The Issue This proceeding commenced when Charles Siplin made his timely request for formal hearing in response to Respondent's February 11, 1986 letter denying his application for qualification and licensure as a temporary ordinary combination life and disability agent and his application for examination as "ordinary combination life including disability agent". The issue is whether Petitioner's 1978 plea of guilty to first degree manslaughter in New York is a valid ground for either compulsory or discretionary license denial. At the final hearing Mr. Siplin testified in his own behalf and no other witnesses appeared. By stipulation a joint composite exhibit was admitted into evidence, which exhibit included a Certificate of Disposition from the New York Supreme Court for the County of Bronx, a pre-sentence investigation report, New York's Certificate of Relief from Disabilities, Petitioner's Application for Examination as insurance agent and Department of Insurance denial letter. After the hearing Respondent submitted its Proposed Recommended Order with proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. These have been considered and have been incorporated, where appropriate, in this Recommended Order. Only two findings of fact were proposed; these have both been adopted in paragraphs 2 and 3, below.
Findings Of Fact Charles Siplin is forty-five years old and currently resides in Winter Garden, Florida. He was born and raised near Orlando, the sixth of eight children. His parents worked as school bus drivers and maintained a stable self-sufficient home. Except for Charles, the Siplin siblings have not been arrested and have mostly made satisfactory social adjustments. (Joint Exhibit #1, P.S.I.) On April 14, 1978, Charles Siplin pleaded guilty to first degree manslaughter in Bronx County, New York, and was sentenced to state prison for a term of 0-15 years (Joint Exhibit #1, Certificate of Disposition). He served five years and ten months. (T-17) The crime to which Mr. Siplin pleaded guilty was the stabbing death of his wife and serious injury of his father-in-law. The incident resulted from a heated domestic quarrel over Siplin's desire to see his four year old son and his wife's demand for money for the son to attend private school. The Siplins had been separated for several months and the wife and child were living with her father. (Joint exhibit #1, P.S.I.) Charles Siplin had never been in trouble with the law before. He had a high school education and stable employment history. He served a three-year tour in the Army and was honorably discharged. From 1963 until he was indicted in 1976, he worked for the New York City Transit Authority as a bus dispatcher. (Joint Exhibit #1, P.S.I. T-14) While in prison he took advantage of various educational and training programs, including legal research, optical training, and printing, and obtained college credits in different areas. He set up programs for assisting inmates who were Vietnam veterans to upgrade their military discharges and he and an assistant represented the veteran inmates before the military boards. (T-19, 20) During his period of incarceration he worked his way from maximum security to medium, then minimum security and eventually achieved work release. He had no disciplinary violations. (T-19,20) While in prison he took classes from an insurance broker, who was a fellow inmate, and he set a personal goal of working in the insurance field when he got out and could apply for a license. (T-26) After returning to Florida in 1984, Charles Siplin obtained employment selling cars and has since been steadily employed. He currently is working in an insurance office and is managing an 80-unit apartment complex. (T-25, 27-28, Joint Exhibit #1, Department of Insurance Application for filing for Examination) On June 20, 1985, Mr. Siplin was issued a Certificate of Relief from Disabilities from the New York State Board of Parole. The certificate indicates that it is considered permanent and "...removes all legal bars and disabilities to employment, license and privilege except those imposed under Sections 265.01(4) and 400.00 of the Penal Law". (Joint exhibit #1, Certificate of Relief from Disabilities) The referenced sections of New York Law relate to possession and license to carry or possess firearms. Charles Siplin remains on parole under the supervision of a local parole officer. He is eligible to apply for early dismissal from parole in about 10 months and his total term of parole is five years. (T-23-30) Charles Siplin's attitude is summarized in the following excerpt from his testimony: "Okay, I accepted the fact that there was a crime, I was involved with it, okay. My wife died behind it, my father-in-law was hurt behind it. I'm not trying to say that didn't happen, it did happen, but I accepted it, okay? I have no -- when you say no remorse, okay, there is. I, you know, feel very bad about it. I don't feel that it's ever going to happen again in my life, because I've realized one thing. That was a crime against society, and a life was taken, you know, but I can't bring that life back. What I can do is continue to do good. I'm not saying I'm perfect, but I can do the best I can. I also feel that I'm a changed person. That was like a nightmare. Something happened in my life that night, and I can't make any excuses for it, just something happened. I hope it happens no -- I wouldn't want that to happen to anybody. It's just something that changed my whole life. But today I understand, I have a clear mind, and, you know, and it doesn't affect me, it doesn't affect my ability to think. I can be a productive citizen within any society. I feel I can go anyplace and be a productive citizen, and do the right thing and abide by the law, and I will do that. But again, I'm not perfect and I know this, but I'll try my best." He was a credible witness. While he states he enjoys sales and meeting and dealing with people (T-25,26), his case as presented through his own testimony was not a "hard sell" but rather a simple story of the catastrophic event that took a life, injured another and sent him to prison.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner received notice of the August 19, 2005, administrative hearing, and if not, whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on his race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. In the fall of 2004, Petitioner's cousin, Barry Walker, worked for Respondent as a cook. Mr. Walker recommended that Respondent hire Petitioner as a dishwasher. James Pigneri, Respondent's owner, interviewed Petitioner and decided to hire him as a dishwasher on a trial basis. Petitioner began washing dishes for Respondent in September 2004. In October 2004, Petitioner began a 90-day probationary period as Respondent's dishwasher. At that time, PMI Employee Leasing (PMI) became Petitioner's co-employer. PMI has a contractual relationship with Respondent. Through this contract, PMI assumes responsibility for Respondent's human resource issues, payroll needs, employee benefits, and workers’ compensation coverage. On October 10, 2004, Petitioner signed an acknowledgement that he had received a copy of PMI's employee handbook, which included PMI's policies on discrimination, harassment, or other civil rights violations. The handbook states that employees must immediately notify PMI for certain workplace claims, including but not limited to, claims involving release from work, labor relation problems, and discrimination. The handbook requires employees to inform PMI within 48 hours if employment ceases for any reason. PMI's discrimination and harassment policies provide employees with a toll-free telephone number. When an employee makes a complaint or files a grievance, PMI performs an investigation and takes any corrective action that is required. The cook-line in Respondent's kitchen consist of work stations for all sauté and grill cooks. The cook-line runs parallel to a row of glass windows between the kitchen and the dining room and around the corner between the kitchen and the outside deck. Customers in the dining room and on the deck can see all of the cooks preparing food at the work stations along the cook-line. On the evening of December 18, 2004, Respondent's business was crowded with customers in the dining room and on the deck. On December 18, 2004, Petitioner was working in Respondent's kitchen. Sometime during the dinner shift, Petitioner was standing on the cook-line near the windows, talking to a cook named Bob. Petitioner was discussing a scar on his body. During the discussion, Petitioner raised his shirt, exposing his chest, arm, and armpit. The cook named Bob told Petitioner to put his shirt down. Erin Pigneri, a white male, is the son of Respondent's owner, James Pignari. As one of Respondent's certified food managers, Erin Pigneri must be vigilant about compliance with health code regulations when he works as Respondent's shift manager. Erin Pigneri has authority to recommend that employees be fired, but his father, James Pigneri, makes the final employment decision. On December 18, 2004, Erin Pigneri, was working as Respondent's manager and was in charge of the restaurant because his father was not working that night. When Erin Pigneri saw Petitioner with his shirt raised up, he yelled out for Petitioner put his shirt back on and to get off the cook-line. Erin Pigneri was alarmed to see Petitioner with his shirt off on the cook-line because customers could see Petitioner and because Petitioner's action violated the health code. Petitioner's reaction was immediately insubordinate. Petitioner told Erin Pigneri that he could not speak to Petitioner in that tone of voice. Erin Pigneri had to tell Petitioner several times to put his shirt on, explaining that Petitioner was committing a major health-code violation. When Petitioner walked up to Erin Pigneri, the two men began to confront each other using profanity but no racial slurs. Erin Pigneri finally told Petitioner that, "I'm a 35- year-old man and no 19-year-old punk is going to talk to me in that manner and if you don't like it, you can leave." Erin Pigneri did not use a racial slur or tell Petitioner to "paint yourself white." After the confrontation, Erin Pigneri left the kitchen. Petitioner went back to work, completing his shift without further incident. Petitioner did not have further conversation with Erin Pigneri on the evening of December 18, 2004. Erin Pigneri did not discuss Petitioner or the shirt incident with any of the waiters or any other staff members that night. On Monday evening, December 20, 2004, Erin Pigneri was in the restaurant when Petitioner and his cousin, Mr. Walker, came to work. Petitioner was dressed in nicer clothes than he usually wore to work. Mr. Walker approached Erin and James Pigneri, telling them that they needed to have a meeting. Erin and James Pigneri followed Petitioner and Mr. Walker into the kitchen. The conversation began with Mr. Walker complaining that he understood some racist things were going on at the restaurant. Mr. Walker wanted talk about Erin Pigneri's alleged use of the "N" word. Erin Pigneri did not understand Mr. Walker's concern because Mr. Walker had been at work on the cook-line during the December 18, 2004, shirt incident. According to Petitioner's testimony at the hearing, Mr. Walker had talked to a waiter over the weekend. The waiter was Mr. Walker's girlfriend. Petitioner testified that the waiter/girlfriend told Mr. Walker that she heard Erin Pigneri use the "N" word in reference to Petitioner after Erin Pigneri left the kitchen after the shirt incident on December 18, 2004. Petitioner testified that neither he nor Mr. Walker had first- hand knowledge of Erin Pigneri's alleged use the "N" word in the dining room. Neither Mr. Walker nor the waiter provided testimony at the hearing. Accordingly, this hearsay evidence is not competent evidence that Erin Pigneri used a racial slur in the dining room after the "shirt incident." During the meeting on December 20, 2004, Erin Pigneri explained to Petitioner and Mr. Walker that the incident on December 18, 2004, involved Petitioner's insubordination and not racism. Mr. Walker wanted to know why Erin Pigneri had not fired Petitioner on Saturday night if he had been insubordinate. Erin Pigneri told Mr. Walker that he would have fired Petitioner but he did not want Respondent to lose Mr. Walker as an employee. Apparently, it is relatively easy to replace a dishwasher but not easy to replace a cook like Mr. Walker. Erin Pigneri asked Mr. Walker and another African- American who worked in the kitchen whether they had ever heard him make derogatory racial slurs. There is no persuasive evidence that Erin Pigneri ever made such comments even though Petitioner occasionally, and in a joking manner, called Erin Pigneri slang names like Cracker, Dago, and Guinea. Petitioner was present when Mr. Walker and Erin Pigneri discussed the alleged racial slurs. Petitioner's only contribution to the conversation was to repeatedly ask whether he was fired. Erin Pigneri never told Petitioner he was fired. After hearing Mr. Walker's concern and Erin Pigneri's explanation, James Pigneri specifically told Petitioner that he was not fired. James Pigneri told Petitioner that he needed to talk to Erin Pigneri and that they needed to work things out, man-to-man. After the meeting, Mr. Walker began his work for the evening shift on December 20, 2004. Petitioner walked around talking on his cell phone, telling his mother that he had been fired and she needed to pick him up. James Pigneri told Petitioner again that he was not fired, that Petitioner should go talk to Erin Pigneri, and that Erin Pigneri was waiting to talk to Petitioner. Erin Pigneri waited in his office for Petitioner to come in to see him. Petitioner never took advantage of that opportunity. During the hearing, Petitioner testified that James Pigneri made an alleged racial slur in reference to Petitioner at some unidentified point in time. According to Petitioner, he learned about the alleged racial slur second-hand from a cook named Bob. Bob did not testify at the hearing; therefore, there is no competent evidence that James Pigneri ever made a racial slur in reference to Petitioner or any other employee. Contrary to PMI's reporting procedures, Petitioner never called or informed PMI that he had been harassed, discriminated against, fired, terminated, or ceased working for Respondent for any reason. On December 22, 2004, PMI correctly concluded that Petitioner had voluntarily terminated or abandoned his employment. When Petitioner filed his Employment Complaint of Discrimination on January 11, 2005, Petitioner listed his address as 6526 Lance Street, Panama City, Florida, which is his mother's residence. On April 18, 2005, FCHR sent the Determination: No Cause to Petitioner at 6501 Pridgen Street, Panama City, Florida, which is the address of one of Petitioner's friends. When Petitioner filed his Petition for Relief on May 25, 2005, Petitioner listed his address the same as his mother's home. FCHR transmitted the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings, indicating that Petitioner's address of record was the same as his friend's home. Therefore, the June 9, 2005, Notice of Hearing, and the July 12, 2005, Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing were sent to Petitioner at his friend's address. During the hearing, Petitioner admitted that between January 2005 and August 2005, he lived back and forth between his mother's and his friend's residences. When he lived with his friend, Petitioner did not check his mail at his mother's home every day. However, Petitioner admitted that he received the June 9, 2005, Notice of Hearing, scheduling the hearing for July 18, 2005, and the July 12, 2005, Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing for August 19, 2005. Petitioner testified that he knew the first hearing was rescheduled to take place on August 19, 2005. According to Petitioner, he misplaced the "papers" identifying the location of the hearing at the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims in Panama City, Florida. Petitioner asserts that he went to the county courthouse on August 19, 2005, based on his erroneous belief that the hearing was to take place at that location. After determining that there was no administrative hearing scheduled at the county courthouse on August 19, 2005, Petitioner did not attempt to call FCHR or the Division of Administrative Hearings. On December 1, 2005, the undersigned sent Petitioner a Notice of Hearing, scheduling the hearing after remand for January 25, 2005. The December 1, 2005, Notice of Hearing was sent to Petitioner at his mother's and his friend's addresses. The copy of the notice sent to his friend's home was returned as undeliverable. During the hearing on January 25, 2005, Petitioner testified that he used one of the earlier notices (dated June 9, 2005, and/or July 12, 2005) to locate the hearing site for that day. This was necessary because Petitioner had misplaced the December 1, 2005, Notice of Hearing. All three notices have listed the hearing site as the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims, 2401 State Avenue, Panama City, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Wheeler, Esquire McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod Pope & Weaver, P.A. Post Office Box 550770 Jacksonville, Florida 32255-0770 Marlow Williams 6526 Lance Street Panama City, Florida 32404
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's claims are untimely under Section 760.11, Florida Statutes (1997), because they were filed more than 365 days after the alleged acts of discrimination and retaliation. (References to chapters and sections are to Florida Statutes (2000) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an adult African-American male with albinism. The parties agreed to limit the administrative hearing to the timeliness of Petitioner's claims of discrimination and retaliation. The Commission received Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination on August 11, 2003. The Charge of Discrimination alleges that Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his race and alleged disability of albinism and that Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for an internal grievance of discrimination by terminating Petitioner's employment. The Commission lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner's claim of discrimination. It is undisputed that all of the alleged acts of discrimination occurred from sometime in 1987 through June 1999. Petitioner filed the Charge of Discrimination on August 11, 2000, more than 365 days after the date of the last act of alleged discrimination on June 30, 1999. Section 760.11(1) authorizes the Commission to act only on a charge of discrimination that is filed within 365 days of the alleged discrimination. Petitioner claims that Respondent terminated Petitioner's employment in retaliation for Petitioner's internal grievances concerning discrimination. The acts of discrimination alleged in the internal grievances occurred prior to July 25, 1999, when Petitioner began his vacation. Petitioner never returned to work at the Lakeland Ledger (the Ledger), a member of the New York Times Regional Group, after July 25, 1999. Prior to July 25, 1999, the Lakeland Police Department conducted an undercover drug investigation of alleged drug use and sales among Ledger employees. The investigators requested management at the Ledger to keep the investigation confidential. On July 26, 1999, investigators made the evidence of the investigation available to Ledger management. Management decided to terminate 14 Ledger employees, including Petitioner, for violation of the Ledger's drug policy. Investigators asked management not to notify the employees of their termination on July 26, 1999, because investigators expected a drug purchase to occur on that date. Investigators recommended that they be present the next day to issue trespass warnings to terminated employees prohibiting the terminated employees from returning to Ledger property. On July 26, 1999, the Ledger completed trespass warnings for each employee to be terminated the following day, including Petitioner. On July 27, 1999, the Ledger issued termination notices for each of the employees implicated in the investigation, including Petitioner. Management at the Ledger did not deliver Petitioner's termination notice to him on July 27, 1999, because Petitioner had begun his vacation on July 25, 1999. However, Petitioner was scheduled to return to work one week later on August 1, 1999. Petitioner's mother died while he was on vacation. On July 28, 1999, Petitioner telephoned Mr. Willie Baker, Petitioner's supervisor, and advised Mr. Baker that Petitioner was taking an additional week of vacation because of his mother's death. Mr. Baker told Petitioner that Mr. Baker would convey the information to Mr. Phil Finnigan, Mr. Baker's supervisor. Neither Mr. Baker nor Mr. Finnigan had authority to inform Petitioner of the termination of his employment. Neither Mr. Baker nor Mr. Finnigan subsequently spoke to Petitioner. Neither Mr. Baker nor Mr. Finnigan was involved in the decision to terminate Petitioner or any other employee that was the subject of the criminal investigation. Ms. Cindy Moates, Human Resource Director, and Mr. Don Whitworth, Publisher, were solely responsible for the decision to terminate employees and to notify them of their termination. Ms. Moates and Mr. Whitworth expected to notify Petitioner of the termination of his employment when Petitioner returned to the Ledger on August 8, 1999. The Ledger did not pay Petitioner for the additional week of vacation he requested from August 1 through August 7, 1999. On August 5, 1999, Charter Behavior Hospital admitted Petitioner and then transferred Petitioner to St. Joseph's Hospital for treatment of depression and abuse of marijuana, alcohol, and cocaine. Petitioner remained in St. Joseph's Hospital through August 11, 1999. On August 6, 1999, Petitioner telephoned Mr. Otis McCollum, Human Resources Director for the New York Times Regional Newspaper Group. Mr. McCollum refused to talk to Petitioner and told Petitioner that attorneys for the New York Times had instructed Mr. McCollum not to talk to Petitioner. Petitioner was concerned about his employment. On August 9, 1999, Petitioner asked Ms. Andrea Holmes, his counselor at the hospital, to telephone the Ledger. Ms. Holmes spoke by telephone with Ms. Moates and asked Ms. Moates if Petitioner was still employed at the Ledger. Ms. Moates declined to answer the question because it was contrary to Ledger policy to discuss the termination of an employee with anyone except the employee or to use the telephone to notify an employee of his or her termination from employment. Ms. Moates agreed to discuss Petitioner's employment status with Ms. Holmes if Ms. Holmes submitted a written authorization signed by Petitioner. On August 10, 1999, Petitioner signed a written medical release prepared for "the purpose of determining Mr. Bailey's employment status," and Ms. Holmes faxed the signed authorization to Ms. Moates on the same day at 10:44 a.m. Ms. Holmes also signed the written authorization that she faxed to Ms. Moates. Upon receipt of the signed written authorization on August 10, 1999, Ms. Moates telephoned Ms. Holmes and notified Ms. Holmes that the Ledger had terminated Petitioner's employment on July 27, 1999. Ms. Moates entered the date and time of the conversation with Mr. Holmes on the written termination notice to Petitioner. Ms. Holmes immediately conveyed the information to Petitioner. Petitioner denies that Ms. Holmes informed him of her conversation with Ms. Moates. The preponderance of credible and persuasive evidence supports a finding that Ms. Holmes conveyed the relevant information to Petitioner on August 10, 1999. Petitioner filed the Charge of Discrimination claiming that his termination was retaliatory more than 365 days after he received notice of the alleged retaliation. The Commission lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner's claim of retaliation in the Charge of Discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order finding that the allegations of discrimination and retaliation are untimely and dismissing the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Horace Bailey 1836 North Crystal Lakeland Drive Apartment Number 56 Lakeland, Florida 33801 Stephen X. Munger, Esquire Matthew Freeman, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP 1900 Marquis One Tower 245 Peachtree Center Avenue, Northeast Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1226
The Issue Whether Petitioner's termination from employment by Respondent on June 15, 2005, was discriminatory in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2005), due to Petitioner's race (African American).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a Black female, was employed by Respondent from November 23, 1998, until her termination on June 14, 2005. Petitioner had performed her duties as a housekeeper adequately during her employment period and had no major disciplinary reports in her record. Her annual reviews indicate she was a fair employee. She had a history of tardiness, but seemed to be getting better in her last years of employment. Petitioner had received a verbal warning notice on March 8, 2005, relating to an altercation with another employee, Katrina Stevens. It appears Petitioner did not instigate the confrontation nor did she actively participate in the argument between Stevens and another employee. She simply happened to be standing nearby when it occurred. A verbal warning notice is preliminary to a reprimand. The other employee, Martine Lane, received a reprimand for the incident. On June 8, 2005, Petitioner received another verbal warning notice, this time for instigating negative remarks toward her supervisor. The gravamen of her complaint about the supervisor was that a certain co-worker had been named Employee of the Month instead of Petitioner. Petitioner became more defiant towards her supervisors and management toward the end of her employment. She would not help out other employees when asked, preferring to tend to her own work area, even when her work was completed. She also made derogatory comments to the co-worker who had won Employee of the Month. When Petitioner's behavior did not change, a decision was made to terminate her employment. It was a difficult decision because good housekeepers were hard to find and Petitioner's work product had always been acceptable. Petitioner had always been well-liked and respected by fellow employees. Both co-workers and management had encouraged Petitioner to apply for supervisory positions when they opened. Her supervisors indicated that, with some training, she could handle a supervisory position. The decision to terminate Petitioner from employment was made by the Executive Housekeeper, Steve Jensen. He relied upon input from other management. On June 18, 2005, Petitioner was stopped from clocking in when she came to work. She was told to report to Jensen's office, which she did. At that time Jensen asked her whether she was still happy with her job, then told her she was being terminated. The reasons given were that she was not supportive, not a team player, and had become more belligerent to management. No mention of race was made as a basis for her termination and none seems to have existed. Petitioner was advised she would be entitled to vacation pay, but it was later discovered she had already used up her available vacation time. Respondent subsequently called Petitioner to offer her a different job, but Petitioner had no interest in returning to work for the company. Respondent has anti-discrimination policies in place, is an equal opportunity employer, and employs minorities in supervisory positions. Interestingly, however, there were no other Black housekeepers employed while Petitioner was working. When a supervisory position opened, Respondent would attempt to fill the position from within its existing employee pool. Two such positions opened when Petitioner was employed. Seven then-current employees applied for those positions, including Petitioner. Of the seven, four had prior supervisory experience; Petitioner did not. Two of the applicants had been with the company longer than Petitioner. Five of the seven applicants had computer knowledge and skills; Petitioner did not. Petitioner is the only candidate who admitted a fear of heights, a minor consideration for the position. Petitioner is the only candidate who stated she could not work on weekends. Petitioner was clearly not the best applicant for the job based on comparison to other candidates. Petitioner did not provide any evidence that her race was a basis for her termination from employment. None of her witnesses provided credible statements concerning discrimination. In fact, her witnesses by and large did not see any discrimination by management.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Hawkins 1556 University Lane, Number 407 Cocoa, Florida 32922 Theodore L. Shinkle, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 1800 West Hibiscus Boulevard, Suite 138 Melbourne, Florida 32901 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether respondent is guilty of an unlawful employment practice as alleged in the petition for relief filed on April 19, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this discrimination case, petitioner, Arthur R. Jones, alleges that in October 1993, when he was fifty-four years of age, he was unlawfully terminated from his position as a welder with respondent, Progress Rail Services, Inc. (PRS), on account of his age. After conducting a preliminary investigation of the claim, the Commission on Human Relations (Commission) concluded that there was no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice occurred. Petitioner then filed his petition for relief realleging the same disparate treatment. Respondent is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of refurbishing railroad cars and is located in Green Cove Springs, Florida. Although there is no direct evidence as to the number of persons employed by PRS, through representation of its counsel in his opening statement, it can be inferred that PRS employed fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the year when the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, or in the preceding calendar year. After taking a welding test, petitioner began employment with PRS in April 1992. Initially, he worked as a carpenter, but he was later transferred to a "weld out" position. The latter position involved physically demanding work and required petitioner and a co-worker, working as a team, to weld steel tops onto railroad car frames. During petitioner's tenure as a PRS employee, PRS had a progressive discipline policy which provided that an employee would receive a verbal warning, followed by a written warning, which was then followed by placement on probation. The fourth and final step was termination of employment. PRS's absenteeism and tardy policy was based on a point system. Employees received one point for tardy or early leave, and two points for absences. When the employee reached eight points, a verbal warning was given in accordance with the progressive discipline policy. A total of twelve points resulted in a written warning while sixteen points resulted in a period of probation. Eighteen points resulted in termination. On November 17, 1992, petitioner was given his first verbal warning regarding absenteeism. On March 24, 1993, petitioner again received a verbal warning for failing to report to work on time. On the March 24 disciplinary action form, petitioner was admonished by his supervisor to "come to work on time." On May 12, 1993, petitioner was given a written warning for absenteeism. On the disciplinary action form, the supervisor noted that petitioner "need(ed) to improve on come (sic) to work all work day." As of May 24, 1992, petitioner had accumulated seventeen points, and thus he was placed on probation for excessive absenteeism. His supervisor again warned him in writing "not (to) be late or absent," and if he was, "(i)t will result in your termination at (PRS)." All of the foregoing disciplinary actions were taken by supervisor O'Bryant. Sometime after May 24, 1992, petitioner began working under a new supervisor, Thomas M. Martin. On December 12, 1992, petitioner was given a verbal warning by Martin for "not wearing safety shoes." The warning was justified since petitioner was not wearing lace-up safety shoes as required by company policy. In May 1993, petitioner was transferred to a "weld-out" position under the supervision of Randy Cochran. On September 3, 1993, Cochran gave petitioner a written warning for "not doing (the) job assign(ed) to him!" Petitioner had been instructed to clean out a storage boxcar but was found reading a newspaper. He was advised in writing that he "need's (sic) to perform the job assign(ed) to him!" On October 1, 1993, petitioner was placed on probation for poor "work performance" due to not meeting established time standards for a particular job. Specifically, he was charged with "taking too long to do the work" by "spend(ing) 5.0 hours on (a job that) should have taken 2.0 hours to complete." He was told in writing to "(d)o (his) job within the time standards," or face possible "termination." After observing petitioner continually failing to meet established time standards during the next few days, on October 6, 1993, Cochran verbally warned petitioner that unless he "made the time standard" on the job he was working that morning, he would be terminated. When Cochran later observed petitioner "way behind" on his job, petitioner was terminated for poor "work performance." According to the disciplinary action form, petitioner was "not able to complete work within time standards." These time standards were uniformly applied to all welders regardless of age, and the dismissal was in conformity with PRS's progressive discipline policy. There is no credible evidence that PRS was motivated by discriminatory animus when it made this employment decision. Whether petitioner was replaced by another person, and if so, the age of that person, is not of record. When an employee leaves employment with PRS, an exit interview is conducted to identify any problems with employment policies and procedures, including management practices. Complaints made by the employee regarding unfair treatment, such as discrimination, are recorded on the exit interview form. When petitioner was discharged, an exit interview was conducted. During the interview, petitioner made no complaints regarding suspected age discrimination. Petitioner was not employed from the time of his discharge until November 16, 1994. On that date, he began collecting Social Security disability benefits. During the years 1991 through 1994, PRS discharged eighty-one employees. Of those, twenty-four were age forty or over. In 1995, respondent had one hundred fifty-seven employees, of which sixty-one were age forty or older. At hearing, petitioner contended that Randy Cochran, his supervisor from May 1993 until his termination, made discriminatory comments regarding his age. Specifically, petitioner contended that, on more than one occasion, Cochran called him an "old man" and threatened to fire him on account of his age. These allegations, however, are not deemed to be credible and are hereby rejected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the the Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order denying the petition for relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Arthur R. Jones Post Office Box 8 Satsuma, Florida 32189 Charles F. Henley, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 40593 Jacksonville, Florida 32203-0593 Dana A. Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Petitioner filed her complaint with the Florida Commission on Human Relations within 365 days of the alleged discriminatory event; and (2) whether Petitioner requested an administrative hearing within 215 days of the filing of her complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Earlene Johnson, is an African-American. Prior to December 1996 Ms. Johnson filed a grievance when Respondent, Chautauqua Office of Psychotherapy and Evaluation (hereinafter referred to as "Chautauqua"), failed to promote her. On December 4, 1996, Ms. Johnson was terminated from employment with Chautauqua. At some time after her termination, Ms. Johnson engaged legal counsel with the intent of filing a complaint of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"). Toward this end, Ms. Johnson signed an Intake Questionnaire and an Affidavit on October 30, 1997. No copy of the Intake Questionnaire or Affidavit was provided by the Commission to Chautauqua within five days of their receipt. On May 4, 1998, more than one year after the alleged acts of discrimination, Ms. Johnson was sent a Charge of Discrimination by Joe Williams, an Intake Counselor for the Commission. Mr. Williams instructed Ms. Johnson of the following in the cover letter which accompanied the Charge of Discrimination: In order for the Commission to proceed further with this matter, you must: Review the complaint; Sign the complaint in the designated spaces in the presence of a notary public; Return the signed complaint to this office in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. Because a complaint of discrimination must be filed within the time limitation imposed by law (in most cases the limitation is 365 days from the date of the alleged discriminatory act), I urge you to complete these three steps as soon as possible. . . . . Ms. Johnson signed the Charge of Discrimination sent to her by Mr. Williams on the date it was sent, May 4, 1998. Ms. Johnson's Charge of Discrimination was not, therefore, filed within 365 days of the date of the last act of discrimination alleged by Ms. Johnson: Ms. Johnson's termination from employment on December 4, 1996. When the Commission failed to complete its investigation of Ms. Johnson's Charge of Discrimination within a reasonable period of time, Ms. Johnson requested an administrative hearing by letter dated August 3, 1999. Ms. Johnson's request for hearing was made one day short of one year and three months after the Charge of Discrimination was filed with the Commission. The Commission filed Ms. Johnson's request for hearing with the Division of Administrative Hearing on September 14, 1999. Chautauqua filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition. An Order to Show Cause was entered after Ms. Johnson failed to respond to the Motion. Ms. Johnson was ordered to answer the following questions: Did the events that Petitioner believes constitute discrimination occur on or before December 4, 1996? If not, when did the events take place? Did Petitioner file a Charge of Discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations on or about May 4, 1998 (a copy of a Charge of Discrimination which appears to have been filed by Petitioner is attached to this Order.) If not, when was it filed? If the Charge of Discrimination filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations was filed more than one year after the events which Petitioner believes constitute discrimination occurred, why wasn't the Charge filed sooner. Petitioner should provide a detailed answer to this question. Ms. Johnson responded to the questions asked in the Order to Show Cause as follows: The events that petitioner believe [sic] constitutes discrimination occurred before and on December 4, 1996. Petitioner signed a complaint of Discrimination which was signed on October 30, 1997 which was filed by Petitioner's former Lawyer. Which a copy is attached [sic]. Petitioner's Lawyer filed a charge of Discrimination less than one year before the events which the Petitioner believes constitutes [sic] Discrimination. Which a copy is attached [sic]. Petitioner's former Lawyer [sic] address and phone number is [sic] attached. Attached to Ms. Johnson's response to the Order to Show Cause was a copy of an Affidavit and an Intake Questionnaire signed October 30, 1997, a letter dated January 10, 1998, from Ms. Johnson's legal counsel, and the May 4, 1998, letter from Mr. Williams asking Ms. Johnson to sign a Charge of Discrimination. It is clear from Mr. Williams' letter that no Charge of Discrimination was filed by Ms. Johnson with the Commission until more than 365 days after the alleged act of discrimination, December 4, 1996.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the complaint of discrimination filed in this case by Earlene Johnson. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 24th day of May, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Earlene Johnson 185 Cook Avenue DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Robert P. Gaines, Esquire Beggs & Lane Post Office Box 12950 Pensacola, Florida 32576-2950 Sharon Moultry, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F 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 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 The issue presented is whether Respondent Community Education Partners, d/b/a Emerald Bay Academy, engaged in an unlawful employment practice as to Petitioner Adam Killick, and, if so, what relief should be granted to Petitioner, if any.
Findings Of Fact On October 3, 2005, the Commission filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings Petitioner's Petition for Relief. On that same date, an Initial Order was entered by the assigned Administrative Law Judge requesting certain information for the scheduling of the final hearing in this cause. Due to the parties' failure to comply with that Order, venue rights were deemed waived. On October 14, 2005, a Notice of Hearing was entered scheduling this cause for final hearing on December 19, 2005. An Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions was entered that same day requiring the parties to disclose to each other no later than seven days before the final hearing the names of their witnesses and further requiring them to exchange copies of their exhibits by that same deadline. That Order further provided that failure to timely disclose could result in exclusion of that evidence at the final hearing. On December 12 Respondent filed its Motion for Continuance of the final hearing. On December 13 Respondent filed correspondence advising that Petitioner had agreed to the continuance, that Petitioner would be out of the country the entire month of January 2006, and that Petitioner and Respondent had agreed to certain dates for re-scheduling the final hearing. One of those dates was February 17, 2006. On December 14, 2005, an Order Granting Continuance and Re-Scheduling Hearing was entered, scheduling this cause for final hearing on February 17, 2006, validating any served subpoenas for the new date, and incorporating the provisions of the first Notice of Hearing and the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions. On January 26, 2006, Respondent filed its Agreed Motion for Leave to Present Testimony Telephonically, requesting that a witness who lives in New Mexico be allowed to testify telephonically at the final hearing on February 17, 2006. The Agreed Motion clearly set forth Petitioner's agreement to allow the telephonic testimony of that witness at the final hearing. On January 27, 2006, that Agreed Motion was granted, subject to Respondent making the necessary arrangements and subject to compliance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.213(5), which, inter alia, requires a notary public to be physically present with the witness to administer the oath. On February 3, 2006, Respondent filed its Notice of No Opposition advising that it did not oppose Petitioner's request for a continuance of the February 17, 2006, final hearing date. Petitioner's Motion for Continuance was filed on February 9, 2006. By Order Granting Continuance entered February 9, 2006, Petitioner's motion was granted, the final hearing scheduled for February 17, 2006, was cancelled, and the parties were afforded up to and including February 28, 2006, to advise the undersigned as to the status of this matter, as to the length of time required for the final hearing, and as to several mutually- agreeable dates for re-scheduling the final hearing. That Order further provided that failure to timely comply would result in the conclusion that this matter had been amicably resolved and the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings would be closed. Neither party filed any document or pleading on or before February 28, 2006. On March 3, 2006, Petitioner filed his first Request for Discovery and sent a letter to the Clerk of the Division requesting subpoenas and indicating that he would accommodate a hearing date convenient to the undersigned and to Respondent. The letter also advised that after he had received all materials, he needed time to prepare. The letter did not provide dates for re-scheduling the final hearing in compliance with the February 9, 2006, Order. Subpoenas were issued to Petitioner pursuant to his request in that letter. The Order Re-Scheduling Hearing entered March 6, 2006, recited the provisions of the prior Order giving a deadline for providing mutually-agreeable dates for re-scheduling the final hearing and the failure of the parties to comply with that Order. It also recited that despite the earlier Order providing for the automatic closure of the Division's file if the parties failed to timely provide dates, since Petitioner had filed documents subsequent to the deadline, it was assumed that the case had not been amicably resolved. The Order re-scheduled the final hearing in this matter to be held on March 24, 2006, validated any served subpoenas for the new date, and incorporated the provisions of the first Notice of Hearing and the Order of Pre-Hearing Instructions. On March 14, 2006, Petitioner filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and a Motion for Rehearing. The Motion for Rehearing is confusing: it asks for reconsideration of his discovery request (no ruling had previously been requested or made); it complains about the December 2005 hearing date having been continued; it withdraws Petitioner's prior agreement to allow a witness to testify by telephone (which agreement had been subsequently ordered); it specifically states that Petitioner is not requesting another continuance but then speaks of requiring time to prepare that would extend well beyond the scheduled final hearing date. On March 16, 2006, Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery and Motion for Rehearing was filed, opposing the granting of Petitioner's pending motions. Petitioner's motions were heard telephonically on March 20, 2006. The manual he wanted produced, which Respondent agreed to give him, was ordered produced, but the remainder of Petitioner's requests were denied. An Order on Pending Motions was entered that same day to memorialize the rulings announced during the telephonic hearing. The Order specifically provided that Petitioner's request for a postponement of the final hearing was denied, a ruling made and discussed during the telephonic hearing. On March 17, 2006, Respondent filed its witness list, together with a cover letter advising that Respondent had provided Petitioner with its witness and exhibits lists in December. Petitioner has not filed any witness list in accordance with the Order of Pre-hearing Instructions entered October 14, 2005. On March 22, 2006, Respondent filed a Motion to Quash Subpoenas, together with a request that a hearing be held on the Motion that same day. A telephonic hearing was conducted on March 22, 2006, and an Order Granting Respondent's Motion to Quash Subpoenas was entered. During the course of that telephonic hearing, Petitioner indicated that he might not come to the hearing. In response to that statement, the undersigned explained to Petitioner that it was up to him whether he attended the hearing, dismissed his petition for relief, or withdrew his request for a hearing. The undersigned explained to the parties that the hearing would go forward as scheduled, that Petitioner had the burden of proof in this proceeding, and that not appearing or presenting evidence would prevent him from meeting his burden of proof. After normal business hours on March 22, 2006, and therefore on March 23, 2006, Petitioner filed a Facsimile Letter to Judge Rigot. Although somewhat confusing, the Letter appears to re-argue points previously argued and memorialize Petitioner's understanding (and misunderstandings) of what transpired during the telephonic hearing on March 22, 2006. At 9:30 a.m., on March 24, 2006, Respondent's attorney and its witnesses were present for the scheduled final hearing. The undersigned waited for 35 minutes before opening the record and almost 10 minutes more before closing the record, with no appearance by Petitioner or anyone on his behalf.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of proof and dismissing his Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINDA M. RIGOT Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Adam Killick Post Office Box 18331 Panama City, Florida 32417 M. Brenk Johnson Winstead Sechrest & Minick, P.C. 1201 Elm Street, Suite 5400 Dallas, Texas 75270
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's claim should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order dismissing this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Elizabeth Coke, Esquire Richeson & Coke, P.A. Post Office Box 4048 Fort Pierce, Florida 34948 Dawn Shook Post Office Box 341 Scottsmoor, Florida 32775
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2008),1 by discriminating against Petitioner based on her color and/or her age.
Findings Of Fact The Town is an employer as that term is defined in Subsection 760.02(7), Florida Statutes. Petitioner was hired by the Town in November 2004 as an administrative assistant to Mayor Anthony Grant. Petitioner is a dark-skinned African-American woman who was 51 years of age at the time of the hearing. Petitioner was interviewed and hired by a committee appointed by Mayor Grant. The committee included town clerk Cathlene Williams, public works director Roger Dixon, and then- chief administrative officer Dr. Ruth Barnes. Mayor Grant did not meet Petitioner until the day she started work as his administrative assistant. The mayor's administrative assistant handles correspondence, filing, appointments, and anything else the mayor requires in the day-to-day operations of his office. For more than two years, Petitioner went about her duties without incident. She never received a formal evaluation, but no testimony or documentary evidence was entered to suggest that her job performance was ever less than acceptable during this period. In about August 2007, Petitioner began to notice a difference in Mayor Grant's attitude towards her. The mayor began screaming at her at the top of his lungs, cursing at her. He was relentlessly critical of her job performance, accusing her of not completing assigned tasks. Petitioner conceded that she would "challenge" Mayor Grant when he was out of line or requested her to do something beyond her job description. She denied being disrespectful or confrontational, but agreed that she was not always as deferential as Mayor Grant preferred. During the same time period, roughly July and August 2007, Petitioner also noticed that resumes were being faxed to the Town Hall that appeared to be for her job. She asked Ms. Williams about the resumes, but Ms. Williams stated she knew nothing and told Petitioner to ask the mayor. When Petitioner questioned the mayor about the resumes, he took her into his office and asked her to do him a favor. He asked if she would work across the street in the post office for a couple of weeks, to fill in for a post office employee who was being transferred to the finance department; as a team player, Petitioner agreed to the move. While she was working as a clerk at the post office, Petitioner learned that the mayor was interviewing people for her administrative assistant position. She filed a formal complaint with the Town. For a time after that, she was forced to work half-time at the post office and half-time in the mayor's office. On or about October 22, 2007, Petitioner was formally transferred from her position as administrative assistant to the mayor to the position of postal clerk in the post office. Her salary and benefits remained the same. At the hearing, Mayor Grant testified that he moved Petitioner to the post office to lessen the stress of her job. Based on his conversations with Petitioner, he understood that Petitioner was having personal or family problems. He was not privy to the details of these problems, but had noticed for some time that Petitioner seemed to be under great stress. The post office was a much less hectic environment than the mayor's office, and would be more amenable to her condition. Ms. Williams, the town clerk, testified that the mayor told her that Petitioner was stressed and needed more lax duties than those she performed in the mayor's office. Mr. Dixon, the public works director, testified that Petitioner had indicated to him that she was under pressure, but she did not disclose the cause of that pressure. He recalled that, toward the end of her employment with the Town, Petitioner mentioned that she felt she was being discriminated against because of her skin color. Petitioner denied ever telling Mayor Grant that she was feeling stressed. She denied telling him anything about her family. Petitioner stated that the only stress she felt was caused by the disrespect and humiliation heaped upon her by Mayor Grant. Petitioner's best friend, Gina King Brooks, a business owner in the Town, testified that Petitioner would come to her store in tears over her treatment by the mayor. Petitioner told Ms. Brooks that she was being transferred to the post office against her will, was being forced to train her own replacement in the mayor's office,3 and believed that it was all because of her age and complexion. Mayor Grant testified that he called Petitioner into his office and informed her of the transfer to the post office. He did not tell her that the move was temporary. He did not view the transfer from administrative assistant to postal clerk as a demotion or involving any loss of status. Mayor Grant testified that an additional reason for the change was that he wanted a more qualified person as his administrative assistant. He acknowledged that Petitioner was actually more experienced than her eventual replacement, Jacqueline Cockerham.4 However, Petitioner's personal issues were affecting her ability to meet the sensitive deadlines placed upon her in the mayor's office. The mayor needed more reliable support in his office, and Petitioner needed a less stressful work environment. Therefore, Mayor Grant believed the move would benefit everyone involved. Mayor Grant denied that Petitioner's skin color or age had anything to do with her transfer to the post office. Petitioner was replaced in her administrative assistant position by Ms. Cockerham, a light-skinned African- American woman born on October 17, 1961. She was 46 years of age at the time of the hearing. Documents introduced by the Town at the hearing indicate the decision to hire Ms. Cockerham was made on March 26, 2008. Ms. Williams testified that she conducted the interview of Ms. Cockerham, along with a special assistant to the mayor, Kevin Bodley, who no longer works for the Town. Both Ms. Williams and Mayor Grant testified that the mayor did not meet Ms. Cockerham until the day she began work in his office. Petitioner testified that she knew the mayor had met Ms. Cockerham before she was hired by the Town, because Mayor Grant had instructed Petitioner to set up a meeting with Ms. Cockerham while Petitioner was still working in the mayor's office. Mayor Grant flatly denied having any knowledge of Ms. Cockerham prior to the time of her hiring. On this point, Mayor Grant's testimony, as supported by that of Ms. Williams, is credited. To support her allegation that Mayor Grant preferred employees with light skin, Petitioner cited his preferential treatment of an employee named Cherone Fort. Petitioner claimed that Mayor Grant required her to make a wake-up call to Ms. Fort every morning, because Ms. Fort had problems getting to work on time. Ms. Fort was a light-skinned African-American woman. Under cross-examination, Petitioner conceded that Mayor Grant and Ms. Fort were friends, and that his favoritism toward her may have had nothing to do with her skin color. Petitioner claimed that there were other examples of the mayor's "color struck" favoritism toward lighter-skinned employees, but she declined to provide specifics.5 She admitted that several dark-skinned persons worked for the Town, but countered that those persons do not work in close proximity to the mayor. As to her age discrimination claim, Petitioner testified that a persistent theme of her conversations with Mayor Grant was his general desire for a younger staff, because younger people were fresher and more creative. The mayor's expressed preference was always a concern to Petitioner. Petitioner testified that she felt degraded, demeaned and humiliated by the transfer to the post office. She has worked as an executive assistant for her entire professional career, including positions for the city manager of Gainesville and the head of pediatric genetics at the University of Florida. She believed herself unsuited to a clerical position in the post office, and viewed her transfer as punitive. In April 2008, Petitioner was transferred from the post office to a position as assistant to the town planner. Within days of this second transfer, Petitioner resigned her position as an employee of the Town. At the time of her resignation, Petitioner was being paid $15.23 per hour. Petitioner is now working for Rollins College in a position she feels is more suitable to her skills. She makes about $14.00 per hour. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that there was a personality conflict between Petitioner and Mayor Grant. Neither Petitioner nor Mayor Grant was especially forthcoming regarding the details of their working relationship, especially the cause of the friction that developed in August 2007. Neither witness was entirely credible in describing the other's actions or motivations. No other witness corroborated Petitioner's claims that Mayor Grant ranted, yelled, and was "very, very nasty" in his dealings with Petitioner.6 No other witness corroborated Mayor Grant's claim that Petitioner was under stress due to some unnamed family situation. The working relationship between Mayor Grant and Petitioner was certainly volatile, but the evidence is insufficient to permit more than speculation as to the cause of that volatility. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that, due to this personality conflict, Mayor Grant wanted Petitioner transferred out of his office. He may even have used the subterfuge of a "temporary" transfer to exact Petitioner's compliance with the move. However, the purpose of this proceeding is not to pass judgment on Mayor Grant's honesty or skills as an administrator. Aside from Petitioner's suspicions, there is no solid evidence that Mayor Grant was motivated by anything other than a desire to have his office run more smoothly and efficiently. Petitioner's assertion that the mayor's preference for lighter-skinned employees was common knowledge cannot be credited without evidentiary support. Petitioner's age discrimination claim is supported only by Petitioner's recollection of conversations with Mayor Grant in which he expressed a general desire for a younger, fresher, more creative staff. Given that both Petitioner and Ms. Cockerham were experienced, middle-aged professionals, and given that Mayor Grant had nothing to do with the hiring of either employee, the five-year age difference between them does not constitute evidence of discrimination on the part of the mayor or the Town. Petitioner was not discharged from employment. Though Petitioner perceived it as a demotion, the transfer to the post office was a lateral transfer within the Town's employment hierarchy. Petitioner was paid the same salary and received the same benefits she received as an administrative assistant to the mayor. A reasonably objective observer would not consider working as a clerk in a post office to be demeaning or degrading.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that the Town of Eatonville did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 17th day of February, 2009.
