considered. When those directions were given Mr. Wright did not know Petitioner's age. Petitioner was not hired by the Respondent because she exhibited poor judgment in challenging the store's customer and in berating Ms. Chan. Respondent is an employer within the statutory definition set forth in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's claim of discrimination against the Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of October, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-2762 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: None submitted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 18 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Olga Hughes 106 Orienta Drive Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701 J. Mark Johnston HOGG, ALLEN, NORTON & BLUE, P.A. 201 South Orange Avenue Barnett Plaza Suite 740 Orlando, Florida 32801 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Margaret Jones, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
The Issue Whether Petitioner was discriminated against by being given poor evaluations, receiving disciplinary action as the result of grievances, and being passed over for a promotion because of his race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was an employee of Respondent, Sunrise Community, Inc. He was employed by Respondent for eleven years. He worked as a caregiver in a facility for persons requiring intermediate care or therapy. He was a home manager supervising several co-workers in caring for and training mentally handicapped residents. Approximately one year prior to filing his complaint in 1996, Petitioner was counseled for improperly touching a female employee with whom he worked. He did not perform certain activities associated with his job. Because of his conduct and work deficiencies, Petitioner was given a poor performance evaluation. Subsequently, a promotional position became open. Petitioner applied for the opening. He was qualified for the position. He was not promoted. Petitioner is a black male. Petitioner asserts that he was not promoted because he is a black male. The evidence shows that Petitioner did touch a female co-worker inappropriately, and that Respondent gave him a reprimand for this conduct. He received a poor performance evaluation. Such evaluations are by their nature subjective; however, the reprimand and his poor job performance were sufficient cause to reduce his evaluation. The promotional position was filled by a black female employee of the company who had more experience than Petitioner, and who had previously performed similar duties. There was no showing that the grievances, evaluations, or failure to promote were racially motivated.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter its final order dismissing Petitioner's Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 21st day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Wilford Evans 925 Cochran Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven M. Weinger, Esquire Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger & Tetzeli, P.A. 2650 Southwest 27th Avenue Second Floor Miami, Florida 33133 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner in employment on the basis of age in violation of section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2013).
Findings Of Fact Formed in 1976, Respondent is a small federally chartered savings bank, also known as a community bank, with its main office in Miami. At all material times, Respondent has maintained three or four branch offices in south Florida. Respondent has 73 fulltime and parttime employees in its main and branch offices and has, at all times, employed the jurisdictional minimum of employees to be covered by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended. Respondent is a minority-owned bank that specializes in service to the Hispanic community. Respondent's primary banking services are checking, savings, and mortgage lending for residential and commercial properties. Respondent suffered a decline in business during and after the 2008 recession. Even so, in one fiscal year ending between 2008 and 2012, Respondent had $1-$1.5 million in earnings. However, its revenues declined sharply in 2011 and 2012. For the fiscal year ending June 2012, Respondent reported $8.5 million in losses. In anticipation of future losses, Respondent transfered $6 million from capital to a loss-reserve fund. Due to Respondent's decline in business, as well as a decline in the value of Respondent's mortgage portfolio, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) conducted ongoing examinations from 2008 through 2012. Eventually, in September 2012, Respondent and OCC entered into a Consent Order, under which Respondent continues to operate. Among other things, the Consent Order has required Respondent to streamline its workforce in order to reduce expenses. Although the Consent Order had not been executed during the summer of 2012, Respondent's officers and directors were aware at that time that their bank would soon be under a consent order that would require significant restructuring of Respondent's workforce. Petitioner, who was born on January 27, 1941, started working at Respondent in the late 1980s. During the ensuing 26 years, she has always worked in the bookkeeping department, which is located in the main office. In 2012, Petitioner's primary duty was to process Automated Clearing House (ACH) returns on unsuccessful debit transactions. This job required an employee manually to enter a code for the reason for the return--e.g., insufficient funds or incorrect account number--and ensure that the proper account credit was entered. Although the components of this job have been progressively automated over the years, Petitioner testified that she was spending five to six hours daily on this work during mid-2012. In 2012, Petitioner also performed a couple of other jobs at the bank. She closed overdrawn customer accounts, which required four to five hours weekly. And she backed up for an employee who handled large checks--i.e., over $5000--to ensure that they were properly processed by the bank. Petitioner testified that no other employee was trained to perform the ACH returns. One or two other employees performed this assignment when Petitioner was not in the office, but Petitioner found their work to be substandard. In the first half of 2012, Petitioner's supervisor asked her to train another employee, Lisette Hadad, to handle the ACH returns. Petitioner did so, typically spending an hour or two at a time, over the course of three months. On July 12, 2012, when the training was substantially done, Respondent terminated Petitioner and turned her ACH duties over to Ms. Hadad. Ms. Hadad, who was 57 years old at the time, has been with the bank for 14 years. She started as a teller, but, after three years, was promoted to vault teller. After serving as vault teller, Ms. Hadad was promoted to assistant head teller. After two years in this position, Ms. Hadad was promoted to head teller. Ms. Hadad served as head teller until 2007 when Respondent created the wire transfer department and directed Ms. Hadad to handle all of the wire transfers for the bank. This is a position of high responsibility because the bank has many customers with multinational ties. As a result, Ms. Hadad daily handles wire transfers totalling millions of dollars and must ensure that each transfer complies with applicable federal laws. However, wire transfers did not fill Ms. Hadad's work day. She has assumed all of Petitioner's duties concerning ACH returns while continuing to perform the wire transfer duties. Several nondiscriminatory reasons explain Petitioner's termination. First, in the summer of 2012, the bookkeeping department consisted of three employees, and the other two employees had worked with the bank for about four years longer than Petitioner and performed work that Petitioner was not able to perform. At the same time, the bookkeeping department was slowly losing staff due to automation. Ms. Hadad did not transfer to the bookkeeping department after Petitioner was terminated. One of the other bookkeeping employees was transferred to an opening in customer services, so that, today, the bookkeeping department consists of a lone employee. Petitioner testified that the ACH return work resisted automation. However, over time, more parts of this job have been automated, according to Ms. Hadad. In the same vein, Petitioner's abilities were limited. While she was performing the ACH return work, external auditors routinely found the same errors, year after year. Since Ms. Hadad has assumed this responsibility, the external auditors have found the work to be much better--to the point that, last year, there was not a single repeated error. Nothing in the record supports an inference of age discrimination in the termination of Petitioner. Respondent had a pressing need to cut its workforce in response to reduced revenues in general and auditors' demands in particular. At the same time, Respondent maintains a remarkably mature workforce and does not appear to have used workforce reductions as a means to trim the age of its workforce. At the time of the hearing, four of Respondent's employees were in their 70s, 14 of its employees were in their 60s, and 23 of its employees were in their 50s-- with the average age of its employees being 50 years. Respondent added two employees in 2012; both were in their 70s. At the hearing, Petitioner admitted that her allegation of the termination of another employee of advanced years was a mistake. The former employee testified that she chose to retire less than three months after Petitioner had been terminated. At the time of her retirement, at 72 years of age, this employee rejected an offer from the bank to continue to work part time. Respondent also maintains an unusually cohesive, loyal workforce. As noted above, Petitioner's coworkers in the bookkeeping department had each worked with the bank for 30 years. The 72-year-old employee mentioned in the preceding paragraph had worked with the bank for 33 years at the time of her retirement. The Chief Financial Office, Victor Fernandez, who informed Petitioner that she was being terminated, has worked at the bank for 20 years and, earlier in his career, regularly had lunch with Petitioner. From this personal relationship with Petitioner, Mr. Fernandez knew that she owned or leased an apartment at Hallandale Beach, and she intended to live in the apartment after she retired. For this reason, at the meeting at which Mr. Fernandez terminated Petitioner, he tried to make Petitioner feel better by mentioning how she could now live in her apartment at the beach. This comment was not an unguarded disclosure of an unlawful focus on Petitioner's age; rather it reflected Mr. Fernandez's concern for the feelings of Petitioner and his knowledge that, at some point, she wanted to retire to the apartment. Given the above-cited evidence clearly establishing nondiscriminatory reasons for Petitioner's termination, it hardly seems necessary to add that, in any event, Mr. Fernandez was only communicating to Petitioner a decision that had been made by others. As part of its streamlining efforts, Respondent had retained outside consultants to study Respondent's workforce for inefficiencies and redundancies. The consultants recommended workforce reductions, which were then considered and implemented by department managers in conjunction with human resources staff. Mr. Fernandez took no part in this process as it applied to Petitioner.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief filed on January 14, 2014. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Violet Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jay J. Lorenzo, Esquire Lorenzo and Rodriguez-Rams 9192 Coral Way, Suite 201 Miami, Florida 33165 Eddy O. Marban, Esquire Law Offices of Eddy O. Marban 1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902 Miami, Florida 33134 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was terminated from his employment with the Respondent in the Hospitality Department at the Grand Floridian Hotel on or about March 18, 1993 on the basis of his national origin (Hispanic-Dominican Republic), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1992).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an employer under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. The Petitioner was employed by the Respondent at its Grand Floridian Hotel as a valet/greeter/bellman in the Hospitality Department during the relevant period of time, including March of 1993. The Petitioner is of Hispanic origin from the Dominican Republic and is a member of a protected class. In approximately October of 1988, the Petitioner began his employment with the Respondent at the Contemporary Hotel as a valet/greeter. In April of 1989, the Petitioner received a written reprimand for not logging in a piece of luggage. The Petitioner did not grieve the April 1988 written reprimand. In May of 1989, the Petitioner transferred to the Respondent's Grand Floridian Hotel, where he was a valet/greeter/bellman. In February of 1990, the Petitioner received an oral reprimand for three separate incidents of improperly logging luggage. 9. The Petitioner could not recall if he grieved the February, 1990 oral reprimand. In August of 1990, the Petitioner again received an oral reprimand, this time for mixing up luggage while loading it into vehicles. The luggage had to be mailed to each rightful owner at the Respondent's expense and caused an inconvenience to the guests. The Petitioner could not recall if he grieved the August 1990 oral reprimand. In December of 1991, the Petitioner mishandled luggage by failing to tag all of a guest's bags. In May of 1992, the Respondent's management discussed with the Petitioner his failure to tag a piece of luggage. In July of 1992, the Petitioner received a verbal reprimand for failing to log in a guest's luggage. The Petitioner's verbal reprimand in July of 1992 was the result of a direct complaint by a guest, who was required to search for a piece of his own luggage in the Hotel's storage room. The Petitioner could not recall if he grieved the July 1992 verbal reprimand. In September of 1992, the Petitioner received a verbal reprimand for approaching a guest to discuss splitting a tip with a bellman, an impermissible practice. The Petitioner was not suspended for this incident. In December of 1992, the Petitioner received a written reprimand for failing to follow proper procedures regarding a guest's luggage on two separate occasions. The Petitioner did not grieve the December 1992 written reprimand. The Respondent decided not to consider the two incidents in December of the Petitioner's luggage-mishandling as separate incidents for progressive discipline purposes, even though such action was permissible under the collective bargaining agreement. The Respondent's decision not to consider the two December 1992 incidents separately for progressive discipline purposes was based upon the Petitioner's length of service and his good performance in other areas. The Petitioner had a good attitude, had good people skills, and had received good guest comments during the course of his employment. In December of 1992, the Petitioner understood that he was in the progressive discipline process. In January of 1993, the Respondent met with the Petitioner and offered to remove him from the responsibility of handling luggage by putting him in a non-tipped, dispatcher position. Also, in January of 1993, the Respondent and the Petitioner's union representative were working together to preserve the Petitioner's job. The Petitioner was reminded by his union representative about his previous reprimands and that one more incident would cause his termination. The Petitioner was told by his union representative that the purpose of moving him to a dispatcher position was to get him away from the luggage-handling area. The Petitioner was told that if he remained free of similar reprimands for one year, he could return to the tipped position of valet/greeter with no loss of seniority. After initially refusing the dispatcher position, the Petitioner accepted. The Petitioner was given the shift that he requested when he was transferred to the dispatcher position. In February of 1993 while on duty as a dispatcher, the Petitioner received a three-day suspension, without pay, for using poor judgment. He interrupted a valet while the valet was servicing a guest. The Petitioner did not grieve the February 1993 suspension. The Petitioner's action as a dispatcher of interrupting a valet was grounds for the valet to grieve such actions to the union. The suspension in February of 1993 for the Petitioner's poor judgment as a dispatcher was not the basis for his termination. The Petitioner requested a reclassification back to valet/greeter/bellman position. The Petitioner understood that one more incident of any kind would result in his immediate termination. The Petitioner requested the change from dispatcher back to valet/greeter/bellman for personal financial reasons; and his union representative also advised him that if one more incident of any kind occurred, he would be terminated. On March 16, 1993, the Petitioner mishandled luggage. The Petitioner did not properly log in a guest's luggage (a garment bag). 35. The Petitioner was terminated on March 18, 1993 for poor job performance. The progressive discipline which the Petitioner received was consistent with the union contract. The contract provides that an employee can be terminated for the next offense following a single written reprimand. The Petitioner had the opportunity to grieve all of the reprimands he received, and his union representative was aware of the actions taken in connection with the Petitioner's employment. The Petitioner grieved his termination, and that grievance was denied. The Petitioner failed to provide evidence of any similarly-situated employee who was not terminated for mishandling luggage on as many occasions as he had. The Petitioner failed to provide evidence regarding any discrimination against other Hispanic employees, other than his own belief, speculation or conjecture. The Petitioner understood that the Respondent's management was closely checking into everyone's performance. Management asked all of the employees at the Grand Floridian Hotel to help the Hotel earn a five-star rating. The Petitioner was never part of the Respondent's management and did not attend manager meetings. During the course of his employment, the Petitioner was chosen to train other employees because he knew the proper procedures for his valet/bellman/greeter position. The Petitioner knew the proper procedures for handling luggage received from guests. The Petitioner knew the proper procedures for logging in and handling bags. The Petitioner received copies of the Respondent's policies and procedures for a valet/bellman, including luggage handling. The Petitioner did not report many of the alleged discriminatory actions of his co-workers to management. The Petitioner conceded that on those occasions when he did make reports to management, these alleged actions stopped. The Petitioner received the overtime and schedules which he requested because of his seniority. The number of minorities employed at the Respondent's Orlando, Florida, work site has increased from 1993 to 1996. The number of minorities employed at the Respondent's Grand Floridian Hotel has either remained the same or increased from 1992 to 1995. In January of 1993, the number of minorities in the Grand Floridian Hotel's Hospitality Department was 14, of which 11 were Hispanic; and there were four Hispanics in the valet/greeter classification. In February of 1996, the number of minorities in the Grand Floridian Hotel's Hospitality Department (including valets, bellmen, greeters and dispatchers) was 16, of which 12 were Hispanic; and there were four Hispanics in the valet/greeter classification. The Petitioner failed to produce any evidence of an overall plan by the Respondent's management to eliminate minorities, including Hispanics, from employment at the company. The Respondent allows employees to review their employment records at any time upon request. The Petitioner presented only his own beliefs, speculation or conjecture as a basis for his claims of national origin discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order which denies the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of April, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of April, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-3990 The following constitute my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. The Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact. Proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-20, 22-31, 33-39, 41-61. Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or as comment on the evidence: paragraphs 21, 32, 40. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Jorge V. Jimenez 2716 FDC Grove Road Davenport, Florida 33837 Myrna L. Galligano, Esquire Garwood, McKenna & McKenna, P.A. 731 North Garland Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Dana C. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
