The Issue : The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Division of Administrative Hearings and the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) have subject matter jurisdiction of this dispute and, aside from the jurisdictional questions, whether the City of Cottondale has engaged in a discriminatory employment action against the Petitioner based upon her race (African-American).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an unsuccessful applicant for a job vacancy for a position of secretary with the City. The Respondent is the City of Cottondale, Florida, an incorporated municipality under relevant Florida Law. As established by the testimony of Judy Powell, the City Clerk for the City, the City, at all times pertinent hereto, had fewer than 15 employees. City counsel members other than James Elmore, were paid less than $600.00 per year and did not receive forms 1099 for their compensation from the City. They do not meet the relevant criteria to be considered employees. The City's Exhibit One, in evidence, shows that the City had fewer than 15 employees. The Petitioner offered no evidence to contradict the evidence from the City, the Respondent, that it had fewer than 15 employees at all relevant times. On January 30, 2007, the City placed an advertisement in the Graceville News, a newspaper, advertising a job vacancy for the position of secretary. The job description for the position included duties involving collecting utility bills, water deposits, issuing receipts for monies, helping to maintain and record cash journals of all business transactions, preparing billing for utilities, posting ledgers, assisting with daily collections, setting-up accounts, performing customer transfers, maintaining records of water deposits paid and refunded, and preparing of payroll and all related tax reports. Pursuant to that job description, general qualifications which applicants must have included bookkeeping skills and experience. In selecting applicants who would actually be interviewed, Ms. Powell and Willie Cook, who were doing the interviews, looked for individuals who had specific job skills related to the above-referenced duties contained in the job description for that position. Nineteen individuals submitted applications for the position, including the Petitioner. Four individuals were selected to be interviewed out of the 19 individuals who had applied for the position. Those were Melissa Davis, Linda Krauser, Gail Woodham, and Denise White. There was no requirement in City policy that all applicants for a job position be interviewed. There is no evidence to show that race was a factor in determining which applicants were selected to be interviewed for the secretarial position and which were not selected. Rather, the interview selection process involved selecting persons whose application documents appeared to show evidence of some specific job skills which related to accounting, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and the other duties detailed in the job description for the position in question. A white female, Melissa Davis, was selected to be interviewed because her application and cover letter indicated that she was familiar with accounts receivable, accounts payable, payroll, job costing, personnel, handling line telephones, customer service, preparing quarterly reports, and billing purchase orders and had experience in working with 401(k) issues and health and dental insurance. In addition, she had experience as a bank teller handling cash transactions. Another white female, Linda Krauser, was selected to be interviewed as well because her application indicated that she had previously supervised a staff of 40 people and had experience in customer service, maintaining staff records, and experience in accounting and billing. Another white female, Gail Woodham, was selected for interview because her job application and attached documents showed 20 years of experience in payroll, excel, powerpoint, computer skills, veritable spread sheets, and spread sheet tracking. An Hispanic female, Denise White, was also selected to be interviewed because her job application indicated that she had experience as a head bank teller with 17 years in a fast- paced environment and as a supervisor of tellers. She had worked in a doctor's office and had experience with record keeping. She had secretarial and billing experience working with patients for an optometry group, prepared correspondence for doctors and assisted with patient check-out. In her employment with Indian River National Bank, she had gained experience in customer service in handling accounts, and was a supervisor. Prior to that job, while working for another bank, she was a lead teller, supervisor, and handled cash flow. She had also received a prior certification regarding medical billing. The other 15 individuals who applied for the position, including Ms. Russ, were not interviewed. This decision was based upon Ms. Powell and Mr. Cook's review of the applications, and related to the relevant skills, experience, or education shown, or not shown, on those applications. There was no evidence that there was any racially discriminatory animus involved in the selection of individuals for interviews or the rejection of the other individuals who were not interviewed. The job application and resume submitted by the Petitioner indicated that her expertise and experience was primarily in caring for the elderly. There was no indication that she had any experience in bookkeeping, handling invoices, or billing. The decision not to interview the Petitioner was not based upon racial motivation, but rather, as with the case with the other applicants who were not interviewed, was based upon a review of application documents. A decision was made to select the four whose past experience, education, and job skills noted in those documents showed them most likely to be candidates with the appropriate skills and experience for the job in question. During the interviews of the four selected applicants, questions were asked them regarding accounting and bookkeeping issues. Ms. Powell, the City Clerk, finished the interview process and made the selection of the individual to be offered the position of secretary. Ultimately, Ms. White, a Hispanic female, was selected for the secretarial position and accepted the salary range offered, in the amount of $8.00 to $8.25 per hour. The applicants who were not interviewed did not have skills appropriate to the job and did not have skills substantially similar to those of the four individuals who were selected for interviews. They were particularly dissimilar in skills, experience, and education to the person ultimately hired, Ms. White.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is granted. It is further recommended, aside from the finding of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, that, alternatively, a final order be entered determining that the Petitioner has not established her claim of racial discrimination in the hiring decision at issue, and that the Petition be dismissed in its entirety for this reason as well. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of December, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Eulinda M. Russ Post Office Box 767 Cottondale, Florida 32431 Timothy W. Warner, Esquire Warner & Wintrode, P.A. Post Office Box 1820 Panama City, Florida 32402 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner received notice of the August 19, 2005, administrative hearing, and if not, whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on his race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American male. In the fall of 2004, Petitioner's cousin, Barry Walker, worked for Respondent as a cook. Mr. Walker recommended that Respondent hire Petitioner as a dishwasher. James Pigneri, Respondent's owner, interviewed Petitioner and decided to hire him as a dishwasher on a trial basis. Petitioner began washing dishes for Respondent in September 2004. In October 2004, Petitioner began a 90-day probationary period as Respondent's dishwasher. At that time, PMI Employee Leasing (PMI) became Petitioner's co-employer. PMI has a contractual relationship with Respondent. Through this contract, PMI assumes responsibility for Respondent's human resource issues, payroll needs, employee benefits, and workers’ compensation coverage. On October 10, 2004, Petitioner signed an acknowledgement that he had received a copy of PMI's employee handbook, which included PMI's policies on discrimination, harassment, or other civil rights violations. The handbook states that employees must immediately notify PMI for certain workplace claims, including but not limited to, claims involving release from work, labor relation problems, and discrimination. The handbook requires employees to inform PMI within 48 hours if employment ceases for any reason. PMI's discrimination and harassment policies provide employees with a toll-free telephone number. When an employee makes a complaint or files a grievance, PMI performs an investigation and takes any corrective action that is required. The cook-line in Respondent's kitchen consist of work stations for all sauté and grill cooks. The cook-line runs parallel to a row of glass windows between the kitchen and the dining room and around the corner between the kitchen and the outside deck. Customers in the dining room and on the deck can see all of the cooks preparing food at the work stations along the cook-line. On the evening of December 18, 2004, Respondent's business was crowded with customers in the dining room and on the deck. On December 18, 2004, Petitioner was working in Respondent's kitchen. Sometime during the dinner shift, Petitioner was standing on the cook-line near the windows, talking to a cook named Bob. Petitioner was discussing a scar on his body. During the discussion, Petitioner raised his shirt, exposing his chest, arm, and armpit. The cook named Bob told Petitioner to put his shirt down. Erin Pigneri, a white male, is the son of Respondent's owner, James Pignari. As one of Respondent's certified food managers, Erin Pigneri must be vigilant about compliance with health code regulations when he works as Respondent's shift manager. Erin Pigneri has authority to recommend that employees be fired, but his father, James Pigneri, makes the final employment decision. On December 18, 2004, Erin Pigneri, was working as Respondent's manager and was in charge of the restaurant because his father was not working that night. When Erin Pigneri saw Petitioner with his shirt raised up, he yelled out for Petitioner put his shirt back on and to get off the cook-line. Erin Pigneri was alarmed to see Petitioner with his shirt off on the cook-line because customers could see Petitioner and because Petitioner's action violated the health code. Petitioner's reaction was immediately insubordinate. Petitioner told Erin Pigneri that he could not speak to Petitioner in that tone of voice. Erin Pigneri had to tell Petitioner several times to put his shirt on, explaining that Petitioner was committing a major health-code violation. When Petitioner walked up to Erin Pigneri, the two men began to confront each other using profanity but no racial slurs. Erin Pigneri finally told Petitioner that, "I'm a 35- year-old man and no 19-year-old punk is going to talk to me in that manner and if you don't like it, you can leave." Erin Pigneri did not use a racial slur or tell Petitioner to "paint yourself white." After the confrontation, Erin Pigneri left the kitchen. Petitioner went back to work, completing his shift without further incident. Petitioner did not have further conversation with Erin Pigneri on the evening of December 18, 2004. Erin Pigneri did not discuss Petitioner or the shirt incident with any of the waiters or any other staff members that night. On Monday evening, December 20, 2004, Erin Pigneri was in the restaurant when Petitioner and his cousin, Mr. Walker, came to work. Petitioner was dressed in nicer clothes than he usually wore to work. Mr. Walker approached Erin and James Pigneri, telling them that they needed to have a meeting. Erin and James Pigneri followed Petitioner and Mr. Walker into the kitchen. The conversation began with Mr. Walker complaining that he understood some racist things were going on at the restaurant. Mr. Walker wanted talk about Erin Pigneri's alleged use of the "N" word. Erin Pigneri did not understand Mr. Walker's concern because Mr. Walker had been at work on the cook-line during the December 18, 2004, shirt incident. According to Petitioner's testimony at the hearing, Mr. Walker had talked to a waiter over the weekend. The waiter was Mr. Walker's girlfriend. Petitioner testified that the waiter/girlfriend told Mr. Walker that she heard Erin Pigneri use the "N" word in reference to Petitioner after Erin Pigneri left the kitchen after the shirt incident on December 18, 2004. Petitioner testified that neither he nor Mr. Walker had first- hand knowledge of Erin Pigneri's alleged use the "N" word in the dining room. Neither Mr. Walker nor the waiter provided testimony at the hearing. Accordingly, this hearsay evidence is not competent evidence that Erin Pigneri used a racial slur in the dining room after the "shirt incident." During the meeting on December 20, 2004, Erin Pigneri explained to Petitioner and Mr. Walker that the incident on December 18, 2004, involved Petitioner's insubordination and not racism. Mr. Walker wanted to know why Erin Pigneri had not fired Petitioner on Saturday night if he had been insubordinate. Erin Pigneri told Mr. Walker that he would have fired Petitioner but he did not want Respondent to lose Mr. Walker as an employee. Apparently, it is relatively easy to replace a dishwasher but not easy to replace a cook like Mr. Walker. Erin Pigneri asked Mr. Walker and another African- American who worked in the kitchen whether they had ever heard him make derogatory racial slurs. There is no persuasive evidence that Erin Pigneri ever made such comments even though Petitioner occasionally, and in a joking manner, called Erin Pigneri slang names like Cracker, Dago, and Guinea. Petitioner was present when Mr. Walker and Erin Pigneri discussed the alleged racial slurs. Petitioner's only contribution to the conversation was to repeatedly ask whether he was fired. Erin Pigneri never told Petitioner he was fired. After hearing Mr. Walker's concern and Erin Pigneri's explanation, James Pigneri specifically told Petitioner that he was not fired. James Pigneri told Petitioner that he needed to talk to Erin Pigneri and that they needed to work things out, man-to-man. After the meeting, Mr. Walker began his work for the evening shift on December 20, 2004. Petitioner walked around talking on his cell phone, telling his mother that he had been fired and she needed to pick him up. James Pigneri told Petitioner again that he was not fired, that Petitioner should go talk to Erin Pigneri, and that Erin Pigneri was waiting to talk to Petitioner. Erin Pigneri waited in his office for Petitioner to come in to see him. Petitioner never took advantage of that opportunity. During the hearing, Petitioner testified that James Pigneri made an alleged racial slur in reference to Petitioner at some unidentified point in time. According to Petitioner, he learned about the alleged racial slur second-hand from a cook named Bob. Bob did not testify at the hearing; therefore, there is no competent evidence that James Pigneri ever made a racial slur in reference to Petitioner or any other employee. Contrary to PMI's reporting procedures, Petitioner never called or informed PMI that he had been harassed, discriminated against, fired, terminated, or ceased working for Respondent for any reason. On December 22, 2004, PMI correctly concluded that Petitioner had voluntarily terminated or abandoned his employment. When Petitioner filed his Employment Complaint of Discrimination on January 11, 2005, Petitioner listed his address as 6526 Lance Street, Panama City, Florida, which is his mother's residence. On April 18, 2005, FCHR sent the Determination: No Cause to Petitioner at 6501 Pridgen Street, Panama City, Florida, which is the address of one of Petitioner's friends. When Petitioner filed his Petition for Relief on May 25, 2005, Petitioner listed his address the same as his mother's home. FCHR transmitted the petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings, indicating that Petitioner's address of record was the same as his friend's home. Therefore, the June 9, 2005, Notice of Hearing, and the July 12, 2005, Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing were sent to Petitioner at his friend's address. During the hearing, Petitioner admitted that between January 2005 and August 2005, he lived back and forth between his mother's and his friend's residences. When he lived with his friend, Petitioner did not check his mail at his mother's home every day. However, Petitioner admitted that he received the June 9, 2005, Notice of Hearing, scheduling the hearing for July 18, 2005, and the July 12, 2005, Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing for August 19, 2005. Petitioner testified that he knew the first hearing was rescheduled to take place on August 19, 2005. According to Petitioner, he misplaced the "papers" identifying the location of the hearing at the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims in Panama City, Florida. Petitioner asserts that he went to the county courthouse on August 19, 2005, based on his erroneous belief that the hearing was to take place at that location. After determining that there was no administrative hearing scheduled at the county courthouse on August 19, 2005, Petitioner did not attempt to call FCHR or the Division of Administrative Hearings. On December 1, 2005, the undersigned sent Petitioner a Notice of Hearing, scheduling the hearing after remand for January 25, 2005. The December 1, 2005, Notice of Hearing was sent to Petitioner at his mother's and his friend's addresses. The copy of the notice sent to his friend's home was returned as undeliverable. During the hearing on January 25, 2005, Petitioner testified that he used one of the earlier notices (dated June 9, 2005, and/or July 12, 2005) to locate the hearing site for that day. This was necessary because Petitioner had misplaced the December 1, 2005, Notice of Hearing. All three notices have listed the hearing site as the Office of the Judges of Compensation Claims, 2401 State Avenue, Panama City, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary R. Wheeler, Esquire McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod Pope & Weaver, P.A. Post Office Box 550770 Jacksonville, Florida 32255-0770 Marlow Williams 6526 Lance Street Panama City, Florida 32404
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent unlawfully discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of her race in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, when Petitioner was an employee of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact From 1991 until she resigned in November 2005, Petitioner Gloria J. Bias-Gibbs ("Bias-Gibbs") worked for Respondent Jupiter Medical Center ("JMC") in several different positions, which were mostly clerical in nature. Starting in 2001, and continuing throughout the time period relevant to this case, Bias-Gibbs' job was to perform "chart prep" in the Same Day Surgery unit, which is within JMC's Surgical Services Department. As a chart prep employee, Bias-Gibbs' task was to assemble patients' charts for the medical personnel. During the time she held the chart prep position, Bias-Gibbs was the only person who occupied it. Volunteers had performed the chart prep duties before Bias-Gibbs assumed them, and, after she resigned, volunteers once again were given the chart prep duties to perform. Bias-Gibbs' immediate supervisor in Same Day Surgery was Janet Sparks, the Clinical Manager. Ms. Sparks, in turn, reported to Beth Suriano, the Director of Surgical Services. Ms. Sparks and Ms. Suriano are white women; Bias-Gibbs is a black woman. Not long after she began her tenure as a chart prep, Bias-Gibbs began to believe that she was a victim of racial discrimination at work. In particular, she felt that Ms. Sparks was a racist who repeatedly took adverse action against her solely because she is black. The many allegedly discriminatory acts about which Bias-Gibbs presently complains can be divided into three main categories: (a) denials of her requests for promotion or transfer to another position; (b) Ms. Sparks' conduct; and (c) refusals to provide training, most notably in relation to a computer program known as "Fast Forms," about which Bias-Gibbs alleges she received inadequate instruction. The Requests for Transfer. Between April 16, 2001, and February 22, 2005, Bias-Gibbs submitted sixteen job transfer applications, seeking positions at JMC that she believed were more in keeping with her qualifications than chart prep. None of these applications was approved. Bias-Gibbs does not know the identities, racial characteristics, or qualifications of any of the persons whom JMC hired for the sixteen positions Bias-Gibbs sought. Because she applied for these positions and did not get them, however, Bias-Gibbs feels that she was discriminated against. In addition, Bias-Gibbs once sought to transfer to another position in the Surgical Services Department. The job of Patient Access Specialist was given, however, to another employee of JMC, Joyce Stokes, who assumed the position some time in 2004. Unlike Bias-Gibbs, Ms. Stokes (who happens to be white) had taken a medical terminology course and examination. Because proficiency in medical and surgical terminology is desirable for the position in question, Ms. Stokes was more qualified than Bias-Gibbs to be a Patient Access Specialist. Ms. Sparks' Conduct. Bias-Gibbs' complaints about Janet Sparks, whom she calls a "racist," revolve around allegations that Ms. Sparks forced Bias-Gibbs to sit in a back room while on the job; made racially insensitive remarks concerning Bias-Gibbs' appearance (specifically, her hair); refused to transfer Bias-Gibbs to a different position in the Surgical Services Department (the incident discussed above); kept an overly watchful eye on Bias- Gibbs while she was working; and generally declined to give Bias-Gibbs more challenging assignments in addition to chart prep. Work Station. Bias-Gibbs worked in a room apart from the secretaries in the unit. Her work area was neither "on the floor" nor in public view. While she believes that this "back room" placement was discriminatory, Bias-Gibbs' job as a chart prep employee did not require her to sit "out front." There is no evidence that Bias-Gibbs was singled-out for different treatment regarding her work station. To the contrary, after Bias-Gibbs resigned, the chart prep work continued to be done in the same room where Bias-Gibbs had labored, with the same supplies that were available to Bias- Gibbs while she was employed. Insensitive Remarks. Bias-Gibbs does not believe that she was harassed because of her race. She does complain, however, about derogatory remarks she attributes to Ms. Sparks. According to Bias-Gibbs, when Bias-Gibbs wore her hair in braids to work, Ms. Sparks made comments to the effect that she (Bias- Gibbs) looked like Whoopi Goldberg. In addition, Ms. Sparks once told Bias-Gibbs that she wished she (Ms. Sparks) were black because, if she were black, then it would be easier to take care of her hair. The undersigned takes Bias-Gibbs at her word that these quips were offensive and hurtful to her (although she never told Ms. Sparks that the comments at issue made her uncomfortable). To infer, however, that racial animus motivated these comments (there being no direct evidence of discriminatory intent) would require that the words be given a very mean connotation (and the speaker absolutely no benefit of the doubt) because, viewed objectively, the statements appear to be, at worst, inconsiderate, unkind, or rude. Ultimately, there is insufficient evidence upon which to base a finding (or to infer) that these remarks were anything but workplace banter of the sort that anti-discrimination laws are not designed to reach. "Excessive" Supervision. Bias-Gibbs believes that Ms. Sparks was hypervigilant about watching her work, which made Bias-Gibbs nervous or uncomfortable. Although she attributes this watchfulness to racism, Bias-Gibbs conceded, when pressed, that it was not discriminatory for her supervisor to keep an eye on her at work. There is no evidence, in any event, that Ms. Sparks subjected Bias-Gibbs to closer scrutiny than other employees, much less that she treated Bias-Gibbs differently in this regard based on her race. Underutilization. As an overarching complaint about Ms. Sparks, Bias-Gibbs believes that her supervisor generally refused to allow Bias-Gibbs to perform the kind of work that would make full use of her skills. At most, however, the evidence shows that Ms. Sparks and Bias-Gibbs had different opinions about Bias-Gibbs' potential for taking on other responsibilities. There is no evidence that Ms. Sparks' opinion, which was that Bias-Gibbs should continue working in chart prep, was racially based. Inadequate Training. Bias-Gibbs felt that she was discriminated against because other individuals were given more training than she was on using the Fast Forms computer program. Bias-Gibbs did receive instructions on using Fast Forms, however, which were sufficient to enable her to look up patients' names in the database——the only function of the program that was relevant to, and helpful in the performance of, her duties. The secretaries who used Fast Forms were provided more training in the use of the program, it is true, but their duties were different than Bias- Gibbs's duties, and hence they used Fast Forms for reasons in addition to retrieving names. The secretaries, in short, were provided more training than Bias-Gibbs, not because the latter is black, but because, as secretaries, they needed more training than Bias-Gibbs. The bottom line: there is no persuasive evidence that Bias-Gibbs was given inadequate training——period. At all times during Bias-Gibbs' tenure as an employee of JMC, the hospital had an anti-discrimination policy, an anti- harassment policy, an equal employment policy, and a grievance policy, which were available to all employees. Bias-Gibbs was aware of these policies, yet she never made any allegations of racial discrimination or harassment, disparate racial treatment, or racial comments to Ms. Sparks, Ms. Suriano, or anyone else. Similarly, she never used the grievance procedure to complain that she had been denied a promotion or transfer because of her race. Bias-Gibbs resigned her position at JMC in November of 2005. Although she now maintains that she felt compelled to resign her position because she was denied opportunities to advance at the hospital (and because she needed a job that paid more money), at the time Bias-Gibbs informed others that she was leaving her position in Same Day Surgery because she had gotten a better-paying job at the post office. Bias-Gibbs filed a Charge of Discrimination against JMC at some point on or after July 19, 2006. (She signed the charging document on September 22, 2006, but there is an inscription on the instrument indicating that it was filed on July 19, 2006. There is no evidence explaining this discrepancy.) Ultimate Factual Determinations Taken as a whole, the evidence in this case is either insufficient to establish that JMC discriminated unlawfully against Bias-Gibbs on the basis of her race; or it proves, affirmatively, that JMC did not, in all likelihood, unlawfully discriminate against her. Either way, it is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that JMC did not violate the civil rights laws in its treatment of Bias-Gibbs while she was an employee of JMC.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order dismissing Bias-Gibbs' Petition for Relief as partially time- barred, and alternatively (and additionally) finding JMC not liable on the merits for racial discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of April, 2008.
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 Whether Respondent unlawfully terminated the employment of Petitioner, because of his age in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes. Whether Respondent retaliated against Petitioner by terminating him on October 3, 2005, after Petitioner filed a complaint with human resources alleging a hostile work environment.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Leviton Manufacturing Corporation manufactures electrical equipment and components. It is a New York corporation licensed to do business in the State of Florida. Inter allia, Respondent employs a sales force that covers the entire State of Florida. Respondent is an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 ("FCRA"). Respondent has implemented an employee handbook aimed at fostering a work environment that is free from harassment, discrimination and retaliation. Respondent's policies contain reporting and investigation procedures that encourage employees to report any and all incidents of perceived discrimination or harassment, and ensure that all reported incidents are investigated. Petitioner was employed with Respondent from June 1995 until November 2003, and from July 2004 through October 3, 2005. At the time of his termination, Petitioner was 49 years old. Petitioner first began working for Leviton in 1995 as a Service Representative. He received merit pay raises and promotions until November 2003, when Respondent laid-off 150 people in the retail division, including Petitioner. Petitioner was rehired in July 2004, as a Sales Representative. Upon rehire, Petitioner was supervised by District Manager Scott Robbins ("Robbins"). Petitioner presented the testimony of three of Respondent's managers, one retired, who supervised Petitioner for various periods of Petitioner's nine and one-half year career with Respondent. Each of them testified that Petitioner was dedicated and professional in which ever position he was assigned, including two assignments as a manager. Scott Robbins, Petitioner's supervisor immediately prior to Goodman, recommended Petitioner for re-hire as a Sales Representative following a lay-off, and was satisfied with his work in that position. Petitioner also presented the testimony of 12 customers of Respondent, in the territory that he covered between July 2004 and October 2005. Each of them expressed their opinion that Petitioner was an honest, diligent, and professional sales representative for his employer. Respondent presented the testimony of one customer who was not satisfied with Petitioner's performance as a sales representative. In January 2005, District Manager Warren Goodman ("Goodman") replaced Robbins and assumed his territories as well as his role as Petitioner's supervisor. At the time Petitioner was terminated, Goodman was 48 years old. Goodman supervised, and currently supervises, at least, 12 Sales Representatives, the majority of whom are over the age of 40, to wit: Name Age Name Age Roy Boykin 59 Mickey Ferrell 49 Don Yeager 59 Jose Monzon 40 Michael O'Reilly 56 Duane Bishop 38 Dave Lenoir 37 Kevin Bouton 34 Ken Davis 54 Paul Dube 41 Brad Taylor 10. When Goodman 52 took over as District Manager, it became readily apparent that Goodman's management style was distinctly different from Robbins. Goodman is demanding, blunt and aggressive, and closely manages his sales representatives. He expected prompt and accurate responses to his requests from his sales representatives. Petitioner was required to fulfill the same job expectations that were demanded of all other Sales Representatives. It included, but was not limited to, the timely submission of complete and accurate paperwork, client follow up, and travel to specific areas within his designated territory. Petitioner's area extended from Lakeland, Florida, to Thomasville, Georgia. Goodman expected Petitioner to visit customers in his territory at least every three weeks, staying at least two to three days on each trip at each location. Goodman's job as District Manager is to oversee his sales force and to enforce Leviton's guidelines, as he interprets them. Moreover, Goodman is charged with measuring his employees' compliance with Leviton's policies and procedures. Over the course of his tenure, Petitioner failed to abide by company rules and policies, as well as the terms of his employment, as understood by Goodman. On more than one occasion, Petitioner failed to provide expense reimbursements in an appropriate and timely manner. He also failed to travel with the frequency required by his sales position. Additionally, on numerous occasions, Petitioner failed to verify the accuracy of orders he placed for customers. On May 2, 2005, Goodman sent Petitioner an email addressing the importance of administrative responsibility and consistency. Goodman had just reviewed Petitioner's expense reports and noted that they covered a ten-week period, clearly in violation of the requirement that they be submitted within 30 days. Goodman also noted that the expense reports reflected no travel over a two-month period to the Thomasville/Tallahassee area, which composed a large portion of Petitioner's territory. Goodman requested that, thereafter, Petitioner forward his itinerary weekly, attaching as an example a copy of itineraries submitted by Petitioner's colleagues. Petitioner responded, apologizing for the late expenses. He attributed his tardiness in part to a change in his cellular telephone carrier. Petitioner set forth all his travel dates within the northern portion of his territory since his re-hire. The dates provided demonstrated that he was not in compliance with the travel requirements established for all Sales Representatives. Goodman responded and reminded Petitioner of the importance of adhering to guidelines for travel and paperwork submission. He encouraged Petitioner to improve his performance and to do what was necessary to satisfy Goodman's expectations of the proper skills necessary to do his job effectively. On May 9, 2005, Petitioner sent Goodman an email indicating his car was being repaired. The repair estimates attached to the email evidenced that Petitioner had been driving a 12-year-old vehicle, which was not within Respondent's car policy guidelines. Petitioner had reviewed and signed the car policy guidelines on January 12, 2005, and began receiving monthly payments (including retroactive payments), effective February 11, 2005. On May 18, 2005, Petitioner received and signed an Employee Warning. Significantly, Petitioner signed the Employee Warning indicating that he read and understood it. The Employee Warning cited violations for substandard job performance and violations of company policies or procedures, with specific reprimands for: (1) failure to timely submit expense reports; (2) failure to travel as specified and agreed to; (3) sloppy submission of paperwork; (4) lack of involvement with customer; and (5) failure to maintain a proper company vehicle in accordance with company policy. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner purchased a new truck for the purpose of meeting the company vehicle policy. On May 31, 2005, Goodman reviewed numerous quotes submitted by Petitioner for review and renewal. Goodman informed Petitioner that upon review, the quotes prepared by Petitioner were inaccurate and required various revisions and corrections. Some quotes were priced higher than stock; different prices were entered for the same item in a different color (when there should have been no price difference); there were items on quotes that were never purchased; and there was no increase in items ordered/quoted. In August 2005, Goodman advised Petitioner that his sales goals were not ambitious enough and that Petitioner needed to re-evaluate and re-consider his year-end goals. Petitioner indicated that he would do as instructed. In mid-August 2005, Petitioner once again submitted an incomplete quote to Goodman for approval. When brought to Petitioner's attention, he added the items missing from the quote, offering no explanation for this oversight. On August 30, 2005, Petitioner submitted order adjustments to Goodman's administrative assistant for completion. When the request was forwarded to Goodman, he immediately reminded Petitioner that all changes were required to be submitted to him, not his assistant. Moreover, the requested changes contained errors. Goodman requested that Petitioner review the complete order and re-submit it when it was accurate. Three days later, Petitioner still had not acknowledged or responded to Goodman's request. Goodman completed and submitted Petitioner's performance review on July 25, 2005. Due to the fact that no prior goals or skills development were accomplished by Petitioner, his review was deferred until the end of 2005. Based upon his seven-month assessment of Petitioner, Goodman felt that Petitioner only partially met expectations. Rather than precluding a merit increase in salary, Goodman gave Petitioner an opportunity to improve his performance by deferring his review for several months. Petitioner signed this July review, indicating that Goodman discussed the review and appraisal with him. On September 5, 2005, (Labor Day, a holiday) Goodman sent an email to all of his Sale Representatives, which required a response to specific inquiries no later than 5:00 p.m. Petitioner did not respond until September 7, 2005, at 4:15 p.m. This was clearly past the deadline. Goodman reprimanded Petitioner in his responsive email, specifically advising Petitioner that his continued employment was in jeopardy. He invited Petitioner to call Goodman the next day to discuss Petitioner's lack of diligence and timeliness. Only after a telephone call on the morning of September 9, 2005, did Petitioner, for the first time raise the issue of unfair treatment, but he did not raise age as a factor. Petitioner requested, via email, that Goodman assist Petitioner in filing a complaint against Goodman with Leviton's Human Resource Department for creating a hostile work environment. In this same email, Petitioner informed Goodman that Petitioner had involved clients in his grievance by requesting that the clients evaluate Petitioner's performance and provide their input to Respondent. Based upon the preceding client involvement, Goodman advised Petitioner on September 12, 2005, that he was suspended immediately, with pay, pending the outcome of Respondent's investigation regarding Petitioner's inappropriate conduct. Petitioner was therefore instructed to maintain contact with only the Human Resources Department (HR) until further notice. Thereafter, Petitioner corresponded, via email, with Shephard. On September 13, 2005, Petitioner forwarded his May 5, 2005, email exchange with Goodman to Kimberly Shephard, Respondent's Corporate Human Resource Manager. On that same day, Petitioner sent another email to Shephard containing a list of items that were still incomplete and required follow up. In forwarding this lengthy "to do" list, Petitioner demonstrated his inattention to detail and inability to complete administrative tasks. On September 16, 2005, Shephard drafted Petitioner's allegations in memorandum format, the accuracy of which Petitioner verified and signed on September 20, 2005. Goodman was given a copy of the allegations and provided a written response on September 19, 2005, refuting each of Petitioner's allegations. Meanwhile, HR conducted interviews with a random selection of Goodman's employees in the district and noted each employee's assessment of Goodman. Goodman was determined by each of the interviewed employees to provide equal treatment to all employees. The employees interviewed ranged in age from 35 to 58. On or about September 20, 2005, Shephard completed her investigation of Petitioner's complaint and determined that there was no basis that Goodman created an unlawful hostile work environment. Rather, it was determined that Goodman set the same standards for all of his employees; treated them all the same; and that accordingly, there was no basis to conclude Petitioner was singled out. Petitioner was ultimately terminated on October 3, 2005. The reasons cited by Respondent were based on Petitioner's unsatisfactory job performance. The specific reasons given for Petitioner's termination were: (1) his inability to perform the tasks associated with the Sales Representative position; (2) his failure to develop end-users sufficiently; (3) his administrative inadequacies; (4) his failure to meet deadlines and failure to follow instructions; and (5) his choosing to enlist customers in an internal company matter pertaining to Petitioner's poor job performance. Although Respondent determined that Petitioner's involvement of customer's in an internal dispute was grounds for immediate termination, Respondent determined it would investigate Petitioner's complaint prior to taking other action, since it occurred at the same time as the allegations of improper conduct by Goodman. At no time was Petitioner's age raised as a factor in any of the terms and conditions of his employment by Respondent. Nor was it a factor in any work related complaints regarding his deficiencies. Petitioner never informed any member of Respondent's management that he believed he was treated differently during his employment because of his age, or that he had been terminated due to his age. After Petitioner was terminated, Respondent did not hire anyone to replace him. Rather, Respondent re-assigned Petitioner's territory to existing salesmen. Paul Dube ("Dube"), aged 41, inherited the majority of Petitioner's territory. Goodman did not require that Dube travel to, or invest time in customers that only did a nominal amount of business with Respondent. Petitioner attempted to establish that he was unable to respond to several of Goodman's inquiries in a timely manner, or at all, because Petitioner's computer was being repaired by Respondent's IT department. Nevertheless, Petitioner had access to his work email via Respondent's webmail program during this period. Petitioner failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was terminated by Respondent because of his age. Respondent failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was subject to retaliation after he filed a hostile work environment complaint with Respondent's HR department.
Recommendation Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order denying Petitioner's Petition for Relief and dismissing his charge with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of August, 2007, 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 13th day of August, 2007.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was demoted from his position as a security officer, and later terminated from his position with the Respondent as a groundskeeper on or about May 22, 1995, on the basis of his race (Black) or sex (male), in violation of Section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995).
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is an employer as that term is defined under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992. Petitioner is an African-American male, and is licensed as a Class D security officer by the State of Florida. Respondent, Life Care Retirement Communities, Inc., is a not-for-profit corporation, based in Iowa, which owns Village on the Green, a community with 241 independent living units and 60 skilled health center beds in Longwood, Florida. Petitioner was hired by Respondent, on April 27, 1998, as a security guard at Village on the Green in Longwood, Florida. He worked in that capacity until May 12, 1995. In accordance with the company's standard procedure, all employees who have keys or access to resident's private property are required to have a criminal background check completed. Petitioner's position as a security guard required such a check. Petitioner signed a consent form and the background check was completed. The background check revealed that, in 1993, Petitioner was arrested for the felony of grand theft auto. The charge was later reduced from the misdemeanor charge of Trespass to a Conveyance. On May 17, 1994, Petitioner pled nolo contendere to the charge. Adjudication was withheld by the Court and Petitioner was placed on six months probation. Petitioner successfully completed probation. It is the policy of Respondent that an employee with a prior criminal record which involves theft may not be placed in a safety-sensitive position which permits employee access to a resident's living quarters or personal property. A security officer has such access. Petitioner was then informed that he would be removed from his position as a security guard. Petitioner was then offered a position in groundskeeping and Petitioner accepted. He was transferred to groundskeeping, at the same salary, and was employed from May 15, 1995, until May 22, 1995, at which time he was terminated. Between May 15 and May 22, 1995, Petitioner performed his job satisfactorily. On May 15, 1995, a severe electrical storm knocked out electricity to Petitioner's residence. As a result, Petitioner overslept and did not report to work at 7:00 a.m., the scheduled beginning of his shift. At approximately 8:00 a.m., Petitioner called the security guard on duty and advised her of the reason he was late and that he would not be in that day because the storm had caused damage to his automobile. The fact that Petitioner reported in on May 15th was not conveyed by the unidentified security guard to Petitioner's supervisor. Respondent's policy, as stated in the Employee Handbook, called "No show/no call," requires an employee to notify his supervisor if he is going to absent, or if he is unable to contact the supervisor, then he is to report his absence or tardiness to the switchboard operator. The Employee Manual, at page 45, states in pertinent part: ". . . Failure to report for duty without notification, failure to call in prior to shift change and tardiness will result in disciplinary action." After an internal investigation, which included an interview with Petitioner, Respondent was unable to determine that Petitioner had called in on May 15, 1995. Petitioner was terminated. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that Respondent's reason for termination was pretextural, or that the employer engaged in unlawful hiring, firing, pay or promotion practices.
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 3rd day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: John V. Griffin 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1998. Director of Human Resources Life Care Retirement Communities, Inc. d/b/a Village on the Green 200 East Grand, Suite 390 Des Moines, Iowa 50309 Terrance Davenport 861 Carver Street Winter Park, Florida 32789 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 249 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 249 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Linda Mishko, suffers a severe hearing impairment. In December, 1985, Petitioner contacted the Respondent to apply for a temporary position of employment. Petitioner was asked to take a transcription test which she passed without any mistakes. This is not necessarily inconsistent with her handicap, however, since medical evidence indicates she is able to hear higher frequency voices, (women), more easily than lower frequency voices (men). The transcription test dictation was by a woman and she was able to satisfactorily understand what was being said. However, she has difficulty hearing lower men's voices. After the test was graded, Petitioner was asked if she would take a transcribing job. She indicated she preferred not to and instead, was referred to Grumman Aerospace, (Grumman), in Stuart where she was employed to do strictly word processing. Petitioner reported to Grumman on January 3, 1986. The documentation relating to her assignment reveals that the assignment was clearly noted to be for one month. Petitioner worked at Grumman from January 3, through May 5, 1986 and all performance ratings rendered on her during that time indicated that she was an excellent worker. She was told by Grumman personnel, and Respondent's office manager confirms this, that had they been able to do so, they would have hired her on a permanent basis. However, funding did not permit it and in May, 1987, Petitioner was released when the job for which she had been hired as a temporary employee was completed. Petitioner is convinced that she was discharged because of her handicap and contends that she was told this by her supervisor at Grumman. There is no evidence to support this contention, however. A witness who Petitioner contends would have testified to it refused to appear even though Petitioner was granted a recess during the hearing to call her again. According to Petitioner, the witness was afraid for her job, but there is no evidence that this was the case. After being released by Grumman, Petitioner was shortly thereafter called by Ms. Malodobry to take a temporary job at an attorney's office. Initially, Ms. Mishko declined to accept the job because she was afraid she would not be able to understand a man's voice in dictation. After thinking about it for a while, however, she decided she needed the work and agreed to attempt the job. Immediately upon reporting to the attorney's office, she advised him of her handicap but agreed to try to satisfy him. After 10 minutes or so of finding it difficult to understand his voice on the transcription tape, she left the job and did not return. Petitioner admits that Respondent, Manpower Temporary Services, has not discriminated against her in any way. She contends that the discrimination against her was committed by Grumman which, she believes, discharged her because of her handicap, and that Manpower is involved in a conspiracy with Grumman to cover it up. She contends that the favorable written comments on the Grumman records of her employment are lies, Ms. Malodobry is lying, and in fact anyone who doesn't support her theory of discrimination and conspiracy is lying. Petitioner admits she has no evidence of conspiracy, however, and that she filed her complaint based on her "feeling". There is no evidence that Manpower in any way discriminated against her or is in any way participating with Grumman to cover up the latter's supposed discrimination against her. In fact, there was no discrimination by Grumman. Ms. Mishko was terminated at the end of the period for which she was hired and her departure had no relationship whatever to her handicap.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Petition for Relief filed by Linda Mishko be dismissed with prejudice. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of September, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of September, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Linda Mishko 47 Southeast Erie Terrace Stuart, Florida 33497 Roy T. Mildner Esquire GOLDMAN, BRUNING & ANGELOS, P.A. 10020 South Federal Highway Port St. Lucie, Florida 33452 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
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 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
Findings Of Fact The Parties. The Petitioner, Andrea Bateman, is a female. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Ms. Bateman was 41 or 42 years of age. Ms. Bateman is an attorney. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was a member of The Florida Bar during the period of time at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is an agency of the State of Florida. Ms. Bateman's Employment by the Department. In October of 1990, the Department employed Ms. Bateman as an attorney in the Department's Office of Child Support Enforcement. Ms. Bateman was required to be a member of The Florida Bar. Ms. Bateman's position with the Department was classified as a "Select Exempt Service" position. Pursuant to Chapter 22SE-1.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, and Part V, Chapter 110, Florida Statutes, persons employed in select exempt service positions may be terminated from employment without cause. Ms. Bateman's immediate supervisor was Chriss Walker. Mr. Walker is a Senior Attorney with the Department and, at the time Ms. Bateman was hired, also served as the Assistant Secretary for Child Support Enforcement. As of December 4, 1991, the Assistant Secretary for Child Support Enforcement, and Mr. Walker's immediate supervisor was Anne F. Donovan. At all times relevant to this proceeding, William H. Bentley was an Assistant Deputy Secretary of the Department with supervisory authority over the Department's Assistant Secretary's, including Mr. Walker and Ms. Donovan. "Productivity Enhancement" at the Department. During 1991, the Department was required to evaluate all employment positions at the Department and to reduce those positions in an effort to improve the productivity of the Department. Generally, all positions at the Department and the work performed by the persons filling those positions were considered and decisions were made as to which positions could be eliminated. The Department referred to the elimination of positions as "red-lining". The Department also made efforts to insure that any person affected by the elimination of their position would be placed in another position. Ms. Bateman's attorney position with Child Support Enforcement was identified for elimination. Another attorney position in Child Support Enforcement and Mr. Walker's Senior Attorney position were not identified for elimination. The decision to eliminate one of the attorney positions was based upon conclusion that the administrative duties of the two attorney positions could be handled by a paralegal position and the legal duties could then be handled by one attorney. Efforts to assist Ms. Bateman to find another position were not successful. Ultimately, the Department decided to find a position in which to continue to employ Ms. Bateman rather than to terminate her position and release her. The Department reclassified another vacant position so that Ms. Bateman could continue to be employed as an attorney for Child Support Enforcement. Mr. Walker was directed to create an attorney position for Ms. Bateman by the Assistant Secretary for Human Services. This decision was made during the early Fall of 1991. The Department's decision to continue to employ Ms. Bateman was based in part on the Department's concern about terminating an employee of the Department. The evidence failed to prove that the Department acted unreasonably with regard to the red-lining of Ms. Bateman's position. Ms. Bateman's Performance. During the year after Ms. Bateman began her employment with the Department, Mr. Walker, Ms. Bateman's supervisor, began to develop concerns about the adequacy of her work product. Ms. Bateman also began to evidence behavior which was not acceptable for an attorney of the Department. As a result of Ms. Bateman's odd behavior, Mr. Walker became concerned about Ms. Bateman's mental well-being. Mr. Walker memorialized his concerns about Ms. Bateman in a memorandum to Mr. Bentley dated December 2, 1991. The memorandum was revised December 19, 1991 to eliminate references to a counselor that Ms. Bateman had informed Mr. Walker she was seeing. Ms. Bateman's work deteriorated to an extent which necessitated other employees carrying out some of her duties. Among the difficulties experienced with Ms. Bateman which formed a reasonable basis for terminating her employment were the following: Ms. Bateman had difficulty communicating with other employees and her supervisor. As an attorney, Ms. Bateman was required to communicate orally and in writing. She was unable to do so in an adequate manner. Ms. Bateman failed to demonstrate good judgment and trustworthiness and, therefore, her supervisors were unable to rely upon her judgment as an attorney of the Department. Ms. Bateman's appearance was unacceptable for an employee of the Department who was required to meet and communicate with the public. Ms. Bateman's hair was unkempt and dirty, her clothes were often soiled and wrinkled, she failed to brush her teeth and she appeared not to be bathing based upon her appearance and her strong body odor. Although required to do so by Department policy, Ms. Bateman refused to give her supervisor a permanent home address or phone number. On one occasion Ms. Bateman was found asleep in the offices of the Department at night and on one occasion she was found asleep during working hours. Based upon the inadequacy of Ms. Bateman's performance, the Department had a reasonable basis for terminating Ms. Bateman's employment. Mr. Walker's Evaluation of Ms. Bateman. On December 18, 1991, Mr. Walker presented Ms. Bateman with a Professional Employee Performance Appraisal form he had completed on her performance. The Appraisal was reviewed by Ms. Bateman and signed by her on December 18, 1991. Mr. Walker gave Ms. Bateman's performance a rating of "effective" on the Appraisal. Of the factors evaluated on the Appraisal, Mr. Walker judged Ms. Bateman's performance as "excellent" on one factor, "effective" on eleven factors and "needs improvement" on nine factors. Mr. Walker gave Ms. Bateman's performance an "effective" rating despite his conclusion that her work product was not acceptable and despite his concerns about her inappropriate behavior. He did so because he had recently been directed to create a position to keep Ms. Bateman as an employee of the Department and in an effort to avoid litigation over Ms. Bateman's termination. Mr. Walker did not believe that his supervisors wanted to avoid any difficulties concerning Ms. Bateman employment. Mr. Walker failed to follow Department procedure in presenting the Appraisal to Ms. Bateman. The Appraisal was required to be reviewed and approved by Mr. Walker's immediate supervisor, Ms. Donovan, before it was given to Ms. Bateman. Mr. Walker, contrary to Department policy, presented the Appraisal to Ms. Bateman before Ms. Donovan had seen and approved it. Ms. Donovan was aware of the problems with Ms. Bateman's performance and would not have approved an "effective" rating. Upon receiving the Appraisal, Ms. Donovan discussed the Appraisal with Mr. Walker and rejected it, as it was her right to do. Ms. Donovan, consistent with Department policy, specified that Ms. Bateman would be evaluated again in sixty days. The Department's Request that Ms. Bateman Undergo a Psychological Evaluation. Although the Department had a reasonable basis for terminating Ms. Bateman's employment by the end of 1991 and in early 1992, the Department decided to attempt to discover the cause of Ms. Bateman's decline in performance and the onset of her odd behavior rather than terminate her employment. The Department made this decision in an effort to determine what assistance Ms. Bateman might need. Ultimately, the Department was attempting to determine what work, if any, Ms. Bateman was capable of performing. The Department's decision was based upon a number of incidents involving Ms. Bateman. Those incidents are included in Mr. Walker's Chronology of December 2, 1991 and his Revised Chronology of December 19, 1991 and are hereby incorporated herein. Although not all the incidents described in the chronologies were proved during the final hearing to have occurred, the Department's consideration of the incidents reported by Mr. Walker was reasonable. Due to the Department's concerns about Ms. Bateman, the Department requested that Ms. Bateman voluntarily participate in the Department's employee assistance program. Ms. Bateman refused. In order to determine what could be done to help Ms. Bateman, and to determine what duties and responsibilities she was capable of performing, the Department requested that Ms. Bateman undergo a psychological, or other, evaluation. Ms. Bateman refused. After discussing the matter with Ms. Bateman and legal counsel she had retained, the Department notified Ms. Bateman that her continued employment was conditioned upon her undergoing a psychological evaluation or some other evaluation which would allow the Department to determine what work she was capable of performing. In a letter of February 12, 1992, Ms. Bateman, through her representative, was informed of the following: As you also know, we are attempting to help Andrea address a problem which we believe exists and has been well documented over the past 16 months. In return, we need Andrea's help and cooperation. If Andrea chooses to agree to our request that she undergo a psychiatric evaluation and authorize the release to us of the psychiatrist's prognosis, diagnosis and recommendation for treatment, we will be glad to schedule an appointment for her with a psychiatrist, and will pay for such an evaluation. We will use the evaluation to determine an appropriate course of action. Ms. Bateman's Termination from Employment. Ms. Bateman continued to refuse to undergo any evaluation or to suggest any alternative course of action. Consequently, based upon Ms. Bateman's inadequate and unacceptable work performance, the Department terminated Ms. Bateman's employment with the Department on or about February 13, 1992. Ms. Bateman's termination from employment was effective February 28, 1992. Ms. Bateman was terminated from employment due to the fact that she was not adequately performing her job and she refused to cooperate with the Department to find out what could be done to help her become an effective employee. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department's reason for terminating her employment was a pretext. Ms. Bateman's Charge of Discrimination. On or about September 15, 1992, Ms. Bateman filed a Charge of Discrimination against the Department with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Ms. Bateman alleged that she had been discriminated against on the basis of sex and a perceived handicap. On February 10, 1993, the Commission issued a "Determination: No Cause" finding "no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred " Ms. Bateman filed a Request for Redetermination on March 4, 1992. On April 12, 1993, the Commission issued a "Redetermination: No Cause" affirming its decision. On May 12, 1993, Ms. Bateman filed a Petition for Relief seeking a formal administrative hearing. In the petition Ms. Bateman alleged that the Department had discriminated against her on the basis of sex, a perceived handicap and, for the first time, age. The Commission requested that the Division of Administrative Hearings assign a Hearing Officer to conduct the hearing requested by Ms. Bateman. Alleged Sex Discrimination. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that any action of the Department was based upon Ms. Bateman's sex: she was not held to any standard or requirement based upon her sex, she was not terminated because of her sex and the Department's efforts to determine the cause of Ms. Bateman's problems was not based upon her sex. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that any Department policy or standard had a disparate impact on female employees. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was replaced by a male attorney. Ms. Bateman's grooming habits were discussed with her. Some of those discussions concerned the wearing of panty hose and her makeup. It must be inferred that such discussions were not carried on with male employees. The evidence, however, failed to prove that Ms. Bateman's termination was based upon these matters. Although grooming played a part in the decision to terminate Ms. Bateman's employment, it was grooming related to basic cleanliness and neat appearance required of all employees and not just female employees. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of her sex, female. Alleged Age Discrimination. At the time that Ms. Bateman was hired she was 41 years of age, and at the time she was terminated she was 42 years of age. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that age played any part in her treatment by the Department. This finding is supported, in part, by the fact that the difference between Ms. Bateman's age when she was hired and when she was terminated was only one year. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that she was replaced by a younger person. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the persons who made the decision to terminate her employment were aware of her age. Ms. Bateman failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of her age. Alleged Perceived Handicap. The Department did believe that Ms. Bateman was suffering from some mental problem. This belief was based upon Ms. Bateman's odd behavior and a concern that Ms. Bateman was "homeless". It was for this reason that the Department requested that Ms. Bateman undergo a psychological evaluation. Ms. Bateman failed to prove, however, that the Department treated her differently from the manner other employees of the Department were treated under similar circumstances. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that the Department's request that she undergo a psychological or other evaluation to determine how to assist her to meet the requirements of her employment was made for a discriminatory reason. Under the circumstances, the Department's request of Ms. Bateman was reasonable. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that she was terminated from employment because of any perceived handicap. The evidence proved that she was in fact terminated from employment due to her inability to satisfactorily carry out her job responsibilities. Ms. Bateman also failed to allege or prove that she has a handicap based upon her mental condition. Ms. Bateman also failed to prove that the Department discriminated against her on the basis of a handicap or a perceived handicap.
