The Issue Whether Petitioner, a member of a protected class, was denied training, subjected to unequal terms of employment and denied promotion to three jobs including the position of Lead Custodian with the Respondent in the Physical Plant Department in 1993, on the basis of his gender (male) and race (African- American), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1993).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an employer under the 1992 Florida Civil Rights Act. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a custodian in the Physical Plant Department since July 1989 and during the relevant period of time including 1993 and 1994. Petitioner is a male African-American, and a member of a protected class. Petitioner applied for a promotion to three different positions at the college between August 26, 1993 and December 6, 1993. In late August, 1993, Petitioner applied for the part-time position of House Manager at the college theatre. Petitioner was not selected because his present work schedule would overlap the position at the theatre and his prior work experience was not relevant to the position. In addition, another candidate possessed better interpersonal and communication skills, and his education and work experience was more relevant to the position than the Petitioner's. In early October, 1993, Petitioner applied for the position of HVACR (heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration) apprentice. The position is a learning position which requires working with a lead mechanic. Part of the job requirement for the apprentice position was the ability to attend trade school in HVACR. During the employment interview Petitioner expressed reservations about attending the HVACR training because he was presently enrolled in night classes at Rollins College. In addition to Petitioner, two white males and a Hispanic male applied for the position. A Hispanic male was selected for the position who had better qualifications. Thereafter, the racial make-up of the HVACR Department consisted of two whites, one black and one Hispanic male. On October 14, 1993, three vacancies for the newly created position of Lead Custodian in the Physical Plant Department was advertised by Respondent. Petitioner was one of nine applicants for the position. The nine individuals who applied for the position of Lead Custodian consisted of four African-American males, three African-American females and two Caucasian females. Following the review of each persons application and file and a personal interview, two African-American males and one African-American female were selected for the positions. Petitioner was not recommended for one of the vacancies. The selection process was based on relevant work experience and work history, and was not based on improper or discriminatory race or gender considerations. Petitioner was not denied training based on his race or gender. Petitioner applied for and attended six seminars covering a variety of subjects over the last several years. Respondent's stated reasons for its promotion and training decisions were not proven to be pretextual.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order which DENIES the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of October, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1995. APPENDIX The following constitute my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: Accepted in substance: paragraphs: none Rejected as irrelevant, immaterial or as comment on the evidence: paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. COPIES FURNISHED: Lea Ann Banks, Esquire BAKER & HOSTETLER P. O. Box 112 Orlando, Florida 32802 Mr. Ulysses B. Williams 1020 Polk Avenue Orlando, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue in these cases is: a) whether the Department of Education is liable for attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of the Rushton case (DOAH Case No. 89-1551) and b) if so, whether such fees and costs should include those incurred in the prosecution of a rule challenge styled, Florida Education Association/United and Florida Teaching Profession/National Education Association v. Department of Education, DOAH Case No. 88-0847R.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Lewis Rushton is a person within the meaning of Section 760.02(5), Florida Statutes. Mr. Rushton is an individual within the meaning of Section 760.10(1). The Department of Education ("DOE") is a personwithin the meaning of Section 760.02(5). The School Board of Seminole County, Florida ("School Board"), which is also a person within the meaning of the same statute, was at all material times Mr. Rushton's "employer" within the meaning of Section 760.02(6). At all material times, Mr. Rushton was employed as a bus driver by the School Board, which removed him from this position on April 19, 1988. The reason for the School Board's action was that the continued service of Rushton, who was over 70 years of age, was contrary to Rule 6A-3.0141(a), Florida Administrative Code, which required mandatory retirement of bus drivers at age 70 years ("Rule"). The other Petitioners were similarly situated to Mr. Rushton. The only difference is that they were employed by different district school boards. The School Board gave Rushton the option to continue in employment as a bus monitor, which was a lower-paying job than bus driver. Rushton accepted this reassignment and experienced the resulting reduction in pay beginning the 1988-89 school year. At all material times, DOE, which promulgated the Rule, maintained standards affecting the ability of Rushton to engage in his occupation or trade within the meaning of Section 760.10(5). The Rule was part of these standards. On January 29, 1987, Rushton filed a Complaint of Discrimination, FCHR Case No. 88-5616, against the School Board. The Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissed this complaint on November 11, 1988. On May 3, 1988, Rushton timely filed and prosecuted a Complaint of Discrimination, FCHR Case No. 88-5703, against DOE. On September 7, 1988, the Florida Commission on Human Relations issued a Notice of Determination--Cause. The Notice of Determination names as the sole respondent the School Board, which had employed Mr. Rushton prior to requiring him to retire at age 70. After DOE filed a Request for Reconsideration on September 16, the Florida Commission on Human Relations issued on January 12, 1989, a Notice of Redetermination--Cause. The Notice of Redetermination names DOE as the sole respondent. The Notice of Redetermination states that DOE's "assertion that [the Rule] is an established 'bona fide occupational qualification' for employment has not been upheld." The quoted statement in the Notice of Redetermination is to a final order issued December 14, 1988. The final order found the Rule to be an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. The final order was the culmination of a Section 120.56 challenge to the Rule that had been prosecuted against DOE by two unions representing the Petitioners. This rule challenge was styled, Florida Education Association/United v. Department of Education, DOAH Case No. 88-0847R ("Rule Challenge"). The Florida Teaching Profession/National Education Association was an intervenor on the side of the petitioner in the Rule Challenge. Lorene C. Powell represented the petitioner in theRule Challenge, and Vernon T. Grizzard, of Chamblee, Miles and Grizzard, and the law firm of Egan, Lev & Siwica, represented the intervenor. As the final hearing in the Rule Challenge approached, DOE requested abatements of the pending cases in which individual bus drivers had sought relief under Section 760.10. At that time, the cases of all Petitioners except Mr. Rushton were pending in the Division of Administrative Hearings. The grounds for the abatements were that the decision in the Rule Challenge "would substantially affect the outcome" of the pending individual cases. Each case was abated. The parties in the Rule Challenge stipulated that various counties, due to the Rule, had not rehired bus drivers who would have been rehired but for the fact that they had attained the age of 70 years. The parties also agreed that Sections 760.10 and 112.0444 [sic], together with cited federal law, "do not permit an age limitation on employment with the exception of where such an age limitation is based on Bona Fide Occupational Qualification." The stipulated issues for determination in the Rule Challenge included "whether the 70-year old age barrier . . . is a [bona fide occupational qualification] and thus a valid exception to the state and federal ban on age discrimination based solely on chronological age." By memorandum dated January 11, 1989, DOE informed school board superintendents of the final order invalidating the Rule. By letter dated February 9, 1989, the School Boardnotified Mr. Rushton that DOE was no longer requiring enforcement of the mandatory retirement rule and he could return to work as a bus driver if he could meet certain lawful requirements. Each Petitioner was so notified by his respective school board. By Petition for Relief filed March 21, 1989, Mr. Rushton sought relief against the School Board and DOE, including a finding that mandating his retirement due to age was an unlawful employment practice, an award of back pay and associated benefits, and an award of attorneys' fees in the prosecution of the subject proceeding and such other proceedings as were necessary or appropriate to obtain the relief and apportioning the fees between the School Board and DOE. With the filing of the Petition for Relief on March 21, 1989, John Chamblee of the law firm of Chamblee, Miles and Grizzard entered his appearance for Mr. Rushton. Mr. Chamblee had been retained for Mr. Rushton by his union, the Florida Teaching Profession/National Education Association. On or shortly after May 1, 1989, the School Board settled with Mr. Rushton by agreeing to compensate him for back pay, interest, and other benefits constituting relief otherwise available under Section 760.10. Similar settlements between the other Petitioners and their respective school boards resulted in the dismissal of all claims against the various school boards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitions for Relief in the above-styled cases. ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: John J. Chamblee, Jr. Chamblee, Miles and Grizzard 202 Cardy Street Tampa, FL 33606 Vernon T. Grizzard Chamblee, Miles & Grizzard 116 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Sydney H. McKenzie III General Counsel Carl J. Zahner Assistant General Counsel Department of Education Knott Building Tallahassee, FL 32399 Lorene C. Powell, Assistant General Counsel FEA/United 208 W. Pensacola Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Ned N. Julian, Jr. Sun Bank Building, Suite 22 Post Office Box 1330 Sanford, FL 32772 Tobe Lev Egan, Lev & Siwica P.O. Box 2231 Orlando, FL 32802 Norman Smith Brinson, Smith & Smith 1201 W. Emmett St. Kissimmee, FL 32741 ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 1990. William H. Vogel, Assistant Superintendent Personnel and Administrative Services P.O. Box 1948 Kissimmee, FL 32742-1948 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Margaret Jones, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
The Issue Whether this case is properly before the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Findings Of Fact On or about April 2, 2004, the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) forwarded a packet of papers, as more fully described below, to the Division of Administrative Hearings (Division). At the request of the parties, a disputed- fact hearing was scheduled for June 30, 2004 through July 1, 2004. The Charge of Discrimination in this cause bears a signature date of April 23, 2002. It states that the most recent alleged discrimination occurred in December 2001, and alleges race, color, and religious discrimination and retaliation. The copy of the Charge sent to the Division in the Commission's referral packet bears a Commission date-stamp of December 2, 2002. However, Respondent has provided a copy of the Charge, showing that it was first filed with the Commission on November 19, 2002, and the parties are in agreement that November 19, 2002, was the date of actual filing of the Charge with the Commission. The Charge filed with the Commission was accompanied by a cover letter dated November 14, 2002, and a "confidential" affidavit also dated November 14, 2002. On December 6, 2002, Respondent received the Commission's Notice of Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. Thereafter, Respondent submitted its position statement with attachments to the Commission. The parties subsequently engaged in settlement discussions but were unable to come to terms.1/ On November 20, 2003, the law office representing Petitioner notified the Commission that settlement was not possible and that Petitioner's attorney wanted to be advised of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) case number assigned to the same allegations of discrimination by the EEOC, pursuant to the Commission's work-sharing agreement with that Federal agency. On January 21, 2004, Petitioner's attorney's law office again wrote to the Commission requesting the EEOC case number and stating, "[W]e may take our client's issues up in the judicial arena."2/ Petitioner filed with the Commission on February 10, 2004, an Election of Rights signed by her attorney on February 9, 2004, on which the following option had been checked: More than 180 days have elapsed since I filed my charge of discrimination. I wish to withdraw my charge and file a Petition for Relief to proceed with an administrative hearing as provided for under Florida Statutes Section 760.11(4)(b) and (8). On February 16, 2004, the Commission sent a letter to Petitioner's attorney confirming its receipt of the Election of Rights on February 10, 2004, and reciting the foregoing reason stated therein. The Commission attached to its letter a blank petition for relief with instructions that the petition should be completed and returned to the Commission within 20 days. Twenty days from the Commission's February 16, 2004, letter would have been March 8, 2004. By a letter dated March 16, 2004, Petitioner's attorney wrote the Commission advising that for purposes of the EEOC claim, "March 23, 2002," should be used as the last date of discrimination. March 23, 2002, is a date four months after the date alleged in the Charge of Discrimination which had been filed with the Commission. (See Finding of Fact No. 3.) Apparently, the Commission filed the EEOC complaint with that federal agency on March 18, 2004. By a March 18, 2004, form letter, the Commission advised Petitioner, via her attorney, that the EEOC claim had been filed and given a number. The Commission's form advises that Petitioner need do nothing with the EEOC until the Commission has made its final findings in the case before the Commission. The March 18, 2004, EEOC complaint is virtually identical in all respects to the Charge filed by Petitioner with the Commission on November 19, 2002, except for the date of alleged discrimination. (See Finding of Fact No. 9.) On March 29, 2004, Petitioner's attorney signed a second Election of Rights, checking the same reasons as were given in the February 10, 2004, Election of Rights. (See Finding of Fact No. 7.) The second Election of Rights was filed with the Commission on March 31, 2004. On April 1, 2004, the Commission sent a second letter to Petitioner via her attorney, confirming receipt of Petitioner's second Election of Rights dated March 29, 2004, and stating that it had been filed on March 30,[sic] 2004. This Commission letter again reiterated the option requested by the Petitioner. (See Finding of Fact Nos. 7 and 13.) The April 1, 2004, letter from the Commission attached a second blank petition for relief for Petitioner to complete, and further advised: The initial letter dated February 16, 2004 included the Petition for Relief to be filed with the Commission within 20 days of the dated letter. We have not received the Petition for Relief to date; therefore I am enclosing another Petition for Relief to be completed. Forward the original Petition for Relief to the Division of Administrative Hearings and mail a copy to the Division. The Election of Rights Form will be forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for case assignment as requested. On April 1, 2004, the Commission filled out a Transmittal of Petition form, which it forwarded to the Division, attaching only the Commission's April 1, 2004, letter to Petitioner's attorney, a copy of the original Charge of Discrimination incorrectly date-stamped as filed with the Commission on December 2, 2003 (see Finding of Fact No. 3), and a copy of Petitioner's Election of Rights, dated March 29, 2004, which had been signed by her attorney. (See Finding of Fact No. 13.) Petitioner admits that at no time within 20 days of either the Commission's February 16, 2004, letter or the Commission's April 1, 2004 letter, did Petitioner file a Petition for Relief either with the Commission or the Division. Not until after Respondent had moved to dismiss before the Division on June 15, 2004, did Petitioner file a Petition for Relief. On June 24, 2004, that Petition for Relief was filed with the Division, without prior leave of an Administrative Law Judge of the Division. The Petition was not on a Commission form. As of June 25, 2004, the date of oral argument on the Motion to Dismiss and Response thereto, the free-form Petition for Relief had only been filed with the Division and had never been filed with the Commission. On the basis of the record before the Division, it appears that Petitioner has never filed with the Commission a Petition for Relief, also known as a request for administrative hearing. It is undisputed that no Petition for Relief or request for administrative hearing was filed by Petitioner with the Commission within 215 days of filing the Charge of Discrimination with the Commission, which would have been 180 days plus 35 days; nor within 35 days of February 16, 2004, the date of the Commission's first letter advising Petitioner to timely file a Petition for Relief with the Commission; or within 35 days of April 1, 2004, the date of the Commission's second letter advising Petitioner to timely file a Petition for Relief with the Commission.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismiss this case, which exists only by the Charge of Discrimination, and a late-filed petition before the Division of Administrative Hearings. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2004.
The Issue Whether Respondent, AAR Airlift Group, Inc. (Respondent), committed the unlawful employment practice as alleged in the Petition for Relief filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) and, if so, what relief should Petitioner, Gabriel C. Gaudio (Petitioner), be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a male over 50 years of age. On or about May 9, 2009, a company located in North Carolina hired Petitioner to work as a Technical Publications Clerk. Petitioner was over 40 years of age at the time of his employment. Prior to March 2012, Petitioner relocated to Florida to continue employment with the company that then became known as AAR Airlift Group, Inc. Respondent does business in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida, and has over 15 employees, one of whom was Petitioner. At all times material to this matter, Respondent employed Steve Lane (Lane) and Melvin Zahn (Zahn) as supervisors with the company. At all times material to the allegations of this case, Respondent had policies that prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, disability, and any other reason prohibited by law. Any employee who believed discrimination had occurred was directed to report to the local Human Resources Department or to the Corporate Vice President of Human Resources. Respondent’s employees are considered “at will.” Respondent reserves the right to involuntarily terminate any employee for any reason or for no reason unless to do so would violate law. Petitioner maintains he was terminated in retaliation for a complaint he submitted because of his age, or because of his disability. All of the actions complained of occurred between March 2012 and June 2012 (when Petitioner was terminated). It is undisputed that Petitioner’s age would establish he is a member of a protected class. It is undisputed that Petitioner was terminated after he submitted a complaint against his co-workers. Although Petitioner asserted he is disabled, Petitioner presented no evidence to establish the nature of his disability or that Respondent required him to perform tasks contrary to his physical or mental limitations. There is no evidence that Respondent failed to accommodate any claimed limitation Petitioner might have had. In April 2012, Respondent issued a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) to Petitioner to outline areas of his job performance that needed improvement. It was anticipated that Petitioner would address the areas of concern and make improvement within 90 days. Upon receipt of the PIP Petitioner filed a claim of hostile work environment with the company’s human resources office. More specifically, Petitioner claimed two employees, Zahn , technical publications manager, and Rachel Grygier (Grygier), a technical publications librarian, had disparaged him regarding his age and disability. To address Petitioner’s complaint, Respondent initiated an internal investigation of the claim. As part of the investigation process, Respondent directed Petitioner not to disclose or discuss the accusations of his claim with anyone. Respondent sought to resolve the matter without having the allegations discussed among employees before individual statements could be taken. Contrary to the directive, Petitioner discussed his complaint against Zahn and Grygier with at least one other employee. That employee (Barnett) e-mailed support for Petitioner to JoAnne Paul (Paul), Respondent’s human resources compliance manager. When Paul confronted Petitioner as to whether he had discussed his complaint with Barnett, Petitioner falsely denied knowing Barnett. Paul took Petitioner’s failure to maintain confidentiality regarding his complaint to Lane, Respondent’s director of quality assurance and internal evaluations. Together, Paul and Lane decided to terminate Petitioner. The basis for the termination was two-fold: the failure to follow a directive not to discuss the complaint; and the lack of truthfulness when asked about knowing Barnett. Petitioner maintains that his termination was in retaliation for his complaint against Zahn and Grygier and that the company wanted him out. Petitioner presented no evidence that after his termination he was replaced with a younger employee. Even though Petitioner did not establish the nature of his disability, Petitioner presented no evidence that he was replaced by a non-disabled person or that his handicap caused Respondent to terminate him. Further, Petitioner did not establish that any area of concern noted in his PIP related to his disability. Neither Zahn or Grygier had anything to do with Petitioner’s termination. Finally, Petitioner failed to present credible evidence that filing a complaint against Zahn and Grygier was the genesis for his termination. Petitioner was a long-time employee with the company. He had started in North Carolina and moved to Melbourne with the company. Had Respondent wanted to terminate him for any reason it could have done so prior to the move or after the move. Petitioner’s claim that his complaint against Zahn and Grygier caused the termination is not supported by the weight of persuasive evidence.
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 no cause for an unlawful employment practice as alleged by Petitioner, and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gabriel Gaudio 259 Abernathy Circle, Southeast Palm Bay, Florida 32909 Chelsie J. Flynn, Esquire Ford and Harrison, LLP Suite 1300 300 South Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Michelle Wilson, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent Employer is guilty of an unlawful employment practice by discrimination against Respondent on the basis of her age and gender (female).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is female. Petitioner initiated her retirement from Respondent employer in February 2005 at age 65. No evidence was presented at the disputed-fact hearing to establish the number of persons employed by Respondent at any material period of time. However, because Respondent has acknowledged in its Proposed Findings of Fact that Petitioner is an "aggrieved person," as that term is defined in Section 760.02(10), Florida Statutes, and has further acknowledged that at all times material to this cause, Respondent was an "employer" as that term is defined in Section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes, and Respondent is hereby found to be a statutory employer under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Petitioner began part-time employment as an Order Entry/Mail Clerk with Respondent in July 1983. At the same time, and dating from May 30, 1983, Petitioner was also employed part-time with Sears, Roebuck and Company (Sears). In 1984, Petitioner accepted full-time commission sales employment with Sears and continued to work part-time for Respondent Employer. She worked full-time for Sears and part- time for Respondent until July 1996. Between 1983 and 1996, Jack Barber, president and CEO of Respondent Employer, repeatedly asked Petitioner to come to work full-time for Respondent. In July of 1996, Petitioner accepted full-time employment as Chief Finance Officer/Human Relations Director of Respondent Employer. At the time of her transition to her new, full-time position with Respondent, Petitioner was doing accounts receivable, accounts payable, payroll, and general ledger bookkeeping. Petitioner was qualified for all positions she held while employed by Respondent. At all times material, Petitioner was an exemplary employee. Petitioner testified that, as an inducement to give up her full-time Sears employment with its vested pension and excellent pay and benefits, Mr. Barber "guaranteed [her] in writing a five percent yearly increase in salary with no end date." It was Petitioner's position that between July 1996 and February 2005, when she retired, Respondent had a written employment contract with her, which contract had been negotiated in July of 1996, and that this contract provided for Petitioner to receive a raise equivalent to five percent of her base pay; one week of vacation in 1996; three weeks of vacation in 1997 and 1998; three days compensatory time (personal holidays) in 1996; six days of compensatory time (personal holidays) in 1997 and 100 percent medical insurance. The document she represented as her contract of employment was admitted in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit One. Petitioner's Exhibit One is not dated. It also states no ending date and does not contain the signature of either Petitioner or Mr. Barber. It resembles arithmetic computations without setting out in sentences either Petitioner's or Respondent's obligations one to the other. It only lists the years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, with regard to salary; only 1996, 1997 and 1998, as to vacation; and only 1996 and 1997 as to "comp. time." It bears the expression: "$150,000.00 + - 5 yrs." Furthermore, Petitioner testified that the exhibit does not encompass the whole of the parties' oral understanding at that point-in-time, because she believes that Mr. Barber also orally assured her that the five percent annual salary increases would continue as long as she was employed by Respondent, that vacation time and personal holiday time would accrue annually based upon Petitioner's original date of hire in 1983; and that Respondent company would institute a retirement plan in the near future. Mr. Barber testified that he had intended his notes and computations in 1996 on Petitioner's Exhibit One to only show that he anticipated if Petitioner came to work for Respondent in 1996: that he would guarantee Petitioner a term of employment up to at least five years; that there would be at least three years (1997, 1998, and 1999) with a five percent increase for her each year; and that, based on the foregoing prognosis, Petitioner could expect to earn at least $150,000.00 over a five-year period. Mr. Barber never intended Petitioner's Exhibit One to be a contract of employment. Petitioner candidly admitted that Respondent granted her five percent pay increases in January 1997, 1998, and 1999. Petitioner calculated that, without bonuses, she was paid half of $27,300.00 in 1996 because she started in July; $28,665.00 in 1997; $30,097.60 in 1998; and $31,720.00 in 1999. Petitioner accepted Respondent's figures that her annual W-2 compensation 1999 (including bonuses) was as follows: $33,635 2000 $31,720 2001 $32,830 2002 $33,015 2003 $32,330 2004 $31,720 Therefore, Petitioner's income without bonuses from Respondent for her first five years of employment (1996-2000) may have been less than $150,000.00. It was Petitioner's further position that the Respondent Employer had "contracts" similar to Petitioner's Exhibit One with other employees, specifically Greg Barber and Rob Humphrey (both younger male employees), which were honored by Respondent and that Petitioner's "contract" was not honored by Respondent. Petitioner claimed that Jack Barber's honoring the younger men's contracts, and not hers, constituted the acts of age and gender discrimination she complains of here. No contract between Respondent Employer and Greg Barber was presented for comparison with Petitioner's Exhibit One. No contract between Respondent employer and Rob Humphrey was presented for comparison with Petitioner's Exhibit One. Petitioner maintained that she "performed many of the same duties as Barber and Humphrey who were younger than she was at all times material and that she received less compensation." Greg Barber is the son of President/CEO Jack Barber. Since March 1985, Greg Barber has been the company's general manager and sales manager. Greg Barber also acts as co-CEO with his father. At all times material, he received a base salary plus commission based on total company sales. Greg Barber's responsibilities also included overseeing order entry personnel, accounts receivable/payable personnel, purchasing/inventory control personnel, mailroom personnel, shipping/warehouse personnel, service department personnel, and the receptionist. He also answered customer service calls and took phone orders. Rob Humphrey is the salesman responsible for Respondent's United States and Canadian sales. At all times material, he was paid a base salary plus commission based on Respondent's sales in the United States and Canada. Mr. Humphrey's responsibilities included training and overseeing a staff of two or three phone order entry/customer service personnel while also taking phone orders himself. At all times material, Petitioner was a salaried, non- commission employee. Petitioner claims that she performed many duties outside her job description. Specifically, she contends that she assisted both Rob Humphrey and Greg Barber in doing their jobs. Specifically, she described sharing responsibility with Greg Barber for making decisions regarding copy writing, marketing, in-putting of advertising materials, and direct marketing mailings. No witness corroborated Petitioner's assessment of her assistance to Greg Barber or Rob Humphrey, but at most, Petitioner only irregularly assisted these commissioned salesmen with their clerical or office tasks. She did not sell product. Despite Petitioner's contention that she performed some of the same services that Greg Barber and Ron Humphrey performed, it appears that the majority of the services she performed for Respondent were very different from theirs. It further appears that Humphrey and Barber performed services that were different from each other. Greg Barber had far more authority and responsibility than either Mr. Humphrey or Petitioner, and because of his position, Greg Barber received a commission out of Rob Humphrey's commission. In other words, as Mr. Humphrey's sales manager, Greg Barber received a percentage commission of all sales by whomever the sale was made and this increased Greg Barber's overall income. Likewise, Mr. Humphrey's responsibilities, particularly the necessity for him to deal with Canadian sales and marketing problems, varied greatly from Petitioner's responsibilities, which were primarily clerical or financial and home office based, and differed from Greg Barber's responsibilities, which were concentrated on home office management and sales in the United States. Petitioner maintained that other employees received raises when she did not. However, Respondent demonstrated that the annual base wage for Petitioner from 1999 through and including 2004, was $31,720.00; for Mr. Humphrey was $13,000.00; and for Mr. Barber was $47,840.00. Respondent further demonstrated that the base wages for all three employees remained constant from 1999 through 2004, and that Messrs. Barber and Humphrey, the commissioned employees, had fluctuations in their total gross wages during the five years from 1999 through 2004, due to fluctuations in the company sales and their resultant commissions. Rob Humphrey's W-2 compensation was below Petitioner's W-2 compensation from 1999 to 2001 and slightly exceeded hers from 2002 through 2004. Greg Barber's W-2 compensation exceeded Petitioner's W-2 compensation consistently from 1999 through 2004. Respondent demonstrated that in the year 2003, Respondent company suffered substantial losses, which affected the salesmen's commissions, and thus their overall income, but Petitioner's and everyone else's base wages remained the same, regardless of business conditions. How bonuses were calculated is unclear from the evidence, but in 1999, Petitioner's bonus was higher than either Mr. Humphrey's or Greg Barber's bonus. In 2000, no one got a bonus. In 2001, Greg Barber's bonus was $2,360.00; Mr. Humphrey's bonus was $540.00; and Petitioner's bonus was $1,110.00. In 2002, Greg Barber's bonus was $2,500.00; Mr. Humphrey's bonus was $665.00; and Petitioner's bonus was $1,295.00. No one received a bonus from 2003-2004. One of Petitioner's responsibilities while employed by Respondent was to assist Greg and Jack Barber in writing an employee handbook. This handbook clearly states that all of Respondent's employees are "at will" employees. That means that no guarantee of continued employment existed for any employee. Petitioner acknowledged that she had read that part of the handbook. The handbook also provides a reasonable procedure for someone, who believes that he or she is being discriminated against, to report that allegedly discriminatory treatment. Petitioner acknowledged that she never complained of sex discrimination or age discrimination while employed by Respondent. Petitioner also was aware she could file an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint. She never did this either. Petitioner did complain to Jack Barber that her job was of greater importance than that of Greg Barber or Rob Humphrey, and she did repeatedly lodge her concerns with Jack Barber that her pay in comparison to theirs was inappropriate. Although denied by Mr. Barber, Petitioner is more credible that she asked for a five percent increase each year. In response to one of her complaints, Jack Barber "evened out" a bonus for her. In early 2005, Petitioner again approached Jack Barber regarding what she considered to be her "promised five percent annual increases." Petitioner and Jack Barber met several times during the months of April and May 2005. When their negotiations were not fruitful, Petitioner gave notice of retirement and left Respondent's employ on June 3, 2005, at age It had been her prior intent to continue working full-time for Respondent through the end of the year 2005. She hoped to continue working for Respondent part-time for several years beyond 2005. Petitioner testified that all employees received a retirement plan in 2001, but that she was not granted the promised yearly five percent increase in January 2000 and was not provided any reason or explanation for the decline in her base pay after that. She calculated that if the five percent per year increase had been given her, she would have received an additional $63,798.47, provided she had worked to the end of 2005, as she had intended.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Charge of Discrimination and Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Kay F. Kelley Post Office Box 559 Center Hill, Florida 33514 Timothy Shea, Esquire 800 North Ferncreek Avenue, Suite 9 Orlando, Florida 32803 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
The Issue Whether Petitioner was terminated from his position with Respondent as a warehouse supervisor on or about August 9, 2002, on the basis of his race (African-American), in violation of Subsection 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following Findings of Fact are determined: Respondent, Heritage Paper Company, Inc. (Respondent), is an employer as that term is defined under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (FCRA). Respondent is a wholesale distributor of paper and plastic products. Petitioner, Alonzo C. Brown, is an African-American male and is a member of a protected class. Petitioner was employed in the warehouse at Respondent's Orlando facility from 1998 until he was terminated on or about August 9, 2002. Dan Patterson ("Patterson"), who was the general manager at the Orlando facility during the relevant time period, supervised Petitioner throughout his employment with Respondent. Patterson made the decision to hire Petitioner, made the decision to promote Petitioner to warehouse supervisor, and made the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment. In November 1999, Petitioner was officially promoted from warehouseman to warehouse supervisor. Petitioner's job duties as warehouse supervisor included supervising the drivers, receiving inventory, putting away inventory, pulling orders, and ensuring that the trucks were loaded. Petitioner was responsible for assigning work to his assistants, ensuring that the runs were pulled, and ensuring that the merchandise ordered by customers was actually on the trucks for delivery. He was also responsible for the overall condition of the warehouse. Petitioner's performance deteriorated during approximately the last five months of his employment. When Petitioner got behind in the warehouse, Patterson assisted him and even hired an assistant to help Petitioner in the warehouse with inventory control and other assistance, where necessary. At the final hearing, Petitioner testified that he was discriminated against based on his race in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim and for disagreeing with his supervisor's instruction to put matches on a truck during a fire inspection. Petitioner was responsible for ensuring that the trucks left on time in the morning and for pulling the runs the previous afternoon. Even though an assistant was hired to help Petitioner in the warehouse at times, Petitioner refused to assign tasks to his assistant. Patterson wrote a note to Petitioner on May 1, 2002, telling Petitioner that he could not send items to the customer, NSC Northport, without matching up purchase order numbers. NCS Northport had very strict delivery requirements and would refuse delivery if Respondent did not comply with their delivery procedures. The evidence demonstrates that Patterson notified Petitioner on May 1, 2002, that Respondent's procedure with regard to NSC Northport was not followed. Although Petitioner introduced testimony that he did not write the information on the NSC Northport invoice, Patterson reasonably believed that it was Petitioner's handwriting and testified that Petitioner never informed him that he did not write the information on that invoice. Further, Marissa Moore, Petitioner's own witness, identified the handwriting as Petitioner's. When problems in the warehouse first arose, Patterson spoke with Petitioner regarding Respondent's policies and procedures for the warehouse. Patterson wrote another note to Petitioner on May 13, 2002, regarding excessive overtime and the importance of having runs pulled the previous afternoon to prevent overtime. Patterson wrote a third note to Petitioner and his assistant, Keynon Turner, on June 27, 2002, reiterating the importance of having the runs pulled in the afternoon and reminding them that the runs must be pulled by 4:00 p.m. Petitioner's explanation for the overall condition of the warehouse from May through August 2002 is not credible. Bob Purser, Sr., Respondent's chairman, CEO, and founder testified that in a conversation with Patterson, he told him that if Petitioner was unable to keep the warehouse organized, minimize the overtime, and get the trucks out on time, then they would have to get someone in the warehouse who would be able to do so. When Purser found out that incorrect merchandise was delivered to customers, he told Patterson to personally review the orders before the trucks were loaded. Purser visited the warehouse where Petitioner was employed prior to his termination and found that the warehouse was in disarray. He observed the aisles were blocked with merchandise and that the forklifts were unable to move up and down the aisles. Denis Nieves, the current warehouse supervisor for Respondent's Orlando facility, was hired on August 12, 2002, three days after Petitioner's employment was terminated. When he was hired, the warehouse was disorganized and cluttered, inventory blocked some of the aisles, the bay doors, and the exits and that it was sometimes difficult to locate inventory. It took him approximately six to eight weeks to reorganize the warehouse, unblock the aisles, put the inventory on racks, and unblock the bay doors and the exits. Respondent's Equal Employment Opportunity policy states that Respondent will provide equal employment opportunity to all qualified employees and applicants for employment regardless of race, color, sex, age, religion, national origin, handicap, marital status, and status as a disabled veteran or veterans of the Vietnam era. This policy was in effect when Petitioner was hired, and he received a copy of Respondent's employee handbook at the time of his hire, which contained the Equal Employment Opportunity policy prohibiting all types of unlawful discrimination. Petitioner knew of Respondent's Equal Employment Opportunity policy. He was aware of the procedures for mailing a complaint about racial discrimination and/or harassment. Respondent also maintained an open-door policy where employees could speak with Purser regarding any perceived problems. Petitioner was aware of this open-door policy. Other employees took advantage of Respondent's open-door policy to address their concerns with Patterson and/or Purser. Petitioner never complained to Purser about Patterson's alleged discriminatory treatment. Purser confirmed that Petitioner never addressed any concerns about race discrimination or any retaliatory actions by Patterson with him. Petitioner testified that he did not feel that he was ever discriminated against at any time during his employment with Respondent, except when Patterson terminated his employment. Although Petitioner raised various instances of perceived unfairness throughout his employment with Respondent, such as being paged to the front office and having his uniform "stripped" from him, he testified that the only point he believed he was discriminated against because of his race was when Patterson terminated his employment. Petitioner's witnesses, Ralph McDaniel and Ricky Vaughn, admitted that they never noticed any discriminatory acts or racial inequalities against anyone while they were employed with Respondent. Moore testified that she never heard any discriminatory comments about Petitioner. Andrew Mitchell testified that he never noticed any discriminatory acts during his employment with Respondent. Petitioner's only other witness, Kenyon Turner, testified that the only perceived discriminatory actions he experienced while employed at Respondent was Patterson's "getting mad and cursing [him] out every once in a while." When asked if Patterson cursed at others as well, Turner answered affirmatively stating, "[o]f course he cursed out the other people that was there," meaning all employees, regardless of race. This does not constitute evidence of racial discrimination. Purser testified that his company does not discriminate against its employees on the basis of race and Patterson testified that he did not consider Petitioner's race in making the decision to terminate his employment. Through Mitchell's testimony, Petitioner attempted to establish that he was a "good employee" and that he was a "capable and knowledgeable" warehouse supervisor, but offered no additional evidence demonstrating that he was doing a good job. The greater weight of evidence supports the fact that Patterson made the decision to terminate Petitioner's employment based on the continuing problems in the warehouse and a load factor decline of approximately 22 percent. The load factor is a percentage used to determine how many customer orders are being accurately filled. At the time of Petitioner's termination, he was earning $11.72 per hour. Petitioner testified that he did not begin looking for work until the first part of 2003. Petitioner worked sporadically for Florida Courier and that he earned approximately $11,000.00 in 2003. Petitioner did not work many hours and did not seek alternative employment during the summer months. Petitioner is also a full-time pastor, and his church pays his mortgage payment, which is approximately $1,000.00 per month. Petitioner testified that he has submitted "a couple of applications" to prospective employers, but has not really been interested in working for someone else.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order which DENIES the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2005, 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 19th day of January, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Alonzo C. Brown 7230 Plantain Drive Orlando, Florida 32818 Robert T. Devine, Esquire Alva L. Cross, Esquire Coffman, Coleman, Andrews & Grogan, P.A. Post Office Box 40089 Jacksonville, Florida 32203 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent Al Packer Ford, Inc. terminated the employment of Petitioner Woodrow Samuel on the basis of race, which is an unlawful employment practice pursuant to Section 23.167 (1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was discharged from his employment on August 8, 1978 and believes that his discharge was because he is black. Petitioner was hired on April 4, 1978 by the Service Manager for Respondent corporation who had been his supervisor at Dominion Chevrolet in Richmond, Virginia. Petitioner was employed as a quick service mechanic and worked for approximately three (3) monthe. During that time Petitioner's Production was low and at least on two (2) occasions made serious errors in servicing customers automobiles. Once he failed to put in oil, and once he failed to replace brake slices. He received a warning from his employer but was not discharged. Thereafter he was transferred to the Okeechobee Road Used Car Lot as a Lot Man. There he had the opportunity to make more money under a pay plan which did not depend on mechanical work by the job. After two (2) weeks he was transferred to the Respondent's main used car lot on Military Trail under the supervision of George Mills, and his salary was increased by forty (40) dollars per week. Prior to Petitioner's discharge Petitioner's immediate supervisor, George Mills, was on vacation. During this period Petitioner took a used Cadillac for his personal use from the lot in West Palm Beach and drove it to Miami for the weekend. Petitioner had not been authorized by Mills or by anyone else to use the Cadillac, according to the testimony of Mills which is more credible then the testimony of Petitioner. Mills learned of the use of the car by Petitioner after his return from vacation and after it had been scheduled for repairs. Mills stated that Petitioner had been warned not to use vehicles for his private use and, when he learned of the use of the Cadillac, terminated his employment and told him why. Petitioner appealed to his original employer, George Hollifield, who then was the supervisor of Petitioner's direct supervisor, for reemployment but was refused. Use of vehicles from the used car lot by employees of Respondent is allowed as a general company policy only upon specific authorization. A witness, another black man, had seen Petitioner use vehicles on occasion from the lot but did not know whether the use was authorized. About 10 percent of the employees of Respondent are Hispanic or Black, and the stated policy of the business is to employ competent people to make money for the corporation, and race is not a factor or consideration. Petitioner Samuel and Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact, memoranda of law and proposed recommended orders. These instruments were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the complaint and petition he dismissed by the Florida Commission on Human Relations. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of October, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Franklin G. Callas, Esquire 125 Worth Avenue, Suite 308 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Norman A. Jackson, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100, Montgomery Building 2652 Executive Center Circle, East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas E. Kingcade, Esquire Post Office Box 2755 Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Mr. Al Packer Al Packer Ford, Inc. 1530 North Military Trail West Palm Beach, Florida 33403
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice contrary to Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2007),2 by discriminating against Petitioner based on her national origin.
Findings Of Fact The Omni, advertised as "Omni Orlando Resort at ChampionsGate," is a golf resort located in the Orlando tourist corridor near Walt Disney World. The Omni is an employer as that term is defined in Section 760.02, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Suhra Merdanovic, is a Bosnian female, and her first language is Bosnian. She speaks and understands English, but is more fluent and comfortable using her native language. Ms. Merdanovic was employed by the Omni from approximately August 22, 2006, to October 9, 2006. Ms. Merdanovic worked in the kitchen of the Broadway Deli, a sandwich shop located in the resort. The Broadway Deli was one of several restaurants in the Omni complex. During the brief period of Ms. Merdanovic's employment, the Broadway Deli did not have a full-time manager. Ms. Merdanovic reported to Silvio Rosalen, the sous chef at Teri's Restaurant, near the Broadway Deli in the Omni complex. Mr. Rosalen reported to Robert Fohr, the assistant food and beverage manager for the Omni. The Omni has established a policy that prohibits harassment in the workplace. The policy defines harassment as: ny unwelcome verbal, non-verbal, physical or other conduct or behavior relating to an individual's race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, disability or any other categories protected by state, federal or local law, that is made a term or condition of employment, is used as the basis for employment or advancement decisions, or has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with work or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. The policy "strictly prohibit[s]" employees, supervisors, and members of management from harassing other employees, supervisors, or members of management. The policy directs an employee who has a complaint of harassment to report that complaint to any manager or supervisor, the human resources director, the general manager, or the regional vice president of operations. The complaint triggers a formal investigation, usually conducted by the human resources director. The Omni's harassment and equal employment opportunity policies are set forth in the Omni's Associate Handbook, which is provided to all employees. The handbook is reviewed during an orientation session that all newly hired Omni employees must attend. Ms. Merdanovic attended an orientation session on August 26, 2006, and testified that she was familiar with the harassment policy. The Omni calls the first 90 days of employment an "introductory period." The Associate Handbook describes the introductory period as follows: During this time you will have a chance to see whether you like your job and Omni Hotels will have an opportunity to evaluate your performance and suitability for your position. If Omni Hotels concludes that your job performance and/or suitability have been unsatisfactory, you may be dismissed at any time during the introductory period at Omni Hotels' complete discretion. You may also be dismissed at any time after the introductory period at the sole discretion of Omni Hotels. Both during and after the introductory period, all associates are associates at will. If an employee's manager determines within the first 90 days of employment that an employee's job performance and/or "suitability" is unsatisfactory, the manager will meet with the employee to review the manager's concerns. After this meeting, the employee's job status is "suspended pending investigation" while the manager confers with the human resources department to review the issues. If the manager and the human resources department agree that the employee should be terminated, then human resources will advise the employee of the decision. Ms. Merdanovic testified that two Hispanic co-workers, Erica Torres and Charlotte Ruiz, harassed her because of her nationality. Ms. Torres asked her what she was doing in America and refused to go into the kitchen with her. Both women made jokes and laughed about Ms. Merdanovic being from Bosnia. Ms. Merdanovic testified that her co-workers also disliked her, because she refused to give them free food from the Broadway Deli's kitchen. Ms. Merdanovic did not complain to a manager, supervisor, or any other Omni employee about the harassment she claimed to have experienced. Mr. Rosalen testified that he received numerous complaints about Ms. Merdanovic's job performance from her co- workers. The co-workers told him that Ms. Merdanovic failed to follow instructions, argued with guests and co-workers, interrupted co-workers who were trying to explain how to complete job tasks, gave guests the wrong order at least twice, and failed to comply with the posted work schedule. Mr. Rosalen personally observed Ms. Merdanovic's performance deficiencies on several occasions. The guest complaints were most significant to Mr. Rosalen. On one occasion, the guest had ordered a turkey sandwich, but was served a pastrami sandwich by Ms. Merdanovic. Rather than correcting the order immediately, Ms. Merdanovic attempted to convince the guest to keep the pastrami sandwich by telling him it was good and he would like it. On a second occasion, a guest ordered a milkshake and was served iced coffee.3 At the hearing, Ms. Merdanovic testified that she was unaware of any complaints about sandwiches. She stated that she has worked in kitchens for years and understands how to make sandwiches in a deli. She did complain that she was never trained to operate the "front of the store" equipment such as the milkshake machine or coffee machine, yet was expected to somehow be able to operate them. Mr. Rosalen orally counseled Ms. Merdanovic on multiple occasions regarding her performance deficiencies, but he never observed any improvement. Pursuant to the process for terminating employees during their introductory period, Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr decided to meet with Ms. Merdanovic to discuss her performance deficiencies and to advise her not to return to work until she heard from human resources. After this meeting, Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr would meet with the human resources director to discuss whether to terminate Ms. Merdanovic's employment. Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr prepared a "Problem/Solution Notice" form, dated October 2, 2006, that set out the performance deficiencies and possible corrective actions for Ms. Merdanovic. This notice was intended to be the outline for discussion during the meeting with Ms. Merdanovic. Under the heading "Specific Nature of Problem" were various categories, including absenteeism, tardiness, violation of company policies, and unsafe actions. Ms. Merdanovic's problem was categorized as "Performance Below Standards." The specific performance problems were set out as follows: There have been numerous complaints about Suhra Merdanovic's job performance from several of her co-workers. These complaints include: Does not follow training of food preparation techniques and quantities. Does not follow food, coffee and drink recipes. Does not know what all the ingredients are to be able to make recipe. Looses [sic] tickets for orders. Has become argumentative with employees and guests when told that the product is wrong. Has tried to convince guests that mistakenly prepared food is good and tried to get them to take it. Does not understand the schedule after repeatedly having it explained. Interrupts employees and does not let people finish talking when trying to explain how a task needs to be completed. Is not a team player. The notice set forth the following under the heading, "Expected performance or conduct/corrective action required": Suhra must adhere to the following guidelines: Must be receptive to and accept training in all facets of Broadway Deli culinary operations with a positive attitude. Must follow all standard recipes without deviation to achieve a consistent product. Must produce orders in timely fashion in accordance to [sic] the guest's specifications. Must never become argumentative with a guest and try to force a guest to take a product they do not want. Must get along with and assist teammates with all guest needs. The notice concluded that the "disciplinary action taken" would be "Suspension/Termination." On October 2, 2006, Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr met with Ms. Merdanovic in Mr. Fohr's office to review the contents of the Problem/Solution Notice. When her supervisors began reviewing her performance deficiencies, Ms. Merdanovic interrupted to argue with them. Mr. Fohr pointed out that this was the same sort of conduct that led to this counseling session in the first place. Before Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr could present her with the notice and commence the formal suspension/termination process, Ms. Merdanovic began to cry in a way that Mr. Rosalen described as "almost hysterical" for several minutes. Ms. Merdanovic then walked to the kitchen of the Broadway Deli. Mr. Rosalen followed her, both to make sure she was all right and to escort her off the Omni property. Ms. Merdanovic again began crying and saying that she could not breathe. She described her condition as "couldn't breathe, couldn't think, couldn't stay." Mr. Rosalen called in the Omni's security team, which also acts as the resort's first responder in medical emergencies. The entry of the security guards threw Ms. Merdanovic into a greater panic. Eventually, at Ms. Merdanovic's request, the Omni called an ambulance service, which transported her to Florida Hospital in Orlando. Ms. Merdanovic was diagnosed with high blood pressure and discharged after an overnight stay in the hospital.4 After the incident leading to Ms. Merdanovic's hospitalization, Mr. Rosalen and Mr. Fohr met with Lisa Borde- Christie, the Omni's human resources manager, to discuss their meeting with Ms. Merdanovic, the complaints about her from guests and co-workers, and Mr. Rosalen's observations of her performance deficiencies and his previous attempts to correct them. Ms. Borde-Christie agreed that Ms. Merdanovic was not meeting the Omni's performance expectations for her position. In light of Ms. Merdanovic's failure to improve her performance despite Mr. Rosalen's several attempts at verbal counseling, Ms. Borde-Christie, Mr. Fohr, and Mr. Rosalen agreed it was unlikely that Ms. Merdanovic's performance would improve in the future. They decided to terminate her employment. On October 9, 2006, Ms. Borde-Christie and Mr. Rosalen met with Ms. Merdanovic to tell her that her employment was terminated and to review the performance deficiencies that caused her termination. When Ms. Borde-Christie attempted to review the performance issues, Ms. Merdanovic became argumentative, stating that these issues were all lies and that her co-workers did not like her. Ms. Borde-Christie testified that Ms. Merdanovic said nothing about her national origin being an issue in the workplace. Ms. Merdanovic produced no credible evidence that her language or national origin played a role in the decision to terminate her employment. The Omni's management did not become aware of her allegations of harassment due to her national origin by her co-workers until Ms. Merdanovic filed her Employment Complaint of Discrimination, more than two months after her dismissal. The evidence produced at hearing demonstrated that the reasons for Petitioner's termination all related to her job performance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that the Omni Hotel Resort did not commit any unlawful employment practices and dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 2008.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Glenn Dorsey, Inc., d/b/a My Home Spot, is liable to Petitioner, Tamela Alisha Landrum, for employment discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (“the Act”).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a Florida corporation engaged in real estate property management which provides management services to homeowners’ associations (“HOA”), including managing the sale, lease, and maintenance of association property; organizing and staffing association board meetings; and enforcing association covenants and restrictions. Mr. Glenn Dorsey is Respondent’s owner. Petitioner is an African-American female and is a licensed Community Association Manager (“CAM”). Petitioner became employed by Respondent on May 23, 2016, as an Assistant HOA Manager.2/ Mr. Dorsey described Petitioner’s position as “the person responsible for how our communities appear.” She was handling contracted services such as pool maintenance, gate access, and landscaping “from writing the RFP, soliciting bids, comparing quotes to managing the vendor performance.” As her employer described, “A major portion of her job is managing the CCR [community covenants and restrictions] inspection schedule, performing the inspections and maintaining our database for CCR enforcement.” The description concludes that “Alisha is a licensed CAM and will soon be managing her own community association portfolio as the HOA Assistant Managers and Accounting Department are returned to full strength.” (emphasis added). According to Petitioner, she did not want to handle HOA board meetings, which occur in the evening and require the employee to stay for the duration of the meeting, which can be lengthy. In early September 2016, Petitioner was asked to cover an evening HOA meeting because Mr. Dorsey was double-booked for two different association meetings that evening. Petitioner was subsequently asked to cover additional evening HOA meetings. Between September 7, 2016, and August 22, 2017, Petitioner handled no less than 64 HOA regular and annual meetings for several different HOAs. On or about January 18, 2017, Mr. Dorsey transferred the responsibility for CCR inspections and enforcement to another employee. Petitioner complained that she was not compensated for working overtime to handle the HOA meetings. Petitioner repeatedly testified the company had no protocol for overtime. After-hour meetings created a personal hardship for Petitioner because they required her to incur additional childcare expenses. Apparently, a member of Petitioner’s family was initially providing childcare, but the arrangement broke down due to the inability to predict the length of HOA board and annual meetings. Petitioner testified that she verbally complained to both her direct supervisor and Mr. Dorsey about the hardship of after-hour duties and requested to be compensated with a salary increase and other benefits. Petitioner complained that her role and hours were changed significantly without any change in compensation. Mr. Dorsey scheduled a mandatory staff meeting for July 6, 2017, and included an agenda in the calendar invitation to staff. One of the agenda items is “meeting makeup time (next am come in late).” On August 16, 2017, Petitioner met with Mr. Dorsey and his assistant, Rachel Ward. At that meeting, they discussed renewal of her employment contract, and she addressed her concerns regarding her hours and compensation. Petitioner complained to Mr. Dorsey that she was not afforded a phone stipend, which was afforded to white managers, to compensate her for use of her personal cell phone for after-hour business. On August 18, 2017, Mr. Dorsey sent a letter to Petitioner “confirming” the August 16 meeting. In the letter, Mr. Dorsey acknowledged that Petitioner’s employment duties were “significantly different” than the duties she was hired for in May 2016. However, in the letter Mr. Dorsey justified the change in duties because of Petitioner’s poor performance of the original assigned duties, including estoppels, maintenance, and other administrative tasks, which he characterized “quickly became disorganized, delinquent, or incomplete.” Mr. Dorsey explained the change in duties as an attempt to “modify your role as to find a position in which you could succeed.” The letter concluded that Mr. Dorsey declined to change Petitioner’s compensation and benefits, or even enter into a new employment contract. Instead, Mr. Dorsey informed Petitioner that her employment would continue on a month-to-month basis, and that either party could terminate the agreement with 30 days’ notice. On August 21, 2017, Mr. Dorsey sent Petitioner the following electronic mail message: Alisha, Per your advisement today regarding your inability or decision not to attend HOA after-hour meetings, myHomeSpot.com will begin to cover those shifts without your participation effective immediately. Every other assistant is attending their portfolio meetings as this is a requirement of the position. We do not have a position at your rate of pay to provide you any extended exception. This is our advanced notice to you to terminate our employment arrangement on Oct. 14, 2017 as you are unable to meet the requirements of the current position. I provide you this date at the current pay rate to allow a smooth transition with someone who can perform the required duties, but, we can end with a 30-day notice to accommodate any changes if you notify us of this within 14 days from 8/22/17. On August 22, 2017, Petitioner sent Mr. Dorsey a letter which notified him she would no longer be available to work “beyond the published business hours” and requested she be returned to an 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. work schedule. However, the letter ended with notice of her immediate resignation. Petitioner’s Allegations In her Petition, Petitioner alleges that her change in job duties and hours, without appropriate compensation, was based upon her sex and race. She complains that she was not given a phone stipend afforded to white managers for use of their personal cell phones after business hours, and was forced to work after hours without overtime pay based on her race. Further, Petitioner alleges that Respondent unlawfully retaliated against her by responding to her complaints “with a write-up and termination notice.” Disparate Treatment Petitioner testified generally that she was paid less than, or denied benefits afforded to, white managers. Petitioner introduced no evidence on which to base a finding of the race of any employee, other than herself, in order to compare salary and benefit information. The record contains no documentation of which employees, if any, received a phone stipend. Absent this information, the undersigned cannot make a factual determination that Petitioner was denied the stipend which was afforded to male employees. Between the dates of May 23, 2016, and June 30, 2017 (slightly less than one month before her termination), Petitioner received the second highest amount of total wages of all Respondent’s employees during that timeframe. Petitioner received a total of $37,377.55 based on 2,051.25 total hours worked and 84.61 “absence hours.” An employee identified as AJ Ward was the only employee with higher total wages at $49,032.66. During that period, Petitioner worked fewer hours than employee Ward and incurred more “absence pay” than employee Ward. Petitioner further alleged that Mr. Dorsey manipulated her time entries in the company time management system, thereby artificially reducing her hours worked. The screenshots of time entries introduced by Petitioner are not sufficient evidence to support that allegation. Retaliation Only two days elapsed between Petitioner’s meeting with Mr. Dorsey, at which she voiced her concerns about uncompensated overtime and use of her personal cell phone after hours, and Mr. Dorsey’s letter giving Petitioner “advance notice” of her termination. Number of Employees The number of Respondent’s employees is a material issue in dispute. Respondent introduced its Department of Revenue Employer Quarterly Report (Form RT-6) for three separate quarters. For the quarter ending June 30, 2016, Respondent reported 15 employees in April and May 2016, and 14 employees in June 2016. For the quarter ending December 31, 2016, Respondent reported 13 employees in October, November, and December 2016. For the quarter ending March 31, 2017, the report identifies 15 employees in January, 14 in February, and 13 in March 2017. Respondent introduced a payroll details report for the pay periods between January 1 and August 31, 2017. The details report identifies only five employees. Petitioner did not challenge the reliability of the documents. Instead Petitioner argued that Respondent employed more than 15 employees when it was fully staffed. The evidence does not support a finding that Respondent employed 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks during either 2016 or 2017.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Discrimination Complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of February, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of February, 2019.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice (Petition for Relief) filed against Respondent should be granted by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission).
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Respondent operated Marriott Forum at Deercreek (hereinafter referred to as the "Facility"), a "senior living community, nursing home." Petitioner was employed as a Certified Nursing Assistant (hereinafter referred to as "CNA") at the Facility from 1992 or 1993, until July of 1998, when she was terminated. Petitioner is black. At the time of Petitioner's termination, all of the CNAs, and all but one of the nurses, at the Facility were black. At the time of Petitioner's termination, the chain of command leading down to Petitioner was as follows: the General Manager, Joanna Littlefield; the Health Care Administrator, Sheila Wiggins, and the Interim Director of Nursing, Michelle Borland. The Director of Human Resources was Meg McKaon. Ms. Littlefield had the ultimate authority to terminate employees working at the Facility. Ms. Wiggins, Ms. Borland, and Ms. McKaon had the authority to make termination recommendations to Ms. Littlefield, but not to take such action themselves. In July of 1998, F. S., an elderly woman in, or approaching, her 90's, was a resident at the Facility. On or about July 9, 1998, Petitioner was involved in a scuffle with F. S. while giving F. S. a shower. Joyce Montero, a social worker at the Facility, was nearby in the hallway and heard the "commotion." When F. S. came out of the shower, Ms. Montero spoke to her. F. S. appeared to be "very upset." She was screaming to Ms. Montero, "Get her away from me; she hit me," referring to Petitioner. Ms. Montero noticed that F. S. "had blood [streaming] from her nostril to at least the top of her lip." The nursing staff then "took over" and "cleaned up [F. S.'s] blood" with a towel. Ms. McKaon was contacted and informed that there was a CNA who had "had an altercation with a resident." Ms. McKaon went to the scene "right away" to investigate. When Ms. McKaon arrived, F. S. was still "visibly shaken and upset." Ms. McKaon saw the "bloody towel" that had been used to clean F. S.'s face "there next to [F. S.]." F. S. told Ms. McKaon that she was "afraid [of Petitioner] and that she [had been] punched in the nose" by Petitioner. In accordance with Facility policy, Petitioner was suspended for three days pending the completion of an investigation of F. S.'s allegation that Petitioner had "punched" her. Ms. Wiggins and Ms. McKaon presented Petitioner with a written notice of her suspension, which read as follows: Description of employee's behavior . . . . On July 9, 1998, one of our residents [F. S.] was being given a shower by [Petitioner]. [F. S.] stated that [Petitioner] punched her in the nose. (She was crying and bleeding: witnessed by Joyce Montero). Suspension For Investigation To provide time for a thorough investigation of all the facts before a final determination is made, you are being suspended for a period of 3 days. Guarantee Of Fair Treatment Acknowledgement I understand that my manager has recommended the termination of my employment for the reasons described above and that I have been suspended for 3 days while a decision regarding my employment status is made. I understand that the final decision regarding my employment status will be made by the General Manager. The suspension period will provide time for an investigation of all facts that led to this recommendation. I understand that the General Manager will be conducting this investigation. I further understand that if I feel I have information which will influence the decision, I have a right to and should discuss it with the General Manager. I am to report to my manager on July 13, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. Petitioner was asked to sign the foregoing notice, but refused to do so. Ms. McKaon conducted a thorough investigation into the incident. Following her investigation, she came to the conclusion that there was "enough evidence to terminate" Petitioner. As a result, she recommended that Ms. Littlefield take such action, the same recommendation made by Ms. Wiggins. After receiving Ms. McKaon's and Ms. Wiggins' recommendations, Ms. Littlefield decided to terminate Petitioner's employment. The termination action was taken on or about July 23, 1998. At this time, the Facility was on "moratorium" status (that is, "not allowed to accept any more patients") as a result of action taken against it by the Agency for Health Care Administration because of the "many" complaints of mistreatment that had been made by residents of the Facility. Ms. Wiggins was given the responsibility of personally informing Petitioner of Ms. Littlefield's decision. After telling Petitioner that her employment at the Facility had been terminated, Ms. Wiggins escorted Petitioner out of the building and to the parking lot. In the parking lot, Ms. Wiggins said to Petitioner something to the effect that, she, Ms. Wiggins, was "going to take all of the black nurses in the Facility." (What Ms. Wiggins meant is not at all clear from the evidentiary record.) Following Petitioner's termination, the racial composition of the CNA staff at the Facility remained the same: all-black, as a black CNA filled Petitioner's position. There has been no persuasive showing made that Petitioner's race played any role in Ms. Littlefield's decision to terminate Petitioner's employment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order finding that Respondent is not guilty of the "unlawful employment practice" alleged by Petitioner and dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Relief based on such finding. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 20th day of June, 2003.
