The Issue Whether Respondent Eastern Florida State College (EFSC) engaged in discriminatory employment practices and retaliation, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), as alleged in the Petition for Relief; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Garrett is a 53-year-old African American woman. EFSC is a public college in Brevard County, Florida. For the time period relevant to this matter, EFSC is, and has been, her employer. On July 9, 2018, Darla Ferguson informed Ms. Garrett that EFSC eliminated her position as e-Learning Coordinator. EFSC did not fill Ms. Garrett’s position in the e-Learning department; rather, the prior job duties were assigned to other members in the e-Learning department. After eliminating the position of e-Learning Coordinator, EFSC offered Ms. Garrett the position of Coordinator of the Office of Undergraduate Research (OUR). The OUR department supports and promotes research opportunities among undergraduate research students through EFSC’s four campuses. Ms. Garrett accepted EFSC’s offer, and Ms. Garrett became EFSC’s first employee to hold the position as Coordinator of OUR. In lieu of offering Ms. Garrett the position of Coordinator of OUR, EFSC could have laid off Ms. Garrett following the elimination of her position as e-Learning Coordinator. However, rather than laying her off, EFSC found a new position for Ms. Garrett. Following her transfer to the position as Coordinator of OUR, Ms. Garrett’s salary and benefits remained unchanged from her prior position as e-Learning Coordinator. On July 10, 2018, Ms. Garrett met with Dr. Sandra Handfield, Scott Herber, and Dr. Ashley Spring to discuss Ms. Garrett’s new position as Coordinator of OUR. At that meeting, Dr. Handfield—who was Ms. Garrett’s new supervisor—informed Ms. Garrett that Dr. Spring and Mr. Herber were the founders of OUR. Prior to Ms. Garrett’s arrival as Coordinator of OUR, Dr. Spring and Mr. Herber, who were full-time faculty members, oversaw the OUR program. Dr. Handfield also informed Ms. Garrett that should she have any questions regarding her position as Coordinator of OUR, she should consult with Dr. Spring and Mr. Herber. As of the date of the final hearing, Ms. Garrett remained employed by EFSC as the Coordinator of OUR, and continues to receive the same salary and benefits that she received when she was the e-Learning Coordinator. Allegations of Adverse Employment Action EFSC originally intended for the Coordinator of OUR to be a Director, and possess a doctorate degree. However, EFSC later changed this position to Coordinator, which did not require a doctorate degree, and which had a lower salary. Ms. Garrett never applied for the Director of OUR position, and she does not have a doctorate degree. Ms. Garrett testified concerning her belief for the reason that EFSC transferred her to the Coordinator of OUR position, stating: I believe they did that because the intent was to put me in a position that was beyond my reach so that when I had issues and problems, they could use that and tie it with this position in order to say that I could not do the job. On April 12, 2019, Ms. Garrett received a six-month performance evaluation covering her first six months in her position as Coordinator of OUR. Dr. Handfield provided the performance evaluation approximately four months after the performance period ended. The performance evaluation indicated that Ms. Garrett was deficient in the areas of teamwork, valuing differences, and communication. Following the performance evaluation, Ms. Garrett did not lose any pay or benefits, and nothing adverse happened to Ms. Garrett as a result of the performance evaluation. Ms. Garrett testified that she believed Dr. Handfield gave her that evaluation “as a form of retaliation[,]” but not on the basis of her race, age, or gender. She further testified as follows: Q. Okay. But just to be clear, not gender, age, or race. You think it’s retaliation, what she did, correct? A. Correct. Q. Okay. And what was she retaliating against you for in your view or what facts do you have that it was for retaliation? A. I believe it was retaliation based on the input from the faculty members, based on the interactions we had during the actual performance review period, which would have been July 9th, 2018, until January 9th, 2019. Q. So based on the interaction you had with Dr. Handfield, Dr. Spring and Mr. Herber for the six months before that; is that what you’re saying? A. Yes In January 2019, Ms. Garrett requested that she use Canvas shell computer software to enable her to build an orientation outline. EFSC denied this request, because it would not generate money. Allegations of Comparator Ms. Garrett identified Justin Looney, a 38-year-old white male, as a comparator in support of her discrimination claim.1 Ms. Garrett’s testimony was that Mr. Looney was an EFSC employee working as an Academic Services Coordinator at EFSC’s Patrick Air Force Base campus; upon the closing of that campus, EFSC eliminated Mr. Looney’s position and, similarly to Ms. Garrett, transferred him to a newly-created position in which he received the same salary and benefits. 1 At the final hearing, Ms. Garrett also mentioned Marian Sheltman as a possible comparator, stating that she was a white female. However, Ms. Garrett failed to introduce any additional facts or evidence concerning Ms. Sheltman’s status or to explain how the undersigned could consider Ms. Sheltman as a valid comparator. The undersigned finds that Ms. Garrett failed to establish Ms. Sheltman as a comparator in this matter. Ms. Garrett contends that EFSC treated Mr. Looney differently, during his transfer, in that EFSC provided Mr. Looney more notice time between the elimination of his prior position and the transfer to his new position. Ms. Garrett also contends that EFSC treated Mr. Looney differently than her because Mr. Looney was Dr. Handfield’s son-in-law. Allegations of Hostile Work Environment Ms. Garrett testified that at the July 10, 2018, meeting, Dr. Spring commented about the uncleanliness of the OUR office, and recommended that Ms. Garrett obtain a broom and dustpan to keep the office clean. Ms. Garrett also testified that she declined to assist Dr. Spring in hanging posters on the wall of the OUR office. Ms. Garrett also testified that Dr. Spring noticed that the OUR signage was covered up on the outside of the building, and asked Ms. Garrett to correct this. Ms. Garrett testified that in subsequent meetings with Dr. Handfield, she “shared [her] concerns regarding the work environment[,]” and stated that she did not feel comfortable with the things Dr. Spring and Mr. Herber asked of her because these things “were in violation of college policy.” Ms. Garrett testified that Dr. Spring micromanaged her role as the Coordinator of OUR; for example, Dr. Spring continued to process online student research forms, and coordinated the Fall 2018 OUR board meeting. Ms. Garrett also testified that Dr. Spring opened the OUR online student forms too early, which prevented Ms. Garrett from matching faculty mentors with student applicants.2 Ms. Garrett also testified that Dr. Spring made decisions concerning the OUR without consulting with her. Ms. Garrett testified that Dr. Spring would send her e-mails asking if Ms. Garrett had completed the work requested of her. 2 Ms. Garrett also testified that Mr. Herber was not involved in micromanaging her role as the Coordinator of OUR. Ms. Garrett testified that Dr. Spring told Ms. Garrett what she should be doing, and would become vocal with her dissatisfaction of Ms. Garrett’s job performance. Ms. Garrett testified that she did not know why Dr. Spring engaged in any of these actions. After a November 2018 meeting with Dr. Spring, Ms. Garrett testified that her work atmosphere became “more tense … in terms of Dr. Spring and Mr. Herber starting to make comments about allegations about my work.” She further testified that after this meeting, Dr. Handfield “started issuing directives[,]” such as requiring Ms. Garrett to first ask Dr. Spring and Mr. Herber for input prior going to other EFSC campuses to host information tables. Ms. Garrett claimed that she was subjected to a hostile work environment in which “in every meeting that I planned and hosted, Dr. Spring and Mr. Herber would say disparaging comments during the meeting.” For example, “[t]hey would talk across me and I did not reply.” Although Dr. Handfield was Ms. Garrett’s supervisor, Ms. Garrett testified that Dr. Handfield openly discussed supervision of the OUR with Dr. Spring and Mr. Herber. Findings of Ultimate Fact Ms. Garrett presented no persuasive action that EFSC’s decisions concerning, or actions affecting, her, directly or indirectly, were motivated in any way by race-based, sex-based, or age-based discriminatory animus. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of unlawful race, sex, or age discrimination. Ms. Garrett presented no persuasive evidence that EFSC’s actions subjected her to harassment based on race, sex, or age. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of unlawful race, sex, or age harassment. Ms. Garrett presented no persuasive evidence that EFSC discriminated against her because she opposed an unlawful employment practice, or because she made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the FCRA. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record, direct or circumstantial, upon which the undersigned could make a finding of unlawful retaliation. Ms. Garrett presented no persuasive evidence that EFSC’s actions were sufficiently severe or persuasive to alter the terms and conditions of her employment to create a hostile work environment. There is no competent, persuasive evidence in the record upon which the undersigned could make a finding of hostile work environment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned hereby RECOMMENDS that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Mary F. Garrett’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of November, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT J. TELFER III 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 12th day of November, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed) Mary F. Garrett Apartment 2508 2741 Caribbean Isle Boulevard Melbourne, Florida 32935 (eServed) Mark E. Levitt, Esquire Allen, Norton & Blue, P.A. Suite 100 1477 West Fairbanks Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789 (eServed) Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 (eServed)
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Porky's Barbeque Restaurant, engaged in an unlawful employment practice by terminating Petitioner, Susan Coffy, from her position.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a female and, at all times relevant to this proceeding, was over the age of 40. From March 1, 2003, until October 28, 2003, Petitioner was employed as a waitress at Porky's, a barbecue restaurant. On October 28, 2003, Petitioner was terminated from her job as a waitress. Prior to March 1, 2003, Petitioner had worked as a waitress at another restaurant, Fat Boy's Restaurant (Fat Boy's), that had been operating at the same location as Porky's. Fat Boy's closed after the building in which that restaurant was located was purchased by Walter Milton. After Mr. Milton purchased the building, he opened his own business, Porky's, at that location. After Mr. Milton opened his restaurant, he employed many of the individuals who had been employed by Fat Boy's, but told them that their employment with Porky's was for a "trial period." Immediately after Porky's opened for business, Mr. Milton initiated operational directives that he believed were essential business needs for operating a barbecue business. He introduced these new directives to the employees of Porky's, many of whom had previously worked for Fat Boy's. While some of these employees were successful in making the transition to the new operation, there were employees, including Petitioner, who were resistant to the operational directives initiated by Mr. Milton. Even though Petitioner was resistant to the new operational directives that were implemented at Porky's, Mr. Milton continued to try to work with Petitioner. In fact, Petitioner worked as a waitress at Porky's the first eight months the restaurant was open. During the course of her employment, Mr. Milton found that Petitioner was an employee who failed to follow simple instructions. For example, Mr. Milton directed employees to knock on his office door when the door was closed. Notwithstanding this very simple directive, Petitioner refused to comply. One day Petitioner went to Mr. Milton's office and found the door to the office was closed. Instead of knocking as she had been previously directed, Petitioner simply barged into the office and stated that she needed a band-aid. After Petitioner barged into the office without knocking, Mr. Milton reminded her that she should knock on the door and wait for a response before coming into his office. About three minutes after this admonition, Petitioner returned to Mr. Milton's office. Although the office door was closed, Petitioner, again, did not knock on the door, but simply opened the door and went into the office. Mr. Milton was not pleased with Petitioner's failure to embrace the directives he initiated and implemented for Porky's. However, the "final straw" that resulted in Mr. Milton's terminating Petitioner's employment was an incident about a menu item. On October 28, 2003, Petitioner was very upset that Mr. Milton had included an item on the Porky's menu that also had been on the Fat Boy's menu. That menu item was referred to as "Jim's Special Burger." Mr. Milton included that item on Respondent's menu to honor Jim Kenaston, who had been the owner of Fat Boy's. On October 28, 2003, Petitioner "flew off the handle" and confronted Mr. Milton about his decision to include the item, "Jim's Special Burger," on the Porky's menu. Petitioner, who admits she was upset about this matter, confronted Mr. Milton and argued to him that he had no right to put the "Jim's Special Burger" on Respondent's menu. The confrontation started in the kitchen of the restaurant, but continued after Petitioner left the kitchen and proceeded into the restaurant's dining room. Although there were customers in the dining room, Petitioner continued to argue with Mr. Milton about the menu item. Petitioner's verbal criticism and objection to Mr. Milton's decision to include "Jim's Special Burger" on Respondent's menu created such a commotion in the restaurant that Respondent's bookkeeper heard Petitioner's outbursts from her office located behind the cashier's counter. After the bookkeeper heard Petitioner arguing with Mr. Milton, the bookkeeper left her office and in an effort to de-escalate the situation, escorted Petitioner out of the dining room to a back hall of the restaurant where there were no customers. On October 28, 2003, as a result of Petitioner's inappropriate and unprofessional conduct described in paragraphs 10 through 13, Mr. Milton terminated Petitioner's employment at Porky's. The same day that he terminated Petitioner's employment, Mr. Milton completed a "Separation Notice" on which he indicated that Petitioner was laid off due to lack of work. The reason Mr. Milton wrote this on the form was so that Petitioner could receive unemployment compensation. Petitioner presented no competent and substantial evidence that she was terminated from employment because of her age. Likewise, Petitioner presented no evidence that after she was terminated, she was replaced by a younger worker. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent had four or five employees who were over 40 years of age. Petitioner presented several witnesses who testified that she was an excellent waitress when she was employed at Fat Boy's. However, Petitioner's job performance while working for her previous employer is not at issue or relevant in this proceeding. Even if that testimony is accepted as true, no inference can be drawn that Petitioner's performance remained the same or was viewed as such by her new employer. Notwithstanding the opinions expressed by her previous employers and co-workers, Petitioner was terminated from her employment at Porky's as a result of her unacceptable and unprofessional conduct on October 28, 2003.
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, Porky's Barbeque Restaurant, did not commit any unlawful employment practice and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Walter Milton Porky's Barbeque Restaurant 4280 South Washington Avenue Titusville, Florida 32780 Susan Coffy 2966 Temple Lane Mims, Florida 32754 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner was employed as a line cook with Smitty's Restaurant of Sanibel from January 20, 1988 until approximately August 4, 1988. On or about August 1, 1988, Petitioner and the kitchen manager at the restaurant became embroiled in a verbal confrontation with regard to the time off Petitioner had recently taken. Petitioner had had a doctor's note to take two days off for rest in connection with treatment the Petitioner was receiving for back pain (the specific nature of Petitioner's malady was not disclosed at hearing nor made a part of this record). Apparently, the kitchen manager had had to cover Petitioner's work shift in his absence. In any event, Petitioner and the kitchen manager had unpleasant words and the Petitioner believed he had been fired. Consequently, he left the premises and did not return to work. Contrary to Petitioner's belief, and supported by the record in this cause, the kitchen manager did not have the authority to terminate the Petitioner's employment. When Petitioner chose to leave the premises on August 1, 1988, he did so contrary to the direct verbal instruction of the restaurant manager, Martin Howard, and the company policy regarding terminations. On at least two prior occasions, Respondent had allowed Petitioner to take time off for personal or medical reasons. Petitioner presented no evidence that the Respondent discriminated against him because of a handicap.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission of Human Relations enter a final determination of no cause in connection with Petitioner's discrimination claim. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 November, 1990. APPENDIX CASE NO. 90-3806 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: None submitted. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 14 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen J. Iwaniszek 922 Countington Lane, Apt. J Fort Myers, Florida 33919 Douglas L. Waldorf, Jr. SMOOT ADAMS JOHNSON & GREEN, P.A. P.O. Box 06259 Fort Myers, Florida 33906-6259 Acting Executive Director Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, a restaurateur, unlawfully discriminated against Petitioners, who are African-Americans, by refusing to serve them based upon race.
Findings Of Fact On or about July 7, 2001, Petitioners Veronica King and Walter King (the “Kings”), who were then on vacation in Miami Beach, Florida, decided to eat dinner at La Playa de Varadero Restaurant (“La Playa”), a Cuban restaurant near their hotel.2 They entered the restaurant some time between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. Though the dining room was full of patrons, there were a few empty tables. The Kings seated themselves. The Kings reviewed the menus that were on the table and conversed with one another. They waited for a server, but none came promptly. After waiting about 10 or 15 minutes, Mrs. King signaled a waitress, who came to their table and took their drink and food orders.3 The waitress brought the Kings their drinks without delay. The food, however, did not appear, and the Kings grew increasingly impatient and irritated. It seemed to the Kings, who are African-Americans, that other customers——none of whom was black——were being served ahead of them.4 After about a half an hour or so, having yet to be brought food, the Kings decided to leave without eating. On the way out of the restaurant, the Kings paid the cashier for their drinks. They complained to the cashier about the slow service and expressed to her their dissatisfaction at having waited so long, and in vain, for their meals.5 The Kings perceived that the cashier and other employees, including their waitress who was standing within earshot, were indifferent to the Kings’ distress. Ultimate Factual Determinations At the material time, La Playa was a “public food service establishment” within the reach of Section 509.092, Florida Statutes, and hence subject to liability for unlawful discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act. The greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that La Playa refused to serve, or otherwise unlawfully discriminated against, the Kings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Kings’ Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of February, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 2003.
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of alleged violations of Section 509.032(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61C-1.002(8)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The alleged violations are set forth in a Notice to Show Cause dated March 26, 1998.
Findings Of Fact At all times material, the Respondent, Don's Italian Restaurant of Singer Island, Inc. (Don's Italian), doing business as "Italian Connection," operated a public food service establishment located at 3025 South Federal Highway, Delray Beach, Florida. At all times material, this establishment operated under license control number 60-11547-R issued by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants. At all times material to this case, Joel Wallach was the president of Don's Italian, and Mr. Wallach was also actively involved in the operation of the business. The restaurant operated by Don's Italian is a small restaurant. It has a very limited kitchen area. The approximate width of the kitchen working area is five feet. On March 24, 1998, at approximately 11:00 a.m., Al Pistorio, an inspector employed by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, went to the restaurant operated by Don's Italian to perform a routine inspection as required by the applicable statutory and rule provisions. Mr. Wallach was present when Mr. Pistorio arrived. Mr. Pistorio introduced himself to Mr. Wallach and stated his reason for coming to the restaurant. Mr. Wallach replied with words to the effect that it was a bad day or a bad time for an inspection. Mr. Pistorio nevertheless started walking toward the kitchen to begin his inspection. Mr. Wallach interrupted Mr. Pistorio and repeated that it was a bad time for an inspection. Mr. Wallach made it clear that he wanted Mr. Pistorio to leave without performing an inspection and to come back at some other time to perform the inspection. Following some further discussion, during which Mr. Wallach continued to object to the inspection being performed at that time, Mr. Pistorio said he would have to call his office for further instructions. Mr. Pistorio called from the restaurant and one of the supervisory personnel at the local office of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants told Mr. Pistorio he should leave the restaurant and attend to other matters pending further instructions. Thereupon, Mr. Pistorio left the restaurant. About an hour or so later, Mr. Pistorio was contacted by his office and told to return to the restaurant operated by Don's Italian, where he would be met by one of his supervisors. Mr. Pistorio returned to the restaurant, where he was met in the parking lot by his immediate supervisor, Gene Peters. Messrs. Pistorio and Peters entered the restaurant and asked Mr. Wallach if they could conduct an inspection. Mr. Wallach agreed, and the two inspectors immediately commenced the inspection. Within just a couple of minutes, Mr. Wallach approached the two inspectors as they were discussing conditions in the restaurant that appeared to be minor violations. Mr. Wallach appeared to be agitated and placed a hand on Mr. Peters' shoulder to get his attention. Mr. Peters told him to remove his hand. Mr. Wallach became angry and confrontational and ordered Mr. Peters to leave the restaurant. During the course of this confrontation, Mr. Peters told Mr. Wallach that he would be subject to fines if he prevented the inspectors from completing their inspection. Mr. Wallach continued to demand that Mr. Peters leave the restaurant, but did agree that Mr. Pistorio could remain and finish the inspection. Thereupon, Mr. Peters went out into the restaurant parking lot and Mr. Pistorio resumed his efforts to inspect the restaurant. A minute or two later, Mr. Wallach noticed that Mr. Pistorio was writing up a violation based on the morning incident. Mr. Wallach again became upset and angry and began to speak to Mr. Pistorio in a confrontational and abusive manner. Mr. Wallach's abusive comments to Mr. Pistorio included the threat that if Mr. Pistorio was going to write him up for violations, ". . . I'll throw your ass out, too." Under these hostile circumstances, it was not possible for Mr. Pistorio to continue his inspection without fear of further unpleasantries, so he promptly left the restaurant and joined Mr. Peters in the parking lot. Both inspectors left the restaurant premises without being able to complete an inspection of the restaurant. It is the policy and practice of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants to inspect restaurants during hours of operation, usually between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. It is also a policy and practice to conduct the inspections without prior notice to the restaurant. Unannounced inspections are more likely to reveal the normal condition in which the restaurant facilities are maintained. Restaurant inspections are often made during peak meal times in order to observe whether proper sanitary practices are maintained during periods of peak activity.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case concluding that the Respondent has violated Rule 61C-1.002(8), Florida Administrative Code, and imposing a penalty consisting of an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 1999.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of race, national origin, or disability at Respondent’s place of public accommodation.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a McDonald’s franchisee operating six McDonald’s restaurants in the Orlando area. At issue in this case is the restaurant referred to as the “Lockhart” store. The Lockhart McDonald’s is located on Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando, in a high-crime, low-income area. This McDonald’s has a history of problems with persons using the restaurant for purposes other than purchasing food and drink there to consume onsite. There has been a wide range of “other purposes” in the Lockhart McDonald’s history: sitting at the dining tables without ordering any food or drink; panhandling (asking customers if they have a spare dollar); bringing in drinks purchased elsewhere, topped off with refills stolen from the McDonald’s drink station; soliciting restaurant customers for prostitution; and using the bathrooms to ingest or inject illegal drugs, leaving behind used hypodermic needles and other paraphernalia. On two separate occasions, people overdosed on heroin in the bathrooms. To combat these problems, which hurt business, Mr. Vidler enlisted the help of his brother, an Orange County Deputy Sheriff, who conducted drug and prostitution stings to help clean up the restaurant. In addition, the Lockhart McDonald’s adopted a no-loitering policy, a no-solicitation policy, and a policy requiring that only food and drink purchased there may be consumed there. Notices of these policies are prominently displayed on signs at the restaurant. Respondent’s witnesses testified, credibly and consistently, that these policies are enforced uniformly and strictly, with the goal being to avoid the problems they have had with persons improperly using the restaurant’s facilities. As part of the enforcement procedure, if someone is observed seated at a table without any apparent McDonald’s food or drink items, after a few minutes a manager or other staff member will approach that person and politely inquire whether the person intends to make a purchase. Petitioner is a black woman who has been a customer at the Lockhart McDonald’s. She and her boyfriend, who is not black,2/ have gone there on occasion, made purchases, and enjoyed their meals, without incident. On the day in question, December 28, 2015, Petitioner and her boyfriend went to the Lockhart McDonald’s for breakfast. The restaurant was not very busy or crowded when they arrived, with perhaps one other customer in line and another customer seated at a table in the separate dining area. Petitioner went to the dining area, while her boyfriend went to the counter to place their order. The restaurant is fairly large, with physical and visual separation of the area where customers wait in line to place orders, pick up food, and get drinks at the drink station from the area where customers can go to sit at tables to consume their purchases. Behind the ordering counter on the employee side, there is a door used by employees to enter the dining area. Through a small window at the top of the door, a customer waiting in line at the counter might be able to glimpse a small portion of the dining area, but otherwise would not be able to see or hear what is going on in the dining area. Petitioner took a seat at a table by an outside window. She propped both of her feet up on the Corian window ledge and sat there gazing out the window. Eric Vidler, the operations manager of Respondent’s six restaurants, was in the Lockhart McDonald’s that morning. After Petitioner had taken her place by the window, Mr. Vidler and the Lockhart restaurant manager, Adam Allegroe, entered the dining area together to conduct a cleanliness walk-through. They saw Petitioner, taking note of her unusual positioning, with feet propped up on the windowsill,3/ staring out the window. They also noted that there was no sign of any McDonald’s food or drink purchases on the table or in her hands. After a few minutes, consistent with the restaurant’s policies and procedures, Mr. Vidler approached Petitioner and politely inquired whether she intended to make a purchase. She did not answer him.4/ Mr. Vidler and Mr. Allegroe testified that usually, when they make such an inquiry, the person will respond, but sometimes they do not respond. Since their goal is not to make a scene, offend, or embarrass anyone, under these circumstances they will usually walk away for a short period of time. If the person had no legitimate business there, then the person often will disappear at that point. Mr. Vidler and Mr. Allegroe retreated to the men’s and women’s bathrooms, where they spent three to five minutes conducting their cleanliness inspection. When Mr. Vidler and Mr. Allegroe returned to the dining area, Petitioner was still seated, positioned the same way, with her feet still propped up on the windowsill. She was still staring out the window, and still had no McDonald’s purchases on the table or in her hands. Mr. Vidler went back up to Petitioner, and following up on his prior statement to her, this time he told her, “Ma’am, if you are not going to be making a purchase today, then you are loitering and I need to ask you to leave.” Mr. Vidler testified credibly that this is how he always handles the second approach when the person does not answer his first inquiry. The message, though direct, was delivered in a calm tone. Mr. Vidler did not yell at Petitioner. He did not threaten to call the police or have her arrested. This time, Petitioner responded. She got up, flung a chair in Mr. Vidler’s direction with sufficient force so that the chair traveled some distance with all four chair legs four to six inches off the ground, until it fell against and partially on a half-wall that set off that portion of the dining area.5/ Petitioner also responded verbally, using an elevated voice to express her anger. Mr. Vidler said that she cursed, using a four-letter word. Although more than one year later he did not recall exactly which curse word or words she uttered, he did recall that her words were not nice. Mr. Allegroe corroborated Mr. Vidler’s recollection, testifying that Petitioner stood up, “slung” the chair in their direction, and “started speaking profanity.” (Tr. 83). She then left the restaurant. The testimony of Mr. Vidler and Mr. Allegroe describing their two encounters with Petitioner was corroborated by Shahanna Owensby, a guest services department manager for the Lockhart McDonald’s. Ms. Owensby was seated at a table in the dining area, working on pricing and tagging merchandise, when she noticed Petitioner. She observed Mr. Vidler and Mr. Allegroe conducting their cleanliness walk-through. She observed Mr. Vidler’s initial approach to Petitioner. She heard Mr. Vidler ask Petitioner if she was going to be making a purchase, and confirmed that Petitioner did not respond. She saw Mr. Vidler and Mr. Allegroe keep walking after that, back in the direction of the bathrooms. She observed Mr. Vidler approach Petitioner a second time, estimated at four to eight minutes later. She heard him tell Petitioner that if she was not making a purchase, he needed to ask her to leave. She saw Petitioner stand up, pick up a chair, and fling, throw, or toss it: “It was up in the air and it was off the ground, by her hand.” (Tr. 98). By the time of Petitioner’s stormy exit from the restaurant, a family--a woman with some younger children--had entered the dining area and was seated near Ms. Owensby. After Petitioner left, Ms. Owensby apologized to the family, who had witnessed the scene and had been exposed to the profanity used by Petitioner within their hearing range. After Petitioner left the restaurant, her boyfriend walked into the dining area with the food he had purchased. The boyfriend described what happened next: Jennifer, my wife, was not sitting at the table. I thought she was at the--in the bathroom. I put my tray on the opposite side of the table. I was sitting to the left, I guess, or the right. I was sitting on the other side. And that’s when I saw Mr. Vidler with a surprised face, you know, like wow-- Q. [Mr. Millan]. Uh-huh. A. --what happened here. So he approached me and he said that he didn’t know--that he didn’t know. And I asked him that he didn’t know what. He said that he didn’t know that she was my wife, that she was there with me. (Tr. 108). At that point, Petitioner (whom Robert Millan clarified is his girlfriend, not his wife) knocked on the restaurant window, signaling for him to come outside. He went out to her and asked what happened. She told him that that person [Mr. Vidler] offended her. When asked how he offended her, Robert Milan said that Petitioner responded as follows: She said he told her that what was she doing there, if she was going to buy food or if she was just going to sit there. And those were the same words that he told me that he told her.[6/] And then when I came back inside the store, I went and I asked him, you know, to explain to me what was going on. And he said that. You know, that--he said that he didn’t know that she was there with me. And he apologized to me. He asked me if he -- if he could go apologize to my wife, Jennifer. And I really told him that I think that was beyond apology because she was like, you know, angry. So he said, well here, I give you my card and you can call the office and see what, you know, we can do about it. (Tr. 109-110). For some unexplained reason (perhaps a mistake filling the order or perhaps a request for customized food), Petitioner’s boyfriend waited ten minutes at the ordering counter, where he was not able to see or hear the encounters in the separate dining area. He was not even aware that Petitioner had stormed out in anger, although he confirmed that she was, indeed, angry when he went outside. Robert Millan did call Respondent’s office, as suggested by Mr. Vidler, and spoke with the owner of the franchise. The owner also offered to apologize to Petitioner, but Robert Millan did not think she wanted to speak to anyone. The owner then offered a $50 gift card. The boyfriend said that he would ask Petitioner, but she refused the gesture. No evidence was presented of any racial statements made directly or indirectly to Petitioner, or of any racial overtones to any of the statements made directly or indirectly to Petitioner. The circumstantial evidence presented does not support an inference that Respondent intentionally discriminated against Petitioner based on her race. Instead, all of the circumstantial evidence supports an inference that Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner on the basis of her race. Respondent has a no-discrimination, no-harassment policy that is enforced as to its employees, customers and potential customers. The Lockhart McDonald’s has a very diverse staff. A comparison of the number of restaurant employees who are members of the classes of white, black, or Hispanic, the largest category represented by the restaurant’s employees is black; the next- largest category is Hispanic; white employees are in the minority. As to gender, female employees outnumber male employees. Manager positions are spread among white and black males, and white, black, and Hispanic females. The operations manager in charge of Respondent’s six restaurants, Mr. Vidler, is a white male as is the restaurant’s manager, Mr. Allegroe. The other employee testifying at hearing, Ms. Owensby, is the restaurant’s guest services manager and she is a black female. The diversity of the restaurant’s staff is circumstantial evidence, though not particularly weighty evidence, suggesting a general absence of intent to discriminate on the basis of race.7/ More compelling circumstantial evidence was provided by Mr. Vidler, who is the individual accused of discriminating against Petitioner because she is black. Mr. Vidler testified with great sincerity that Petitioner’s accusation is not only unfounded, but it hits a particular sore spot with him. Although he is a white male, his daughter is half-black. He has experienced the pain of discrimination based on race, with unkind questions, or worse, directed to him or to his daughter, because their races do not match. This personal fact shared by Mr. Vidler is compelling circumstantial evidence giving rise to a inference that he would not intentionally discriminate against Petitioner based on her race. The evidence strongly supports a finding, and it is so found, that Mr. Vidler’s December 28, 2015, encounters with Petitioner were the reasonable implementation of Respondent’s reasonable policies for its Lockhart restaurant to ensure that persons using the restaurant’s facilities are there for the purpose of purchasing and consuming food and drink. The credible, consistent testimony of Mr. Vidler and Respondent’s other employees who testified is that the no-loitering policy is applied uniformly to all persons, regardless of race, nationality, gender, disability, or any other classification, who are not apparently customers in that they have no McDonald’s food or drink purchases. These persons are asked whether they intend to make a purchase, and if they do not respond in some fashion that they are indeed there to purchase food and/or drink, they are told that if they are not there to make a purchase, they are loitering and will have to be asked to leave.8/ Petitioner has only herself to blame for not making clear to Mr. Vidler that she was there with her boyfriend, who was in line at the counter ordering their breakfast. That would have ended the matter. That Mr. Vidler only took the action he did because he did not know Petitioner was there with her boyfriend was perhaps most convincingly established by Robert Millan’s testimony describing the utter surprise on Mr. Vidler’s face when he realized that Petitioner had, in fact, been waiting for someone who had been purchasing food. The undersigned finds as a matter of ultimate fact that Respondent did not intentionally discriminate against Petitioner based on her race (the only protected class proven at hearing) or any other classification that might have applied to Petitioner but was not proven at hearing.9/
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 filed by Petitioner Jennifer M. Foster-Garvey. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of May, 2017, 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 11th day of May, 2017.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner was harassed on the basis of national origin or discriminated against on the basis of a disability.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner began employment with the Respondent in the summer of 1994 and was terminated from his employment on July 28, 1999. The Respondent operates a machine shop where different types of large metal parts are fabricated according to customer order. The Petitioner was employed as a "mill operator" in the "caterpillar" department. As a mill operator, the Petitioner was required to load metal parts into machines for further processing, check the quality of his work, and return the parts to a container of finished parts. At all times material to this case, the Respondent had a policy prohibiting employee harassment on the basis of numerous grounds including "national origin." The policy provided that any employee who believed that such harassment was occurring should report it immediately to a supervisor or to another company official. The non-harassment policy was included in the employee handbook. The Petitioner received the handbook when the Respondent employed him and was aware of the policy. The Petitioner, of Polish origin, asserted that at various times he was harassed on the basis of national origin; specifically, he was sometimes addressed as "pollock" by some co-workers. Although the evidence establishes that employees, perhaps including the Petitioner, occasionally referred to each other by ethnic slurs (i.e., "pollock," "speedy Gonzalez," and "buddha") the testimony regarding such incidents was anecdotal, and the times and dates of such references are uncertain. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner was subjected to a hostile work environment or was harassed on the basis of national origin. Other than as set forth herein, the evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner or any other employee ever advised a supervisor or a manager that co-workers were making ethnic references or that any employee felt harassed by the behavior. In March 1998, a note was taped to the men's restroom door reading "Polish Department – Jerry's [sic] Office." The Petitioner reported the note to his supervisor. A meeting was held with the Petitioner's co-workers on March 16, 1998, where the Respondent's managers advised the employees that such behavior was not acceptable and that similar events in the future would result in disciplinary action against the perpetrators. The Petitioner also asserts that he was discriminated against on the basis of an alleged disability. In December 1998, the Petitioner had a total replacement of his right hip. He was medically cleared to return to work on March 1, 1999, with restrictions of not working more than 10 hours per day for two weeks and not lifting more than 20 pounds. The Petitioner reported for work on March 4, 1999, but was sent home by his supervisor because there was no work that met his restrictions, particularly the weight restriction. Generally the metal parts involved in the Respondent's manufacturing process weighed in excess of 20 pounds. By March 18, 1999, the restrictions were lifted and the Petitioner returned to work without incident until July 1999. On July 6, 1999, the Petitioner received a written warning from a plant supervisor who determined that the Petitioner was not properly inspecting parts being produced in the Petitioner's machine. An excessive number of parts were not within acceptable fabrication tolerances and had to be "re- worked." The warning specifically provided that failure to improve the quality and inspection of parts would result in termination of employment. On July 27, 1999, the Petitioner reported hip pain to his physician and was again placed on a restricted workload that included no lifting of weight in excess of 20 pounds and no "twisting" until the physician determined that the pain had been resolved. Based on the medical restrictions and his experience, the Respondent was unable to locate work suitable for the Petitioner. The Petitioner's employment was terminated because there were no jobs available that complied with the Petitioner's medical restrictions. Review of the Petitioner's performance evaluations establishes that he was generally an average worker who was sometimes warned about becoming too involved in other employees' activities. His evaluations of August 1996 and September 1998 contained references to such involvement and indicated that he should "spend less time worrying" about other employees. The 1996, 1997, and 1998 performance evaluations suggested that the Petitioner obtain additional training in order to advance his career. The Respondent offered a program to fund such training, and notices regarding the training were posted on a bulletin board accessible to employees, but the Petitioner did not take advantage of the program. At the time of the July 1999 medical restrictions, the Petitioner's skill set did not qualify him to perform tasks other than as a mill operator using the machine for which he was originally employed.
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 filed by Jerzy Josefik in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerzy Jozefik 9605 Southwest 27th Avenue Ocala, Florida 34476 Grant D. Petersen, Esquire Ignacio J. Garcia, Esquire Haynsworth Baldwin Johnson & Greaves LLC 600 North Westshore Boulevard, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33609-1117 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was employed with the Respondent from August 3, 1985 until May 10, 1986, as a waitress in the dining room of the Kings Inn Restaurant in Pensacola, Florida. In March, 1987, the Petitioner became pregnant. She then informed her employer, Mr. Judge of her pregnancy. He told her initially that she could work as long as the doctor allowed her to. Shortly thereafter, he told her that she could not work after five months of pregnancy. On another occasion, his assistant manager, Mr. Dungan, told her that she could not work after she "started showing." Once the Respondent, Mr. Judge, learned of the Petitioner's pregnancy, he began a regime of harassing treatment. For instance, Mr. Judge made her do the "side work," filling up all the salt and pepper shakers and sugar bowls for all of the waitresses and waitress stations. It had always been uniform policy that each waitress had the responsibility to do her own side work for her own station and tables. Mr. Judge also began yelling and cursing at her in front of her workers and customers, causing her great humiliation and embarrassment. He criticized her publicly about her posture and the way she serviced customers, although she had always had an excellent record as a competent waitress and had no complaints from customers or former employers, before announcing that she was pregnant. Mr. Judge also began a practice of constantly questioning other employees about the Petitioner's job performance, although he apparently learned of no substandard performance in both her duties and her attitude toward her customers. He also took her to task about her "charge tips" being less than other employees, apparently the measure he used to determine if a waitress was serving her customers appropriately and adequately. This situation, however, was caused by his discriminatory conduct toward her in giving her fewer tables to serve and thus, reducing her tip income. Mr. Judge additionally assigned her to clean up a portion of the kitchen area, particularly the "bread shelves" when normal policy had been for kitchen personnel to perform all kitchen clean-up duties, with any clean up of the bread shelf area being rotated amongst the dining room personnel. The Petitioner, however, was singled out for this duty exclusively after it became known that she was pregnant. The Petitioner was also required to stay late and perform certain closing duties at the end of business late at night, much more often than other waitresses. In addition to performing restaurant closing duties, she was frequently required to wait on cocktail tables as late as 2:00 in the morning on many of the "late duty" occasions, even though she was hired as, and until she became pregnant worked exclusively as, food waitress. Petitioner's testimony and Petitioner's exhibit 2, in evidence, establishes that, although Petitioner was only scheduled to stay late three times in March, three times in April and once in May that, in fact, she worked late, that is, after all other employees or waitresses had been released for the evening seven out of nine days that she worked in March; nine out of twelve days she worked in April; and six out of the seven days she worked in May. Indeed, on May 10, 1986, the last day she worked for the Respondent, Mr. Judge required her to stay late and to "bus" all the tables, that is clean all the tables, in the dining room, allowing the waitress who was scheduled to stay late that night to leave early. The Petitioner became quite upset at this turn of events and resigned her position, due to the repeated pattern of harassment as described herein. Although Mr. Judge initially told the Petitioner that she could work as long as the doctor allowed her to during her pregnancy, in fact, on April 11, 1986, Mr. Judge hired the Petitioner's replacement. He hired Pamela Modes and had the Petitioner train her in her waitress duties. He stated to Ms. Modes privately when hiring her "that he needed a food waitress" because "he's got a girl that's pregnant." Additionally, he told the Petitioner that he objected to her working because of her pregnancy and claimed his insurance would not allow him to employ her after she was five months pregnant. These statements, coupled with the statement by his assistant manager, Mr. Dungan, to the effect that she would not be employed there "once she started showing" reveal an intent by the employer to terminate the employee, the Petitioner, because of her pregnancy. Instead of terminating her outright, the Respondent chose to put sufficient pressure on the Petitioner through extra, unscheduled work duties and the other above-mentioned forms of harassment, so as to coerce her into leaving the Respondent's employ. The Petitioner thus made a prima facia showing that she was forced to terminate employment due to her sex and her pregnancy, and no countervailing evidence was adduced by the Respondent.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record and the candor and the demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the State of Florida Human Relations Commission finding that an unlawful employment practice has occurred through the Respondent's discrimination against the Petitioner because of her sex (pregnancy) and that she be accorded all relief allowed under the above- cited section, including backpay and related benefits in accordance with the requirements of Section 760.10(13), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 21st of March, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Debra A. Larson, Pro Se 9742 Aileron Avenue, Apt. 606 Pensacola, Florida 32506 Dracut Corporation d/b/a Kings Inn Restaurant Lawrence F. Judge, Jr. Owner/General Manager 1309 Maldonado Pensacola Beach, Florida 32561-2323 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
The Issue Whether Petitioner was discriminated against by the Respondent based on race and/or subjected to a hostile work environment based on race in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Alphonso Williams, Jr., is an African- American male (Petitioner). Respondent, L. Pugh & Associates (Respondent), is a closely held company in the business of designing, constructing and maintaining fire safety equipment and systems. The company is owned by Larry Pugh and his wife Sharon Pugh. Andy Pugh, the brother of Larry Pugh, is employed by the company as a construction supervisor and spends most the day in the field away from the company’s shop and warehouse. Soni Sully is the company’s office manager and bookkeeper. In 1997, Petitioner was hired by Larry Pugh to run errands for him and to maintain the shop. Petitioner had learned of the job opening from Johnny James, an African-American employee of Respondent’s. Prior to being hired, the employee warned Petitioner about Andy Pugh. The employee intended to communicate that Andy Pugh was a hard, irascible person to work for who did not tolerate mistakes, did not cut anyone any slack, and did not speak in socially polite terms. At hearing, Andy Pugh was described as an ex-marine sergeant. The employee did not intend to communicate that Andy Pugh was a racist. However, Petitioner interpreted the employee’s remarks as such. Throughout this process, Petitioner’s allegations regarding Andy Pugh’s racial slurs towards him have grown initially from three incidents of Mr. Pugh calling Petitioner a "nigger" to, by the time of the hearing, daily racial disparagement. Other than Petitioner’s testimony, there was no evidence of such name calling or such racial disparagement being reported by Petitioner. Contrary to Petitioner’s allegations, there was no evidence from either Petitioner or Respondent that Soni Sully ever issued any racial slurs against Petitioner. Given the lack of corroborative evidence regarding racial slurs and their increasing frequency, Petitioner has failed to establish that he was subjected to such racial slurs while he was employed by Respondent. Petitioner also charged that Andy Pugh would deliberately take the company vehicle assigned to him and assign it to someone on one of the construction crews Mr. Pugh supervised. However, the evidence demonstrated that none of the company’s fleet of vehicles were assigned to any one employee. The company’s vehicles were for use as needed by the company and could be assigned by Andy Pugh as he needed. This policy was explained to Petitioner many times. However, he never seemed to understand the explanation or accept it. Indeed, Petitioner continued to complain to Ms. Sully and Andy Pugh about "his" vehicle being taken. Petitioner’s constant complaints on the subject irritated Andy Pugh who did not always respond politely to Petitioner’s complaints. Petitioner received an hourly wage and mileage for the number of miles he drove. Initially, his hourly wage was $7.00. Over time, his hourly wage was increased to $8.50. By his choice, he received mileage even though he usually drove a company vehicle because it benefited him financially to claim mileage. No employee, including Petitioner, received both mileage and a vehicle allowance. At some point, Respondent instituted a company-wide policy limiting the amount of overtime an employee could work. Larry Pugh felt overtime billing was out-of-control and therefore created the policy. All employees, including Petitioner, were affected by the limitation. When Petitioner complained of the reduction the limitation of overtime caused in his pay, Petitioner was treated more beneficially than other employees and was permitted to work five hours of overtime per week. There was no evidence that Petitioner did not receive the mileage or the hourly pay he was entitled to receive. Likewise, there was no evidence that Petitioner was the only employee required to sign in and out. On June 7, 2001, Petitioner again complained to Andy Pugh about "his" vehicle being taken. At some point, words were exchanged between Andy Pugh and Petitioner. Petitioner alleged that Andy Pugh grabbed him by throat, called him a "nigger" and threatened to kill him. However, the details of this exchange are unclear due to the changing story of Petitioner about those details, the irreconcilable testimony and statements of Petitioner and Mr. Pugh, witnesses to the altercation and the surveillance tape of the premises during the altercation. Other than words being exchanged, there was insufficient evidence to show that this altercation was based on Petitioner’s race or occurred in the physical manner alleged by Petitioner. After talking with Sharon Pugh, Petitioner filed a criminal complaint with the Sheriff’s Department. The details of Petitioner's conversation with Ms. Pugh are unclear. After an investigation, including interviewing witnesses and reviewing the surveillance tape, no arrest or criminal charges were filed against Andy Pugh. Petitioner was placed on paid administrative leave until Larry Pugh, who was away, could investigate the incident. Upon his return, Larry Pugh looked into the matter and decided to terminate Petitioner mostly for filing criminal charges against his brother, but also, in part, for other more minor personality conflicts Petitioner had had in dealing with others while on company business. The evidence did not show that Larry Pugh’s reasons for terminating Petitioner were pretextual, retaliatory for Petitioner engaging in a protected activity or based on race. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of July, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of July, 2003. 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 Frederick J. Gant, Esquire Allbritton & Gant 322 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Michael J. Stebbins, Esquire Michael J. Stebbins, P.L. 504 North Baylen Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Alphonso Williams, Jr. 2415 North "E" Street Pensacola, Florida 32501
