The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by subjecting Petitioner to gender discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act.
Findings Of Fact Southgate is a student housing and dining facility located in Tallahassee, Florida, near the campuses of Florida State University, Florida A&M University, and Tallahassee Community College. On September 16, 2004, Southgate hired Petitioner Devon Rozier as a dishwasher in the cafeteria dish room. The cafeteria is open seven days a week and currently employs approximately 34 employees, some part-time and some full-time. Petitioner had just turned 16 years old when Ken Mills hired him based upon a long-standing relationship with Petitioner's father, who had worked at Southgate for many years and was an exemplary employee. Petitioner worked as a part-time employee on the night shift, 3:30 p.m. until 8:00 p.m., for a total of 20-25 hours per week. Petitioner later received a promotion out of the dish room to the grill, and also worked other positions such as attendant and greeter. Petitioner also worked in various positions to assist as needed, as did other employees in the cafeteria. At the beginning of his employment, Petitioner exhibited good performance. As time progressed, Petitioner's performance began to decline, and he openly disrespected management. Various disciplinary techniques were employed by his supervisors in efforts to improve his performance, but the improvements always proved to be short-lived. On April 30, 2009, Petitioner and his supervisor, Rasheik Campbell, had an altercation, and Petitioner left the facility. Mr. Campbell warned Petitioner before he left the facility that such action would constitute job abandonment. Despite Mr. Campbell's warning, Petitioner left the facility. Mr. Campbell took the position that Petitioner abandoned his employment with Southgate. Petitioner was no longer placed on the schedule. On May 4, 2009, Southgate sent Petitioner a letter confirming his resignation. As months passed, Petitioner made attempts to regain his position with Southgate by calling his supervisors Mr. Campbell and Mr. Jason McClung. When his attempts were met with resistance by his supervisors, Petitioner bypassed them and went directly to Ken Mills, Southgate's General Manager and Petitioner's former supervisor. Petitioner presented his case to Mr. Mills in July and August 2009, regarding his desire to return to work. Mr. Mills had previously intervened on Petitioner's behalf, out of respect for Petitioner's father, to help him keep his job when difficulties with management had arisen. This time, Mr. Mills instructed Petitioner that Mr. McClung and Mr. Campbell were his direct supervisors and that they had ultimate responsibility regarding his desired return to work at Southgate. In August 2009, at the request of Mr. Mills, once again doing a favor for Petitioner based upon the long-standing work history of Petitioner's father at Southgate, Mr. Mills, Mr. McClung, and Mr. Campbell met with Petitioner and his mother, Jennifer Rozier. At the meeting, they discussed Petitioner's request to return to work at Southgate. During the meeting, Mr. McClung and Mr. Campbell did not feel that Petitioner exhibited any improvement in his behavior and respect for authority. As a result, Mr. McClung and Mr. Campbell chose not to re-hire Petitioner. Petitioner claims the following conduct he witnessed while working at Southgate was discriminatory: a) females were allowed to sit down at tables and eat while on the clock; b) females were allowed to use the computer while on the clock; and c) Petitioner was required to perform the females' work when they failed to show up or wanted to leave early. Petitioner further claims that his firing was retaliatory based upon one complaint he made to Mr. Campbell in February 2009 about having to perform the tasks of others who failed to come to work. Other employees, including Jodece Yant, Petitioner's girlfriend, and Darnell Rozier, Petitioner's own brother, testified that both males and females could be seen eating or using the computer while on the clock, and all were told to perform others' tasks when they failed to come to work or left early. Petitioner conceded that on occasion he engaged in the same behaviors he alleges to be discriminatory. Petitioner obtained a full-time job at Hobbit American Grill on January 21, 2010, and, as of the date of the hearing, continued to work there. His rate of pay at Hobbit American Grill is currently $7.25 per hour, and he testified he is better off there than at his former employer, Southgate. Petitioner is currently earning the same hourly wage ($7.25) as he was earning when employed at Southgate. Southgate had policies and procedures in force that prohibited, among other things, discrimination on the basis of gender or any other protected characteristics. Southgate's policies and procedures also prohibited retaliation. Petitioner received a copy of the employee handbook, which contained Southgate's anti-discrimination policies and was aware that Southgate had such policies in place.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of November, 2010, 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 10th day of September, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Desiree C. Hill-Henderson, Esquire Littler Mendelson, P.C. 111 North Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1250 Orlando, Florida 32801 Micah Knight, Esquire 123 North Seventh Avenue Durant, Oklahoma 74701 Devon A. Rozier 7361 Fieldcrest Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32305 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent operates the Best Western Admiral’s Inn and Conference Center in Winter Haven. Petitioner worked as a waitress in the hotel’s first floor restaurant from March 8, 2005, through March 18, 2006. Petitioner testified that she was sexually harassed “for months” by Marcus Owens, a cook who worked with her in the restaurant. According to Petitioner, Mr. Owens made vulgar and sexually-explicit comments to her on a number of occasions while they were working together. Petitioner could not recall precisely when the harassment started, but she estimated that it started approximately two weeks after Mr. Owens started working at the restaurant. Mr. Owens started working in the restaurant on July 28, 2005, which means that the harassment would have started in mid- August 2005. Petitioner did not complain about the harassment until November 9, 2005, when she reported it to her supervisor, Cory Meeks. This was the first notice that Respondent had about the alleged harassment. Petitioner’s testimony that she complained to the hotel’s general manager, Jeffrey Vandiver, about the harassment several weeks prior to her complaint to Mr. Meeks was not persuasive. Petitioner and Mr. Meeks met with the hotel’s human resources manager, Lin Whitaker, on the same day that the complaint was made, November 9, 2005. Ms. Whitaker told Petitioner that she needed to put her complaint in writing for the hotel to take formal action. Petitioner refused to do so because she was scared of retribution by Mr. Owens, even though Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whittaker assured her that she would be protected from Mr. Owens. Petitioner asked Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker to address the situation with Mr. Owens without using her name, which they did. Mr. Owens denied sexually harassing anyone when confronted by Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker. On December 2, 2005, Petitioner again complained to Mr. Meeks about Mr. Owens. She told Mr. Meeks that the harassment had not stopped and that it had gotten worse through even more vulgar comments. Petitioner again did not want a formal investigation into the allegations, but Ms. Whitaker told her that an investigation was required by company policy since this was the second complaint. Mr. Owens was immediately suspended without pay pending the completion of the investigation. The investigation was conducted by Mr. Vandiver, Mr. Meeks, and Ms. Whitaker on December 7, 2005. They first met with Petitioner to get her side of the story. Then, they met separately with Mr. Owens to get his side of the story. Finally, they interviewed all of the employees who worked with Petitioner and Mr. Owens. This was the first time that Petitioner went into detail about what Mr. Owens had said and done. She stated that, among other things, Mr. Owens asked her whether she had “ever had a black man” and whether her boyfriend “is able to get it up or does he require Viagra.” She also stated that there were no witnesses to the harassment because Mr. Owens was "discreet" about making the comments to her when no one else was around. Mr. Owens again denied sexually harassing anyone. He acknowledged asking Petitioner whether she had ever dated a black man, but he stated that the question was in response to Petitioner asking him whether he had ever dated a white woman. (Mr. Owens is black, and Petitioner is white.) The other employees who were interviewed as part of the investigation stated that they had not witnessed any sexual harassment or overheard any sexually explicit conversations in the restaurant. Mr. Vandiver, Mr. Meeks, and Ms. Owens concluded based upon their investigation that “there is not enough evidence of sexual harassment to terminate Marcus Owens.” They decided to let Mr. Owens continue working at the hotel, provided that he agreed to be moved to the hotel’s second floor restaurant and that he agreed to attend a sexual harassment training program. On December 8, 2005, Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker conveyed the results of their investigation and their proposed solution to Petitioner. She was “fine” with the decision to move Mr. Owens to the second floor restaurant where she would not have contact with him. On that same day, Mr. Meeks and Ms. Whitaker conveyed their proposed solution to Mr. Owens. He too was “fine” with the decision, and he agreed that he would not go near Petitioner. Mr. Owens came back to work the following day, on December 9, 2005. On December 14, 2005, Mr. Owens was involved in an altercation with Stephen Zulinski, a dishwasher at the hotel and a close friend of Petitioner’s. The altercation occurred at the hotel during working hours. Mr. Zulinski testified that the incident started when Mr. Owens made vulgar and sexually explicit comments and gestures about Mr. Zulinski’s relationship with Petitioner. Mr. Zulinski was offended and angered by the comments, and he cursed and yelled at Mr. Owens. Mr. Zulinski denied pushing Mr. Owens (as reflected on Mr. Zulinski’s Notice of Termination), but he admitted to putting his finger on Mr. Owens’ shoulder during the altercation. Mr. Owens and Mr. Zulinski were immediately fired as a result of the altercation. Petitioner continued to work as a waitress at the hotel’s first floor restaurant after Mr. Owens was fired. Petitioner received awards from Respondent for having the most positive customer comment cards for the months of October and November 2005, even though according to her testimony she was being sexually harassed by Mr. Owens during those months. She testified that her problems with Mr. Owens affected her job performance only to a “very small degree.” Petitioner had no major problems with her job performance prior to December 2005, notwithstanding the sexual harassment by Mr. Owens that had been occurring “for months” according to Petitioner’s testimony. Petitioner was “written up” on a number of occasions between December 2005 and February 2006 because of problems with her job performance. The problems included Petitioner being rude to the on-duty manager in front of hotel guests; taking too many breaks and not having the restaurant ready for service when her shift started; failing to check the messages left for room service orders; and generating a guest complaint to the hotel’s corporate headquarters. Petitioner was fired after an incident on March 11, 2006, when she left the restaurant unattended on several occasions and the manager-on-duty received complaints from several hotel guests about the quality of service that they received from Petitioner that night. Petitioner ended up being sent home from work that night because, according to her supervisor, “she was in a crying state,” unable to work, and running off the restaurant’s business. Petitioner’s employment with Respondent was formally terminated on March 18, 2006. The stated reason for the termination was “unsatisfactory work performance” and “too many customer complaints.” None of the supervisors who wrote up Petitioner were aware of her sexual harassment complaints against Mr. Owens. Petitioner claimed that the allegations of customer complaints and poor job performance detailed in the write-ups were “ludicrous,” “insane,” “almost a complete fabrication,” and “a joke.” The evidence does not support Petitioner’s claims. Petitioner admitted to having “severe” bi-polar disorder, and she acknowledged at the hearing and to her supervisor that she was having trouble with her medications over the period that she was having problems with her job performance. For example, the comment written by Petitioner on the January 27, 2006, write-up stated that she was “at a loss” to explain her job performance and that she “hope[d] to have [her] mental stability restored to what everyone else but [her] seems normalcy.” Petitioner worked 25 to 30 hours per week while employed by Respondent. She was paid $5.15 per hour, plus tips, and she testified that her biweekly take-home pay was between $200 and $250. Petitioner applied for unemployment compensation after she was fired. Respondent did not dispute the claim, and Petitioner was awarded unemployment compensation of $106 per week, which she received for a period of six months ending in September 2006. Petitioner has not worked since she was fired by Respondent in March 2006. She has not even attempted to find another job since that time. Petitioner does not believe that she is capable of working because of her bi-polar disorder. She applied for Social Security disability benefits based upon that condition, but her application was denied. Petitioner’s appeal of the denial is pending. Petitioner testified that one of the reasons that she has not looked for another job is her concern that doing so would undermine her efforts to obtain Social Security disability benefits. Respondent has a general “non-harassment” policy, which prohibits “harassment of one employee by another employee . . . for any reason.” Respondent also has a specific sexual harassment policy, which states that “sexual harassment of any kind will not be tolerated.” The policy defines sexual harassment to include verbal sexual conduct that “has the purpose or effect of interfering with the individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.” The general non-harassment policy and the specific sexual harassment policy require the employee to immediately report the harassment to his or her supervisor or a member of the management staff. The Standards of Conduct and the Work Rules adopted by Respondent authorize immediate dismissal of an employee who is disrespectful or discourteous to guests of the hotel. The Standards of Conduct also authorize discipline ranging from a written reprimand to dismissal for an employee’s “[f]ailure to perform work or job assignments satisfactorily and efficiently.”
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2007. 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 Donald T. Ryce, Esquire 908 Coquina Lane Vero Beach, Florida 32963 Nora E. Bartolone 119 Alachua Drive Southeast Winter Haven, Florida 33884
The Issue The issue is whether this case should be dismissed based on Petitioner's failure to appear at the hearing and apparent intent to withdraw her request for an administrative hearing.
Findings Of Fact The Notice of Hearing in this case was issued on May 22, 2012, setting the hearing for July 17, 2012, at 9:30 a.m., by video teleconference at sites in Tallahassee and Fort Myers, Florida. Also, on May 22, 2012, an Order of Pre-hearing Instructions was entered. Respondent timely complied with the pre-hearing requirements by filing a witness list and exhibit list and tendering its proposed exhibits, all of which were served on Petitioner. Petitioner did not file or exchange a witness list, exhibit list, or proposed exhibits. Petitioner spoke by telephone with a secretary at DOAH on July 16, 2012, the day before the scheduled hearing, and indicated that she had sent a letter withdrawing her hearing request; however, to this day, no such letter has been received. Petitioner was advised to send another written statement confirming that she was withdrawing her hearing request, and she indicated she would do so by facsimile that day. However, no such facsimile was received by DOAH. After hours on July 16, 2012, a typed, but unsigned letter, was sent by facsimile to counsel for Respondent. The letter appears to have been sent by Petitioner and states that she wished to cancel the hearing scheduled for July 17, 2012. Petitioner did not make an appearance at the scheduled hearing at the start time or within 25 minutes after the scheduled start time. While it would have been better practice for Petitioner to file a written, signed statement with DOAH to withdraw her hearing request, it is found that Petitioner intended to withdraw her hearing request, and that is why Petitioner did not appear at the scheduled hearing. Petitioner should have made her intentions clear sufficiently in advance of the scheduled hearing to avoid the inconvenience and expense of convening a hearing by video teleconference and assembling all of those who were prepared to go forward.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 3rd day of August, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lawrence F. Kranert, Jr., General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Todd Evan Studley, Esquire Florida Department of Corrections 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Natalie Goldenberg Post Office Box 7388 Fort Myers, Florida 33911
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of an unlawful employment practice as defined in Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On April 10, 1989, Petitioner, Mark Cleveland, a male, applied through Job Service of Florida, for employment as a telemarketer with Respondent, Sears Roebuck and Company at the Sears store located in Pensacola, Florida. Petitioner had several years of sales experience with at least six months of experience in telemarketing. He also had a good speaking voice as evidenced by the fact that he is currently employed as a disc jockey at a local radio station. Clearly, Respondent was qualified for the telemarketing position. The telemarketer position would enable Petitioner to earn approximately $85.00 a week or $365.50 a month. The telemarketing section at the Pensacola Sears store consisted of virtually all women with perhaps three or four rare male telemarketers. Petitioner had two separate interviews with two different Sears employees responsible for filling the telemarketing positions. During the Petitioner's interviews with the two Sears employees, Petitioner was repeatedly questioned on whether he could work with all women or mostly all women and be supervised by women. Petitioner assured his interviewers that he could since he grew up with six sisters and in general liked working with women. Petitioner left the interview with the information that he would be hired after another supervisor reviewed the applications and that he would be called once the supervisor's review was complete. After several days, Petitioner, being excited about what he thought was going to be his new job, called one of the two women who interviewed him. He was informed that the telemarketing positions had been filled. Later that same day Petitioner discovered that the positions had, in fact, not been filled and that he had been told an untruth. The telemarketing positions were eventually filled by women. Petitioner remained out of work for approximately four months before he was hired as a telemarketer by the Pensacola News Journal. A Notice of Assignment and Order was issued on August 27, 1991, giving the parties an opportunity to provide the undersigned with suggested dates and a suggested place for the formal hearing. The information was to be provided within ten days of the date of the Notice. This Notice was sent by United States mail to the Respondent at the address listed in the Petition for Relief. Respondent did not respond to the Notice. On October 10, 1991, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting the formal hearing for 11:00 a.m., September 11, 1990. The location of the hearing was listed in the Notice. The Notice of Hearing was sent by United States mail to the Respondent at the address listed in the Petition for Relief. Respondent's address and acknowledgment of this litigation was confirmed when Respondent filed its answer to the Petition for Relief with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Even though Respondent received adequate notice of the hearing in this matter, the Respondent did not appear at the place set for the formal hearing at the date and time specified on the Notice of Hearing. The Petitioner was present at the hearing. The Respondent did not request a continuance of the formal hearing or notify the undersigned that it would not be able to appear at the formal hearing. After waiting fifteen minutes for the Respondent to appear, the hearing was commenced. As a consequence of Respondent's failure to appear, no evidence rebutting Petitioner's facts were introduced into evidence at the hearing and specifically no evidence of a nondiscriminatory purpose was introduced at the hearing. 1/ Petitioner has established a prima facie case of discrimination based on his sex, given the fact that Sears tried to mislead him into believing the telemarketing positions had been filled when they had not, the positions were all eventually filled by women and Sears' clear concern over Petitioner's ability to work with women. Such facts lead to the reasonable inference that Sears was engaging in an unlawful employment practice based on Respondent being a male, a protected class, in order to preserve a female work force in telemarketing. Such discrimination based on sex is prohibited under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and Petitioner is entitled to relief from that discrimination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a final order finding Petitioner was the subject of an illegal employment practice and awarding Petitioner $1,462.00 in backpay plus reasonable costs of $100.95 and an attorney's fee of $2,550.00. RECOMMENDED this 30th day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1992.
The Issue Whether Petitioner failed to timely file her Petition for Relief following the Florida Commission on Human Relations' No Cause Determination? Whether Petitioner failed to timely file a charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations with respect to her claim of harassment? Whether Respondent promptly and thoroughly investigated Petitioner's claim of sexual harassment? Whether Respondent took measures reasonably calculated to end and prevent any alleged sexual harassment? Whether Petitioner suffered from a disability, and, if so, what was the nature of her disability. Whether Respondent provided Petitioner with a reasonable accommodation for her alleged disability? Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her sex and/or disability? Whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for complaining of sexual harassment?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed her Charge of Discrimination against Respondent on August 29, 2002. FCHR issued a No Cause Determination and Notice of Determination: No Cause on May 12, 2003. Petitioner filed her Petition for Relief on June 20, 2003. This was 39 days after the No Cause Determination was issued. Petitioner failed to show good cause for the delay in filing. Petitioner worked as an apprentice operator at Respondent's Stanton Energy Center ("Energy Center"), during the relevant time period, under the supervision of Wade Gillingham ("Gillingham"), manager of Operations for the Energy Center. Respondent is an employer under the FCRA. On or about July 5, 2001, Petitioner expressed some concern to Gillingham about a co-worker, Tim Westerman ("Westerman"), potentially hurting himself or others. More specifically, Petitioner told Gillingham that she was concerned Westerman was going to hurt himself or her. Upon learning of Petitioner's concerns, Gillingham notified Respondent's Human Resources Department, and he scheduled a follow-up meeting with Petitioner on Monday, July 9, 2001. Lou Calatayud ("Calatayud") from Human Resources also attended this interview. During these initial meetings, Petitioner did not complain of any inappropriate touching or sexual contact between herself and Westerman. Following her meeting with Calatayud and Gillingham, German Romero, director of Human Resources, held a second interview with Petitioner to discuss her concerns about Westerman. Thereafter, Respondent conducted a thorough investigation into Petitioner's allegations. During the course of the investigation, Petitioner was interviewed twice and Westerman was interviewed twice. Both Westerman and Petitioner admitted to voluntarily participating in several telephone calls with each other, with some lasting as long as two hours. Petitioner did not appear upset or concerned after these calls. Human Resources also interviewed Terry Cox and Tom Dzoba, both watch engineers to whom Petitioner claimed she reported complaints regarding Westerman. Neither Cox nor Dzoba was Petitioner's direct supervisor. Petitioner told Cox that she had issues with another employee. However, she refused to provide Cox with the other employee's name and insisted on handling the matter on her own, despite Cox's asking her for the name of the person. Dzoba has no knowledge of Petitioner ever complaining about any problems with another employee in the workplace. The first person to whom Petitioner reported Westerman's name was her supervisor, Gillingham, who immediately reported Petitioner's complaints to Human Resources. Westerman was not Hanson's supervisor. Westerman never expressed any romantic interest in Petitioner; however, Petitioner had expressed interest in meeting Westerman outside the workplace for dinner. Additionally, Petitioner used to write Westerman "cheer-up notes" while at work. In fact, the only touching that Petitioner later referred to were hand or arm rubbing during voluntary personal conversations with, and counseling or consoling of, Westerman. Similarly, the only touching Westerman recalls was possibly rubbing up against Petitioner in the workplace or maybe putting his hand on her shoulder when they were talking. Westerman never kissed or attempted to kiss Petitioner. In addition to the above, no other employees were able to identify any inappropriate contact between Petitioner and Westerman. After completing its investigation in early August 2001, Respondent determined that sexual harassment had not occurred but instructed Westerman, verbally and in writing, not to have any further contact with Petitioner. Prior to Respondent's instruction, sometime between May and July 2001, Petitioner personally asked Westerman to stop calling her, a request he complied with generally. At the same time, Respondent instructed Petitioner to discontinue counseling employees to protect against any future incidents or allegations of sexual harassment. It is the policy and practice of Respondent to treat all employees equally regardless of their gender and/or disability. Respondent developed and distributed to its employees, via an Employee Handbook, an Equal Opportunity Policy and Policy Against Harassment. Following the conclusion of Respondent's investigation into Petitioner's complaints of sexual harassment, on or about August 6, 2001, Petitioner requested a medically-supported leave of absence for 30 days. This leave was granted by Respondent. However, Petitioner later requested to return to work nearly ten days ahead of schedule, on August 27, 2001, submitting a release from her doctor. Because Petitioner was seeking to return to work so far ahead of schedule, Petitioner was evaluated by Respondent's occupational medical director, Jock M. Sneddon, M.D., before she was released to return to work. Petitioner returned to work in the same position and rate of pay as before her leave. Additionally, Petitioner received disability benefit payments covering the entire duration of her leave. More than seven months later, Petitioner called in sick on April 6 through 8, 2002, after sustaining a house fire at her personal residence. Following the use of 16 hours or more of sick time, employees are required to return to work with a doctor's note authorizing their absence. Here, it was determined that Petitioner was not sick during this time, nor was she even evaluated by a physician. Based on similar previous problems, for which she was twice verbally reminded of Respondent's policy regarding sick leave, Petitioner received a disciplinary write-up. In addition to Petitioner's two verbal reminders, on or about January 7, 2002, Gillingham issued a memorandum to all operations employees, including Petitioner, detailing Respondent's sick leave policy. On or about June 7, 2002, Petitioner and a male co-worker, Tom Moran, were written up by Gillingham for neglect of their job duties as the result of an incident that occurred at the Energy Center on May 14, 2002. More specifically, both Petitioner and Moran were deemed responsible for failing to make sufficient rounds to discover a mechanical failure, which led to severe flooding of a sump basement in the coal yard, causing more than $12,000 in damages. Gillingham estimated it would have taken between six to eight hours to fill the 60-foot by 20-foot sump basement with the seven feet of water that was found the following morning. Although Moran was an auxiliary operator, both "operators," including Petitioner, an apprentice operator, have the same responsibilities and were responsible for making the necessary rounds to ensure that a mechanical failure of this nature is promptly discovered and repaired. In accordance with Respondent's policy, employees with active discipline in their files are not eligible for promotions or transfer. The written discipline Petitioner and Moran received for the May 14, 2002, sump incident remained active in their employee files for nine months. During her employment at the Energy Center, Petitioner's performance evaluations remained relatively unchanged, receiving a "meets" or "good" rating on each evaluation. Additionally, Petitioner received all regularly scheduled wage increases, until she topped out at the salary for her position. Petitioner received the same wage increases as similarly-situated male employees. Further, on or about April 2, 2003, Gillingham notified Human Resources that the discipline in her file had expired, and Petitioner was promoted to auxiliary operator, with the commensurate increase in pay. Petitioner started at the same rate of pay as three of the four other male employees placed in the apprentice operator position at that time. The fourth male employee, David Ziegler, started at a higher rate of pay based on his five years of previous experience working for a contractor at the Energy Center. Further, because of the credit Ziegler was given for his previous work experience, he was promoted to auxiliary operator ahead of Petitioner and all of the other apprentice operators who started at the same time. Vasquez was promoted to auxiliary operator on the standard two-year schedule on or about August 12, 2002; however, Petitioner was not eligible for promotion at that time because of the active discipline in her file. Petitioner failed to prove that she suffered from a recognized disability or that Respondent failed to make a reasonable accommodation for her alleged disability. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent discriminated against her on the basis of her sex. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent retaliated against her for complaining of the alleged sexual harassment which occurred in the Summer of 2001.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR enter a final order dismissing with prejudice the Petition for Relief in DOAH Case No. 03-2306, FCHR Case No. 22-02718. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ellen Edith Hanson 5355 Rambling Road St. Cloud, Florida 34771 David C. Netzley, Esquire Ford & Harrison, LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1300 Orlando, Florida 32801 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, C and C Enterprises, Inc. (“C and C Enterprises”), discriminated against Petitioner, Leslie D. Richardson, in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act and, if so, what relief should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Mrs. Richardson is a Caucasian female who at all times relevant to this proceeding was an employee of C and C Enterprises, Inc., and worked at the Restaurant. Mrs. Richardson primarily served as a bartender, with most of her shifts placing her at the bar located outside the Restaurant on a deck or patio adjacent to the Restaurant. Sandy Bottoms is a family oriented restaurant located in Fernandina Beach, Florida. It has normal restaurant seating, plus two bars. One bar is located inside the restaurant; the other is located outside. The outside bar has fairly tight quarters, allowing only one person comfortably behind the bar at a time. The outside bar is frequented by customers more than the inside bar, so working outside is more lucrative for the bartenders. Mrs. Richardson began working at Sandy Bottoms in January 2013. She was hired as a bartender and, by most accounts, was very proficient at her job. She quickly chose the outside bar as her preferred spot when working and had many regular customers. Mrs. Richardson was even featured in a local newspaper article in January 2015, wherein she was touted as a particularly well-liked bartender. When she began working at Sandy Bottoms, Mrs. Richardson formed good relationships with its owner, Claude Hartley, and her fellow workers. She also had a good relationship with the manager, Russell McNair, and with the Restaurant’s bookkeeper, Natalie Thelemann. Mrs. Thelemann is Claude Hartley’s daughter. According to Mrs. Richardson’s testimony at final hearing, she began to have “issues” with Mr. Hartley beginning about a year into her tenure at the Restaurant, i.e., around “early to mid 2014.” Conversely, in her Employment Charge of Discrimination, the first alleged incident she reported occurred in “late winter-early spring 2015.” Mrs. Richardson generally claims Mr. Hartley sexually harassed her and even perpetuated potentially criminal or tortious touching. In her complaints to FCHR, Mrs. Richardson reported incidents which allegedly occurred between August 2015 and November 2015. She maintains that Mr. Hartley continued to act inappropriately towards her until her employment ended on November 2, 2015, and even once after she left Sandy Bottoms. Mr. Hartley denies there was any sexual harassment or inappropriate touching at any time during Mrs. Richardson’s employment at Sandy Bottoms. Neither Mr. McNair nor Mrs. Thelemann saw any such things occurring while Mrs. Richardson was working at Sandy Bottoms. Mrs. Richardson’s employment ended abruptly on November 1 or 2, 2015. On Sunday, November 1, 2015, she had shown up at work for her regular shift. She clocked in a couple of minutes late that day, but she blames the Restaurant’s timeclock for that. The time on that clock (referred to by staff as “Aloha time”), was always, according to Mrs. Richardson, five or so minutes ahead of the “actual” time. Mrs. Richardson was late for her shifts approximately 67 percent of the time, but she says she would sometimes work a bit around the Restaurant before clocking in, even if she got there on time.1/ In light of credible testimony from the manager and bookkeeper that all personnel clocked in immediately upon arrival, Mrs. Richardson’s testimony is not persuasive. The only other non-manager employee who testified, Danielle Guidry, did not corroborate Mrs. Richardson’s testimony concerning how staff clocked in for work. After clocking in late on November 1, 2015, Mrs. Richardson took a telephone call from her mother, who was ill at the time. She walked around outside during the telephone call. When she came back to the outside bar area to begin her shift, she was told that she would be working the inside bar on this day. Apparently another bartender, who had prepared the outside bar for opening in Mrs. Richards’s absence, asked to staff the bar even though she had been scheduled to work the inside bar. The outside bar is generally busier and generates more tips than the inside bar. Mr. McNair granted the other bartender’s request because Mrs. Richardson was late for her shift. According to the Restaurant’s Server Operational Manual, a server/bartender should arrive at least 10 minutes prior to their shift. Otherwise, the shift would “go up for auction” to another employee. Upon hearing the news that she had to work the inside bar, Mrs. Richardson became irate. She stormed into the restaurant and angrily confronted Mr. McNair, but he stood by his decision. When Mr. McNair refused to budge, Mrs. Richardson cursed at him and exited the Restaurant loudly, all the while with customers sitting within hearing range. Mrs. Richardson went home, where she received a call from Mr. Hartley within half an hour or so. Mr. Hartley asked her to come back to the Restaurant and do her shift, but Mrs. Richardson refused. Mr. Hartley discussed the situation with his “management team” which included his wife, Rita Hartley, Mr. McNair, and Phil Thelemann, another manager (who is also Mr. Hartley’s son-in-law). The consensus was that Mrs. Richardson had abandoned her job by walking out without notice or cause. Mr. Hartley then called Mrs. Richardson again, this time leaving her a message wherein he told her not to come in the next day as scheduled. It was the decision of management that Mrs. Richardson’s employment with Sandy Bottoms was over. Mr. Hartley left the following message on Mrs. Richardson’s phone: “Leslie, this is Claude. There’s no sense in coming in tomorrow. My family is ‘bout to kill me. And, uh… I’m sorry. Call me and talk to me. I’ll help you out if I can. Goodbye.” Mrs. Richardson considers that message evidence that Mr. Hartley’s family was angry with him because of his infatuation with her. No competent or persuasive evidence was presented to support her theory. Mr. Hartley said the message reflected the fact that his family was upset with him for trying to preserve Mrs. Richardson’s job at Sandy Bottoms despite the team consensus that she had abandoned her position. His explanation seems more credible. Mr. Hartley and other Restaurant employees soon began hearing rumors that Mrs. Richardson was planning to file a lawsuit against Sandy Bottoms alleging wrongful termination. When she came in to pick up her final paycheck a week or so after being let go, Mr. Hartley asked Mrs. Richardson if she was planning to sue him or the Restaurant. Mrs. Richardson was friendly (or at least “not unpleasant”) and indicated she would not “do something like that.” It does not appear that anyone at the Restaurant knew Mrs. Richardson had actually hired a lawyer until she had filed her complaint with FCHR. Mrs. Richardson struggled to find good employment after leaving Sandy Bottoms. She worked for two other restaurants tending bars, but neither job was as lucrative as her bartender position at Sandy Bottoms. She believed some restaurants refused to hire her because she had been fired by Sandy Bottoms, but could identify only one potential employer who brought up her tenure at Sandy Bottoms. That person did not testify at final hearing to confirm or deny Mrs. Richardson’s contention. Mrs. Richardson is the sole breadwinner for her family. After losing her job at Sandy Bottoms she was evicted from her home and had to move to Yulee, a less attractive community off the island of Fernandina Beach. She is now working as a housekeeper. Her husband, who was a frequent customer at Sandy Bottoms while she was working there, is disabled and cannot work. Ultimately, Mrs. Richardson did hire legal counsel and file a complaint against Sandy Bottoms. In her “Employment Charge of Discrimination,” Mrs. Richardson alleged a number of instances wherein Mr. Hartley had acted improperly towards her. The majority of the allegations could not be substantiated or corroborated by any other witness. Those “he said - she said” allegations will only be referred to in passing and as necessary to elaborate on the two somewhat verifiable allegations. The two alleged incidents for which other eyewitness testimony exists are generally described as follows: On or about October 4, 2015, Mrs. Richardson was working behind the outside bar. Mr. Hartley, who kept a bottle of port wine in a cooler behind the bar for his personal consumption, came behind the bar. Mrs. Richardson felt a bottle being shoved between her legs, scaring her and making her very uncomfortable. Mr. Hartley supposedly laughed and asked a customer “wasn’t that funny?” or “isn’t that fun?” In the late winter or early spring of 2015, Mr. Hartley approached Mrs. Richardson as she was working at the bar and – staring at her breasts – said, “It’s not that cold in here.” A customer sitting at the bar overheard the statement. As to the first incident, Mrs. Richardson’s description in her diary of allegations said Mr. Hartley “shoved the neck of the bottle between my legs from behind.” Despite the egregiousness of the allegation, whether it occurred exactly as alleged is unclear from the evidence. Her testimony about the event at final hearing was wanting. Mrs. Richardson testified as follows, first in response to questions from her counsel, then from Respondent’s counsel: Q: Did Mr. Hartley shove a bottle of port into your genital area? A: Yes, the very top of my legs where my shorts were, yes. Q: Okay. A: My shorts were wet from it, and my shorts were not short shorts, but they were short enough to be to the upper part of my legs, not my calves. Transcript, page 59. Q: You stated on direct that you were –- you felt degraded [by the bottle incident]. A: Yes. Q: Can you explain what you mean by degraded? A: I felt like an idiot. I mean that I couldn’t believe that he had the nerve to come behind the bar and stick a bottle of port anywhere on me. It wouldn’t have been funny, let alone where it was. Transcript, pp. 100-101. Though it was suggested a number of times, Mrs. Richardson’s testimony never directly alleged that Mr. Hartley put the bottle against her vagina or anus, only that he poked her with the bottle in some fashion. In fact, Mrs. Richardson never specified exactly where the bottle had touched her body. Mr. Hartley testified he went behind the bar on the day of the incident to retrieve his bottle of port. When he reached down to pick up the bottle cap which he had dropped, he intentionally touched the cold bottle to Mrs. Richardson’s leg. It was meant to be playful, a joke, consistent with his normal behavior towards her – and like her playfulness with him. He touched the cold bottle to her bare leg, causing her to jump. There were many other people in the restaurant at the time. Mr. Hartley’s testimony seemed credible, even though there was some testimony from others that he generally asked the bartender to pour his port wine rather than getting it himself. He maintains that on the day in question the bar was quite busy and he did not want to distract Mrs. Richardson from her duties. The perceptions of the two other people in attendance must also be considered. First, a long-time friend of Mrs. Richardson, Deborah Botke, was sitting at the bar. She saw Mr. Hartley’s arm move toward Mrs. Richardson’s legs. From her vantage point, she could not actually see below Mrs. Richardson’s waist, but from the angle of Mr. Hartley’s arm-–and Mrs. Richardson’s reaction–-Ms. Botke presumed that the man had poked the bottle “in the direction of her private regions.” She said, “I saw him take it and shove it like this. I don’t know where it landed.” She did note that Mr. Hartley was approximately waist-high to Mrs. Richardson, i.e., he did not bend over so as as to touch her ankle or lower leg. Ms. Botke was a credible witness. She holds a very significant security clearance at her job managing all the navigational equipment for the U.S. Navy’s Ohio-class ballistic submarines. It is unlikely she would perjure herself in a proceeding such as this and put her clearance at risk. It is clear she saw something and was convinced that Mr. Hartley acted improperly, even if she could not actually see what he did. To the detriment of her believability, she is a close friend of Mrs. Richardson and obviously wants to support what her friend alleges. And, she has had some past trouble with Sandy Bottoms. She was once removed from the Restaurant by the police when she became extremely drunk after breaking up with a boyfriend. All in all, Ms. Botke’s belief that Mr. Hartley utilized the bottle in a sexual manner is not proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Ms. Botke also provided hearsay testimony concerning other allegations Mrs. Richardson had made concerning Mr. Hartley, but those allegations were not corroborated by other competent evidence. For example, she suggested that security cameras at the Restaurant were installed for the primary purpose of allowing Mr. Hartley to remotely look at Mrs. Richardson’s breasts. In fact, Ms. Botke says that Mrs. Richardson came home crying one night when she (Richardson) discovered that fact about the cameras. No persuasive evidence was presented, however, to establish the legitimacy of that allegation. Also, Ms. Botke said that Mr. Hartley appeared to “make contact with” Mrs. Richardson unnecessarily when he went behind the bar one time. Mrs. Richardson acknowledged the area behind the bar was very small and it was difficult for two people to be there at one time. From the totality of the evidence, it is certain that Mr. Hartley touched a cold bottle of port wine to Mrs. Richardson’s body. It cannot be confirmed where on her body the bottle touched Mrs. Richardson, i.e., whether it was her backside, her crotch, or on one of her legs. Nor can it be reasonably ascertained whether Mr. Hartley’s purpose was playful or sexually motivated. Regarding the comments Mrs. Richardson made about the security cameras, again there was no corroboration. Mr. Hartley and Mr. McNair say the cameras were installed for security purposes only. One reason the cameras were required was to make sure staff were not drinking on the job and/or drinking without paying for the drinks. In fact, in September 2015, the cameras recorded Mrs. Richardson taking alcohol “shots” at the bar during one of her shifts. She was reprimanded and written up for the infraction. As to the second incident, i.e., that Mr. Hartley allegedly made inappropriate comments while looking at Mrs. Richardson’s breasts, the evidence is even more scant. At final hearing, Mrs. Richardson’s attorney asked if Mr. Hartley had made a specific reference to her nipples in late winter- early spring 2015. She replied, “Yes sir.” In her written list of allegations given to FCHR, she said Mr. Hartley said, “It’s not that cold in here” in reference to her nipples while looking at her breasts. Mr. Hartley testified only that he did not make any such comment concerning Mrs. Richardson’s breasts or nipples. There was another person, Robert Pelletier, sitting at the bar at the time of the alleged incident. Mr. Pelletier, who is a managing broker for a real estate firm, is also a licensed attorney. At the time of the alleged incident, he had visited the bar on half a dozen occasions. He was sitting at the inside bar when an “older man” went behind the bar and said something to Mrs. Richardson about her nipples being hard. He found the comment to be very offensive. He was told by Mrs. Richardson that the man was the owner of Sandy Bottoms. At final hearing Mr. Pelletier could not say whether Mr. Hartley, who was sitting some six feet away from him, was the man he saw speaking to Mrs. Richardson that day in the bar. In an affidavit he prepared in May 2016, Mr. Pelletier did not mention that the man had commented specifically about Mrs. Richardson’s nipples. Nor did he mention that the man had gone behind the bar to talk to Mrs. Richardson. The only consistency between Mr. Pelletier’s testimony and his affidavit was that he heard something inappropriate said to Mrs. Richardson as he sat at the bar. By his own admission, Mr. Pelletier’s memory of the event was cloudy. No one else witnessed this encounter. It happened very quickly, according to Mr. Pelletier, and was not that memorable an event. While it is certainly possible that the event happened exactly as Mrs. Richardson remembers it, there is not a preponderance of evidence to that effect. Besides the two incidents discussed above, Mrs. Richardson also alleges a history of unwanted advances and comments from Mr. Hartley. She describes incidents where she felt like Mr. Hartley’s interactions with her or comments to her were sexual in nature. Both Ms. Botke and Ms. Guidry reported some other general comments allegedly made by Mr. Hartley that Mrs. Richardson had reported to them, but their testimony in that regard was not particularly persuasive. Mr. Hartley describes the same incidents as completely non-sexual in content or intent. Ms. Guidry had worked at, and been fired from, Sandy Bottoms several times. She once heard Mr. Hartley tell Mrs. Richardson that he wanted to buy her a red dress; that statement seemed to make Mrs. Richardson uncomfortable. Ms. Guidry thought Mr. Hartley hung around Mrs. Richardson too much. However, she never saw anything untoward happen between the two. Had she seen something improper happen, she would have reported it to someone. She never reported anything to anyone. Ms. Botke said that Mrs. Richardson would complain to her about Mr. Hartley as the two women sat on their decks enjoying a drink after work. None of those complaints, however, were substantiated by other evidence. Watching the demeanor and apparent sincerity of the two (Richardson and Hartley) at final hearing, it is quite possible each is telling the truth as he or she believes it to exist. That is, Mrs. Richardson sincerely believes that some of Mr. Hartley’s actions and words were provocative and meant to be sexual in nature. Mr. Hartley honestly believes that he was joking with Mrs. Richardson in a friendly and joking fashion, never crossing the line into inappropriate behavior. Mrs. Thelemann believed she and Mrs. Richardson got along quite well. They both had children and would talk about “kid things” with each other. Mrs. Thelemann saw her father (Hartley) and Mrs. Richardson talking quite frequently but never saw anything improper or questionable. Mrs. Richardson told Mrs. Thelemann once that Mr. Hartley was “an old flirt,” but not in a complaining way. Once, when Mrs. Richardson was distraught about being “written up” for drinking liquor while on duty, Mrs. Thelemann consoled Mrs. Richardson and let her know all was well. Mrs. Thelemann said Mrs. Richardson was, after all, a good employee. Another time, when Mrs. Richardson had to go visit her ailing mother, Mrs. Thelemann and her parents offered Mrs. Richardson money and the use of one of their cars. Mrs. Thelemann, an accountant, offered to help Mrs. Richardson with some IRS tax issues. And Mr. Hartley offered to loan Mrs. Richardson some money to buy Capri pants to replace short pants which had been deemed inappropriate. In short, there appears to have been a friendly relationship between Mrs. Richardson and the Hartley family. Speaking of inappropriate shorts, one of Mrs. Richardson’s unverified allegations had to do with Mr. Hartley allegedly telling her to turn around and bend over so he could inspect her shorts. Someone had complained that she and another waitress, Brittany, were wearing shorts that were too revealing. She says Mr. Hartley directed her to bend over so he could tell if the shorts were okay. At some point, Mrs. Thelemann told Mrs. Richardson that the shorts she was wearing on a particular day were too short. Later, Mrs. Richardson came to Mrs. Thelemann and said Mr. Hartley had inspected the shorts and overruled her, saying the shorts were okay. Mrs. Thelemann was angry that her father would undercut her authority, but there was no mention in the conversation that Mr. Hartley had acted inappropriately towards Mrs. Richardson. Mr. Hartley remembers visually inspecting Mrs. Richardson’s shorts, but not in a suggestive or inappropriate way. Again, there is no independent corroboration of either person’s testimony. Mrs. Richardson had a fairly clean record during her time at Sandy Bottoms. Besides the aforementioned write-up for drinking on the job, she was written up once for failing to timely enter drinks into the Point of Sale (“POS”) system. It is imperative that wait staff and bartenders timely enter drink orders into POS so that they do not forget to do so (and, apparently, to prevent them from giving away drinks). Mrs. Richardson had not timely entered some orders into the POS system and was written up for it. She signed the disciplinary action form, but wrote, “I did not do anything wrong on Sunday.” She maintains she entered the drinks as soon as practicable based on how busy she was with customers at the time. Mrs. Thelemann said that drinks actually were supposed to be entered into POS prior to being poured. Mrs. Richardson was also late for her shifts fairly frequently, roughly two thirds of the time. Otherwise, she was a model employee. Despite the numerous allegations in her written complaint, Mrs. Richardson noted only one time that she complained to management about specific harassment. She purportedly told Mr. McNair about the incident with the port wine bottle. She also said she complained to Mr. McNair at least ten other times about Mr. Hartley. Mr. McNair, however, does not remember her coming to him with that complaint (or any other, for that matter). Mrs. Richardson did express hesitation about going to management, as Mr. Hartley was the owner and ultimate authority at the Restaurant. Mrs. Richardson contends Mr. McNair is simply afraid of testifying against Mr. Hartley, but inasmuch as Mr. Hartley no longer owns the Restaurant, that contention loses credence. Besides, Mr. McNair appeared very credible while testifying at final hearing. Mrs. Richardson suggested that Mr. McNair lied on his affidavit, which had been sworn to while he was still an employee of Sandy Bottoms. Now, she reasons, he must maintain his lie in order to avoid perjuring himself. While there is logic to the reasoning, there is no evidence to support the contention. At best, the evidence at final hearing supports a finding that: 1) Mr. Hartley made an inappropriate comment about Mrs. Richardson’s breasts; and 2) Mr. Hartley touched Mrs. Richardson’s body with a wine bottle. Neither of these incidents rises to the level of sexual harassment. Mrs. Richardson also claimed retaliation by her employer, specifically that she was fired from her job because of the complaints she made against Mr. Hartley. There is no persuasive evidence in the record to support that claim. In fact, it is clear that Mrs. Richardson voluntarily walked away from her job–-at least for her November 1, 2015, shift--and was thus deemed to have abandoned her position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations Issue a Final Order finding that Respondent, C and C Enterprises, Inc., did not discriminate against Petitioner, Leslie Richardson. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Dr. Wise abused his position as a treating psychiatrist for five young women by using his influence over them to engage in sexual relationships with them in violation of Section 458.331(1)(k), Florida Statutes, (1979), [now codified as Section 458.331(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1987)] and whether he is therefore guilty of unprofessional or immoral conduct in violation of Section 458.1201(1), Florida Statutes, (1969) [now codified as Section 458.329, Florida Statutes, (1987)]. If Dr. Wise is guilty of any of these activities, he would also be guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes (1987), which proscribes the violation of any portion of Chapter 458. Sexual misconduct with patients would also constitute gross or repeated malpractice, which is forbidden by Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (1987).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Dr. Wise has been a licensed medical doctor, holding license ME0008520. He has been licensed in Florida since 1957 and practices in the area of Adult and Child Psychiatry in Miami. He has been a board certified psychiatrist in since 1965. Patient L. H. From July 1969 through April 1971, Dr. Wise treated L.H, who was 21 years of age. When she began treatment, she was experiencing panic attacks and had other problems resulting from sexual molestation as a child, rape, alcoholism, and family problems. At first she had visited Dr. Wise weekly, but toward the end of her 1 1/2 years of therapy, she saw him every other week. L.H. alleges that shortly before she terminated her treatment with Dr. Wise she had a severe panic attack which caused her to telephone Dr. Wise, who then offered to provide therapy at Dr. Wise's apartment. When she arrived, she says Dr. Wise was in his bathrobe, took her to the bedroom, told her to place her hand on his penis and had sexual relations with her. She also maintains that Dr. Wise saw her on one other occasion in his office, when no sex occurred. L. H. said nothing about Dr. Wise's conduct at the time the incident was to have taken place. Fourteen years later, L.H. was seeing a psychologist in St. Louis, Missouri, Dr. Gertrude Williams. In the course of therapy with Dr. Williams, L.H. stated that she had sexual intercourse with Dr. Wise while she was his patient. This disclosure to Dr. Williams is consistent with the testimony L. H. gave at the final hearing. In October of 1985, L.H. filed a complaint against Dr. Wise with the South Florida Psychiatric Society alleging sexual misconduct, but after a two-day hearing a panel of twelve doctors found against L.H. and in favor of Dr. Wise. The testimony of L. H. was no more persuasive in this case than it was before the Psychiatric Society. In October, 1985, L.H. also filed a complaint which the Department investigated, but found the charges unsubstantiated. No disciplinary action was initiated against Dr. Wise at that time. The evidence in the instant case with respect to the allegations of misconduct by Dr. Wise with L.H. was not clearly convincing or persuasive. Patient S.P. Dr. Wise treated S.P. from July, 1980 through July, 1981 at his office in Miami. She was then approximately 19 years old and had complaints of nervousness, insomnia and hyperventilation. She saw Dr. Wise approximately two times per week (on Tuesdays and Thursdays) for therapy. Although originally seen in the morning, her appointments were changed to late in the afternoon. S.P. alleges that within two months after beginning treatment, while she was sitting on the couch during a therapy session, Dr. Wise got up from another couch, sat down next to her and began to kiss her. She also alleges that during subsequent visits Dr. Wise had sexual intercourse with her. S.P. filed a civil lawsuit for malpractice against Dr. Wise alleging the same sexual misconduct alleged here as the basis for her damage claim. After a jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Wise. S.P.'s marriage failed while she was seeing Dr. Wise. She had often stayed out late, and told her husband that she was at therapy sessions with Dr. Wise. It is not clear whether these late night absences from home were actually the result of appointments with Dr. Wise or were the result of other appointments which she justified to her husband by claiming they were appointments with Dr. Wise. After terminating treatment with Dr. Wise, S.P. began seeing a Roman catholic priest who was also trained as a counselor. She told him that she had been seeing a local psychiatrist who, after a few sessions, had engaged in sexual intimacy with her. After moving back to her mother's home due to her breakup with her husband, S.P. also told her mother that she and Dr. Wise had been sexually intimate. These statements by S. P. were consistent with her testimony at final hearing; that the testimony is consistent, however, does not make it persuasive. Taken as a whole, the evidence that Dr. Wise may have engaged in a sexual relationship with S. P. is not clearly convincing. Patient L. M. Dr. Wise treated L.M. during the period from late 1972 through February of 1973. She was sixteen years old and was seeking to improve her relationship with her parents. She alleges that during one of her early visits Dr. Wise questioned her about the pimple on her forehead, and asked whether she had pimples on any other area of her body. She says she responded that she had a pimple on her back, and alleges that Dr. Wise then asked to see her back. When she lifted her pullover, she says Dr. Wise fondled her breasts briefly. Viewing the testimony of L.M. as a whole, the evidence is not clearly convincing that Dr. Wise ever fondled her breasts. Patient K. M. Dr. Wise treated K.M. from 1982, when she was 18 years old, until 1984. K. M. came to see Dr. Wise because of problems including an abortion she had when she was 15 years old, as well as a prior incestuous relationship with her brother. K.M. testified that she would go to Dr. Wise's office for treatment late in the evening, when they also would engage in sexual intercourse. She also testified that in 1985, after she terminated her therapeutic relation with Dr. Wise, she told her general practice physician, Dr. Peter Shea, during an office visit, that she had an affair with Dr. Wise. As with the foregoing witnesses, the statement made to Dr. Shea is consistent with K. M.'s testimony at final hearing, but that consistency does not enhance K. M.'s testimony. The testimony of K.M. concerning liaisons with Dr. Wise is not clearly convincing. Patient L. G. L.G. saw Dr. Wise beginning in April, 1974 when she was 21 years old. When she first came to Dr. Wise she complained of depression, unhappiness, and confusion. She told Dr. Wise that she was lonely and did not have a good relationship with men. Dr. Wise also treated L.G.'s sister, Joan. After about two months of seeing her on a weekly basis, L.G. alleges that Dr. Wise came over to the couch where she was sitting, embraced her, and during the course of the treatment, their physical relationship became more intimate. The intimacies were to have included oral sex which L.G. performed on Dr. Wise, which she thought was therapy for her psychological problems with sexual intimacy. L.G. terminated her relationship with Dr. Wise and began seeing a psychologist at the University of Miami, Edward Rappaport. During the course of treatment L.G. reported to Dr. Rappaport that she had been sexually involved with Dr. Wise. The testimony of L.G. at final hearing is consistent with the statement she made to Dr. Rappaport during therapy that Dr. Wise engaged in sex with her while she was seeing Dr. Wise for professional help. The consistency of the testimony does not make it persuasive. Considering the testimony of L.G. and Dr. Rappaport, the evidence offered to show that Dr. Wise had engaged in sexual intimacies with L.G. while she was seen as a patient is not clearly convincing.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a Final Order dismissing the second amended Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 22rd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY 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 22rd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The following constitutes my rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1987). Rulings on Findings of Fact Proposed by the Department of Professional Regulation Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Accepted in findings of fact 2, 6, 10, 11 and 12. Covered in finding of fact 11. 6-7. Rejected for the reasons stated in finding of fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 9. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 11. 13 Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 7, of the facts stated that are rejected. Rejected because the testimony of S.P. was not clearly convincing. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. The proposals concerning the telephone calls are rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the testimony of S.P. was not clearly convincing. Covered in finding of fact 9. Rejected as subordinate to finding of fact 9. Rejected as subordinate to finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. Covered in finding of fact 9. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 24. The proposal concerning the telephone calls is rejected as unnecessary. Rejected as unnecessary. 26.-29. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 12. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 13, although the proposals are rejected because L.G.'s testimony was not clearly convincing. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because the testimony of L.G. is not clearly convincing. Rejected as unnecessary. 37.-38. To the extent necessary, covered in finding of fact 13. 39. Rejected as unnecessary. 40. Covered in finding of fact 13. 41.-42. Rejected because the testimony of L.G. was not clearly convincing. 43. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 3, although the proposed findings are rejected. Covered in finding of fact 3, although the proposed findings are rejected. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 4. Rejected as unnecessary. Rejected because of the testimony of the complaining witnesses has not been clearly convincing. 50.-53. Rejected as unnecessary. 54. Rejected as unnecessary. Rulings on Findings of Fact Proposed By Dr. Wise Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 1. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2 Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 5. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 6. Covered in finding of fact 6. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in finding of fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 11. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in finding of fact 12. Covered in finding of fact 12. Covered in finding of fact 12, to the extent necessary. Covered in finding of fact 14. Covered in finding of fact 10. Covered in finding of fact 10. Rejected as unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 10. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Sewell, Esquire Law offices of Mark P. Lang 20 North Orange Avenue Suite 707 Post Office Box 2127 Orlando, FL 32802-2127 Jonathan King, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750A =================================================================
The Issue The issues in this case are whether, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Respondent terminated Petitioner on the basis of her sex or age, or in retaliation for engaging in protected activity; and whether Respondent subjected Petitioner to a hostile work environment based on her sex or age.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Frito-Lay, Inc. ("Frito-Lay"), makes and sells snack foods, including many familiar brands of chips. Petitioner Frances G. Danelli ("Danelli") is a former employee of Frito-Lay. Frito-Lay initially hired Danelli in or around 1998 as a packer for its West Valley, Utah, plant. When Danelli's husband was transferred to Florida, she took a job for Frito-Lay in Pompano Beach, Florida, and later moved to the company's West Palm Beach Distribution Center as a route sales representative ("RSR"). Danelli worked in Florida as a Frito-Lay RSR for more than 15 years, and her routes eventually included such large stores as Publix, Walmart, Winn-Dixie, and Target.1/ RSRs sell and deliver Frito-Lay products to retail stores, and these stores, in turn, sell the products to consumers. RSRs are responsible, as well, for presenting the company's products to shoppers in the best way possible to increase sales. So, RSRs not only sell and deliver products to stores, but they also unload the products, stock the shelves, set up displays, and remove unsold items whose sell-by dates have expired. RSRs are paid an hourly wage plus commissions. RSRs are required to compete for sales against other companies' vendors, who (like Frito-Lay's personnel) are trying to place as many of their products as possible onto the shelves of the snack food aisle. Shelf space is essential for growing sales, and competition for product placement can be fierce. There is no dispute that Danelli's performance as an RSR was fine, perhaps even exemplary. Frito-Lay considered her to be a good employee. Danelli went to work early each morning, usually arriving at the warehouse by 4:00 a.m. so that she could get to her first store by 5:00 a.m., which would give her a head start on other vendors. When Danelli got to the warehouse, she would clock in on her handheld computer, which she also used to track the goods she delivered to each store. Upon returning to the warehouse, she had paperwork to complete and print from the handheld computer. In 2013, Frito-Lay started requiring drivers of delivery trucks over a certain size, including RSRs such as Danelli, to comply with U.S. Department of Transportation ("DOT") regulations. As relevant, these regulations require an RSR to take at least a ten-hour break before driving a commercial vehicle, and they prohibit an RSR from driving a commercial vehicle after 14 consecutive hours on duty. Frito-Lay programmed its employees' handheld computers so that an employee subject to the DOT regulations would receive a conspicuous warning if he or she attempted to clock in to work less than ten hours after last going off duty. As Danelli testified at hearing, if the computer told her to wait, she would go to the warehouse, pick up some product, fix her truck, and then sign in when the handheld said she could go. Evidently, however, to get the warning, an employee needed to log on as a "regulated" employee; if, by mistake, a "regulated" employee logged on as "non-regulated," she would not get the warning. Danelli found it difficult to comply with the DOT regulations, which led to Frito-Lay's imposing discipline against her in accordance with the company's Corrective Action Process set forth in its Sales National RSR Handbook, which governed Petitioner's employment. The handbook prescribes a process of progressive discipline that begins with "coaching," which is a form of pre- discipline. As the name suggests, a "coaching" is, essentially, a nondisciplinary intervention whose purpose is to correct an issue before the employee's conduct warrants stronger measures. If coaching is ineffective, the Corrective Action Process calls for increasingly severe steps of discipline. The steps of discipline consist of a Step 1 Written Reminder, a Step 2 Written Warning, a Step 3 Final Written Warning, and a Step 4 Termination. The particular discipline to be imposed depends upon the severity of the infraction and the step of discipline, if any, the employee happens to be on when the infraction is committed. Steps of discipline remain "active" for six to nine months, depending on the step. If the employee does not commit any further disciplinary infractions during the active period, the step "falls off." If the employee commits another disciplinary infraction within the "active" period, however, he or she moves to the next disciplinary step in the Corrective Action Process. On June 5, 2014, after having previously been coached to maintain compliance with the DOT regulations, Danelli received a Step 1 Written Reminder for four violations of the 10-hour rule. She did not appeal this discipline. On July 25, 2014, Danelli received a Step 2 Written Warning for a new violation of the 10-hour rule. Once again, Danelli did not appeal the discipline. On October 7, 2014, Danelli was given another coaching, during which she was informed that (i) an investigation into her DOT hours was in process, and (ii) the company was concerned that she might be getting assistance on her route from her husband in violation of the RSR Performance Standards. On January 27, 2015, Danelli received a Step 3 Final Written Warning for violating the 14-hour rule. She did not appeal this discipline. Under the Corrective Action Process, a Step 3 Final Written Warning remains "active" for nine months and is the final step prior to a Step 4 Termination. On May 2, 2015, Danelli committed another DOT violation. Because she was already on a Step 3 Final Written Warning, she was suspended pending further investigation. Danelli maintains that this violation, and others, resulted from her making a simple mistake with the handheld computer, namely failing to log on as a "regulated" employee, which cost her the electronic warning she otherwise would have received. She points out, too, that in this instance, the violation was minor, merely clocking in ten minutes early. These arguments are not wholly without merit, and if Frito-Lay had fired Danelli for a single, ten-minute violation of the DOT regulations, the undersigned would question the company's motivation. But that is not what happened. Danelli did not just violate the ten-hour rule once or twice, but many times, after multiple warnings, and in the face of increasingly serious disciplinary steps. Further, Frito-Lay did not terminate Danelli's employment over this latest violation of the ten-hour rule, even though it would have been justified in doing so within the parameters of the Corrective Action Process. Instead, the company placed Danelli on a Last Chance Agreement. Last Chance Agreements are not specifically provided for in the Corrective Action Process but are used, at the company's discretion, as a safety valve to avoid the occasional unfortunate termination that might result from strict adherence to rigid rules. In this regard, the agreement given to Danelli, dated May 15, 2015, stated as follows: We strongly considered [terminating your employment]. However, due to the unique facts and circumstances involved here, as well as your 15 years of service with the Company, the Company is willing to issue this Last Chance Warning. This step is over and above our normal progressive disciplinary process, and is being issued on a one-time, non-precedent setting basis. . . . [A]ny subsequent violations by you may result in discipline up to and including immediate termination. More specifically, any future violations [of the DOT regulations] will result in your immediate termination. As Danelli put it, the Last Change Agreement was a "sign of grace" from Frito-Lay. By its terms, it was intended to be "active and in effect for a period of 12 months." The undersigned pauses here to let the Last Chance Agreement sink in, because the fact that Frito-Lay did not fire Danelli in May 2015 when——for objective, easy-to-prove reasons, after a by-the-book application of progressive discipline——it clearly could have, is compelling evidence that the company was not harboring discriminatory animus against Danelli. After all, if Frito-Lay had wanted Danelli gone because of her age or her gender, why in the world would the company not have jumped at this golden opportunity, which Danelli had given it, to fire her with practically no exposure to liability for unlawful discrimination? The irony is that by showing mercy, Frito-Lay set in motion the chain of events that led to this proceeding. In or around November of 2015, Danelli underwent surgery, which required her to take some time off of work. For several years before this leave, Danelli's route had consisted of a Super Walmart and two Publix stores. When she returned, the Super Walmart had been assigned to another RSR, and to make up for its loss, Danelli's supervisor, Stanley Gamble, put a third Publix grocery on Danelli's route, i.e., Publix #1049 located in Tequesta, Florida. Danelli was acquainted with one of the managers at the Tequesta Publix, a Mr. Morgan. On her first day back, Danelli and Mr. Gamble went to that store, where Mr. Morgan told Mr. Gamble that he was "glad Frances is here." Mr. Morgan had complained to Mr. Gamble about the previous RSR, who left the store "all messed up," according to Mr. Gamble. Danelli also met Sarah Oblaczynski, the store's "backdoor receiver," which is the Publix employee who checks in merchandise. On her new route, Danelli usually went to the Tequesta store first, early in the morning. She soon ran into a vendor named Tony who worked for Snyder's of Hanover ("Snyder's"), a snack food company that competes with Frito-Lay. From the start, Tony was nasty to Danelli and aggressive, telling her that "there is no space" for two vendors. Tony was possessive about shelf space within the store, as well as the parking space close to the store's loading dock. Danelli thought, because of Tony's behavior, that he might be using drugs. On Tuesday, April 6, 2016, Petitioner had an argument with Tony over the shelf space that the store manager previously had awarded to her for the display of Frito-Lay products. Tony asserted that he had been promised the same space and said to Danelli, "You're going to take that stuff out of the shelf." Danelli told him, "No, Morgan said that's still my space." At this, Tony began cursing and pushed Danelli's cart into her, yelling, "That fucking Morgan!" Danelli later spoke to Mr. Morgan, who assured Danelli that the shelf space in question was hers and said he would leave a note to that effect for Ms. Oblaczynski. There is a dispute as to when Danelli reported the forgoing incident to Frito-Lay. She claims that, before the end of the day on April 6, she told Mr. Gamble, her supervisor, all about the matter, in detail, and requested that someone be assigned to accompany her on her route the next day because Tony planned on taking her shelf space. According to Danelli, Mr. Gamble just laughed and said he did not have anybody to help her. Mr. Gamble testified, to the contrary, that Danelli had neither reported the April 6, 2016, incident to him nor asked for any assistance. (Danelli admits that she did not report the incident to Mr. Canizares, sales zone director, or to Human Resources ("HR")). Without written documentation regarding this alleged discussion, it is hard to say what, if anything, Danelli reported on April 6, 2016. It is likely that Danelli did complain to Mr. Gamble about Tony on some occasion(s), and might well have done so on April 6. What is unlikely, however, is that Danelli notified Mr. Gamble that she felt she was being sexually harassed by Tony. Tony's boorish and bullying behavior, to the extent directed at Danelli, seems to have been directed to her qua competitor, not as a woman. At the very least, the incident is ambiguous in this regard, and one could reasonably conclude, upon hearing about it, that Tony was simply a jerk who resorted to juvenile antics in attempting to gain the upper hand against a rival vendor. The undersigned finds that if Danelli did speak to Mr. Gamble about Tony on April 6, he—— not unreasonably——did not view the incident as one involving sexual harassment. As far as Mr. Gamble's declining to provide Danelli with an escort, assuming she requested one, his response is reasonable if (as found) Mr. Gamble was not clearly on notice that Danelli believed she was being sexually harassed. Danelli, after all, was by this time an experienced and successful RSR who undoubtedly had encountered other difficult vendors during her career. Indeed, as things stood on April 6, a person could reasonably conclude that Danelli in fact had the situation under control, inasmuch as Mr. Morgan had clearly taken Danelli's side and intervened on her behalf. What could a Frito-Lay "bodyguard" reasonably be expected to accomplish, which would justify the risk of escalating the tension between Tony and Danelli into a hostile confrontation? During the evening of April 6, 2016, Danelli talked to her husband about the problem at Publix #1049, and they decided that he would accompany her to the store the next morning before reporting to his own work, to assist if Tony caused a scene. On April 7, 2016, Danelli's husband drove to Publix #1049 in his own vehicle. Although no longer an employee of the company, Danelli's husband entered the store wearing a Frito-Lay hat, and he stayed in the snack aisle while Danelli went to the back to bring the order in. Ms. Oblaczynski, the receiver, presented Tony with a note from Mr. Morgan stating that Danelli's products and sales items were assigned to aisle one. In response, Tony started swearing about Mr. Morgan and the denial of shelf space, made a hand gesture indicative of a man pleasing himself, and told Ms. Oblaczynski that "they can take a fly[ing] F'n leap." Tony had made this particular hand gesture about Mr. Morgan on a number of previous occasions, in front of both men and women. Mr. Danelli left to go to work once Danelli's product was placed, and she left to go to the next store on her route. When Danelli returned to the warehouse, she went to Mr. Gamble's office and told him about the April 7, 2016, incident. According to Danelli, Mr. Gamble laughed in response. Danelli asked Mr. Gamble if the company would conduct an investigation, and he said yes. She recalls that every day thereafter, she asked Mr. Gamble if he had heard anything because she thought "we [Frito-Lay] were investigating" and that HR was on top of it. Danelli admits, however, that she "intentionally" did not tell Mr. Gamble that her husband had accompanied her to Publix #1049 to assist her in the store that morning. She did not report this detail because she knew it was "bad." In conflict with Danelli's account, Mr. Gamble testified that Danelli did not report that Tony made a sexual gesture in front of her or used coarse or profane language in her presence on April 7, 2016. The undersigned finds that Mr. Gamble most likely did not laugh at Danelli or otherwise treat her dismissively upon hearing her report of the incident. If Mr. Gamble had believed the matter were so trivial or amusing, he would not likely have agreed to investigate. The undersigned finds, further, that however Danelli described the incident, she did not make it clear to Mr. Gamble that she perceived Tony's behavior as a form of sexual harassment. Danelli did not make a formal written complaint to that effect at the time, and the situation at Publix #1049 was, at the very least, ambiguous. More likely than not, Mr. Gamble viewed the troublesome vendor from Snyder's as an unwelcome business problem to be dealt with, not as a perpetrator of unlawful, gender-based discrimination. To elaborate, putting Tony's "sexual gesture" to one side momentarily, the rest of his conduct, even the cursing, while certainly objectionable, is not suggestive of sexual harassment; it is just bad behavior. Tony's temper tantrums and outbursts no doubt upset Danelli and others, but that does not turn them into gender discrimination. Further, Danelli seems to have handled the situation well until she resorted to self-help on April 7, 2016. The responsible Publix employees were already aware of the problem, and in due course, they complained to Snyder's, which unsurprisingly removed Tony from that store. Meantime, had Danelli felt physically threatened or afraid as a result of Tony's more aggressive antics, she (or Publix) could have called the police; this, indeed, would have been a safer and more reasonable alternative to bringing along her husband or another civilian for protection, which as mentioned above posed the risk of provoking a fight, given Tony's volatility. Ultimately, it is Tony's "sexual gesture" that provides a colorable basis for Danelli's sexual harassment complaint. But even this gives little grounds for a claim of discrimination, without more context than is present here. To be sure, the "jerk off gesture" or "air jerk" is obscene, and one would not expect to see it in polite company or in the workplace. Yet, although it clearly mimics a sexual practice, the air jerk is generally not understood as being a literal reference to masturbation. That is, the gesture is not typically used to convey a present intention to engage in masturbation or as an invitation to perform the act on the gesturer. Rather, the jerk off gesture usually signifies annoyance, disgust, disinterest, or disbelief. As with its cousin, the "finger" (or bird) gesture, the sexual connotations of the air jerk are (usually) subliminal. Here, there is no allegation or evidence that Tony's jerk off gesture was undertaken in pursuit of sexual gratification or was intended or perceived as a sexual advance on Danelli (or someone else)——or even as being overtly sexual in nature. (Obviously, if the evidence showed that, under the circumstances, Tony was, e.g., inviting Danelli to participate in sexual activity, this would be a different case. The undersigned is not suggesting, just to be clear, that the air jerk gesture is inconsistent with or could never amount to sexual harassment, but only that it is not unequivocally a sign of such harassment, given its commonly understood meanings.) To the contrary, it is clear from the surrounding circumstances that Tony made the gesture to indicate that he regarded Mr. Morgan's note as pointless and annoying. It was roughly the equivalent of giving them the bird, albeit arguably less contemptuous than that. For these reasons, the undersigned finds it unlikely that, assuming Danelli described the gesture (which is in dispute), Mr. Gamble thought Danelli was complaining about sexual harassment, as opposed to a very difficult vendor. On April 13, 2016, Mr. Gamble visited Publix #1049 and spoke to Ms. Oblaczynski about the situation. During this conversation, Ms. Oblaczynski stated that the "Frito-Lay people" did nothing wrong. She further specified that "the person [Danelli] had with her did nothing wrong." After speaking with Ms. Oblaczynski, Mr. Gamble met with Danelli while she was servicing her second account. Right off the bat, Mr. Gamble asked Danelli who was with her at Publix #1049 on April 7, 2016. She eventually admitted that her husband was with her in the store that day. Aware of the seriousness of her offense and the active Last Chance Agreement, Danelli asked Mr. Gamble, several times, if she would be fired. That same day, Mr. Gamble called Carlos Canizares to tell him what he had learned. Mr. Canizares instructed Mr. Gamble to stay with Danelli while she finished servicing her accounts and then to obtain a written statement from her about the incident. Later on April 13, 2016, Danelli provided a written statement in which she confirmed that her husband had been working with her at Publix #1049 the previous week. Danelli has since described this statement as a "full written account of the harassment [and] rude sexual gestures." Danelli knew, of course, that HR would review her statement, and yet she said nothing therein about having complained to Mr. Gamble or any supervisor about harassment generally or Tony in particular; about Tony's use of course or improper language; or about having requested an escort to help keep Tony in line. On the instructions of the company's HR department, Mr. Gamble conducted an investigation into the "rude sexual gesture" about which Danelli had complained. Specifically, he called Mr. Morgan, the Publix manager, and asked him about the incident. Mr. Gamble also requested that he be allowed to review any videotapes and documents concerning the incident. Mr. Morgan informed Mr. Gamble that Publix was investigating the matter. Mr. Gamble's request to allow Frito-Lay access to Publix videotapes and documents was, however, turned down. Tony's boorish behavior aside, the fact remained that Danelli, without prior approval, had allowed a non-employee to perform work or services for Frito-Lay at one of the stores on her route, which the RSR Performance Standards specifically prohibit without express authorization. RSRs who are found to have permitted non-employees to accompany them on their routes are either discharged or issued multiple steps of discipline, as Danelli knew. Because Danelli violated this rule while on an active Last Chance Agreement, Frito-Lay decided to terminate her employment. On April 26, 2016, Mr. Canizares met with Danelli to inform her that she was fired. Danelli timely appealed her termination pursuant to the company's Complaint and Appeal Procedure, electing to have her appeal decided by a neutral, third-party arbitrator. The arbitration hearing took place in January 2017. Three months later, the arbitrator ruled that Danelli's termination had been proper and carried out in accordance with Frito-Lay's employment policies. Danelli does not presently deny that she violated the DOT regulations and the company policy forbidding the use of non-employees as helpers while on duty, nor does she dispute that Frito-Lay had sufficient grounds for imposing the disciplinary steps leading to the Last Chance Agreement. Indeed, she does not contend that it would have been wrongful for Frito-Lay to have fired her in May 2015 instead of offering the Last Chance Agreement. Her position boils down to the argument that because Frito-Lay could have exercised leniency and not fired her for bringing her husband to work at Publix #1049 (which is probably true2/), its failure to do so can only be attributable to gender or age discrimination. Put another way, Danelli claims that but for her being a woman in her 50s, Frito-Lay would have given her another "last chance." This is a heavy lift. As circumstantial evidence of discrimination, Danelli points to the company's treatment of another RSR, a younger man named Ryan McCreath. Like Danelli, Mr. McCreath was caught with a non-employee assisting him on his route. Unlike Danelli, however, Mr. McCreath was not on any active steps of discipline at the time of the incident, much less a Last Chance Agreement. Although Mr. McCreath's disciplinary record was not unblemished, Frito-Lay did not terminate his employment for this violation of the RSR Performance Standards. Instead, he received three steps of discipline and was issued a Final Written Warning. Mr. McCreath's situation is distinguishable because he was not under a Last Chance Agreement at the time of the violation. Moreover, it is not as though Mr. McCreath got off scot-free. He received a serious punishment. Danelli could not have received a comparable punishment for the same offense because she was already beyond Step 3; her record, unlike his, did not have room for the imposition of three steps of discipline at once. The McCreath incident does not give rise to a reasonable inference that Frito-Lay unlawfully discriminated against Danelli when it terminated her employment for committing a "three-step violation" while on an active Last Chance Agreement. There is simply no reason to suppose that if Danelli, like Mr. McCreath, had not had any active steps of discipline when she violated the rule against having non- employees provide on-the-job assistance, Frito-Lay would have terminated her employment for the April 7, 2016, infraction; or that if Mr. McCreath, like Danelli, had been on a Last Chance Agreement when he violated the rule, Frito-Lay would have issued him a Final Written Warning in lieu of termination. Ultimate Factual Determinations There is no persuasive evidence that any of Frito- Lay's decisions concerning, or actions affecting, Danelli, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by age- or gender-based discriminatory animus. Indeed, there is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which a finding of unlawful age or gender discrimination could be made. There is no persuasive evidence that Frito-Lay took any retaliatory action against Danelli for having opposed or sought redress for an unlawful employment practice. There is no persuasive evidence that Frito-Lay committed or permitted sexual harassment of Danelli or otherwise exposed her to a hostile work environment. Ultimately, therefore, it is determined that Frito-Lay did not discriminate unlawfully against Danelli on any basis.
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 finding Frito-Lay not liable for gender or age discrimination, retaliation, or creating a hostile work environment. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 11th day of July, 2018.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was subjected to sexual harassment in the form of a sexually hostile work environment and was retaliated against for complaining about the alleged harassment in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, James E. Gonzales, is a male person who was hired by the Respondent, Pepsi Bottling Group, on March 13, 1995. He was hired as a route sales trainee in the Central Florida marketing unit of that employer. The Pepsi Bottling Group (Pepsi) is responsible for the manufacture sale and delivery of Pepsi products to its vendors. Over the last three years the Central Florida unit has been the foremost marketing unit in the United States. The management of the Central Florida Marketing Unit has been rated by its employees as being the top management team in the country for Pepsi. The Petitioner applied for a Pre-sale Customer Representative (CR) position on March 27, 2003. On April 21, 2003, the Petitioner was assigned to a Pre-Sell (CR) position. As a Pre-Sell CR, the Petitioner was responsible for serving his own accounts; creating and maintaining good will with all customers; ordering customer's products in advance; and developing all assigned accounts relative to sales volume, market share, product distribution, space allocation and customer service. He was responsible for solicitation of new business; selling and executing promotions; soliciting placement of equipment; selling sufficient inventory; and utilizing point of purchase materials to stimulate sales. He was also charged with maintaining "shelf facings" cleaning and shelving and rotating product and merchandising product sections and building displays to stimulate sales. Additionally, he was required to complete and submit all related paperwork regarding sales and promotional operations in an accurate and timely manner. The Petitioner's direct supervisor initially was David Lopez. He was replaced by Wanzell Underwood in approximately August 2003. On December 5, 2002, the Petitioner received the Respondent's employee handbook. The handbook contains the Respondent's Equal Employment Opportunity Policy and Sexual Harassment Policy. The Equal Employment Opportunity Policy prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, age, disability, etc. including sexual orientation. It encourages employees to immediately report any complaint, without fear of retaliation, to the Human Resources Manager or Human Resources Director. The Respondent's policy has a zero tolerance for retaliation and forbids any retaliatory action to be taken against an individual who in good faith reports a perceived violation of that policy. Employees who feel they have been retaliated against are required to report such retaliation to the Human Resources Manager or Director. The sexual harassment policy of the Respondent prohibits all forms of harassment and clearly sets out complaint procedures for employees to follow in the event they have experienced harassment. They are directed to report any complaint immediately to the Human Resources Manager or Director. Throughout his employment the Respondent received numerous customer complaints regarding the Petitioner's poor performance. The Petitioner received five disciplinary actions against him from the period 2003 through 2005. These "write- ups" were for failing to service customers according to the Respondent's standards and were dated August 2003, April 2004, September 2004, October 2004, and May 2005. On August 1, 2003, the Petitioner received a documented verbal warning after the Respondent received a complaint from a customer regarding the amount of out-of-date product in his store and the poor level of service he was receiving from the Petitioner. On April 9, 2004, the Petitioner received a documented verbal warning for his failure to prepare his three Circle K stores for a "customer tour," although he had assured his direct supervisor, Mr. Underwood, and the Key Account Manager, Eric Matson, that the store would be ready. The Petitioner's failure to prepare his Circle K stores for the customer's tour embarrassed both his supervisor and the Key Account Manager. On June 23, 2004, the assistant manager at ABC Liquor, a store Gonzales was responsible for, sent an e-mail to Eric Matson complaining about the lack of service provided by Gonzales and requested a new CR to service his store. The customer stated that Gonzales had given nothing but "crappy" service, bad attitude, and sometimes no service. On September 21, 2004, Eric Matson received an e-mail regarding the Petitioner's failure to order product for the Mt. Dora Sunoco store. The Petitioner's supervisor, Wanzell Underwood, visited the Mt. Dora Sunoco store and confirmed the manager's complaints. The Petitioner received a written warning for not properly servicing the Mt. Dora Sunoco store. In the Petitioner's contemporaneous written comments in opposition to the written warning he failed to note that the manager of the Mt. Dora Sunoco was purportedly sexually harassing him. On October 11, 2004, the Petitioner received a final written warning and one-day suspension after his direct supervisor re-visited the same Mt. Dora Sunoco store that complained previously. The Petitioner was warned that a similar problem in the future would lead to his termination. Again, in the Petitioner's written comments in opposition to his written warning, he made no mention that the manager of the Mt. Dora Sunoco store was sexually harassing him. On October 11, 2004, after the Petitioner was suspended for one day, he requested that the Human Resources Manager, Christopher Buhl, hold a meeting. During the meeting he complained for the first time to the Unit Sales Manager, Howard Corbett, the Sales Operations Manager, Tom Hopkins, and Mr. Buhl, that three years previously, in 2001, one person had told the Petitioner that everyone thought he was "gay" (meaning co-employees). One person asked him if he was gay, according to the Petitioner's story, and one person said, "We all know you're gay," before he became a Pre-Sell CR. The Petitioner, however, refused to cooperate with Mr. Buhl in obtaining information regarding his complaints. At no time during the meeting did the Petitioner complain about being sexually harassed by the manager of the Mt. Dora Sunoco store. During the October 11, 2004, meeting the Petitioner claimed his supervisor, Wanzell Underwood, threatened him. However, the Petitioner conceded during the meeting that the alleged statement made by Mr. Underwood was made to a group of Customer Representatives, to the effect that he would "kill you guys if you do not make the sales numbers." Mr. Underwood denied ever threatening to kill the Petitioner. During the meeting the Petitioner also complained that his route was too large and he requested that it be reduced. At no time during that October 11, 2004, meeting did the Petitioner complain that he was sexually harassed by Alice Marsh, the Mt. Dora Sunoco manager. His extensive notes and comments on his Disciplinary Action Reports did not document any such complaint. In November 2004, the Petitioner was asked to go to K- Mart and place an order, but the Petitioner failed to follow instructions and visit the store. Instead, the Petitioner placed the order over the phone. The manager of the store called the Respondent three times to complain about the poor service provided by Mr. Gonzales. Each year the Respondent changes its delivery routes. During the end of 2004 or the beginning of 2005, the Respondent re-routed all of its Pre-sell CR routes. The Respondent reduced the Petitioner's route as he had requested and in conformity with its route standards. Despite the Petitioner's allegation to the contrary, in fact the Petitioner's route was not reduced by as much as 50 percent. In May 2005, Key Account Manager, Mike Lewis, visited the Petitioner's K-Mart store to conduct a "Look at the Leader" audit. The Petitioner had been trained and was responsible for preparing the K-Mart for the audit. When Mr. Lewis arrived at the store, the store did not meet the Respondent's standards. Additionally, required product was missing from the displays. Mr. Lewis called Howard Corbett to inform him of the problems. Mr. Corbett called the Petitioner to ask about the missing product. The Petitioner assured him that the product was in the store and on display. The missing product was not displayed, however, and was later found in the back room of the K-Mart store. On May 18, 2005, the Respondent received another e- mail from Charles Pippen, District Manager for Sunoco, complaining of the Petitioner's poor service at the Mt. Dora Sunoco store. He claimed that the Petitioner did not reply to phone calls and rarely ordered enough product. On May 19, 2005, the Territory Sales Manager, John York, followed up on that complaint by visiting the Mt. Dora Sunoco store and meeting with the Manager, Alice Marsh. Mr. York was substituting for Mr. Underwood who was out on medical leave. During the meeting, Ms. Marsh complained that the Petitioner did not order the quantity of product she requested, failed to provide adequate signage, and refused to place product where she requested. While at the Mt. Dora Sunoco store, Mr. York observed the problems about which Ms. Marsh had complained. After meeting Ms. Marsh, Mr. York spoke with the Petitioner to inform him of Ms. Marsh's complaints. During his conversation with Mr. York, the Petitioner admitted to failing to service the account by not placing the product by the gas pumps as requested, not ordering the amount of product requested, and not hanging certain signs. Later in this conversation with Mr. York, the Petitioner informed Mr. York that he believed that the Sunoco Manager's reason for complaining about his service was that he had refused her sexual advances. The Petitioner did not tell Mr. York what the alleged advances consisted of or when they might have occurred. Mr. York, however, in fact was never the Petitioner's supervisor. The Petitioner was responsible for two CVS stores in Mt. Dora. On Friday, May 20, 2005, the Petitioner made an unusual request of his temporary Manager, Dan Manor, for a Saturday delivery to his CVS stores. The Respondent does not normally schedule Saturday deliveries for such "small format" stores like CVS. When Mr. Manor approved the Saturday delivery, he specifically instructed the Petitioner that must meet the bulk delivery driver at the stores to "merchandise" the product, because bulk delivery drivers do not merchandise the product delivered and Mr. Manor did not have a merchandiser assigned to the Mt. Dora stores. The Petitioner agreed to meet the bulk delivery driver at the CVS stores on Saturday. The Petitioner did not advise his supervisor that he had made arrangements with the CVS store manager or a merchandiser regarding alternate arrangements for the Saturday delivery. The supervisor would have expected the Petitioner to do so. On Saturday, May 21, 2005, the Petitioner failed to meet the bulk driver to assist in merchandising the orders at the two CVS stores as instructed. The customer refused to take delivery of the product until a merchandiser was present to merchandise the product. Mr. Manor was unable to reach the Petitioner by telephone because the Petitioner was at Sea World with his family. Mr. Manor had to send a merchandiser from Longwood in order to merchandise the product that the Petitioner had ordered for the CVS stores. On May 23, 2005, the Petitioner failed to attend a weekly mandatory 5:00 a.m. meeting. He did not call his supervisor advising of his unavailability. The Petitioner did call Mr. Manor at about 6:15 a.m. and told him that he had overslept. When Mr. Manor questioned the Petitioner about why he did not meet the bulk driver on Saturday, he said that "he did not get a chance to make it out on Saturday." On May 23, 2005, Mr. Corbett decided to terminate the Petitioner based on his very poor performance. That decision to terminate him was approved by the Respondent's Human Resources Department. On May 26, 2005, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner for failing to service the CVS stores at a critical time, for the services issues at the Sunoco and the K-Mart, and for failing to attend the Monday morning meeting. At the time of his termination the Petitioner was on a final warning and had been advised that he could be terminated. The Petitioner never alleged during his termination meeting that he was being sexually harassed. Howard Corbett provided the Petitioner with documents to file an internal appeal on the day he was terminated. The Petitioner, however, did not appeal his termination as permitted by the Respondent's policy. The Petitioner claims he was the victim of sexual harassment by being subjected to (1) homosexual related comments made in 2001, and (2) alleged sexual overtures by the Sunoco Manager, Alice Marsh, in 2003. According to Ms. Marsh, she was never interested in the Petitioner sexually. She did not socialize with the Petitioner, and did not want a relationship with him. She did not touch him and did not state that she wanted the Petitioner fired. She also testified that she never stated that she wanted a sexual relationship with the Petitioner. The Petitioner's allegations regarding sexual harassment by Ms. Marsh related the following behaviors: She touched his back and arm; She was too close to him when he was around; She was nice to him until informed that he was married; She suggested sexual interest by her body language and eyes; and She wore provocative clothing. David Lopez supervised the Petitioner for approximately two years in the 2001 to 2003 time period. During this time period the Petitioner never complained to Mr. Lopez that he had been sexually harassed. Mr. Lopez did not witness the Petitioner being harassed while working with the Respondent either. Wanzell Underwood supervised the Petitioner for approximately two years in the 2003 to 2005 time period. During this time, the Petitioner never complained to Mr. Underwood that he had been sexually harassed. Mr. Underwood did not witness the Petitioner being harassed while he worked for the Respondent. The Petitioner never made a compliant regarding the alleged sexual harassment by the Sunoco Manager, Alice Marsh, to the Human Resources Department, in accordance with the Respondent's policy. He did not explain the nature of any sexual harassment, even when he finally claimed that he was being harassed. The Respondent would have terminated the Petitioner for his poor performance regardless of whether he engaged in the purported protected activity by complaining of sexual harassment. The Petitioner alleges he was terminated for reasons other than complaining about sexual harassment, including his alleged knowledge of theft in Lake County. In any event, on July 15, 2005, the Petitioner filed the Charge of Discrimination with the Commission and the resulting dispute and formal proceeding ensued.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of September, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of September, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: 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 James E. Gonzales 26437 Troon Avenue Sorrento, Florida 32757 Nicole Alexandra Sbert, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP 390 North Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32802
