The Issue Whether Respondent failed or refused to provide the legal representation to which Petitioner was entitled because of Petitioner’s race or in retaliation for Petitioner’s prior charges against Respondent.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner, a black male, was employed by Miami-Dade County as a correctional officer. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a public employees bargaining unit established pursuant Chapter 447, Florida Statutes (2004).1 At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was a dues-paying member of Respondent and was entitled to all rights and benefits of such membership. Prior to March 1, 2002, Petitioner filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging that Respondent had discriminated against him in an unrelated matter. That complaint was resolved in Respondent’s favor. Petitioner was notified by his employer on March 1, 2002, that his employment was being terminated for reasons that are irrelevant to this proceeding. Petitioner immediately requested legal representation from Respondent. On March 4, 2002, Respondent, through Tyrone W. Williams (Respondent’s then general counsel), advised Petitioner as follows: We have completed our review of your request for legal assistance of March 4, 2002. Based upon the information provided, it has been determined that a conflict in representation has arisen. Accordingly, this matter has been assigned to the Law Offices of Slesnick & Casey. . . . . We have provided the Law Office of Slesnick & Casey with a copy of your file for their immediate reference. Please contact the Law Office of Slesnick & Casey upon receipt of this correspondence. At the times relevant to this proceeding, the Law Offices of Slesnick & Casey was a private law firm that had contracted with Respondent to provide conflict representation to its members. Thereafter, the Law Office of Slesnick & Casey undertook Petitioner’s representation at Respondent’s expense. The procedures followed by Respondent in determining that a conflict existed and in assigning the Law Office of Slesnick & Casey to this representation were consistent with Respondent’s bylaws and written policies. Petitioner was not satisfied with the representation of Slesnick & Casey and asked Respondent for other counsel. On June 24, 2002, Blanca Greenwood (Respondent’s then general counsel) notified Petitioner that if he did not want the assigned representation, Respondent would give him $500.00 towards his legal fees and he could retain any lawyer he wished. Petitioner was also told he would have to absolve Respondent of any liability regarding his representation by private counsel, which Petitioner refused to do. Petitioner thereafter filed the complaint with EEOC and, following its dismissal, the Petition for Relief that underpins this proceeding. The evidence presented by Petitioner failed to establish that Respondent discriminated against him by assigning the Law Office of Slesnick & Casey to represent him or by offering to pay $500.00 towards his legal fees for a private lawyer. There was no evidence that Mr. Williams (who is a black male) or any other representative of Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of his race. There was no evidence that Mr. Williams or any other representative of Respondent discriminated against Petitioner because he had filed an unrelated EEOC against Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the FCHR enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 February, 2005.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Dade County Police Benevolent Association (Respondent) was the collective bargaining agent for the bargaining unit of the City of Hialeah Police Department (CHPD). Warren D. Brown (Petitioner) is a black male. At all times material hereto Petitioner was a law enforcement officer with the CHPD, a member of the bargaining unit and a dues paying member of the Respondent. On or about May 11, 1992, Petitioner was attempting to exit a secured and locked double doorway located on the east side of the CHPD's building. Upon pushing a switch, a lock mechanism releases the lock, and a door can be opened. However, at this particular time, the lock was not immediately released. Petitioner applied greater force to the door, which caused it to swing open forcefully (when the lock did release) and strike another officer who was attempting to enter the building through the same door. Petitioner was heard to chuckle after exiting the door. Approximately two to three days later (May 13 or 14, 1992), the officer who was struck by the door filed an internal complaint against Petitioner. The officer had discussed the incident with a CHPD sergeant who had had problems with the Petitioner in the past and who had filed several internal complaints against Petitioner. The officer alleged in his complaint that Petitioner intentionally hit him with the door. The internal complaint was referred to CHPD's Internal Affairs for investigation. The investigation included taking statements from Petitioner, the officer and any witnesses. When the internal complaint was filed against Petitioner, he contacted Respondent for assistance, and Respondent's Senior Attorney, James Casey, represented Petitioner. Casey was present with and represented Petitioner at the initial questioning by Internal Affairs. On or about June 16, 1992, Internal Affairs issued its findings to CHPD's Chief of Police (Chief). The Internal Affairs investigator concluded that Petitioner had intentionally hit the officer with the door. On July 7, 1992, the Chief issued a disposition of the complaint. The Chief determined that the complaint against Petitioner was sustained and that the appropriate discipline was a 10-hour suspension without pay. Further, the Chief scheduled a pre-disciplinary hearing for July 21, 1992. On or about July 13, 1992, the Chief had prepared a recommendation to the Mayor of the City of Hialeah that Petitioner be suspended without pay for 10 working hours from the CHPD. The letter included a summary of the incident, the rules and regulations violated by Petitioner and the disciplinary action for such violations. However, the recommendation was never forwarded to the Mayor for his approval. 1/ The pre-disciplinary hearing was held and, as a result of that hearing, a CHPD Captain was requested to view the photographs of the door which were taken at the time the incident occurred and to examine the door itself. On August 3, 1992, in a memorandum to the Chief, the Captain indicated that it was possible that the door did stick and that Petitioner was not aware of the officer's presence. Furthermore, the Captain recommended that one of the doors be labeled for entering and the other for exiting and that a caution zone be established to alert individuals that they should use caution when opening the doors. Casey was also present with and represented Petitioner at the pre- disciplinary hearing. After the pre-disciplinary hearing, Petitioner contacted Respondent almost on a weekly basis inquiring about the status of his case. Each time Respondent had nothing to relate to Petitioner indicating that nothing had been done by the CHPD and the Mayor. In August 1992, Casey terminated his employment with Respondent. He was replaced by Michael Braverman. Petitioner continued his weekly inquiry to Braverman and received the same response as before. On or about October 20, 1992, the Chief changed the discipline to a written reprimand. However, again, this disciplinary recommendation was not forwarded to the Mayor for his approval. On or about November 19, 1992, Braverman recommended to Petitioner that he accept oral counseling, or an oral reprimand, and end the matter. Petitioner refused. Finally, on or about December 6, 1992, Petitioner forwarded an internal memorandum to the Chief inquiring about his case, reminding him that, according to the collective bargaining agreement, the complaint should have been resolved within 60 days and allowing him five working days to resolve the complaint before he appealed to the next level. On or about December 11, 1992, the Chief informed Petitioner that the complaint was sustained for violation of courtesy conduct but that the disciplinary action (a written reprimand) was rescinded due to "unreasonable delay in imposing the written reprimand." Even though the written reprimand was rescinded, the Chief recommended to the Mayor that Petitioner receive oral counseling which was in essence the same as an oral reprimand. The Mayor approved the oral counseling. Petitioner contacted the Mayor who confirmed that the sanction was oral counseling. Article 26, entitled "Disciplinary Review Procedures," Section 2 of the collective bargaining agreement entered into between the City of Hialeah (City) and Respondent 2/ provides in pertinent part: k. The employee who is the subject of a complaint or allegation shall be promptly notified of the disposition upon the conclusion of the investigation. In any investigation in which the charges against the officer cannot be substantiated, the officer shall be deemed to have been exonerated of any charges. * * * o. Any internal investigation, except where criminal charges are being investi gated, shall be completed within sixty (60) days from the date the officer is informed of the initial complaint. No officer may be subjected to any disciplinary action as a result of any investigation not completed within that time period. Oral counseling is not considered by Respondent or the City as discipline. As a consequence, there is no appeal of such an action against an employee of the City who is also a member of the bargaining unit represented by Respondent. However, oral counseling is considered "progressive discipline" which means, in essence, that CHPD can consider it if another complaint against Petitioner is sustained involving a violation of courtesy conduct and impose a sanction which is considered disciplinary. Because of this possibility of a disciplinary sanction being imposed in the future, Petitioner objected to the oral counseling. Petitioner contacted Respondent to appeal the oral counseling. Petitioner discussed the situation with Braverman, Respondent's attorney. Braverman informed Petitioner that there was nothing to appeal since oral counseling was not discipline but that, pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement, Petitioner could respond in writing to the oral counseling and have the response placed in his personnel file. Consequently, Braverman informed Petitioner that Respondent could provide no representation. Article 44 of the collective bargaining agreement, entitled "Personnel Records," provides: Section 1. Each bargaining unit employee shall have the right to respond, in writing, to any and all derogatory material placed in their personnel file and have that response placed in their personnel file. Section 2. Employees who complete two (2) years of discipline free service shall have all counseling and/or written reprimands removed from their personnel files pursuant to State of Florida Department of Archives guidelines. This complaint against Petitioner was not the first complaint against him but was one of many. The Chief and certain uniformed supervisors of the CHPD have a history of filing complaints for internal investigation against Petitioner. 3/ Respondent was well aware of that history and has, in fact, represented Petitioner in many of the complaints. Historically, Respondent has not been free of discriminatory practices toward black officers. In 1972 a federal court held that the Miami PBA 4/ had discriminated against black officers by not permitting them to become members of the PBA, but permitting white officers to become members. The federal court ordered the Miami PBA to allow black officers to become members and to offer them the same benefits as white officers. Adams v. Miami Police Benevolent Association, 454 F.2d 1315 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 843 (1972). However, since that federal case, there has been no legal showing of discrimination by Respondent. Contrastingly, through court action, Respondent eliminated a discriminatory practice by the City that benefited a black officer. Sometime in 1980, 5/ several white officers and one black officer 6/ were denied the opportunity to take the examination for police chief by the City. They contacted the Respondent for legal assistance,which represented the officers in a court action against the City. The court ordered the City to administer the exam to the officers. Notwithstanding, the City permitted the white officers, but not the black officer, to take the police chief exam. The black officer again approached Respondent for legal assistance. Respondent denied him such assistance. Respondent's position was that, even though the court had ordered the City to permit him to take the police chief examination, at that point in time the City had already appointed the police chief. Furthermore, Respondent indicated that to pursue the matter further would provide no meaningful redress. Respondent's Policy No. 84-2, entitled "Request For Legal Assistance" (Legal Assistance Policy), controls the Respondent's legal representation of its members. The Legal Assistance Policy defines legal assistance as "the representation of Association members at administrative and disciplinary hearings as well as taking judicial action on behalf of Association members, in accordance with the provisions of this policy." Under this Policy, a member of the Respondent is eligible for legal assistance "if the matter arises out of the scope of the member's employment" and the member was in "good standing" 7/ at the time of the incident and remained in good standing throughout the course of any legal action pertaining to the matter. Also, pursuant to the Legal Assistance Policy, a member who is approved for legal assistance must accept Respondent's attorney for representation. Other counsel may be used only when the Respondent's attorney has a conflict and when approved by the Legal Assistance Coordinator or the Board of Directors. Furthermore, benefits provided pursuant to the Legal Assistance Policy are applicable only to administrative and trial level actions and may be applicable to appellate level actions under certain specific situations. The Legal Assistance Policy also defines "Legal Defense Benefit" as Respondent's Policy No. 3-80 which provides "coverage for members, in good standing, for incidents within the scope of employment resulting in criminal or civil prosecution." Policy No. 3-80 (Legal Defense Benefit Policy) provides that Respondent will provide its members with this benefit "only in those cases where a lawsuit or criminal indictment results from professional acts or omissions which arise out of and in the scope of their duties as a law enforcement officer." Further, it provides that the benefit consists of Respondent paying "attorney's fees and directly related Court costs." Petitioner never requested the Respondent to file an action against the City or the CHPD on the grounds of racial discrimination in the CHPD's disciplinary action(s) against him. Petitioner believed that he was not required to make such a request because it was obvious what the City or CHPD was doing and that the Respondent should have taken the initiative and filed a discrimination action. Even though the Respondent's action of allowing the CHPD to continue the investigation of the complaint against Petitioner for several months beyond the 60-day limitation is suspect, there was insufficient evidence of any disparity presented at hearing to conclude that the Respondent had acted any differently when dealing with the same or similar complaints against white officers who were members of the Respondent. Moreover, there was no evidence presented that the Respondent acted any differently with white officers who had been given oral counseling as a result of a complaint against them. There was no evidence that the Respondent failed to appeal Petitioner's oral counseling because of race, and there was insufficient evidence of any conduct by Respondent from which it can be inferred that the actions of Respondent were based on race. The Respondent's failure to insist upon no disciplinary action against the Petitioner at the expiration of the 60-day investigation limitation was nondiscriminatory. Moreover, the Respondent's failure to appeal Petitioner's oral counseling was legitimate and nondiscriminatory and its denial to appeal was without discriminatory motivation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order DISMISSING the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of April 1994. ERROL H. POWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April 1994.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Fredrick Bass, was subjected to employment discrimination by the Respondent, The University of West Florida, on account of his race or disability or as retaliation because of his past filing of an EEOC complaint against a former employer.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a black male with a disability involving a post- traumatic, arthritic condition of the left knee. In his past work history, the Petitioner had been a firefighter. When he was thus employed, on one occasion, he filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the fire department where he was employed. The Respondent is the University of West Florida, a state agency. It became embroiled in the disputes at issue when it first advertised for the filling of a vacancy for the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor and, after the advertising and interviewing process described below, hired another black male with a disability, instead of the Petitioner. The Respondent advertised to fill the vacancy for the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor because of the death of the person who had previously occupied that position. There was an insufficient response to the first advertisement of the vacancy, and Dan Simpler, the Director of Building Services for the Respondent, who would supervise the occupant of that position, requested that the position be re-advertised. The Petitioner had not responded to the first advertisement, in any event. The second advertisement was issued in August of 1993. This time, the Petitioner was one of the applicants who responded. Several applicants withdrew after learning that the salary for the position would be at the lower-end of the advertised salary range and was insufficient for their needs. This left the Respondent with only three remaining applicants, who appeared to meet the minimum qualifications for the position. One of the three applicants was the Petitioner. The Respondent, in the conduct of its application and selection process, inquired of former employers, concerning whether they would give an applicant a favorable recommendation. The Respondent so inquired of the Petitioner's former employers. The Respondent was unable to obtain a favorable recommendation from any of the Petitioner's former employers. In response to Mr. Simpler's inquiry, the Chief of the Fire Department at the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Florida, the Petitioner's most recent former employer, informed Mr. Simpler that he would not rehire the Petitioner if given the opportunity to do so. The Petitioner had informed Mr. Simpler that he believed that the Chief of the Fire Department would not give him a favorable recommendation because the Petitioner had once filed a complaint with the EEOC against that employer. In any event, Mr. Simpler deemed that having a pool of only three applicants gave the Respondent insufficient choices for the position. Therefore, he requested that the position be advertised for a third time in order to obtain a larger pool of applicants. In response to the third advertisement, a number of other applications were received. One of them was that of James O. Rankins, who is a male, African-American, who also has a disability. See Respondent's Exhibit 6 in evidence. Mr. Rankins' application reflected considerable supervisory experience, both during his service with the United States Army and his position as a Site Manager for Service Master, Inc. at the Monsanto plant near Pensacola, Florida. He retired from the United States Army as a Sergeant Major, the highest non- commissioned rank. In the opinion of Mr. Simpler and others involved in the hiring at the University, this demonstrated a high level of leadership capability. Since his military retirement, in his capacity as the Site Manager for Service Master, Inc., the maintenance contractor, at the Monsanto chemical plant near Pensacola, Florida, he had supervised 45 custodial personnel. He was responsible for cleaning and maintenance of 150 buildings and shops, as well as over 250 offices and restrooms. The Petitioner was an applicant in the third pool of applications in response to the third advertisement. Mr. Simpler learned of a former employer, Lanyap Corporation, and questioned the former owner concerning the Petitioner's previous employment at that firm. Larry Wiggins, the former owner of Lanyap Corporation, told Mr. Simpler that he would not rehire the Petitioner if given the opportunity to do so. Mr. Wiggins advised Mr. Simpler that the Petitioner had not been employed as a Supervisor by Lanyap Corporation, although the Petitioner had indicated that to be the case on his application for employment filed with the Respondent. The five persons on the Respondent's selection committee, charged with hiring to fill the subject position, considered the qualifications and experience of all of the applicants. After evaluating all of the applicants, with the assistance of personal interviews, the committee recommended that James Rankins be employed as the Senior Custodial Supervisor. Members of the selection committee recommended Mr. Rankins for the position based upon his superior qualifications and experience, including his demonstrated leadership and supervisory abilities. The Petitioner's race and disability were not factors in the selection process. Indeed, Mr. Rankins is an African-American, also with a disability, as shown by the Respondent's Exhibit 6 in evidence. Ms. Bertha Mae Jones is the staff member at the University who interviewed the Petitioner, as well as Mr. Rankins. Ms. Jones is black and has been employed at the University for 27 years. She does not recall hearing the Petitioner mention his handicap or disability but stated that it would not have mattered if he had one, as long as he could do the job in question. She also interviewed Mr. Rankins and felt that Mr. Rankins had much superior qualifications and experience. He demonstrated that he had had a long-term ability for good supervision. Because of his superior qualifications, Ms. Jones recommended that Mr. Rankins be hired instead of the Petitioner. None of the members of the selection committee, other than the Director of Building Services, knew that the Petitioner had filed an EEOC complaint against one of his former employers. The filing of that complaint was shown to have had no effect on the hiring decision made by the Respondent's selection committee. The selection committee's recommendation that Mr. Rankins be employed to fill the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor was forwarded to the head of the department and to the Vice-President for Administrative Affairs. The recommendation was accepted. Mr. Rankins, a black male with a disability, was hired by the Respondent to fill the subject position.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a Final Order concluding that the Respondent, the University of West Florida, did not commit an unlawful employment practice, by employing James O. Rankins to fill the position of Senior Custodial Supervisor, instead of the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-2450 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The following numbers assigned to proposed findings of fact by the Petitioner do not correspond to any numbered paragraphs in the Petitioner's letter/proposed recommended order because there were no such numbered paragraphs. The Petitioner did prove that he belonged to a racial minority, and that proposed finding is accepted. The Petitioner's assertion that he was qualified for the position in question has not been proven, and that is rejected. The Petitioner's proposed finding that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected for the position, is rejected because he was found to be less qualified than the applicant chosen for the position. The Petitioner's proposed finding to the effect that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants with his qualifications, is rejected as not in accord with the preponderance of the evidence. The relevant advertisement and interviewing process was that after the third advertisement, when the Petitioner remained an applicant and Mr. Rankins' application was received, the position did not remain open, Mr. Rankins was hired at the conclusion of that third advertisement and interview selection process. The remainder of the Petitioner's "proposed findings", in essence, constitute argument concerning the weight of the testimony and evidence but to the extent that he attempts to assert that it has been proven factually that Mr. Simpler had not talked to the fire chief, the Petitioner's former employer, because the telephone numbers at the relevant fire station were not the same as the fire chief's actual telephone number, does not prove that Mr. Simpler did not talk to the fire chief. In fact, it is found that he did. This proposed finding, to the extent that it is one, is rejected. The apparent proposed finding that the five board members on the selection committee found the Petitioner qualified, subject to the fact that it had received bad recommendations from former employers, is rejected as not in accord with the preponderant weight of the evidence. In fact, the Petitioner was not the best qualified person for the position, Mr. Rankins was. These are the only proposed findings of fact that can be gleaned from the letter filed by the Petitioner. The remainder constitutes an attempt at legal and factual argument which do not constitute proposed findings of fact amenable to specific rulings. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-13. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Fredrick Bass 75 South Madison Drive Pensacola, Florida 32505 M. J. Menge, Esquire SHELL, FLEMING, DAVIS & MENGE Post Office Box 1831 Pensacola, Florida 32598 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana C. Baird, Esquire General Counsel Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent committed discriminatory employment practices against Petitioner in violation of Chapter 70 of the Pinellas County Code as alleged in the Complaint, and if so, what is the appropriate remedy.
Findings Of Fact Parties Petitioner is a 44-year-old African-American male. FMS is a package delivery company that does business in Pinellas County. According to Petitioner, FMS has more than 100 employees. FMS was provided due notice of the date, time, and location of the final hearing in this case, but no appearance was made on its behalf. Petitioner’s Job Duties and Salary at FMS Petitioner started working for FMS in late 1999 or early 2000 as a “driver.” Petitioner’s primary job responsibility was to drive a delivery truck along a designated route to deliver and pick up packages. Petitioner was also responsible for loading the to- be-delivered packages on his truck in the morning and then unloading any picked-up packages from his truck in the evening. Petitioner worked Monday through Friday. His shift started at 7:00 a.m. each day. Petitioner’s gross pay was initially $650 every two weeks, but at some point Petitioner's salary was increased to $750 every two weeks.1 Petitioner did not receive health or dental insurance or other benefits. Failure to Switch Trucks as Directed (Complaint, Count III) Chronologically, the first event alleged in the Complaint as a basis of Petitioner’s discrimination claim started on the morning of Friday, February 8, 2002, when Petitioner’s boss, Tom Aliotti, directed Petitioner to switch trucks with another driver named Eddie. Later that day, Mr. Aliotti told Petitioner that he would switch the trucks over the weekend. As a result, Petitioner and Eddie did not switch the trucks on Friday. The trucks were not switched over the weekend, and on the morning of Monday, February 11, 2002, Mr. Aliotti again directed Petitioner to switch trucks with Eddie. Petitioner did not switch the trucks on Monday morning as directed by Mr. Aliotti because he was too busy preparing to run his delivery route. Petitioner testified that Eddie was equally responsible for the trucks not getting switched because he could not switch trucks with Eddie without Eddie’s participation; however, it is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony what specifically Eddie did or did not do in regard to switching the trucks. After Petitioner failed to switch the trucks on Monday as directed, he was given a written reprimand for insubordination by Mr. Aliotti. The written reprimand, which is referred to as a Counseling Sheet (see Exhibit P4), stated: “[Petitioner] will switch trucks tonite [sic] 2/11/02 or [he] will not be working 2/12/02. Day off without pay.” Petitioner testified that he did not switch the trucks even after the directive on the Counseling Sheet. It is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony whether he was suspended without pay on February 12, 2002. According to Petitioner, Eddie was not reprimanded for the incident. It is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony whether a reprimand was appropriate for Eddie because it is unknown whether Mr. Aliotti also told Eddie to switch the trucks and, as stated above, it is unclear from Petitioner’s testimony what specifically Eddie did or did not do to frustrate the truck switching. Eddie, like Petitioner, is an African-American male. Attendance Issues in March 2002 (Complaint, Counts I and II) The other allegations of discrimination in the Complaint relate to discipline imposed on Petitioner for his unexcused absences from work on several occasions in March 2002. Petitioner submitted a written request for a half-day of leave on Friday, March 1, 2002, in which he stated that he needed to “go out of town to attend a funeral” because of a “death in [his] family.” See Exhibit P1, at page 3. That request was approved, and Petitioner was expected to be back at work on Monday, March 4, 2002. Petitioner attended the funeral of his brother in Largo, Florida, on Saturday, March 2, 2002. Later that same day, he traveled to Madison, Florida, to attend funeral services for his uncle. See Exhibits P2 and P3. For reasons that are unclear in the record, Petitioner did not return to work on Monday, March 4, 2002, as he was expected to do. If a driver was going to be unexpectedly absent from work, he or she was required to let the boss know before 7:00 a.m. so that a substitute or “on-call” driver could be contacted to take over the absent driver’s route. Getting another driver to take over the absent driver's route was important to FMS because some of the packages that the company delivers have to get to the customer by 10:30 a.m. Petitioner understood the importance of this requirement. According to Petitioner, he tried to call his boss before 7:00 a.m. on Monday to let him know that he would not be coming into work, but he was not able to reach his boss until several hours after 7:00 a.m. Petitioner did not produce any credible evidence to corroborate his testimony that he attempted to call his boss prior to 7:00 a.m. on Monday, and the documents introduced by Petitioner include conflicting statements as to whether Petitioner ever called on that date.2 Nevertheless, Petitioner’s testimony on this issue is accepted. When Petitioner returned to work on Tuesday, March 5, 2002, he was suspended for the day and, according to Petitioner, his delivery route was taken away. The Warning Letter that was received into evidence (Exhibit P1, at page 1) references the suspension, but not Petitioner’s route being taken away. According to Petitioner, his delivery route was given to a white female, whose identity Petitioner did not know. Thereafter, Petitioner was given menial tasks such as sweeping the floor and taking out the trash, although he also helped load packages onto the delivery trucks in the morning. Petitioner submitted a written request for leave on March 19 and 20, 2002, because he planned to be in Kentucky on those dates. Petitioner stated in the request that “I will be back to work on the [sic] 3-21.” See Exhibit P1, at page 2. The leave requested by Petitioner was approved, and he was expected to be back at work on March 21, 2002. Petitioner got a “late start” on his drive back from Kentucky, which caused him to miss work on March 21, 2002. According to Petitioner, he used his cellular phone to call his boss before 7:00 a.m. on March 21, 2002, to let him know that he would not be coming into work, but he was not able to reach his boss until 7:30 a.m. Petitioner did not present any credible evidence, such as his cellular phone records, to corroborate his claim that he attempted to call prior to 7:00 a.m. Petitioner’s testimony on this issue was not persuasive. The record does not reflect what, if any, discipline Petitioner received for not calling prior to the start of his shift to report that he would not be coming into work on March 21, 2002. Petitioner’s pay was not reduced at any point during his employment with FMS even though, according to Petitioner, his primary job duties were changed from driving a delivery truck to sweeping the floors and taking out the trash. Petitioner continued to work at FMS until April or May 2002 when he was injured on the job while lifting a box. Petitioner’s Post-FMS Activities and Employment After his injury, Petitioner could not and did not work for approximately one year. During that period, Petitioner collected workers' compensation at the rate of $500 every two weeks.3 Approximately one year after his injury, Petitioner’s doctor allowed him to return to work on “light duty.” Thereafter, in April or May 2003, Petitioner tried to return to work with FMS but, according to Petitioner, he was told that there were no available “light duty” positions. That effectively ended Petitioner’s employment relationship with FMS. The Complaint does not allege that FMS’s failure to re-hire Petitioner was a discriminatory employment practice, nor is there any credible evidence in the record that would support such a claim. From April/May 2003 to approximately March 2004, Petitioner held only one job. He worked for approximately one week cleaning floors at a nursing home, but he left that position because of his back problems. After leaving the floor cleaning job, Petitioner did not actively look for other employment. He briefly attended a training class to become a security guard, but he did not complete the class after learning that he would not be able to be licensed as a security guard “because of his prior record.” In approximately March 2004, Petitioner was hired by a former acquaintance to work as a driver for a mortgage company. In that position, Petitioner is paid $11 per hour and he typically works 40 hours per week, which equates to gross pay of $880 every two weeks. As of the date of the hearing, Petitioner was still employed by the mortgage company. Lack of Evidence Regarding Similarly Situated Employees Petitioner presented no credible evidence regarding any “similarly situated” employees, i.e., employees who engaged in conduct that was the same as or similar to that for which Petitioner was disciplined.4 Although Petitioner testified that he “had heard” of situations where other employees had “put a manager off,” rather than immediately doing what the manager told them to do, he was not able to offer any specific examples of such insubordination. Petitioner also presented no credible evidence regarding how other employees (of any race) were disciplined for conduct that was the same as or similar to that for which Petitioner was disciplined.5
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Complaint against FMS. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of October, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 2004.
The Issue The issue is whether the Petition for Relief should be dismissed as untimely because it was received by the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission) more than 35 days after the date of the Commission's "no cause" determination.
Findings Of Fact The following facts, which are assumed to be true for purposes of considering Respondent’s motion to dismiss,” are contained in the Petition and the related documents referred by the Commission to the Division: 1. On or about October 1, 1999, Petitioner filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission. 2. The charge alleged that during the course of her employment with Respondent, Petitioner was "subject to a racially and sexually hostile work environment" and that she was “subject to disparate treatment in terms of scheduling, job assignments, work conditions, promotions and disciplinary actions." The charge further alleged retaliation by Respondent as a result of Petitioner's complaints regarding the discriminatory treatment. 3. The Commission staff investigated the charge, and based upon that investigation, the Executive Director of the Commission issued a "no cause" determination on August 27, 2002. On that same date, notice of the determination was sent to Petitioner by U.S. Mail. 4. The notice stated in relevant part: NOTICE OF DETERMINATION: NO CAUSE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a Determination has been made in the above-referenced complaint that there is no reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred. A copy of the Determination is attached. [Petitioner] may request an administrative hearing by filing a PETITION FOR RELIEF within 35 days of the date of this NOTICE OF DETERMINATION: NO CAUSE. * * * If [Petitioner] fails to request an administrative hearing within 35 days of the date of this notice, the administrative claim under the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Chapter 760, will be dismissed pursuant to Section 760.11, Florida Statutes (1992). (Emphasis supplied) . 5. Included with the notice was a blank Petition for Relief form, which Petitioner completed and sent to the Commission. 6. The Petition, like the charge of discrimination, alleges that Petitioner “was subject to a racially and sexually hostile work environment." 7. The Commission received the Petition on October 16, 2002, as shown by the date-stamp on the Petition. 8. There are no allegations in the Petition which explain the delay between the Commission's determination and the filing of the Petition. However, at the telephonic hearing on the motion to dismiss, counsel for Petitioner stated that the late filing of the Petition resulted from Petitioner’s mistaken assumption that weekends and holidays were not to be included when calculating the 35-day deadline for filing the Petition. 9. There is nothing to suggest that either the Commission or Respondent contributed in any way to Petitioner’s mistaken assumption regarding the calculation of the 35-day deadline. 10. Petitioner was apparently not represented by counsel at the time she filed the Petition.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Joseph P. Hoffman, Esquire 1415 Dean Street, Suite 110 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 For Respondent: Gordon R. Leech, Esquire Wiederhold, Moses & Rubin Brandywine Center II, Suite 240 560 Village Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief with prejudice. _ | ; DONE AND ENTERED this / | day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. a, Ee To fod wore & T KENT WETH@RELL, Administrative Law guage Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1220 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 Pt Administrative Hearings this [ st day of April, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Based on a letter dated November 4, AFSCME requested that the School Board of Orange County, Florida, voluntarily recognize it as the sole and exclusive collective bargaining agent for employees of the School Board in a proposed unit of "non-instructional" personnel. AFSCME also expressed its desire to engage "possible neutral third parties" to verify the authenticity of certain authorization cards it possessed. (Employer's Exhibit No. 1) On November 10, Messr. James E. Carroll, Assistant to the Superintendent for Employee Relations, advised AFSCME's Assistant Area Director, Messr. David McGhee, by letter dated November 10, that their formal request had been received and would be placed on the school board agenda on November 14, if, pursuant to board policy, written notification was received within 24 hours prior to preparation of the agenda for the school board's meeting. Employer's Exhibit No. 2) by Letter dated November 14, Messr. McGhee was advised by Dr. L. Linton Deck, Jr., Superintendent, that AFSCME desired to appear before the board at its next regularly scheduled meeting for November 22. (Employer's Exhibit No. 3). By letter dated November 22, the Intervenors by their international representative and international special organizer respectively, A. Gross and Charles Loughran, advised Assistant Superintendent Carroll that the Intervenors were engaging in organizational activities among the board's employees and "[would] be petitioning the board for voluntary recognition in the very near future for an election to be conducted by the Public Employees Relation Commission." Messr. Carroll did not respond to such meeting since, in his opinion, he was of the opinion that the impetus in triggering such request rests with the Intervenors and no further responses were received from the Intervenors' representatives until on or about January 3, as stated above. By letter dated December 29, Messr. Deck sent a memorandum noticing the instant hearing to all principals and work location supervisors to call this matter to the attention of all classified employees at their work locations and for posting in appropriate places. On that same date, Messr. Carroll advised the Intervenors representatives that the school board had requested a hearing under the Administrative Procedure Act for the purpose of determining the appropriate bargaining unit and whether AFSCME had been designated as the exclusive bargaining agent for all classified employees within the appropriate bargaining unit. Attached to such letter was a Notice of Hearing issued by the undersigned dated December 21. (Employer's Exhibit No. 6) On approximately two occasions, Messrs. McGhee and Carroll, representing AFSCME and the Public Employer respectively, met informally to determine whether or not the Public Employer would extend exclusive bargaining representative status to a petitioned for group of classified employees on a voluntary basis. These efforts were unavailing inasmuch as the parties were unable to come to terms on a unit description mutually satisfactory. Thereafter, counsel for the Public Employer advised the board that the more orderly procedure in reaching its decision would be to utilize the procedures set forth in Section 120.50(7)(1) (Employer's Composite Exhibit No. 7) Based on this recommendation from the board's counsel, the petition was forwarded to this Division requesting that a Hearing Officer be assigned to conduct a Section 120.57(1) hearing. At the hearing, AFSCME and the Public Employer jointly stipulated that the appropriate unit of classified employees of the School Board of Orange County, Florida, for purposes of collective bargaining is as follows: All active classified personnel who are pay- types 15 (teacher aides, permanent substitutes, library clerks, office clerks), 17 (school lunchroom assistants), 19 (teacher assistants, instructional clerks, and nurses), 22 (twelve month, eight hour employees), 30 (bus drivers), 40 (bus monitors), and 71 (daily teacher aides in non-public schools); and who are not pay grades 16A, 21A, 13B, 12B, 22D, 14F, 13D, 13C, 14J, 14K, 3D, 27A, 51A, 75A, and 14B; and who do not work at the following work locations: 7300 (Associate Superintendent for Instructional Services), 8200 (Assistant Superintendent for management Services), 8110 (Comptroller), 6600 (Associate Superintendent for Personnel Management), 8205 (Business Word Processing Center Number 4), 8206 (Personnel Word Processing Center Number 5), 8202 (Instructional Word Processing), 8203 (Administrative Word Processing Center Number 2) 8204 (Delaney Word Processing Canter Number 3), 8210 (data Center Operations), 6611 (Instructional Personnel), 6612 (Classified Personnel) 8132 (Payroll Accounting), 8130 (Director of Accounting), 9001 (District Superintendent), 8120 (Food Service Administration), 8131 (General Accounting), 8220 (Research), and 7555 (CETA Administration). All other positions are excluded. (Joint Exhibit No. 1) There is no history of collective bargaining for the subject employees. The evidence reveals that within the stipulated unit, there are approximately 3,054 employees. Excluded from the list of classified employees are approximately 106 cafeteria managers, 2 registered nurses, 29 confidential employees, and approximately 516 regular part-time employees. The evidence reveals that the parties (AFSCME and the Public Employer) stipulated and further agreed to exclude the cafeteria managers based on uncontradicted evidence that cafeteria managers, as part of the their job duties, are called upon to make individual employee assessments, independent decisions and routinely make effective recommendations respecting the hiring and discharge of cafeteria employees. AFSCME and the Public Employer also jointly agreed to exclude approximately 29 "confidential" employees who are assigned to word processing centers and who, during the course of their employment, are privy to confidential employment information respecting other employees. 2/ Also excluded from the stipulated unit were all employees who worked four hours or less daily. The classified employees form the residual group of employees who are non-instructional, administrative, or technical. These part- time employees are largely comprised of administrative secretarial employees who work for associate superintendents, deputy superintendents, assistant superintendents, and other confidential employees who, as stated above, have access to confidential information. PLACEMENT OF PART-TIME EMPLOYEES In resolving unit placement questions, employees' status and tenure are major considerations. The evidence herein reveals that the part-time employees here work within the same unit as those included employees on a regular basis. They therefore have a substantial and continuing interest in the wages, hours and working conditions of full-time unit employees. Farmers Insurance Group, et al, 143 NLRB 240, 244 - 245. In this regard, they like the included employees enjoy the same rate of pay and fringe benefits. Based on the regularity of their employment and the number of hours worked, they cannot seriously be considered part of a "temporary, part-time or casual work force". Fresno Auto Auction, Inc., 167 NLRB 878. And the mere fact that they are called part-time employees does not alter their status as a cohesive group of individuals with a strong mutual interest in their working conditions which, as here, are largely determined by those employees included within the unit. See e.g., Henry Lee Company, 194 NLRB 109. For all these reasons, including the regularity and continuity of employment, the similarity of duties and functions, wages, working conditions and supervision, there is no discernible basis in this record to exclude the part-time employees from the unit. I shall therefore recommend that they be included. AUTHENTICATION OF THE AUTHORIZATION CARDS A local private investigating firm, Brewer and Associates, was commissioned to assist a local attorney, Stephen Weinstein, to authenticate the authorization cards. Attorney Weinstein credibly testified that he was given the authorization cards from AFSCME on January 5, 1978, along with a list of employees which was cross-checked by a list supplied by the list entitled "Recommended Appropriate Bargaining Unit." (See Employer's Exhibit No. 9). Attorney Weinstein and Messrs. Jerry Brewer and Jerry Boltin, employees of Brewer and Associates, cross-checked the lists based on a random sampling of authorization cards from a total of 1,648 authorization cards supplied to attorney Weinstein by AFSCME. 3/ Attorney Weinstein and his associates noted no irregularities or discrepancies in the authorization cards given them by AFSCME which were checked against the employee signatures on file in the public employer's records. These records from which the signatures were taken included employment applications, insurance and payroll deduction forms. The evidence reveals that the expense connected with the authentication of the cards was paid independently by AFSCME. No evidence of any union bias or other interestedness was alleged to have existed on the part of the individuals engaged to authenticate the cards. A copy of the card was introduced which designates AFSCME as the executor's collective bargaining representative in all matters pertaining to rates of pay, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. (AFSCME Exhibit #1). No evidence was introduced tending to show that any other cards were utilized by AFSCME in its organizational efforts.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is hereby recommended that the Public Employer submit a list of names and addresses of all of its regular part-time employees which comprised the 516 employees which were excluded from the joint stipulated recommended appropriate bargaining unit and allow AFSCME fourteen(14) days after receipt of such list to demonstrate its majority status. It is recommended that such majority status be demonstrated in the same manner as was demonstrated in the instant proceeding and that AFSCME and the Public Employer jointly engage a neutral third party to authenticate AFSCME's assertion of majority status within the time frame allotted. Finally, upon proof of its majority status in the appropriate unit, as modified herein, it is recommended that the Public Employer voluntarily recognize AFSCME as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for such employees based on the foregoing findings, conclusions and recommendations. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of March, 19788, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue is whether the claim of employment discrimination contained in the Petition for Relief must be dismissed due to Petitioner's execution of a release of all claims.
Findings Of Fact On June 29, 2012, Petitioner's employment with Respondent was terminated. On July 24, 2012, Petitioner filed a Charge of Discrimination alleging that he was subjected to discrimination. On August 18, 2012, Petitioner signed an agreement. Under the agreement, Respondent agreed to pay Petitioner $5,000.00, net several items, provided Petitioner did not exercise his right to revoke the agreement within the seven days following execution, as provided in the agreement. Petitioner did not revoke the agreement, and Respondent discharged all obligations under the agreement. In exchange, Petitioner agreed to release Respondent from all claims, damages, suits, complaints, damages, losses and expenses, of every nature, legal or equitable, whether known or unknown, which Olascoaga ever had, now has, or may claim to have, upon or by reason of the occurrence of any matter, cause or thing whatsoever . . . . This release specifically includes, but is not limited to, a release of any and all claims under the Florida Civil Rights Act . . . . There is no contention that Petitioner was not acting knowingly or voluntarily when he executed a release of claims.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Carlos Olascoaga's Petition for Relief from employment discrimination for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of April, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of April 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent, American Support, discriminated against Petitioner, Linda Dodge, in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (the Act) sections 760.01–760.11 and 509.092, Florida Statutes, based upon her sex or in retaliation for participation in a protected activity.1/
Findings Of Fact American Support is a third-party telemarketing contractor for providers of cable and satellite service, with an office located in Daytona Beach, Florida. American Support is an employer within the meaning of the Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Petitioner is a 61-year-old female who was hired on August 19, 2008, as a telemarketer for Evergreen, a predecessor company to American Support. Petitioner worked in telemarketing for approximately one year, was laid off by Evergreen, but was shortly thereafter reemployed by Evergreen as a receptionist/administrative assistant. Between October 2011 and December 2011, Petitioner solely performed receptionist duties. Petitioner was replaced as company receptionist by Debora Jenkins, whom Petitioner helped train. Ms. Jenkins was hired on a full-time temporary basis as the company was transitioning to new ownership. In December 2011, Petitioner was promoted to Human Resources Assistant by Nancy Cantero, Human Resources Director for American Support beginning in November 2011. Petitioner’s duties were to initiate and process criminal background checks and credit checks on applicants, validate I-9 information received for newly hired employees, create personnel files for new employees, and manage employee personnel files. Employee personnel files contain personal identifying information including dates of birth, social security numbers, driver’s licenses, and the results of criminal background and credit checks. Both parties agree that keeping applicants’ and employees’ personal information protected is a high priority for the Human Resources Department. Ms. Cantero left American Support in February 2012 and was replaced by Steven Schaible, first as a Human Resources Generalist under contract, then as corporate Human Resources Manager in March 2012. In his capacity as Manager, Mr. Schaible supervised Petitioner and two Human Resources Recruiters: Warren Hernandez and Elaine Zoe. Ms. Zoe was a virtual recruiter operating from her home in Phoenix, Arizona. Petitioner described Mr. Schaible as very friendly and outgoing when he first became Human Resources Manager. In mid-April 2012, Mr. Schaible hired a third recruiter, Anthony Sarelli, at a rate of $17 per hour. No evidence was introduced to establish the hourly rate of either Mr. Hernandez or Ms. Zoe, but Mr. Hernandez earned less than $17 per hour. Petitioner earned $13.50 per hour as Human Resources Assistant. On Thursday, April 19, 2012, Ms. Jenkins, the temporary receptionist, gave her notice and stated that she would be starting a new job Monday, April 23, 2012. Ms. Jenkins’ last day on the job was Friday, April 20, 2012. Mr. Schaible, together with Mary Celle, Vice President of Operations, made a decision to eliminate the position of receptionist. Mr. Schaible had been unable to keep Ms. Jenkins busy full-time with receptionist duties such as answering and routing phone calls, accepting parcel deliveries, handing out job applications, and directing individuals to appropriate offices. Mr. Schaible determined Petitioner was competent to perform these duties, in light of her previous service as company receptionist. Petitioner had the day off on Friday, April 20, 2012. When she returned to work on Monday, April 23, 2012, Mr. Schaible informed Petitioner that she would take over the receptionist duties while continuing to serve as Human Resources Assistant. Petitioner was physically moved from her desk to the receptionist desk at the front of the building.2/ Neither Petitioner’s title nor her salary changed when she was moved to the receptionist desk. Mr. Schaible made efforts to reduce Petitioner’s duties as Human Resources Assistant, reassigning responsibility of managing Kahuna, a software program through which new telemarketers were assigned log-in and password information, to a payroll employee, Maryanna Hilton. Additionally, Mr. Schaible instructed Petitioner to discontinue sending personal faxes for other employees. The company had taken some steps to streamline the receptionist function to make it more efficient and less time- consuming. For example, the company moved from paper applications to an online application system. The receptionist was to direct persons inquiring about job applications to computer terminals located at the building entrance in front of the receptionist desk. Similarly, the company telephone system was changed from a switchboard to automatic routing of calls to direct extensions by department. Petitioner was instructed to continue her regular Human Resources duties, but to place personnel files in a locked Human Resources file room located ten feet from the receptionist desk when she was away from her desk. On April 24, 2012, Mr. Schaible arrived at work early and noticed a stack of employee personnel files on the receptionist desk. Petitioner was not at the desk. Mr. Schaible concluded that the files had remained on the desk overnight. The files contained copies of social security cards, driver’s licenses, and the results of criminal background checks and credit checks for newly hired employees. Mr. Schaible secured the files and addressed Petitioner about the issue later that day. Mr. Schaible stressed with Petitioner the importance of keeping personnel files secure, and offered to get her a rolling file cabinet. The next day, April 25, 2012, Petitioner sent Mr. Schaible the following e-mail: “I apologize for the files when I left . . . it won’t happen again.” The following day, April 26, 2012, Mr. Schaible found a personnel file containing personal identifying information on Petitioner’s desk. Mr. Schaible removed the file and placed it in the locked file room. Later that same day, Petitioner sent the following e-mail to Mr. Schaible: “Will make sure forms are upside down on my desk before I take a break . . . my bad.” Mr. Schaible spoke to Petitioner that same day and explained that turning files upside down on the desk in her absence was not sufficient. He explained that personnel files must be secured in the locked file room when she was not at her desk. On Monday, April 30, 2012, Petitioner was on vacation, and Mr. Schaible sat at the front desk for at least some part of the day.3/ He discovered in one of the desk drawers over 50 completed W-4 forms for current employees. Mr. Schaible discussed with Ms. Celle the need to initiate the company’s progressive discipline policy and give Petitioner a verbal warning.4/ Mr. Schaible planned to meet with Petitioner late in the afternoon on May 1, 2012, and deliver the verbal warning. Petitioner was back in the office on May 1, 2012. While Petitioner was on a break and Ms. Hilton was manning the receptionist desk for Petitioner, Mr. Schaible discovered six personnel files on the desk. Mr. Schaible removed the files and decided to modify the verbal warning to a written warning, in essence moving to the second step of the company’s progressive discipline policy. Mr. Schaible did not have a meeting with Petitioner on May 1, 2012, as planned. On May 2, 2012, Mr. Schaible planned to meet with Petitioner at 3:00 p.m. to present her with the written warning and discuss the confidentiality issues. He requested that Carrie Santana, Manager of Customer Care and Quality, attend the meeting as well. At 3:00 p.m., Mr. Schaible asked Petitioner to come to his office. She was busily working in the Kahuna program, adding two new employees at the request of a manager in the Jacksonville office. Petitioner requested Mr. Schaible to wait until she completed the log-in and password information for the new employees. Mr. Schaible became angry, told her that task would have to wait, and ordered her into his office immediately. Petitioner accompanied Mr. Schaible to his office, where Ms. Santana was waiting. Mr. Schaible confronted Petitioner with the W-4 forms he had found in the receptionist desk on April 30, 2012, as evidence of her failure to follow his directions to secure personal information of company employees. Before Mr. Schaible brought up the six personnel files he had removed from the desk the previous day, Petitioner stated, “I quit,” stood up and left Mr. Schaible’s office, then exited the building. Petitioner denies that she quit her job on May 2, 2012, instead testifying that she stated, “I quit this,” meaning she quit Mr. Schaible’s treatment toward her. However, Mr. Schaible’s testimony that Petitioner stated, “I quit” on May 2, 2012, was corroborated by Petitioner’s own e-mail dated May 3, 2012, to company President Matthew Zemon, as well as Ms. Santana’s written memorandum dated May 3, 2012, in which she memorialized the events of May 2, 2012. The evidence conflicted as to whether Petitioner returned to the office on May 2, 2012, following the disciplinary meeting. Mr. Schaible testified he did not see Petitioner after the meeting that day or the next day, May 3, 2012. Petitioner testified that she returned to the building within 30 minutes, stating first that she went into Mr. Schaible’s office to complain about his treatment of her, but later testifying that his office door was closed, so she did not go in to see him. Mr. Schaible’s testimony on this issue is credible and accepted by the undersigned. Mr. Schaible e-mailed Ms. Celle following the disciplinary meeting on May 2, 2012, informing Ms. Celle that Petitioner had resigned. Mr. Schaible then completed a Record of Termination for Petitioner showing a separation date of May 2, 2012. The evidence showed that American Support did not accept Petitioner’s resignation. In response to Petitioner’s email of May 3, 2012, Mr. Zemon e-mailed Mr. Schaible and asked him to contact Petitioner and offer her a position in inbound/outbound sales at the high end of the pay range. Mr. Schaible did so, but Petitioner did not accept the offer. Petitioner clearly considered her assignment to the receptionist desk to be demeaning. She was subjected to comments from other employees suggesting she had been demoted because she could not perform Human Resources duties. She felt that the Human Resources Assistant did not belong at the front desk. Petitioner was overwhelmed with performing Human Resources duties while assisting job applicants at the computers, answering telephone calls that were not automatically routed, accepting delivered parcels, and dealing with the myriad inquiries typically made of the receptionist at any business. Petitioner complained that it was impossible to secure applicants’ and employees’ personal information with other employees passing by the front desk on their way in and out of the building. She noted that running back and forth to the Human Resources file room every time she was required to get up from the desk -- even though it was only ten feet away -- rendered her work inefficient, if not impossible. In support of her argument that she was discriminated against based on her sex, Petitioner alleged that Mr. Schaible hired a second male recruiter out of a mixed pool of applicants, that Mr. Schaible made inappropriate comments about some applicants, and that he hired a male recruiter at a rate of $17 per hour -– higher than other Human Resources employees. Petitioner submitted no evidence to establish what comments were made about any applicant for the position of Human Resources recruiter. As to hourly rates of pay, Petitioner testified that the new recruiter was paid at a higher rate than Mr. Hernandez. Further, Petitioner did not produce any evidence as to the rates of pay for either Ms. Zoe or Mr. Hernandez. Petitioner also alleged that following her move to the receptionist desk on April 23, 2012, Mr. Schaible instructed her not to take breaks with Mr. Hernandez, not to check her work e- mails from home, and excluded her from meetings with other Human Resources employees. However, Petitioner was unable to testify with certainty that other employees were allowed to continue checking e-mails from home. Ms. Zoe, the female virtual recruiter on the team, continued to participate in Human Resources meetings. Petitioner likewise complained that she was denied a raise while Mr. Hernandez received one. On April 19, 2012, in response to Mr. Schaible’s request, Petitioner submitted a self- evaluation for Mr. Schaible’s consideration. Petitioner testified that Mr. Hernandez told her a week later that he received a raise. Petitioner then asked Mr. Schaible about the time period for a decision on her raise; Mr. Schaible responded, according to Petitioner, “Not sure about it yet.[5/]” Petitioner’s hearsay statement alone is insufficient to support a finding that Mr. Hernandez received a raise. No evidence was introduced as to the status of other employees’ evaluations or raises. Petitioner’s most-repeated claim is that Mr. Schaible treated her unprofessionally by speaking to her sharply in front of other employees, yelling when he ordered her into his office on May 2, 2012, and “slamming” the W-4 files on the desk during the disciplinary meeting. Petitioner felt his treatment of her was demeaning, harassing, and embarrassing. Petitioner presented no evidence, however, that Mr. Schaible’s treatment of her was related in any way to her status as a female. In fact, when Mr. Schaible hired a replacement Human Resources Assistant, he hired another female. Petitioner alleged that Mr. Schaible acted in retaliation, but could not articulate any event for which the retaliation was lodged. When questioned by the undersigned as to her retaliation claim, Petitioner testified, It just didn’t seem like the right thing for an office atmosphere, I should say, or speak to an employee in such a manner. So it’s just his mannerism and his attitude toward me that made me feel like it was a retaliation [sic] for something, and I couldn’t figure out what it was.[6/] Petitioner may very well have been put in an impossible work situation, treated unfairly, or forced to resign. However, there is no evidence that her treatment was related in any way to her status as a female. Petitioner did admit to improperly handling employee personnel files and applicant files on at least two occasions. She denies that leaving the six files on the desk when Ms. Hilton was covering for her break was improper because Ms. Hilton worked in the payroll department and had access to employee personal information. As to the W-4 forms in her desk, Petitioner admitted that even if the forms were left in the desk by Ms. Jenkins, Petitioner was ultimately responsible for securing those documents.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Discrimination Complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 2013.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, PPC Products Corporation (PPC), manufactures power transistors, recitifers, diodes, and semiconductors. Approximately 80 percent of its business deals with government contracts. Petitioner is Sandra Boatwright, a black female, who worked for PPC for sixteen years. During her career with PPC she received good evaluations. In September 1989, Ms. Boatwright was working in the marking section of the production department. Her duties included putting product units in an oven and removing the units at the end of the baking period. She was a line leader with two to three employees reporting to her. Ms. Boatwright's immediate supervisor was Blynn Gause, the manager of the production department. Stringent government requirements called for the brands on the products to be permanent. During the summer of 1989, a problem had developed concerning the permanency of the marking or branding of the units. Some of the brandings were coming off prematurely. Mr. Gause asked Dolf Storz an employee in the engineering section to find a solution. In order to eliminate possible causes of the problem, Mr. Storz instituted the use of a logbook in the marking section to record the time the units went in and came out of the oven. Logbooks were a common requirement by the engineering section as a means of gathering data. In September 1989, Mr. Storz took the logbook to the marking section and requested the employees, including Ms. Boatwright, to use it. Ms. Boatwright admitted that, contrary to her initial charge, Mr. Storz was never her supervisor. In the latter part of September 1989, after Mr. Gause had returned from a vacation, Ms. Boatwright complained to him that Mr. Storz had been "acting like a king" while Mr. Gause had been away and requested a meeting to discuss the matter. On October 3 Ms. Boatwright, Mr. Gause, and Mr. Storz met in Mr. Gause's office. The discussion centered around the logbook, which the marking section had not been using. Ms. Boatwright did not feel that it was necessary to use the logbook because the marking section was already using an informal logbook to track the units in production. Mr. Storz's position was that the logbook was required by the production specifications and the informal logbook did not record the times the units went in and came out of the oven. Mr. Gause resolved the issue by requiring Ms. Boatwright and the other employees in the marking section to use the engineering log book. Ms. Boatwright thereafter used the engineering log book. On October 3, 1989, the process specification for the marking process, Device Branding Process Specification No. 200-140 was changed to require that the oven data be recorded in a logbook. This change was called Revision J. Ms. Boatwright signed off on this change. Race had nothing to do with the requirement that a marking logbook be maintained. Mr. Gause never advised Ms. Boatwright that he treated whites better than blacks. There was no disparate treatment of Ms. Boatwright in the terms and conditions of Ms. Boatwright's employment with PPC. In mid September 1989, a vacant position in the Lorlin automatic test area of the quality control department was posted. Ms. Boatwright had previously worked in the quality control department. Some time during late September or early October 1989, Ms. Boatwright approached Marleen Williams Coker (Ms. Williams), the quality manager, and asked to be transferred to that position. Ms. Boatwright knew the position was not a supervisory position. Ms. Williams told her she would agree to the transfer but Ms. Boatwright would have to talk to Mr. Gause about the transfer. Ms. Boatwright told Mr. Gause that she wanted to transfer to the quality control department. Mr. Gause, Ms. Williams, and Mindy Hill, the general manager of PPC, discussed the transfer. Although such a transfer was not common in the company due to the necessity for retraining the transferring employee, they agreed to approve the transfer due to Ms. Boatwright's long-term employment with the company. Although the position in quality control was a lower position than her position in production, Ms. Boatwright's pay was not cut. The transfer was approved in early October with an effective date of October 24, 1989. After the approval was given, applications were discontinued for the posted position, a decision was made to combine two other sections with the marking section, a new position with different tasks and responsibilities was created to oversee the merged sections, and the engineering section was contacted to move an engineering employee to the new position. Sometime between the approval and the effective date of the transfer, Ms. Boatwright changed her mind about wanting to transfer. Mr. Gause, Ms. Williams and Mindy Hill met to discuss Ms. Boatwright's change-of-mind. Ms. Hill decided not to reverse the transfer because of the changes that were being made to accommodate the transfer. Race played no part in the decision to allow the transfer or in the decision not to reverse the transfer. Ms. Boatwright's transfer from production to quality was not involuntary. Ms. Boatwright began working in the testing area of the quality control section on October 24, 1989. There were two other employees in that section, Steve Matthey and Mary Lou Rouse, who was the line leader for that section. Ms. Boatwright and Mr. Matthey reported to Ms. Rouse, and Ms. Rouse reported to Ms. Williams. In January 1990, Ms. Boatwright received a good performance evaluation from Ms. Williams. On February 10, 1990, Ms. Boatwright received a pay increase. On March 14, 1990, Ms. Boatwright filed an employment discrimination charge against PPC, alleging that she had been discriminated against based on race in the terms and conditions of her employment. Specifically, she alleged that in the middle of 1989, that all the white line leaders were promoted to supervisory positions and that she, a black, was not promoted. At the hearing Ms. Boatwright stated this allegation was incorrect and should be for the years 1984 through 1990. She alleged that she received increased scrutiny on her work, and her non-black coworkers did not. She charged that Mr. Gause had told her that he treated whites better than blacks. Her complaint stated that she had inquired about a transfer and later informed Mr. Gause she was not interested in the transfer, but was transferred anyway, resulting in a loss of job responsibilities and supervisory promotional opportunities. Each PPC employee is issued an employee handbook, which contains information on various employment related topics, including promotional opportunities. If an employee was interested in an opening, the employee was to contact his supervisor to make sure he was considered and if an employee was interested in advancing to another position, the employee was to discuss it with his supervisor to determine what additional skills or education might be needed to qualify for the position. Ms. Boatwright never discussed supervisory promotional opportunities with Mr. Gause or Ms. Williams, and never inquired of them what education or skills she might need to qualify for a supervisor position. No evidence was presented to show that Ms. Boatwright ever applied for a promotional opening. The employee handbook states that the final decision to promote would be based on the employee's demonstrated skills and capabilities, the employee's experience, education and service with PPC. One of the biggest factors to be considered is the employee's past work performance. In order to qualify for a supervisor position an employee would have to have knowledge of the area that the employee would be supervising, including the equipment and process specifications, to be able to supervise personnel, including disciplining personnel, and to be able to generate reports. Based on Mr. Gause's observations of Ms. Boatwright's past performance in dealing with personnel, she would not be qualified to handle disciplinary matters. As a line leader, Ms. Boatwright brought all personnel problems to Mr. Gause for him to resolve. In 1989 and 1990 there were no promotions from line leader to supervisor at PPC. No evidence was presented to show whether there were promotions from line leader to supervisor during the years 1984 through 1988. Race played no part in Petitioner's lack of promotion in marking and production. PPC maintains an affirmative action plan and annually files an Equal Employment Opportunity Employer Information Report EEO-1. The affirmative action plan, which is updated annually, sets forth PPC's policy with respect to equal opportunity for all employees in hiring, employment practices, recruiting, training, terms and conditions of employment, and compensation. Ms. Boatwright was in Production I job classification for purposes of PPC's Equal Employment Opportunity reports. From 1987 through 1992, the statistics collected by PPC indicate that PPC utilized more minorities and females in Ms. Boatwright's job classification than were available in the general work force in Palm Beach County. The employee handbook states that leaving early is the same as being absent. Before leaving early, an employee must have prior approval from his supervisor, preferably a day in advance. On April 2, 1990, Ms. Williams fired Audrey Shanahan, a white female, for leaving work without informing her supervisor or department manager. The employee handbook states that if work is not available in the employee's area the employee may be assigned another task. The handbook provides for immediate discharge for insubordination. Each employee is expected to follow the work instructions of his immediate supervisor or any other person having the authority of supervisor. If the employee does not think that the instructions are legitimate, the handbook tells the employee to do the work instructed and then take up his complaint with the appropriate person in authority. Bobby Mills was a quality manager at PPC in 1990. He and Ms. Williams were of equal rank, but supervised different sections. Both reported to Mindy Hill, the general manager. When Ms. Williams was absent from work, Mr. Mills would supervise her section as well as his own. When Ms. Williams was present on the job, Ms. Rouse, as line leader, would relay employee requests for permission to go home early to Ms. Williams for a final decision. Ms. Rouse would then relay Ms. Williams' decision to the employees requesting to leave early. On May 2, 1990, Ms. Williams was absent from work, and Mr. Mills filled in for her. Work in the Lorlin testing area was slow on that day, although work was expected to come later in the day. Ms. Boatwright had asked her line leader, Ms. Rouse, for permission to go home at lunch because of the lack of work. Ms. Rouse, believing that she had the authority to grant the permission in Ms. Williams absence, told Ms. Boatwright that she could go home early. Mr. Mills, observing that Ms. Boatwright, Mr. Matthey, and Ms. Rouse were not working, inquired of them why they were not working. Ms. Boatwright told Mr. Mills that she was going to go home at lunch. Mr. Mills informed the group that they could work in another area or go home then. Ms. Rouse told him she could not afford to go home early and she went to another area to work. Mr. Mills left and came back a few minutes later and told both Mr. Matthey and Ms. Boatwright to go to the back to work. Both indicated that they were going to go home early, which they did. To Mr. Mills, their leaving constituted a refusal to follow orders and was therefore insubordination. Although Mr. Mills had the authority to fire employees under his supervision without consulting the general manager, he did discuss the incident with Mindy Hill because Ms. Boatwright and Mr. Matthey were in Ms. Williams' section. He recommended dismissal; however, he was unaware at that time that Ms. Boatwright had filed a discrimination complaint. His recommendation for dismissal of Ms. Boatwright was not racially motivated. Mindy Hill made the final decision to dismiss Mr. Matthey and Ms. Boatwright for insubordination for leaving the workplace when requested to work. No evidence was presented to show that either race or retaliation played a part in her decision to terminate Ms. Boatwright and Mr. Matthey. Mr. Matthey learned of his termination when he spoke to Mr. Mills by telephone on the same day. Ms. Boatwright was verbally advised of her termination when she returned to work the next day. On February 26, 1991, Ms. Boatwright amended her discrimination charge to include her termination from employment with PPC. She alleged that she was discharged in retaliation for having filed a charge of unlawful discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. The statistics collected by PPC for its affirmative action plans show that for the year October 1, 1989 through September 1990, thirty-four Caucasians and eighteen blacks were terminated. For the previous year, thirty-two Caucasians and twenty-four blacks were terminated. On October 8, 1992, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a Determination of No Cause relating to Ms. Boatwright's charges. The Florida Commission on Human Relations conducted a substantial weight review and issued a Redetermination: No Cause on April 8, 1993, adopting the October 8, 1992 determination of the EEOC. Ms. Boatwright filed a Petition for Relief on May 6, 1993.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2647 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1991), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1 - Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 2 and 3 - Rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Paragraph 4 - First, third, and fifth sentences accepted in substance. Second and fourth sentences rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraphs 5 and 6 - Accepted. Paragraph 7 - First and second sentences accepted in substance. Third sentence rejected as not supported by the evidence to the extent that there was no evidence to show that Ms. Rouse on prior occasions had given employees permission to leave early without getting approval from her superiors. Paragraph 8 - First, third and fourth sentences are accepted in substance. The second sentence is accepted to the extent that Petitioner did leave early but rejected to the extent that she left immediately after the conversation with Mr. Mills at which Ms. Rouse was present. Paragraph 9 - Accepted. Paragraph 10 - Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found in this recommended order. Paragraphs 11 and 12 - Rejected as not supported by the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1 - Accepted. Paragraph 2 - Accepted except as to the date of hire. The evidence shows Ms. Boatwright began her employment on 2-8-74. Paragraphs 3 and 4 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 5 - Rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraph 6 - Accepted. Paragraphs 7 and 8 - Rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraph 9 - Accepted. Paragraph 10 - Rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 14 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 15 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 17 -Accepted. Paragraphs 18-22 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 23 - The first sentence is accepted in substance. The second sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Paragraph 24 - Accepted. Paragraph 25 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 26 - The last sentence is rejected as unnecessary detail. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 27, and 28 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 29 - To the extent that the first sentence infers that Revision J was in operation prior to 10-3-89, it is rejected as not supported by the evidence. Storz testified Revision J instituted the logbook requirement and was not signed off until 10-3-89. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraph 30 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 31 - Rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraphs 32, 33, 34, 35 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 36 - Rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraphs 37, 38, 39 and 40 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 41 - The first sentence is rejected to the extent that it infers that Revision J was in effect prior to 10-3-89. The remainder of the sentence is accepted in substance. Paragraph 42 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 43 - Accepted. Paragraphs 44, 45, 46 and 47 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 48 - The third sentence is rejected as subordinate and unnecessary detail. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 49, 50, 51. and 52 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 53 - Accepted Paragraph 54 - Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 55, 56, and 57 - Rejected as subordinate. Paragraph 58 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 59 - The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence to the extent that the term "personnel" included. Ms. Rouse, Ms. Boatwright, and Mr. Matthey. The greater weight of the evidence shows that those three persons did not understand that Mr. Mills was their supervisor. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraph 60 - Accepted. Paragraphs 61, 62, 63, 64, and 65 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 66 - The last sentence is rejected to the extent that Mr. Mills instructed Ms. Rouse to go to the back upon his return. Ms. Rouse left before Mr. Mills returned. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 67 - Accepted in substance to the extent that Ms. Rouse complied with his instructions prior to Mr. Mills leaving the testing area to inquire if there was work in another area. Paragraphs 68 and 69 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 70 - The first and fourth sentences are accepted in substance. The remainder of the paragraph is rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraphs 71 and 72 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 73 - The last sentence is rejected as not supported by the evidence to the extent that Mr. Mills clearly revoked Ms. Rouse's permission. It is obvious that it was not clear to Ms. Boatwright, Ms. Rouse, and Mr. Matthey. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraph 74 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 75 - Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary detail. Paragraph 76 - Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 77 and 78 - Rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraph 79 - The first sentence is accepted in substance and the remainder of the paragraph is rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraph 80 - Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found in this recommended order. Paragraph 81 - Accepted. Paragraph 82 - Rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraph 83 - Accepted. Paragraphs 84 and 85 - Rejected as unnecessary detail. Paragraphs 86 and 87 - Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found in this recommended order. Paragraph 88 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 89 - Accepted. Paragraph 90 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 91 - Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found in this recommended order. Paragraph 92 - Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 93 and 94 - Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found in this recommended order. Paragraph 95 - Accepted. Paragraph 96 - Accepted in substance. Paragraph 97 - Accepted. Paragraph 98 - Rejected as constituting a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Sandra Boatwright 390 West 33rd Street Riviera Beach, Florida 33404-33036 Terry E. Lewis, Esquire Robert P. Diffenderfer, Esquire Suite 900 2000 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33409 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570 Dana Baird General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1570
