The Issue Whether the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against the Petitioner on the basis of race or handicap in discharging him from employment on February 25, 1992; and whether the Respondent unlawfully discriminated against the Petitioner and other black employees in pay for similar jobs.
Findings Of Fact During the summer of 1988, Larry Jelks, a black male, approached Jerry Sikes, the Director of Public Works of Suwannee Country, seeking employment. Petitioner, Jelks, explained and Sikes was aware that Petitioner had significant experience as a welder. Several weeks later, Sikes contacted Jelks and offered him a job as a laborer. The Petitioner began work of August 16, 1988 with a starting pay of $5.00/hour in the position of laborer, an entry level, unskilled job classification. The Petitioner received a copy of the employer's regulations. On August 24, 1988, the Petitioner was promoted to Serviceman, and his pay increased to $6.00/hour. On October 12, 1988, Sikes hired Mr. Praley, a white male, as a welder, although his expertise was as a mechanic and Praley was subsequently assigned duties as a mechanic by Sikes. Praley was paid a starting salary of $6.50/hour. The welder/mechanic position was open when Jelks was hired. On November 24, 1988, Petitioner completed his 100 day probation and given his annual 5 percent raise, increasing his pay to $6.30/hour. Other black employees also had their pay raises delayed until after their probation was completed. White employees, including Praley, received their annual raises in the year of their initial employment, notwithstanding their probationary status. This discrepancy in treatment of employees was not explained by the County. On September 30, 1989, the Petitioner laterally transferred to the position of truck driver for the refuse collection service because he did not enjoy the work of a serviceman. One October 1, 1989, Petitioner received an annual raise of 4 percent, to $6.56/hour. Subsequently, the axle in Petitioner's truck broke, and when he was questioned about it, he asked for a transfer. On March 3, 1990, the Petitioner was transferred to a shop position in which he repaired rusted or damaged garbage bins (dumpsters), by welding new sides and bottoms on them. The sheets of steel which Petitioner welded on the bins were 6 feet by 12 feet in size and 1/16" thick, and weighed approximately 180 pounds. These sheets were generally cut into smaller pieces prior to being moved from the stack in which they were stored. These pieces of material had to be moved into position to be cut and welded. The bins were moved using backhoes and forklifts. The Petitioner was responsible for moving the pieces of sheet steel and using the equipment to move the bins. On March 17, 1990, the Petitioner received a 5 percent pay increase to $6.89/hour. On April 28, 1990, the Petitioner received a 5 percent raise to $7.24/hour. On October 1, 1990, the Petitioner was given a 5 percent raise to $7.61/hour. In early 1991, the Petitioner's child became critically ill, and the Petitioner obtained leave to be with the child. In addition, Jerry Sikes approved flexibility in the Petitioner's scheduling to permit him be with the child conditioned upon Petitioner letting his supervisors know what he was doing and when he was going to be away from his job. Problems were encountered with Petitioner's attendance, and he was counseled about this and given a copy of the Country's leave policy. Generally, however, the Petitioner's performance was satisfactory, and he was considered a good and valued employee. On September 23, 1991, the Petitioner suffered a job- related injury, and was placed upon workers' compensation leave. The Petitioner received workers' compensation and disability benefits during his leave. During his absence the other employees performed his welding duties. While on leave, the Petitioner received a 3 percent pay increase to $7.84/hour. On November 25, 1991, Sikes wrote Petitioner a letter advising that he was required to submit doctor's notes concerning his absences while on workers compensation leave. On December 20, 1991, John B. Roberts, the County's workers' compensation (rehabilitation) consultant contacted Sikes and asked Sikes to identify an alternative position the duties of which the Petitioner could perform. Sikes advised Roberts that the County had no light duty jobs, but that driving a truck was one of the least physically demanding jobs in the County's maintenance department. He advised Roberts that he would assign the Petitioner to drive one of the light dump trucks if he returned to work. These trucks have an especially rough ride when operated off road, as these were. Roberts looked at the duties of the job, and determined that the Petitioner ought to be able to perform these duties. Roberts discussed returning to work and performing the duties of a truck driver with the Petitioner; however, the Petitioner advised Roberts that he wanted to talk with his attorney prior to returning to work. The Petitioner did not return and assume the duties of driving a truck in December as Roberts had arranged. On January 2, 1992, the Petitioner was sent a copy of a letter which was to Mr. Larry Sikes from Dr. Cason who had been treating Petitioner. The letter stated that the Petitioner was released from treatment to return to regular work activities as of January 2, 1992. On January 3, 1992, the Petitioner returned to work. He had a 4 percent permanent impairment, but his employer was not advised of this. His doctor advised the rehabilitation counselor that the Petitioner be placed on light duty because he would have to toughen up after returning to work. Sikes did not afford the Petitioner the opportunity to work back into the job. The Petitioner's work area was outside, behind the regular shop, exposed to the elements. It was very cold at the time the Petitioner returned to work. The Petitioner's production was low because he could not physically manhandle the large sheets of steel as he could prior to his injury. He asked that an inmate be assigned to work with him all the time, but assistance was denied to the Petitioner. The Petitioner asked for a backhoe, which he had previously modified, to move the bins and sheets around; however, this piece of equipment had been sent to the landfill. He was told to use a front end loader to do this work; however, he went to the landfill and retrieved the backhoe because he had difficulties climbing into the cab of the front end loader. His demands and getting the backhoe without permission created additional conflicts between the Petitioner and his supervisors. On January 8, 1992, Sikes issued the Petitioner a memo concerning his poor productivity and failure to follow the instructions of his supervisor. Prior to his injury, the Petitioner repaired approximately one bin per day. During the period after his return to work, he did approximately one bin every two to three days. When presented with the memorandum, the Petitioner advised that he was unable to do that which he had formerly done. The Petitioner was told that he was expected to do all his regular work. This motivated the Petitioner to return to the doctor and seek a clarification of what he could and could not do. In addition, Petitioner was also seeing a chiropractor regularly for treatment. Petitioner left work almost daily to see the doctor, and frequently did not return. He did not provide his employer with documentation of these visits. The Petitioner asked that an overhead chain hoist, similar to the one which was inside the shop area, be installed in his work area to move the sheets of steel to assist him. His direct supervisor, Mr. Horton, denied the request because it was expensive and required additional construction to support the mechanism. On January 13, 1992, the Petitioner received a second warning for being absent from work without notifying his supervisor. Sikes advised the Petitioner that he would have to comply with the County's personnel regulations which required prior notification and a note from the doctor. Although the Petitioner testified he was absent attending doctor's visits, he presented no other substantiation of these visits at the hearing. On January 22, 1992, the Petitioner submitted, as requested earlier, a report from Dr. James B. Slatery of Gainesville Orthopedic Group, advising that the Petitioner could return to work, but should avoid climbing and limit his lifting over 50 pounds to an occasional basis. A similar report was submitted by Dr. A. C. Bass. The metal sheets the Petitioner was lifting weighed over fifty pounds. The County failed to make accommodations for the Petitioner's physical problems upon his return to work in a manner it had for white employees. The county had placed recovering white employees in positions where they were flagmen, directed traffic, and in similar positions. The county placed the Petitioner back at his regular duties, stated it had no "light duty" positions, and demanded Petitioner perform all his duties to pre-injury standards of productivity. When the Petitioner asked for assistance in lifting the sheets of steel which were in excess of the weight allowance set by his doctor, the County told him to seek assistance from his coworkers, who were instructed to assist him. He had to wait until they finished with their immediate task, and they were less than happy about these interruptions, and going outside where the Petitioner worked. This slowed his production for which he received criticism from his supervisors. The conditions imposed by the employer were not so bad as to constitute a constructive discharge. However, had Petitioner filed an action at that time, he would have proven that he was treated differently than white employees who were accommodated for their physical problems when returning from workman's compensation leave. There was a verbal exchange between the Petitioner and one of his coworkers, Earnest Johns, arising out of their interactions in the shop. The Petitioner told Johns that he "would pass up a bus load of white girls, to make him (Johns) his bitch." Johns complained to Sikes about the Petitioner, and told Sikes, "he needed to do something about that Nigger." Sikes told Johns that he would take care of it and to calm down. Johns, who was very upset, subsequently apologized to Sikes for his confrontational manner in raising the matter with him. On January 25, 1992, Sikes sent the Petitioner another memo confirming a verbal warning about his poor work habits, wasting time, and absenteeism. On January 30, 1992, Sikes sent the Petitioner another memo regarding his poor work habits. In February, the Petitioner's wife, from whom he was separated, died, and he was granted three days bereavement leave for February 11-13, 1992. On February 18, 1992, the Petitioner called the shop and left word with a secretary that he would not be at work for the rest of that week. He did not submit a leave request for this period of time. Subsequently, the Petitioner was absent without permission from February 14 until February 24, 1992. The Petitioner did not obtain permission from his supervisors prior to taking this leave, did not request leave without pay, and did to explain his absence. Neither did his doctor, the rehabilitation counselor, his chiropractor, his attorney, or a member of his family or a friend report his absence and give any explanation. During this period, he appeared once at work to pick up his pay check on February 21, 1992. On this occasion the Petitioner did not address the matter of his absence with Sikes or Horton, although Horton advised he Petitioner that Sikes wanted to speak with him. The Petitioner had exhausted all of his sick and vacation leave prior to February 14, 1992. Under the County's rules, an employee had to request leave without pay after exhausting sick and annual leave, and the request had to be approved by the County Commission. The Petitioner did not make a request for leave without pay. Although the Petitioner asserts that he had not exhausted his sick leave because he was visiting the doctor during his absences which was covered by workers' compensation leave, he did not provide medical substantiation for the alleged treatments and doctors' visits as required by the employer's rules in order to obtain workers' compensation leave. On February 25, 1992, the Petitioner returned to work at starting time wearing work clothes. Horton stopped him on his way to his work area, and advised him that Sikes wanted to talk with him. Horton accompanied the Petitioner to Sikes office. Sikes asked the Petitioner were he had been, and the Petitioner answered that he had been attending to personal business. Sikes asked him for a more detailed explanation of his absence, and the Petitioner again told him that he had been tending to business and that Sikes should either fire him or get off his back. Sikes warned the Petitioner that unless he provided some explanation for his unauthorized absence, he would have to terminate him. The Petitioner refused to provide any additional explanation, but asked that his firing be put in writing. The Petitioner left the work place after the meeting, and did not return to work or attempt to explain his absences. Sikes viewed the Petitioner's absences and refusal to obey the personnel regulations as undermining his credibility as a supervisor. Several days after the confrontation on February 25, 1992, Sikes wrote a letter terminating the Petitioner for (1) continued or gross neglect of duty; (2) absence without leave; incompetence or unwillingness to render satisfactory service; insubordination; and (5) habitual absences, as provided in Parts X and XI of the County personnel regulations. Sikes extended special consideration to all employees of the department, who were permitted to take leave or be absent without applying for leave. The Petitioner was permitted to take leave without applying for it, and that considerable latitude was extended to the Petitioner regarding his absences prior to his being discharged. A white male, who was not handicapped, was hired on May 28, 1992 to file the position from which the Petitioner was discharged. The Petitioner appealed his discharge under the County's rules, and after an evidentiary hearing in which the Petitioner was represented by counsel, the county's hearing officer found that the dismissal was for cause in a Final Order dated September 24, 1992. Discrimination in Promotion and Pay among Blacks. The population and labor market statistics offered by the Petitioner in support of his contention that Blacks were discriminated against in promotion fail to support the proposition for which they were offered. For example, the Petitioner limits the labor pool to those persons who are over 16 and worked in 1989. However, there are those persons who are over 16 and would like to work, but who have not been hired. If the Petitioner's contention is correct, one would expect that for every white employee hired, there was a black applicant who was not hired. Therefore, comparisons based upon persons actually hired understate the percentage of Blacks in the labor pool. The relevant labor market for this dispute is Suwannee County, Florida, and the relevant labor pool are those people over 16 years of age who are now seeking, or who have in the past sought employment. According to the 1990 census, 14.7 percent of the population of the County is black. Blacks constitute 13.8 percent of the County's employees. The work environment was not overtly racist, and while, as stated above, racially charged verbal barbs were occasionally exchanged, there is no evidence that this was common or tolerated by the employer. The best evidence of discrimination by the employer were the actual practices engaged in by the County. During the 12 years prior to the termination of the Petitioner, the County had never had a Black supervisor. From 1989 to September 23, 1992, the County hired one black employee of 30 employees who it hired. Its top 10 highest paid employees were all white. The highest paid black was the forty-first highest paid employee of the County. Kevin Praley was placed in a welder's position despite the fact he was a mechanic at $6.50/hour; and Petitioner, who was a professional welder, was hired as a laborer at $5.00/hour in 1988. At the time Praley was hired, the Petitioner was making $6.00/hour, so that the differential between their pay was $.50/hour in 1988. After four years, Praley, who was hired after the Petitioner, was paid $2.01/hour more than the Petitioner for work which Sikes and others said was similar. This reflects continuing discrimination in hiring and paying Blacks. Blacks were hired in the lowest paying, menial jobs within the county, and this was not on the basis of education. All of the county's custodial employees are black. Only one of the county's secretaries is black. Until very recently, there were no black supervisors in the county's maintenance department. Most of the County's increases in Black employment and promotions occurred after institution of this case. The Clerk of the Circuit Court/Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners has not published a salary discrimination review required by Section 28.34, Florida Statutes. Further, the County's Equal Opportunity Program of 1992 provided for annual assessment of its progress in equal opportunity. As of May 9,1994, the County and not compile an annual report pursuant to its plan. The County did not train Black employees to assume greater responsibility, and did not utilize them as heavy equipment operators until after the institution of this action. The county did not pay Jelks and other Black employees annual pay raises while they were on probation; however, it did pay white employees Praley, Hardin, Simmons, Mobley, Luanne Mixon, Tervola, and Brother annual pay raises while they were on probation. These white employees were all hired prior to or during the year the Petitioner was hired. Jelks received the raise at the end of his probation period on November 24, 1988. Helen Stoudermire, Mattie L. Weatherspoon, Tyrone Tillman, and Marvette Gwinn, all black employees of the Respondent, did not receive annual raises while in probationary status, contrary to the treatment afforded white employees. The amounts of their collective salary losses were not presented as a finding of fact. The county did discriminate against the Petitioner and other black employees in pay and promotion during the period 1989 until February 25, 1992.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission of Human Relations enter a Final Order directing that: The Petitioner's Petition for Relief relating to his discharge be dismissed; Black employees of the County be certified as a class for the period beginning August 1988 until the present; The County be ordered to cease and desist its discriminatory practices in pay and promotion against the class of black employees; The County's Clerk be ordered to file reports on salary differentials are required by statute; and Reasonable attorney's fees and costs be awarded to Petitioner's counsel. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 8th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX CASE NO. 93-5330 Both of the parties submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following states which findings were adopted, and which were rejected and why: Petitioner's Recommended Order Findings Paragraph 1 Paragraph 2 Paragraph 2 Rejected as contrary to more credible facts. See Paragraph 41. Paragraph 3 True, but part of statement of case. Paragraph 4 Paragraph 11. Paragraph 5 Paragraph 1. Paragraph 6 Subsumed in Paragraph 11. Paragraph 7 Subsumed in Paragraphs 11 and 17. Paragraphs 8,9,10 Paragraph 44. Paragraph 11 Conclusion of Law Paragraph 12 Paragraph 57. Paragraph 13 Contrary to facts. The Petitioner returned to duty. Paragraph 14 Irrelevant. Paragraph 15 Paragraph 48 Paragraphs 16,17,18 Paragraph 51 Paragraph 19,20 Contrary to more credible evidence. Paragraph 21 Subsumed in paragraph 54. Paragraph 22 Paragraph 56. Paragraphs 23,24,25 Paragraphs 2,3,4,58,60 Paragraph 26 Paragraph 26. Paragraphs 27,28 Paragraph 42. Paragraphs 29,30 Subsumed in 2,3,52,53. Paragraph 31 Rejected because Jelks received the raise at the end of his probation period on November 24, 1988. His reduction in pay was $.30/hour for October and November, or 8 weeks X 40 hours X .30 = $96.00. Paragraph 32 County's claims were rejected on this point. Paragraph 33 Paragraph 18 Paragraph 34 The statistical record is rejected for lack of credibility because it considers averages of both groups compared when there are findings which show whites held higher paying jobs. Paragraph 35 Subsumed in paragraph 32. Paragraph 36 Subsumed in paragraph 54. Paragraph 37 Rejected as contrary to better evidence. Paragraph 38 Subsumed in Paragraphs 26,27. Paragraph 39 Paragraphs 29,30. Paragraph 40 Is not addressed specifically because it violated the HO's directions that findings be kept short, and address specific factual matters, and is mostly argument. Paragraph 41 Subsumed in Paragraph 17. Paragraph 42 Paragraph 20. Paragraph 43 The County did accommodate some whites. Paragraph 44 Rejected as contrary to best evidence. Paragraph 45 Paragraph 50. Paragraph 46 Subsumed in Paragraph 55. Paragraph 47 Rejected. Welder and mechanic were the same job description. Paragraph 48 Irrelevant. Paragraph 49 Rejected because "handicap" relates to permanent conditions, and his permanent handicap was only 4 percent. It was his temporary condition which impacted his ability to perform the work. Paragraph 50 Irrelevant. Paragraph 51,52 The name calling by employees, to include Johns, occurred in the context of an angry exchange with Sikes, who cautioned Johns to calm down. Johns subsequently apologized to Sikes, and neither were aware that his comments had been overheard by Jelks. Paragraph 53 Paragraph 51. Respondent's Recommended Order Findings Paragraphs 1-5 Paragraphs 1-6 Paragraph 6 Subsumed in part in 1-6, and rejected in part as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraphs 7,8 Paragraph 6 & rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 9 Rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 10,11 Paragraph 8 Paragraph 12,13,14 Paragraph 9,10 Paragraph 15 Paragraph 29 Paragraph 16 Paragraph 49 Paragraphs 17-23 Paragraphs 11-17 Paragraph 24 Paragraph 21 Paragraph 25 Paragraph 19. Paragraphs 26,27 Irrelevant. Paragraph 28 Paragraph 25 Paragraph 29 Paragraph 17 Paragraph 30 Rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 31 Paragraph 28. Paragraph 32 Irrelevant. Paragraph 33 Rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 34 Paragraph 20. Paragraphs 35,36 Paragraph 19 & rejected as contrary to best evidence. Paragraph 37 Paragraph 23. Paragraph 38 Paragraph 24. Paragraph 39 Paragraph 25. Paragraph 40 Paragraph 31. Paragraph 41 Rejected as irrelevant. Paragraph 42 Paragraph 33. Paragraphs 43,44 Paragraph 32. Paragraph 45 Paragraph 35. Paragraph 46 Paragraph 36. Paragraph 47 Irrelevant. Paragraph 48 Subsumed in paragraphs above. Paragraph 49 Subsumed in Paragraph 33. Paragraph 50 Paragraph 35, best evidence. Paragraph 51 Paragraph 32. Paragraph 52 True, but part of law. Paragraph 53 Paragraph 34. Paragraphs 54-58 Paragraphs 37,38,40,41 Paragraph 59 Irrelevant. Paragraph 60 Duplicative. Paragraphs 61,62 Irrelevant. Paragraph 63 Rejected as contrary to most credible evidence. Paragraph 64 Paragraph 48. Paragraph 65 Subsumed in Paragraph 41. Paragraph 66 Subsumed in Paragraph 48. Paragraph 67 Irrelevant. Paragraph 68 The wage disparity was the result of hiring Blacks in the lowest paying jobs. Paragraph 69 Subsumed in Paragraph 54. Paragraph 70 Paragraph 50. Paragraph 71 See comments to Paragraph 68. Paragraphs 72-83 Subsumed in Paragraphs 54, 55. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Mattimore, Esquire Kimberly L. King, Esquire Suite 305 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Toby Buel, Esquire Three Rivers Legal Services 817 West Duval Street Lake City, FL 32055 C. Dean Lewis, Esquire Post Office Box 8 Live Oak, FL 32060 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4113
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was terminated from his employment by the Respondent based on discrimination because of his race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an African-American male. He was employed at times pertinent hereto until his termination, by the Respondent Mold-Ex, L.L.C. The Respondent is a manufacturing company located in Milton, Florida, which operates a manufacturing facility and operation on a multi-shift basis, engaged in the manufacturing of various plastic and rubber products, particularly automotive-related parts. The Petitioner began employment with the Respondent on September 8, 1989, as a press operator. He also worked as a machine operator for about four months and was promoted to Second Shift Supervisor in the injection department. This is an injection molding operation which molds plastic and rubber parts. The Petitioner was a Second Shift Supervisor in that department for eight and one- half years. The Petitioner reported to Jerry Decker, who was his supervisor. The Petitioner is an employee and the Respondent company is an employer within the meaning of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner's duties included monitoring overall operation of the machinery, training, new employees, setting up machines and jobs, completing attendance reports and holding employee meetings. As many as twenty-three employees were supervised by him on the second shift. The Petitioner was the only black supervisor at Mold-Ex. The Petitioner was terminated from his employment on December 4, 1998. He was told by Mr. Decker, his supervisor, that he was being terminated because the company was "down-sizing" or reducing positions and the number of employees due to financial difficulties. The Petitioner elected to contest this by filing a Charge of Discrimination with the Commission, claiming that he was harmed because he was discharged because of his race. Beginning in early 1998, the corporate parent company which owned Mold-Ex, L.L.C., was experiencing significant financial difficulties. This resulted in part from the "reservoir seal project" which involved a contract for a certain part that the Respondent was to manufacture for the Delphi Division of General Motors Corporation. There were difficulties in manufacturing the reservoir seal successfully, it was difficult to manufacture and required extra labor. It was termed by the Respondent's president as a "real disaster" which caused serious financial drain on the company. The company had a great deal of difficulty in successfully manufacturing the part to the correct specifications and lost much revenue due to unfilled orders and/or improperly manufactured parts which had to be replaced. Additionally, and related to these difficulties, the parent company was having great difficulty meeting its debt service obligations. In fact, the parent company never actually recovered from the financial difficulties from 1998, such that ultimately the Respondent was sold to another corporation. These financial difficulties throughout 1998 resulted, by the fall of that year, in the parent corporation putting significant pressure on the Respondent's management in Milton to reduce costs substantially, including labor costs. The Respondent considered and implemented several ideas for cutting costs, including restructuring the supervision of the operation and otherwise seeking to reduce labor costs. In September of 1998, the Respondent employed an excess of people over those needed to operate efficiently. At that time the Respondent employed approximately three-hundred workers. Because there was an excess of employees and, therefore, payroll expense, a hiring freeze was instituted. This resulted in a steady reduction of employees through not filling positions that were voluntarily vacated by employees leaving the company, as reflected in the Respondent's Exhibit 10 in evidence. The overall operating officer of the Milton facility, Vice President Ettelson, established in his testimony that in late November of 1998, the hiring freeze resulted in a reduced head count which saved the company substantial amounts of money. Thus, by the end of 1998, the company employed only approximately 280 persons instead of the 300 who were employed in September of 1998. By April of 1999, the employment roster was down to approximately two hundred and fifty persons. The Respondent additionally restructured supervision in order to save money and to operate more efficiently, in terms of simply more effective manufacture and filling of orders, as well as in the saving of personnel and related expenses. This restructuring involved combining supervisory positions and re- allocating duties, such that one plant superintendent was placed in charge of all of the operations on the second shift rather than having approximately three supervisors overseeing the individual business units operating on the second shift. The Petitioner was a Second Shift Supervisor whose position was eliminated in this restructuring. His duties were distributed among Mr. Don Brumley, who was a long-experienced employee who was re-hired out of retirement and who became the Second Shift Plant Superintendent; an employee in the injection and molding department, referred to as a "lead-employee" and also to certain individuals on the first shift. The restructuring resulted in a savings of approximately $40,000.00 as to salaries by eliminating three positions and selecting Mr. Brumley as the plant superintendent for the second shift. The re-structuring concentrated on the second shift because the other two shifts required the management personnel that were currently in place. On the first shift, various improvement projects and process development efforts required more intense, active supervision and supervisory personnel that were already in place. On the second shift, because no improvement projects were being conducted, the differences in activity between the second and first shift allowed the company to supervise that entire shift, as to all departments, by placing a strong effective plant superintendent in charge of that entire shift; eliminating three supervisory positions for a substantial savings in expenses. On the third shift, no re- structuring occurred because it was only a small operation of approximately twenty-five employees. The highest management personnel present for that shift was already a lead person in the mixing department and a supervisor in the injection molding department. Additionally, the company management recognized a strong need for a superintendent such as Mr. Brumley who had a record of implementing better disciplinary measures and who could ensure consistency and efficiency of operation in all of the operating departments on the second shift. The re-structuring effort resulted in a change in the reporting system or "chain of command" as well. Prior to re- structuring, three managers, one for each of the three business units (profile extrusion, molding, and reinforced hose), reported directly to Vice President Ettelson. Below these three managers were the supervisors in charge in each individual department within the three business units. For example, in the molding department where the Petitioner worked as Injection Molding Supervisor on the second shift, supervisors in injection molding on the first and third shifts as well as a first shift supervisor in the trim department, for a total of four supervisors, reported directly to molding manager Jerry Decker. Four supervisors reported to the Reinforced Hose Manager, Sidney Hood. Two supervisors reported to Profile Extrusion Manager Steve Wieczorek. Those three managers reported to Vice President Ettelson. After the re-structuring, supervisors remained in place on the first and third shifts, but on the second shift no supervisors remained who would be reporting to the department managers Decker, Hood and Wieczorek. Instead, Don Brumley, re- hired from retirement as the second shift plant superintendent, reported directly to Vice President Ettelson. Don Brumley was therefore in charge of all three business units during the second shift. His duties were much more substantial than the Petitioner's. He managed approximately 60 people while the Petitioner had managed approximately 20 to 23 people. Mr. Brumley had more administrative duties than did the Petitioner. He had hiring and firing authority that the Petitioner did not have and had the responsibility for adherence to company policy on the entire second shift rather than in only one department. Molding Manager, Jerry Decker, established that the re-structuring organization functioned effectively. It resulted in the elimination of the Petitioner's position on or about December 4, 1998. Additionally, two white males in supervisory roles were terminated by the Respondent because of the re-structuring. The Petitioner maintained that one of those terminated white individuals, Dan Lowery, had been out of work seven months with tuberculosis and was permanently disabled and, therefore, was terminated because he was not qualified to perform his job duties. However, the Human Resources coordinator, Nick Bores, the person with probably the most knowledge and insight concerning Mr. Lowery's employment capabilities, established in a credible fashion that Mr. Lowery had indeed been on leave for a few months due to his illness but returned to his employment duties with a full clearance from his physician to perform all of his duties. This testimony was corroborated by that of molding manager Jerry Decker and Vice President David Ettelson and is accepted. The Petitioner also contended in his testimony, in essence, that racially discriminatory motivation for his termination existed as shown by two incidents. One incident in 1997 involved an employee who had been disciplined in some way by the Petitioner, who then purportedly placed a "swastika" symbol on the Petitioner's car in the parking lot. The Petitioner asserts that the employee was not disciplined for that act, which he contends was indicative of racially discriminatory animus toward him by the Respondent's management. In fact, however, the Respondent did not discipline that employee because, upon questioning, he denied the conduct. The Respondent had no independent proof that he was guilty of the act. The Petitioner himself was not disciplined on an occasion when he was accused of sexual harassment by a female employee, because he denied it and the Respondent had no independent proof that he was guilty of the alleged conduct. Moreover, at about the same time as the "swastika incident" the Petitioner received a written commendation, signed by CEO Thomas Henry and Vice President Ettelson. These facts, considered together, tend to show lack of racial animus by the company management. The other incident described by the Petitioner related to management reaction to observing an employee under the Petitioner's charge failing to wear safety goggles. Mr. Ettelson purportedly told the Petitioner he would "kick his butt" if his employees again failed to wear protective goggles. This statement, if made, may be coarse or harsh, but was not shown to be other than an isolated occurrence. Moreover, it does not evince a racially discriminatory motive or attitude on the part of an employment-related decision-maker. The Petitioner maintained that his replacement, Don Brumley, was not qualified for the position created by the re- structuring and that his "lead man," Eddie Byers, was the only person in the department who could have performed the duties that the Petitioner had performed. This testimony, however, is rebutted by the testimony of witnesses Decker, Ettelson and Thomas Henry, the CEO of the company. Their testimony establishes that Mr. Brumley was well-qualified to assume management of the entire second shift operations as Plant Superintendent which included the scope of the Petitioner's job but included other substantial duties and responsibilities as well. In fact, with the exception of being retired for approximately one year, Mr. Brumley worked for the Respondent since 1963 and was the company's first employee after it was founded by Mr. Henry, his father and Mr. Henry's brother. Prior to his retirement, Mr. Brumley functioned as Compression Molding Manager, which was a position above the Petitioner's position level in the hierarchy of the company and at the same level as the Petitioner's former supervisor, Jerry Decker. In fact, Mr. Brumley, at one time, had a supervisory role over the Petitioner. The Petitioner's experience was limited to one department during his tenure with the company. Mr. Brumley, however, had worked in all departments in his 36 years with the Respondent. Mr. Brumley knew the operations of the company very well and bringing him back to the company to function as the Second Shift Plant Superintendent, with his skills and experience, saved the company substantial expenses by allowing it to avoid the necessity of retaining other employees. Additionally, Mr. Brumley had a reputation as a strict disciplinarian and Mr. Ettelson and the company management felt that stricter discipline was required for the operations on the second shift. When the Petitioner was terminated he was offered a severance package of four weeks' pay at the time of termination, but elected not to accept that offer. He was not offered a different employment position with the Respondent because no suitable options, in terms of his skills and qualifications and in relation to his salary level, were available with the company at that time. The Petitioner was earning $7.80 per hour, at the time of his termination and his annual salary, without overtime, was $16,234.00. During 1998, which was his best year in terms of income, he earned approximately $27,000.00 when overtime was added to his regular salary. The Petitioner earned a total of $13,175.72, in 1999 and earned $3,117.00 in unemployment compensation in 1999. He earned $7,513.51, when employed by Britt Landrum Temporaries, Inc., in 1999, and earned $1,608.01 when employed by Interim Services, Inc., in 1999. Additionally, he was employed by Transport Leasing Contract, Inc., in 1999 and earned $937.20 with that employer. Since approximately January 2000, the Petitioner has been working at the Waterfront Mission and earned $6.50 per hour, and then in September 2000, was raised to $7.00 per hour. The Petitioner concedes that with his qualifications and experience he could obtain employment at more than $7.00 per hour, which he makes at the Waterfront Mission. He chose to work at the Waterfront Mission because that employment is compatible with his calling to be a minister. He desires to have work which is compatible with his duties as a pastor for two churches in the area. He has earned about $375.00 per month as a pastor for his two churches since approximately May 2000. The Respondent presented evidence by witnesses Ettelson, Decker and Bores, the Human Resources coordinator, all of whom testified that the re-structuring plan, which included the elimination of the Petitioner's position, was for the purpose of serving the above-referenced financial business needs in relation to reducing costs, as the reasons which led to the Petitioner's termination. All testified that the primary goal was reducing costs in order to help the company to survive its business downturn, including the fact, established by Mr. Henry's testimony, that the United Auto Workers strike of the Delphi Division of General Motors began in the summer of 1998. This caused a loss of approximately one-million dollars per month. That is the reason that the re-structuring was effected which allowed them to bring in a more experienced man, Mr. Brumley, who was qualified to run the entire department at lower costs as the Plant Superintendent on the second shift, rendering the Petitioner's job and position unnecessary. Their testimony that these business reasons were the cause of the re- structuring and the Petitioner's termination is accepted, rather than the Petitioner's contention that the reasons for his termination involved his race.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations denying the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of April, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: R. John Westberry, Esquire Holt & Westberry, P.L. 1108-A North 12th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32501 Heather Fisher Lindsay, Esquire Gordon, Silberman, Wiggins & Childs, P.C. 1400 South Trust Tower Birmingham, Alabama 35203 Azizi Coleman, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue 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 The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to a hostile work environment and subsequent termination of employment due to Petitioner's race in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent employed Petitioner in 1988. Petitioner received regular pay raises and promotions during the course of her employment with Respondent. On May 14, 1997, Petitioner was called to the manager's office from her work as a department manager and "back-up" customer service manager in Respondent's store located at 1212 Capital Circle, Southwest, in Tallahassee, Florida. Upon arrival in the manager's office, Petitioner was questioned regarding her involvement in an incident where another associate employed by Respondent in the store had been observed and apprehended placing store merchandise in the associate's automobile which had not been paid for in the store. Upon confrontation, the associate allegedly implicated Petitioner and several other black employees in similar activities. When confronted with these allegations, Petitioner denied any involvement in any scheme where merchandise was being removed from Respondent's store without payment for the merchandise. Petitioner was sent back to her work station following this meeting. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner and other accused black employees were suspended from employment. Petitioner was admonished to cooperate with local police in the course of their investigation. Petitioner promised her cooperation. On May 22, 1997, Respondent's representatives contacted the Tallahassee Police Department to report employee theft and an investigation ensued. Petitioner was never arrested and never questioned by law enforcement officials prior to being contacted again by Respondent's representative in June of 1997 and asked to come into the store. Upon arrival at the store, Petitioner's employment was terminated by Respondent's representative on the basis that police investigators had been unable to contact Petitioner and, therefore, she had not been cooperative with law enforcement authorities. During or close to the time of Petitioner's job termination, Respondent's management at the Tallahassee store was concerned that the ratio of black employees to white employees was disproportionate in that too many blacks were employed compared to white employees. When the personnel manager in Respondent's personnel office presented the names of candidates to store managers for employment, she would be questioned as to the race of the potential employees and told that the number of black employees needed to be reduced. The personnel manager had no knowledge personal to Petitioner's situation. The personnel manager later transferred to another store and, subsequently, resigned from employment with Respondent. Petitioner, a black female and member of a protected class, presented no evidence at the final hearing that she was replaced by a non-black employee or other member of an unprotected class. Additionally, no evidence was presented that white employees were treated differently in similar situations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Betty J. Davis-Gavin 12573 Forest Run Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32311 Azizi M. Dixon, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 J. Todd Lewis, Esquire Wal-Mart Legal Team 702 Southwest Eighth Street Bentonville, Arizona 72716 John A. Unzicker, Jr., Esquire Vernis & Bowling of Northwest Florida, P.A. 635 West Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Dana A. Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Whether Petitioner was denied reasonable accommodation for his disability by Respondent in violation of the Pinellas County Code, Chapter 70 (“Chapter 70"). Whether Petitioner was wrongfully terminated from his position as a bus operator by Respondent because of his disability in violation of Chapter 70.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Richard Mastromarino, is a resident of St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, is publicly funded transit agency and is an employer under Pinellas County Code, Chapter 70. Petitioner was employed by Respondent from May 7, 1979, until June 10, 1997, as a bus operator. The position of bus operator requires a commercial driver’s license. After experiencing vision problems, Petitioner visited his primary physician in February 1997. The primary physician diagnosed Petitioner with diabetic retinopathy and referred him to an ophthalmologist. After his diagnosis, Petitioner informed his immediate supervisor of his condition and availability to do light-duty work, and requested a medical leave form to take with him to his appointment with the ophthalmologist. On March 3, 1997, Petitioner visited ophthalmologist Dr. William T. Cobb, who confirmed the diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy, a condition that causes the blood vessels in the retina of the eye to excrete liquid and blood, thus impairing vision. Dr. Cobb informed Petitioner that as a result of his diabetic retinopathy, his vision was insufficient to drive any vehicle, including PSTA buses. In a Progress Report dated March 3, 1997, Dr. Cobb indicated that Petitioner “works as a bus driver and his occupation is threatened by his ocular disease.” Dr. Cobb also completed Petitioner’s medical leave form entitled Certification of Health Care Provider. On the form, Dr. Cobb described Petitioner’s vision as “limited to less than required for driving a bus.” The form also inquired whether Petitioner was able to perform any one or more of the essential functions of his job. In response, Dr. Cobb indicated that Petitioner was “unable to see to drive.” With regard to the probable duration of Petitioner’s incapacity, Dr. Cobb stated that the duration was “unknown.” Petitioner was referred by Dr. Cobb to Dr. W. Sanderson Grizzard for laser surgery. The first of several surgeries were performed in May and June of 1997. During this time, Petitioner was extremely concerned about the outcome of the surgeries. He understood from his physicians that there was a chance that his visual limitations could worsen and that there was a possibility that he might lose his eyesight altogether. Therefore, his immediate goal was to obtain medical leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) in order to have the surgeries performed. He also desired light-duty work in order to stay employed while he scheduled the surgeries. He was hoping that when his surgeries were complete, he could discuss his future with PSTA as far as which other jobs he could perform. He estimated that he would be able to discuss future work with PSTA in August or September of 1997. This information, however, was not conveyed to PSTA. Petitioner’s inquiries to his immediate supervisor regarding light-duty were referred to Gail Bilbrey, Benefits Specialist. Bilbrey administers a program instituted by Respondent, although not in writing, that assigns eligible employees on workers’ compensation leave to available temporary, part-time light-duty positions that accommodate their physical restrictions. In administering the program, Bilbrey reviews the medical documentation of an employee on workers’ compensation leave and determines if an existing position is vacant within one of several PSTA departments that the employee may be able to perform given the employee’s physical limitations. Because the positions available under this program are existing positions and are part of a bargaining unit of a labor union, light-duty assignments are not created for individual employees. Light- duty positions are extremely limited in number and are often not available for all employees injured on the job. The purpose of PSTA's light-duty program is to save costs of workers' compensation injuries by utilizing employees on workers' compensation leave, whom PSTA is required to pay, in vacant light-duty positions. Temporary light-duty positions, thus, are given to employees on workers' compensation by PSTA. The intent of the program is for the employee to occupy the position only on a temporary basis; thus, light-duty assignments are only granted to employees who are expected to return to work in their regular job. Since Petitioner was not on workers' compensation leave and was not expected to return to his bus-driving job, Petitioner was not eligible for a light-duty assignment. Even if Petitioner had qualified for light-duty, no light-duty positions were available at PSTA at the time of his request. Petitioner was informed of the lack of light-duty work during several conversations with Bilbrey. In response to his request, Bilbrey also prepared a memorandum dated April 23, 1997, indicating that no light-duty was available at that time. The main light-duty positions available at PSTA involved money-counting and ride surveying. Petitioner’s vision impairment prevented him from performing the functions of ride surveying, which includes observing passengers boarding and exiting PSTA buses at each bus stop and recording the results in writing. The money-counting light-duty position required the use of money-counting machines, checking bills, handling coins, and delivering/picking up tickets and money at Respondent’s remote terminals. Despite his vision limitations, Petitioner claims to have been aware of several full-time positions that he alleges he would have been able to perform in June 1997. First, Petitioner claims to have been able to perform the position of fueler/cleaner, which requires a valid Florida Class “B” Commercial Driver’s license, with passenger endorsement and air brakes, the ability to clean buses, and the ability to check coolant and oil levels. However, Petitioner had relinquished his commercial driver’s license in 1997, his physicians had stated he could not drive a bus, and, as observed by Bilbrey, his vision was insufficient to perform the job duty of checking coolant and oil levels. Two other positions became available at PSTA during the time in question which Petitioner now contends he would have been able to perform with adaptive equipment. First, the position of Customer Service Representative was posted by PSTA in early March 1997. This position involves selling tickets and passes, giving route and scheduling information to the public, and delivering supplies to three of Respondent’s remote locations. In 1997, maps and route schedules were not computerized and involved reading very small print. In addition, if Petitioner had qualified for and had been awarded the position, as the least senior Customer Service Representative, Petitioner likely would have been assigned as a “floater,” requiring Petitioner to be able to “float” between different remote terminals at different times to relieve other Customer Service Representatives. The shift of Customer Service Representatives begins at 6:00 a.m., prior to regular bus service. Given the fact that Petitioner was unable to read the fine print of the maps and schedules in a timely fashion and because transportation to deliver supplies, to float between terminals, and to report to work at 6:00 a.m. prior to bus service would have been a significant issue, Petitioner would not have been able to perform the job of Customer Service Representative. Also, in June 1997, the position of Clerk Risk Management became available. Petitioner had limited computer and clerical experience. Therefore, because this position requires extensive typing, computer work, and proofreading, Petitioner did not qualify for the position due to his limited vision and lack of computer experience. Petitioner was unable to perform these functions. After several surgeries, Petitioner's vision has stabilized but he is still legally blind by Social Security disability standards. Regardless of whether Petitioner would have been qualified, Petitioner did not apply for a request consideration for any of these positions or provide any documentation to Respondent indicating his ability to perform these jobs. Instead, in May 1997, Petitioner applied for long-term disability benefits. He completed the application in Bilbrey’s office with the aid of a magnifying glass. Attached to the application for long-term disability benefits was an Attending Physician’s Statement dated April 30, 1997, which was also provided to Respondent by Petitioner. On the form, Dr. Cobb indicated that the approximate date Petitioner would be able to resume any work was “indefinite” and that his prognosis for work was secondary to vision. Petitioner was granted and accepted long-term disability benefits. Pursuant to the long-term disability policy, Petitioner was found totally disabled and could not work. In addition, in April 1997, Petitioner requested an extended leave of absence beyond his FMLA leave that was due to expire in June 1997. However, when applying for the extended leave of absence, Petitioner was unable to specify a time frame in which he would be able to return to work. In fact, in a letter dated May 28, 1997, provided to Bilbrey on June 9, 1997, in support of Petitioner’s request for extended leave, Dr. Grizzard indicated that he “would expect [Petitioner] to not be able to work for at least 3 months.” Because Petitioner’s physicians were not able to provide a specific date when he could return to work, Petitioner’s request for extended leave was denied in accordance with Respondent’s policy. Thereafter, since Petitioner had exhausted all FMLA leave, was unable to perform the essential functions of his job as a bus operator, even with reasonable accommodations, and was unable to provide a definite date of return, Petitioner was terminated from his position as a bus operator on June 10, 1997, in accordance with PSTA policy. After his termination, Petitioner filed a grievance wherein he again requested an extended leave of absence until September 9, 1997, so that he could concentrate on his surgeries and to determine if he would be able to return to work at PSTA. A grievance hearing before Executive Director Roger Sweeney was held on June 30, 1997. At that hearing, Petitioner did not request light-duty assignment or reassignment to a new permanent position. Petitioner’s grievance was denied since Petitioner was unable to perform the duties for which he was hired, had been absent from employment with PSTA in excess of three months, had exhausted all FMLA leave, and was unable to provide a definite date of return. Following the grievance hearing, Petitioner was referred by the Division of Blind Services to Abilities of Florida for vocational rehabilitation training in January 1998. An assessment of his abilities indicated that Petitioner had limited keyboarding, computer, and clerical experience and was unable to score high enough on the 10-key calculator test to qualify for clerical training. Approximately three years after his termination, Petitioner also requested an evaluation to determine whether he could count money. In an informal test, Petitioner counted $55 in petty cash. However, no vocational report was ever provided to PSTA by Petitioner. The evidence fails to prove that Respondent’s employment decisions toward Petitioner were based upon or influenced by his disability.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner’s Charge of Discrimination be dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 9th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig L. Berman, Esquire Berman Law Firm, P. A. 360 Central Avenue Suite 1260 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 William C. Falkner, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Stephanie N. Rugg City of St. Petersburg 175 Fifth Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Alan S. Zimmet, Esquire Zimmet, Unice, Salzman & Feldman, P.A. Two Prestige Place 2650 McCormick Drive, Suite 100 Clearwater, Florida 33759
The Issue Whether Petitioner was terminated from her position with Respondent as a picker/stock keeper on or about September 26, 2001, on the basis of her race (African-American) and/or gender (female), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2001).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is an employer as that term is defined under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Petitioner was employed by Respondent as a temporary employee to perform the job of picker/stock keeper at its Parts Distribution Center in Orlando, Florida, during the time period from September 12, 2001, to September 26, 2001, the date she was terminated. Petitioner worked a total of 14 days for Respondent. Petitioner is an African-American female, a member of a protected class. The Parts Distribution Center for Respondent in Orlando, Florida, is a facility that holds automotive parts that are then shipped to dealerships. All temporary employees at Respondent are at-will employees. Temporary employees are told during their orientation that they are at-will employees who can be terminated at any time, for any reason. Temporary employees at Respondent are only eligible to work 119 days. Most temporary employees are not offered full time permanent employment. There is no guarantee that a temporary employee will receive an offer to work as a permanent employee. Petitioner was hired to perform the job of picker/stock keeper. A picker/stock keeper takes parts off of shelves to be shipped to dealerships. Petitioner participated in an orientation, and Petitioner received the same training as every other temporary employee. Petitioner worked the night shift. Respondent maintains written Standards of Conduct to which all employees must adhere. The Standards of Conduct apply to both temporary and permanent employees. The Standards of Conduct were in effect in September 2001, when Petitioner worked as a temporary employee. All employees are given a copy of the Standards of Conduct when they are hired. Petitioner received a copy of the Standards of Conduct when she was hired, and the Standards of Conduct are posted throughout the plant. The Standards of Conduct provide that an employee's "[f]ailure or refusal to follow the instructions of supervision" is grounds for "disciplinary action up to and including discharge." The supervisors who worked at Respondent's Distribution Center during Petitioner's employment were Richard Alvarez ("Alvarez") (Hispanic male), Lenier Sweeting ("Sweeting") (Black male), and Joe Bromley (White male). Alvarez was temporary supervisor for the night shift from June 2001 until December 2001. Alvarez was Petitioner's direct supervisor. Sweeting was a supervisor in September 2001. Sweeting was chosen to become a supervisor by Hal McDougle, a Black male. Sweeting was the supervisor on the day shift when Petitioner worked at the Distribution Center. His shift ended at 3:30 p.m. but he stayed in the building to help with the transition to the night shift. Alvarez would normally walk Sweeting to the front door to discuss what had occurred during the day shift. On September 25, 2001, Sweeting was walking past the bathroom with Alvarez and heard two women talking and laughing in the bathroom. Alvarez recognized one of the voices to be that of Petitioner. Alvarez had heard rumors that Petitioner had been taking a lot of extended breaks and told Sweeting about the complaints he had been receiving. Alvarez received at least two complaints, and possibly four or five, from Petitioner's co- workers that she was taking extended breaks and not on the floor working. Alvarez wanted to wait and see how long Petitioner remained in the bathroom. Sweeting and Alvarez waited outside the bathroom until they saw Petitioner exit the bathroom with Maria Dejesus. Alvarez believes that he and Sweeting waited outside the bathroom for approximately ten to 15 minutes. Alvarez told Petitioner that she had been taking an extensive break and needed to go back to work. Sweeting witnessed Alvarez tell Petitioner to go back to work in a professional tone. Alvarez also told Petitioner that he had heard rumors that she was taking extended breaks. He told her that since he saw it first hand, he wanted to mention it to her and let her know it would not be tolerated. Petitioner asked Alvarez which bathroom she could use in a very sarcastic tone. Sweeting observed Petitioner ask this question. Alvarez told Petitioner that he did not care which bathroom she used, as long as she did not abuse the break period. Petitioner proceeded to ask Alvarez in a sarcastic tone which bathroom she could use several times throughout the night. Despite Petitioner's sarcastic tone, Alvarez answered her questions professionally. Alvarez never asked Petitioner how old she was, whether she was married or how many children she had. Sweeting asked Maria Dejesus to go back to work as well. Sweeting and Alvarez have told other employees to go back to work when they have observed employees taking extended breaks. They have spoken to employees of both genders and all racial groups. On September 26, 2001, Alvarez assigned Petitioner to the "fast rack" area. Petitioner had never previously worked in the fast rack area. Alvarez personally instructed Petitioner in how to perform the assignment. Alvarez told Petitioner to pick the parts and put them on a rack float. After Alvarez gave Petitioner her instructions, Petitioner began her assignment. Petitioner never asked Alvarez any questions about her assignment or expressed that she was having difficulty with the job. Wanda Carithers ("Carithers") saw Petitioner using the wrong equipment to complete her assignment. Petitioner was using a bin cart instead of a float to pick the items. Alvarez noticed that Petitioner's assignment was running late. Alvarez walked over to the fast rack area and asked Petitioner two questions. Alvarez asked Petitioner whether she was going to be able to pick the whole assignment using the bin cart that she was using. Petitioner did not respond to or acknowledge Alvarez. Alvarez then asked Petitioner if she was almost done with her assignment. Petitioner rolled her eyes and said, "Your first question, yes, second question, no." Alvarez was very uncomfortable with Petitioner's response and demeanor. Alvarez told Petitioner that perhaps they had gotten off on the wrong foot. Petitioner asked Alvarez something about her union rights. Alvarez saw Petitioner's co-worker, Carithers, who was a union representative, driving by. Alvarez asked Carithers to explain to Petitioner her union rights as a temporary employee. During this conversation, Alvarez tried repeatedly to talk to Petitioner and on each occasion, Petitioner cut Alvarez off and would not let him speak. When Alvarez realized that he was not making any progress with Petitioner, he asked her to go to the warehouse office so that they could talk to a senior supervisor, Al White ("White") (Black male). Alvarez hoped that they could work out their differences with White's help. Alvarez started to walk approximately ten steps. He turned back and realized that Petitioner was not moving towards the office. Alvarez walked back to Petitioner and asked her a second time to go to the office. Once again, Petitioner did not move. Alvarez told Petitioner, "This is your last chance; go to the warehouse office." Once again, Petitioner did not move. Alvarez, after asking Petitioner to go to the office three times with no response, told Petitioner that her services were no longer needed, that she should gather up her things, and that she was terminated. Alvarez terminated Petitioner for her failure to follow a direct order of her supervisor in violation of Respondent's Standards of Conduct No. 6. Petitioner refused to move even after she was terminated. Petitioner asked Alvarez to reconsider, and he said that he had made up his mind. Alvarez started to walk away. When he saw that Petitioner was still not moving, he told her that he could call law enforcement to escort Petitioner off the property. Alvarez, and ultimately Petitioner, walked to the office. White asked Petitioner if she knew why she was terminated. Petitioner never asked to have someone from the union with her in the office until after she was terminated. At that time, Alvarez and White complied with her request and paged Rodney Witt, a union official, to come to the office. Carithers observed Petitioner fail to follow Alvarez's instruction to go to the office. Carithers recalls that Petitioner told Alvarez that Petitioner did not have to listen to Alvarez. Amber McPherson heard Alvarez call Petitioner to the office several times. Petitioner did not respond to Alvarez's requests. Sweeting has never experienced discrimination from management while working for Respondent for over seven years. Sweeting has never heard Alvarez make any gender or race-related comments or slurs. Sweeting has never heard any management employee at Respondent make a gender or race related comment or slur. Alvarez did not consider Petitioner's gender or race when he made the decision to terminate Petitioner. In addition, Petitioner lied on her application to Respondent and failed to indicate that she had been terminated from a prior employment. Petitioner had been terminated from Walt Disney World Company for theft. If Respondent had known that Petitioner had lied on her application or had been terminated for theft from a prior employer, it would not have hired her. Had Respondent learned that she had lied on her application after she was hired, she would have been terminated. Petitioner had no idea why she thinks she was treated differently based upon her gender or race. She just had a "feeling" or a "hunch." Petitioner had no evidence or information that her termination was based on her gender or race. Petitioner had no idea why she was terminated. She did not believe that it was because she failed to follow a command. Petitioner had no idea whether her supervisor, Alvarez, considered her gender or race when he terminated her employment with Respondent. Petitioner bases her claims that Respondent discriminated against her on the fact that there is general racism and sexism in society. Petitioner checked the "sex" and "race" box on her FCHR Charge of Discrimination simply because she is female and African-American. Petitioner felt as though she was harassed but cannot articulate a reason for it.
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 8th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 8th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie L. Adler, Esquire Susan K. McKenna, Esquire Jackson Lewis LLP 390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1285 Orlando, Florida 32801 Dorothy J. McCrimmon 5361 Commander Drive Number 304 Orlando, Florida 32822 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, by discriminating against Petitioner based on her race.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a financial company that owns and services student loans. Petitioner is a black female. She was employed in Respondent’s Florida Loan Servicing Center (Service Center) on two separate occasions. The first time she worked for Respondent from September 1989 until September 1990. During that time, Petitioner did not experience anything that she felt was racial discrimination at the Service Center. Petitioner left her initial period of employment with Respondent by resigning and moving to South Florida. Petitioner subsequently returned to Panama City, Florida. Initially, she worked for the Bay County School Board. Thereafter, from July 2001 to November 2001, she returned to work as a Loan Origination Representative (LOR) for Respondent through a temporary agency, Kelly Services. In August 2001, Petitioner received a training evaluation, which indicated that Petitioner was meeting all expectations. In November 2001, Petitioner converted to a regular employee position with Respondent. Petitioner received her 90-day initial review in February 2002. According to her written evaluation, Petitioner needed to improve in two areas: (a) successfully meeting the goals established during the 90-day initial review period; and (b) demonstrating initiative and resourcefulness in work performance. The evaluation states as follows in relevant part: A discussion was held with Millie regarding her productivity for application and phone call processing during the review period. At that time, Millie was placed on a verbal warning for her performance. She currently averages 3.65 applications per hour. The department standard is 5 applications per hour. Millie also currently averages 6.66 calls per hour for the review period. The department standard is 8 calls per hour. Pursuant to this evaluation, Respondent extended Petitioner's 90-day initial review period for a 30-day period in which Petitioner was required to perform according to Respondent's standards. The evaluation advised Petitioner that failure to meet standards might result in further disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. In March 2002, Respondent selected Petitioner to represent the National Team for Private Credit Originations. This designation required Petitioner to undergo two days of additional training. Respondent has well-disseminated policies prohibiting discrimination and harassment on the basis of race. These policies are available to employees through Respondent’s Employee Reference Manual and Code of Business Conduct. Respondent’s internal website also contains employee-related information such as policies, notices and the company’s equal employment opportunity and anti-harassment policies. Further, Respondent distributes an annual affirmation of its anti- discrimination and anti-harassment/anti-retaliation policies via e-mail. Petitioner knew of Respondent’s commitment to diversity. Petitioner became aware of Respondent’s equal employment opportunity and anti-harassment/anti-retaliation policies immediately upon being employed with Respondent. In November 2001, Petitioner received Respondent’s Employee Reference Manual, Respondent's Code of Business Conduct, and a copy of Respondent’s annual reaffirmation of its anti- harassment/anti-retaliation policies. The annual reaffirmation outlined the procedure an employee should follow to report discrimination or harassment, and provided several avenues for reporting such conduct. Petitioner was also aware that Respondent had an internal website with employee information. Respondent’s anti-harassment policy prohibits retaliation against employees who report harassment. The policy also protects employees who participate in an investigation of a claim of harassment. Petitioner knew individuals in Respondent’s Human Resources Department. For example, when Petitioner first interviewed for a job with Respondent, she met Joni Reich, Respondent’s vice president of human resources. From July 2002 to November 2002, Petitioner’s immediate supervisor was Paul Wunstell. Mr. Wunstell was Respondent's supervisor of Private Credit Originations. In early July 2002, Bobby Wiley, Respondent’s human resources director for the Service Center was counseling an employee for performance issues when the employee made an internal discrimination complaint. The employee stated that a supervisor had made a racially discriminatory comment about the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday. The employee told Mr. Wiley that Petitioner could confirm the racially derogatory comment. On July 19, 2002, Petitioner was asked to go to the human resources department. Upon her arrival, Petitioner met Mr. Wiley for the first time. Mr. Wiley directed Petitioner to a conference room. Mr. Wiley explained that he had asked Petitioner to meet with him because he was investigating a discrimination complaint made by another employee about a supervisor who might have said something derogatory about the Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday. He explained that he had been told that Petitioner might have some knowledge about these events. Several times, Mr. Wiley asked Petitioner whether she knew of any racial discrimination at the Service Center and whether she had heard a supervisor make a racially derogatory comment. Petitioner denied being aware of any race discrimination at Respondent's facility. Petitioner stated that she did not want to talk to Mr. Wiley. Although Petitioner understood that she was required to report discrimination, she did not provide Mr. Wiley any information supporting or corroborating the complaint that he was investigating. During the meeting, Petitioner appeared nervous. She told Mr. Wiley that she was uncomfortable meeting with him. Mr. Wiley replied that their conversation would be confidential, “between the two of them,” or words to that effect. Petitioner mistakenly interpreted Mr. Wiley’s comment to mean that he would do nothing with any information provided by Petitioner and that he simply wanted to “contain” or cover up the issue of possible discrimination. Petitioner did not ask Mr. Wiley to clarify what he meant by his statement that their conversation would be “between the two of them.” During his meeting with Petitioner, Mr. Wiley conducted himself in a professional manner. However, because he was eating ice cream when he met with Petitioner and did not have a note pad, Petitioner mistakenly thought he did not take allegations of discrimination seriously. Mr. Wiley was eating an ice cream bar that had been distributed around the human resources department immediately before Petitioner came to see him. The conversation between Mr. Wiley and Petitioner lasted approximately ten minutes. Mr. Wiley thanked Petitioner for meeting with him. Mr. Wiley stated that he was glad to hear there was no discrimination at Respondent’s facility because Respondent would not tolerate discrimination. Petitioner then left the conference room. After the July 19, 2002, meeting, Petitioner never contacted Mr. Wiley to complain of discrimination or retaliation. Additionally, Petitioner’s supervisor, Mr. Wunstall, never knew about Mr. Wiley’s meeting with Petitioner. On or about July 1, 2002, Respondent advised all employees serving as LORs that they would be required to attend a training class on July 13, 2002. The purpose of the class was to ensure the proper handling of Laureate School Accounts for Private Credit Originations. Each employee needed an active Laureate computer ID and password in order to participate in the hands-on training. As instructed, Petitioner immediately advised Respondent that she did not have access to the Laureate software on her computer. On July 8, 2002, Respondent sent Petitioner an e-mail regarding her Laureate computer password. After receiving the password, Petitioner still could not gain the appropriate computer access. On July 9, 2002, Petitioner informed Respondent that she did not have the Laureate software installed on her personal computer. Respondent then made arrangements for Petitioner to test her password on another computer. Respondent also arranged to have the Laureate icon placed on Petitioner's computer. On July 23, 2002, Petitioner wrote a letter to Ms. Reich complaining about her meeting with Mr. Wiley. The letter stated that, although she had not told Mr. Wiley about it, Petitioner thought there was racial discrimination at the Service Center. Petitioner’s letter indicated that she wanted to make a statement concerning discrimination against blacks. In the letter, Petitioner requested information on Respondent’s policies and procedures to report such discrimination. Mr. Wunstell never knew that Petitioner had sent a letter to Ms. Reich complaining about racial discrimination. On July 29, 2002, Petitioner allegedly fainted at work due to panic attacks. Respondent's staff called an ambulance that took Petitioner to the hospital. Petitioner claims she was absent from work for three consecutive days without calling her supervisor and without being terminated for abandoning her job. On August 2, 2002, Petitioner received a letter from Ms. Reich. In the letter, Ms. Reich apologized for Mr. Wiley's failure to handle the meeting with Petitioner in a manner that Petitioner felt was appropriate. Ms. Reich told Petitioner that Respondent viewed discrimination complaints seriously and she included a copy of the anti-harassment policy, which outlined procedures for reporting harassment or discrimination. Ms. Reich explained several avenues to report discrimination. Ms. Reich’s letter also indicated that she and senior director of human resources, Joyce Shaw, would be in Florida within the next two weeks. In the letter, Ms. Reich asked Petitioner to meet with them to discuss her concerns and to promptly address any alleged discrimination. On August 12, 2002, Petitioner received an e-mail from Ms. Shaw to schedule a meeting on August 19, 2002. The text of the e-mail did not state the reason why Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich wanted to meet with Petitioner, but Petitioner knew the reason for the meeting. The e-mail asked Petitioner to contact Ms. Shaw either on her cellular telephone or by e-mail to schedule the meeting. Mr. Wunstell did not have the capability to access Petitioner’s e-mail messages and there is no evidence that he saw Ms. Shaw’s e-mail. On August 19, 2002, Petitioner met with Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich for approximately one hour. Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich listened to Petitioner’s concerns. They were pleasant to Petitioner during the meeting. During the August 19, 2002, meeting, Petitioner first complained that Mr. Wiley had been disrespectful or inattentive during their July 19, 2002, meeting. Petitioner also told Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich about her feelings that black employees were treated differently in the workplace. This was the first time that Petitioner discussed her race discrimination concerns with anyone who worked for Respondent. When pressed for more specific information, Petitioner stated that: (a) she felt black employees received different training than non-black employees; and (b) black employees’ questions were not answered as promptly or as thoroughly as the questions of non-black employees. Petitioner did not provide Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich with specific examples of racially discriminatory behavior or the names of any minority employees who Petitioner felt experienced discrimination. That same day, after the meeting with Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich, Petitioner provided Ms. Shaw with several e-mails about the Laureate computer training. The e-mails did not illustrate any mistreatment of Petitioner. During the August 19, 2002, meeting, Petitioner told Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich that she was experiencing panic attacks. Ms. Reich suggested that Petitioner take advantage of Respondent’s employee assistance program for the alleged panic attacks. Ms. Reich and Ms. Shaw told Petitioner that they would look into her concerns. They did not tell her they would contact her again in the future. Instead, Ms. Reich gave her business card to Petitioner in case she needed to contact Ms. Reich in the future. After the August 19, 2002 meeting, Petitioner did not contact Ms. Reich or Ms. Shaw again during her employment with Respondent. During the hearing, Petitioner testified that she complained to Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich about the following: (a) supervisor Melanie Childree's reference to the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday as "spook day"; (b) three employees telling an African American manager not to go to the "master cube," which Petitioner felt was a racial reference to "slave talk"; (c) a hearsay statement from a student's mother who called another employee at the Service Center to accuse a white customer service representative of calling her daughter "stupid nigger"; and (d) where a black supervisor was married to a white woman, one employee allegedly said he was "going to string [the black supervisor] up for messing with our women." Apparently all of these alleged incidents occurred before Petitioner's July 19, 2002, meeting with Mr. Wiley. The most persuasive evidence regarding these allegations is that Petitioner did not report them to Ms. Shaw or Ms. Reich or anyone else in Respondent's chain of command. Instead, the complaints that Petitioner shared with Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich on August 19, 2002, were non-specific generalizations. Moreover, Mr. Wunstell was never aware of Petitioner’s meeting with Ms. Reich and Ms. Shaw to complain about discrimination. Petitioner does not know what steps, if any, Ms. Shaw and Ms. Reich took after their meeting to look into her concerns. At the hearing, Ms. Shaw testified that she investigated Petitioner’s concerns and found them to be unfounded. First, Ms. Shaw reviewed the e-mails provided by Petitioner but did not find anything inappropriate in their contents. Second, Ms. Shaw interviewed the director in charge of Petitioner’s department, Ann Nelson. Ms. Nelson explained that the process by which employee questions were answered made it unlikely that employees could be singled out due to their race. According to Ms. Nelson, all employee questions were directed to a central telephone helpline staffed by supervisors or senior employees who randomly responded to calls. Ms. Shaw correctly concluded that it would be difficult for racially discriminatory behavior to occur in such context. Third, Ms. Nelson assured Ms. Shaw that training was the same for all employees. Student loans are heavily regulated by federal law and thus, the manner in which employees handle borrowers is regulated, making Petitioner’s concerns about unequal employee training unfounded. Finally, Ms. Shaw spoke to the person in charge at the Service Center, Renee Mang, to determine if Ms. Mang was aware of any racial discrimination concerns at the facility. Ms. Mang, whose office was in close proximity to Petitioner’s cubicle, indicated that she was not aware of any racially discriminatory behavior in the workplace and that no one had complained to her about discrimination. After the investigation, Ms. Shaw was unable to corroborate Petitioner’s racial discrimination allegations. On or about September 30, 2002, Respondent gave Petitioner a verbal warning regarding her phone quality control average. The department's expected call productivity average was 8 calls per hour at the minimum level of customer service. From July 1, 2002, to September 25, 2002, Petitioner's average was 7.5 calls per hour. Once again, Petitioner was given 30 days to meet the department's performance goal of at least 9 calls per hour at Petitioner's level of customer service. On October 8, 2002, while employed with Respondent, Petitioner applied for full-time employment with the Bay County School Board. Petitioner applied for employment in the school system because she felt a lot was going on at Respondent’s facility and her mental health counselor suggested she look for employment elsewhere. Petitioner had followed Ms. Reich’s suggestion and enrolled in mental health counseling through Respondent’s employee assistance program. Respondent accommodated Petitioner by adjusting her work schedule and allowing her to report for work late on the days she had appointments with her mental health counselor. For example, on or about October 24, 2002, Respondent requested an adjustment in her work schedule so she could attend a mental health counseling session. Respondent accommodated Petitioner's request. During the hearing, Petitioner testified that Respondent adjusted the work schedule of a white female LOR to match the work schedule of her husband who also worked for Respondent. The husband's work schedule required him to work until 7:30 p.m. every day. According to Petitioner, the schedule adjustment resulted in the white female employee having no work to perform for 30 minutes per day after the phones shut down at 7:00 p.m. However, there is no evidence that Petitioner or any other employee ever made a similar request for a work schedule accommodation under similar circumstances. On October 29, 2002, Petitioner suffered a workers’ compensation accident. A telephone headpiece flicked off and hit Petitioner across the face, resulting in an uncomfortable feeling and a small chip on her tooth. On October 30, 2002, Petitioner reported the accident to Respondent’s Benefits Specialist, Kristi Scott and requested to see a dentist. From that time on, Petitioner and Ms. Scott communicated directly with each other regarding treatment for Petitioner’s injury. Ms. Scott kept Petitioner updated on her progress locating a dentist that would accept Petitioner as a patient for a workers' compensation claim. Mr. Wunstell was not involved in arranging for treatment for Petitioner’s injury. Petitioner was not required to channel her communications with Ms. Scott through Mr. Wunstell. On October 31, 2002, Ms. Scott sent Petitioner an e-mail stating that Ms. Scott had been unable to locate a dentist who would see Petitioner as a workers' compensation patient. Ms. Scott's e-mail directed Petitioner to see any dentist of her choice to treat her injury. Ms. Scott told Petitioner that Respondent would reimburse her for any out-of- pocket expenses that resulted from her dental visit. Petitioner did not suffer immobilization as a result of the injury to her mouth and she did not have to undergo treatment as a result of her injury. Petitioner did not feel her condition was an emergency. In fact, she did not see a dentist immediately because neither her regular dentist nor other dentists considered her mouth injury an emergency. Following the October 29, 2002, mouth injury, Petitioner continued working. She worked full days the rest of the week: October 30, 2002, through November 1, 2002. On Monday, November 4, 2002, Petitioner did not show up for work. Instead, that morning Petitioner drove herself to her mental health counseling session. After her counseling session, around noon, Petitioner called Mr. Wunstell from home. During this telephone conversation Petitioner told Mr. Wunstell that she had seen a doctor in the morning. She also told Mr. Wunstell that her mouth was in severe pain, and she was trying to find a dentist who would see her. At the time of Petitioner's conversation with Ms. Wunstell, Petitioner had made appointments with two dentists. Petitioner typically worked until 7 p.m. During their noon telephone conversation, Mr. Wunstell specifically asked Petitioner whether she was planning to return to work that day. Petitioner responded that she would be returning to work later that day. Petitioner did not tell him that she was unable to work, nor did she request time off work. Petitioner alleges that she told Mr. Wunstell during their November 4, 2002, telephone conversation that her neck was bothering her, that she needed to see a doctor, in addition to a dentist, that she was unable to work and that she asked Mr. Wunstell to have Ms. Scott call her at home. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner did not mention any of these things during her telephone conversation with Mr. Wunstell. Petitioner made no effort to obtain Ms. Scott’s telephone number. After her November 4, 2002, call to Mr. Wunstell, Petitioner made no effort to contact Ms. Scott directly regarding her workers' compensation injury, despite the fact that Petitioner and Ms. Scott had been communicating directly about the injury until that time. Petitioner did not show up for work the rest of the week of November 4, 2002. She did not call Mr. Wunstell or anyone else at Respondent’s office during the week of November 4, 2002, to inform them of her condition or her expected return to work date. Respondent has a job abandonment policy. An employee who is absent from work for three consecutive days without notifying his/her immediate supervisor will be considered to have voluntarily resigned or abandoned his/her job. Respondent’s job abandonment policy applies to all employees, including those who are injured on the job. When an employee is a no call/no show for three consecutive days, the job abandonment policy is applied in a fairly automatic manner. The employee’s immediate supervisor does not call the employee at home. Instead, the supervisor contacts Teresa Jones in the human resources department, indicates that the employee has been a “no call/no show” for three consecutive days, and directs the human resources department to send a termination letter. This type of transaction is handled by lower-ranking human resources department employees at the Service Center, and neither Mr. Wiley nor Ms. Shaw participated in the process of sending out termination letters. When Petitioner did not come to work and failed to contact Mr. Wunstell after their November 4, 2002, conversation, Mr. Wunstell instructed Ms. Jones to send Petitioner a letter informing of her termination for job abandonment. There is no evidence that Ms. Shaw, Ms. Reich or Mr. Wiley influenced Mr. Wunstell’s decision to request that Respondent send Petitioner a termination letter pursuant to the job abandonment policy. By letter dated November 8, 2002, Respondent informed Petitioner that, pursuant to the company’s job abandonment policy, she was deemed to have voluntarily abandoned her job by being absent for three consecutive days without contacting her supervisor after November 4, 2002. Respondent’s letter encouraged Petitioner to contact Ms. Jones if she had any questions regarding Respondent’s letter. Also attached to the termination letter was an Exit Interview questionnaire and postage pre-paid envelope. The questionnaire asked Petitioner to explain why she had resigned her employment. Petitioner did not return the questionnaire and made no effort to contact Respondent to protest, contest, or clarify her employment status. After receiving the November 8, 2002, letter, Petitioner did not file a petition for unemployment compensation benefits. Instead, on November 17, 2002, exactly two weeks after the last day She came to work for Respondent, Petitioner began working with the Bay County School District. Mr. Wunstell did not apply Respondent’s job abandonment policy to Petitioner for retaliatory reasons because he did not know of her alleged protected activity. Mr. Wunstell may not have terminated Petitioner in July 2002 when she was absent for three days. However, Mr. Wunstell has otherwise consistently and non-discriminatorily enforced the job abandonment policy and has terminated numerous employees pursuant to the job abandonment policy. There is no evidence that Respondent applied its job abandonment policy differently to Petitioner than it did to other employees. During the year 2002 and the first few months of 2003, Respondent terminated 28 employees pursuant to its job abandonment policy. Of these 28 employees, 25 were white, and none had complained about discrimination or participated in a discrimination investigation. Except for Petitioner's three-day absence in July 2002, there is no evidence of any other employee who violated Respondent’s job abandonment policy by being absent from work for three consecutive days without calling and who was not terminated. In January 2003, almost two months after her separation from Respondent, Petitioner wrote a letter to Al Lord, Respondent’s CEO. The letter incorrectly alleged that Respondent had not provided assistance in obtaining dental treatment for Petitioner’s on-the-job tooth injury. The letter for the first time informed Respondent that Petitioner felt she was involuntarily terminated. Unlike Petitioner’s testimony at the final hearing, the letter to Mr. Lord did not allege that Petitioner had told Mr. Wunstell on November 4, 2002, that she needed to see both a dentist and a doctor for her injury. Likewise, the letter did not allege that Petitioner asked Mr. Wunstell to have Ms. Scott call her at home. On February 11, 2003, Petitioner received a letter from Ms. Shaw. The letter informed Petitioner that she had looked into the allegations contained in the letter to Mr. Lord and had found them to be unsupported and inaccurate. Ms. Shaw's letter concluded as follows: (a) Respondent non-discriminatorily and consistently enforced its job abandonment policy; and (b) Respondent had assisted Petitioner in obtaining treatment for her dental injury. Finally, the letter questioned why, if she had not intended to voluntarily quit her job, Petitioner had made no effort to contact Respondent upon receipt of her November 8, 2002, termination letter. On March 15, 2003, Petitioner wrote a letter to Ms. Shaw. In the letter, Petitioner did not allege that she had told Mr. Wunstell on November 4, 2002, that she needed to see a doctor, in addition to a dentist, as a result of her mouth injury. Petitioner’s letter also did not state that she had asked Mr. Wunstell to tell Ms. Scott to call her at home regarding an appointment with a doctor. Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with the FCHR on June 2, 2003. During the processing of her charge of discrimination, Petitioner complained that Respondent had improperly withheld from her last payroll check a portion of her pay for 66 hours of accrued, unused vacation time. This was the first time Respondent learned of this allegation. Although Petitioner believed that Mr. Wunstell had given instructions for Respondent to withhold a portion of her vacation pay, she never contacted Mr. Wunstell or Respondent’s human resources department to report or challenge this incorrect deduction. When, after the filing of the charge, Respondent received information about the incorrect deduction, it immediately investigated and reimbursed Petitioner for the incorrect deduction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Millie Carlisle 105 Detroit Avenue Panama City, Florida 32401 Luisette Gierbolini, Esquire Zinober & McCrea, P.A. Post Office Box 1378 201 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 800 Tampa, Florida 33601-1378 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 The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his national origin in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2003).
Findings Of Fact No findings are made in this case. Petitioner did not appear and did not submit evidence to support findings of fact.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner was subjected to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent due to Petitioner's race in violation of Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent hired Petitioner on October 13, 1997, as a maintenance operator. Six months later he was promoted to the position of Maintenance Technician I. During his employment, Petitioner was one of six technicians. He was the only black technician. Petitioner was initially paid at a rate of $6.00 per hour. He received no pay increase with his first promotion. His yearly evaluation was delayed, but finally received by him on December 7, 1998. His evaluation for 1999 was received by December 23, 1999. His wages had climbed by this time to $8.40 per hour. His evaluations were satisfactory or above. Although Petitioner had been told he would be provided training on the job, he was relegated to the night shift, working by himself. As a consequence, he educated himself on maintenance of Respondent’s facility. In 1999, all technicians were to receive formal training. Another technician, who was white and lower in seniority than Petitioner, was selected for training before Petitioner. When Petitioner brought this to the attention of a supervisor, Petitioner was sent to other training provided by Siemen’s Corporation in Atlanta, Georgia. Petitioner stated he was treated unfairly because he was required to absorb the cost of lodging for the first night in Atlanta, prior to commencement of training. The five other technicians employed by Respondent were being paid a minimum of $11.00 per hour when Petitioner, on or about May 5, 2000, requested an increase from his current $8.40 per hour rate to $10.00 per hour. His supervisor responded that he could not grant the increase. An argument ensued and Petitioner left the office and returned to work. Later that day, Respondent’s human resource officer contacted Petitioner. He informed Petitioner that Petitioner’s employment was terminated due to “insubordination.” On Respondent’s termination form, the reason listed for Petitioner’s termination was insubordination and using “slanders to his senior manager.” The form also listed Petitioner’s absence from work on Saturday, April 29, 2000, as a reason for employment termination. In rebuttal, Petitioner produced a copy of an annual leave slip at final hearing requesting approval of his absence on the date in question. Petitioner had accumulated ample leave to cover the requested time. Respondent’s approving authority failed to approve Petitioner’s absence, but no notification was given to Petitioner. Respondent’s claim of unauthorized absence is effectively rebutted. According to a copy of a letter dated June 19, 2003, and received by DOAH on June 24, 2003, bearing the purported signature of David Anderson, registered agent for Respondent on June 20, 2002, Respondent was reputed to have ceased operation. According to statements contained in the letter, the Bank of America sold Respondent on March 10, 2002, in the “form of rights in collateral.” The letter additionally stated “unliquidated assets” in the bankruptcy were “sold in a Section 363 auction” on May 23, 2002. No direct evidence was presented on behalf of Respondent corroborating the contents of the letter and consequently the letter is not credited. Petitioner produced documentation at the final hearing, specifically a corporation reinstatement form issued by the Florida Department of State, documenting Respondent’s continued existence as of April 22, 2002.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered directing that Respondent to cease the discriminatory employment practice evidenced in this case and awarding Petitioner back pay at the rate of $10.00 per hour for each normal 40-hour work week between May 5, 2000, and the present. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael F. Coppins, Esquire Coppins & Monroe Post Office Box 14447 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4447 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dwight E. Mazion 1713 Calgary Drive Desoto, Texas 75115 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner's termination from employment by Respondent on June 15, 2005, was discriminatory in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2005), due to Petitioner's race (African American).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a Black female, was employed by Respondent from November 23, 1998, until her termination on June 14, 2005. Petitioner had performed her duties as a housekeeper adequately during her employment period and had no major disciplinary reports in her record. Her annual reviews indicate she was a fair employee. She had a history of tardiness, but seemed to be getting better in her last years of employment. Petitioner had received a verbal warning notice on March 8, 2005, relating to an altercation with another employee, Katrina Stevens. It appears Petitioner did not instigate the confrontation nor did she actively participate in the argument between Stevens and another employee. She simply happened to be standing nearby when it occurred. A verbal warning notice is preliminary to a reprimand. The other employee, Martine Lane, received a reprimand for the incident. On June 8, 2005, Petitioner received another verbal warning notice, this time for instigating negative remarks toward her supervisor. The gravamen of her complaint about the supervisor was that a certain co-worker had been named Employee of the Month instead of Petitioner. Petitioner became more defiant towards her supervisors and management toward the end of her employment. She would not help out other employees when asked, preferring to tend to her own work area, even when her work was completed. She also made derogatory comments to the co-worker who had won Employee of the Month. When Petitioner's behavior did not change, a decision was made to terminate her employment. It was a difficult decision because good housekeepers were hard to find and Petitioner's work product had always been acceptable. Petitioner had always been well-liked and respected by fellow employees. Both co-workers and management had encouraged Petitioner to apply for supervisory positions when they opened. Her supervisors indicated that, with some training, she could handle a supervisory position. The decision to terminate Petitioner from employment was made by the Executive Housekeeper, Steve Jensen. He relied upon input from other management. On June 18, 2005, Petitioner was stopped from clocking in when she came to work. She was told to report to Jensen's office, which she did. At that time Jensen asked her whether she was still happy with her job, then told her she was being terminated. The reasons given were that she was not supportive, not a team player, and had become more belligerent to management. No mention of race was made as a basis for her termination and none seems to have existed. Petitioner was advised she would be entitled to vacation pay, but it was later discovered she had already used up her available vacation time. Respondent subsequently called Petitioner to offer her a different job, but Petitioner had no interest in returning to work for the company. Respondent has anti-discrimination policies in place, is an equal opportunity employer, and employs minorities in supervisory positions. Interestingly, however, there were no other Black housekeepers employed while Petitioner was working. When a supervisory position opened, Respondent would attempt to fill the position from within its existing employee pool. Two such positions opened when Petitioner was employed. Seven then-current employees applied for those positions, including Petitioner. Of the seven, four had prior supervisory experience; Petitioner did not. Two of the applicants had been with the company longer than Petitioner. Five of the seven applicants had computer knowledge and skills; Petitioner did not. Petitioner is the only candidate who admitted a fear of heights, a minor consideration for the position. Petitioner is the only candidate who stated she could not work on weekends. Petitioner was clearly not the best applicant for the job based on comparison to other candidates. Petitioner did not provide any evidence that her race was a basis for her termination from employment. None of her witnesses provided credible statements concerning discrimination. In fact, her witnesses by and large did not see any discrimination by management.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Hawkins 1556 University Lane, Number 407 Cocoa, Florida 32922 Theodore L. Shinkle, Esquire GrayRobinson, P.A. 1800 West Hibiscus Boulevard, Suite 138 Melbourne, Florida 32901 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
